OCS Study 

MMS 95-014 

An Investigation of the Sociocultural 

Consequences of Outer Continental Shelf 

Development in Alaska 

V. Alaska Peninsula and Arctic 

U.S. Department ofthe Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region 

OCS Study 

MMS 95-014 

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

An Investigation of the Sociocultural 

Consequences of Outer Continental Shelf 

Development in Alaska 

V. Alaska Peninsula and Arctic 

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 

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... Xix 

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. xivii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................... lvi 

Volume I: Introduction 

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

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

PROJECT BACKGROUND.. .................................................................................................. .I-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.. ............................................................................. I-10 

The First Study Year, 1991.. .................................................................................... l-l 0 

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-l 5 

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

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ..................................................................................... l-l 7 

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

The Spill and the Clean-up ................................................................................................... l-l 8 

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

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

Subsistence Harvests and Uses in 1989 and 1990 ............................................................. 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 ................................................................................................ II-4 

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

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

The 1991 Study Year 

The 1992 Study Year 

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

The 1993 Study Year 

................................................................................................ II-6 

................................................................................................ II-7 

vii 
CASH ECONOMY .................................................................................................................. II-7 

The 1991 Study Year.. .............................................................................................. II-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 Activiiies .................................. II-1 1 

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

Exchange Patterns.. ............................................................................................... II-1 4 

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

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

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

Exchange Patterns ................................................................................................. II-18 

WILD RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1993 ............................................................. II-1 8 

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

Harvest Composition ............................................................................................. II-1 9 

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-1 

RESEARCH METHODS.. ...................................................................................................... Ill-l 

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 ...................................................................... Ill-1 0 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities ................................. Ill-10 

Resource Harvest Quantities.. .............................................................................. I I l-l 0 

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

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

Resource Harvest Quantities ................................................................................ Ill-1 1 

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

Patterns of Wild Resource Use.. ........................................................................... Ill-13 

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

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

by Jody Seitz and Rita Miraglia 

SETTING 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-8 

Participation in Hunting and Gathering Activities.. ............................................... IV-8 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ..................................................................... IV-8 

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

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

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

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

Participation in Hunting Fishing, and Gathering Activiiies ................................. IV-l 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-8 

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-14 

Participation Rates ................................................................................................. v-14 

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-l 8 

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

Tatitlek and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Social Effects Questionnaire 

Results .................................................................................................................... V-l 9 

CONCLUSION _ .................................................................................................................... V-23 
Volume III: 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 ..................................................................................................................... VI4 

The 1991 Study Year ............................................................................................... VI4 

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.. ............................................................................................. VI-6 

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-12 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities: 1992 ...................... VI-12 

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

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

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities: 1993 ...................... VI-12 

Resource Harvest Quantities: 1993.. ................................................................. ..VI-13 

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... VI-1 7 

Subsistence Salmon Regulations and Changes in Harvest 

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

The Exxon 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-8 

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

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

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

X 
Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities.. .............................. VII-l 2 

Resource Harvest Quantities and Hatvest Composition.. .................................. VII-l 2 

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

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

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

DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... VII-15 

Patterns of Wild Resource Uses.. ........................................................................ VII-1 5 

Comparisons with other Communities.. .............................................................. VII-1 9 

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

Questionnaire ....................................................................................................... VII-20 

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

by Ronald T. Stanek 

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

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

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

1991192 Study Year .............................................................................................. VIII-3 

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

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

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

1991/92 Study Year .............................................................................................. VIII-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 Activiiies ................................. VIII-7 

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

1991/92 Household Assessments of Change in Wild Resource Use...............VIll-12 

1991/92 Discarded Wild Resources.. ................................................................. VIII-13 

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

Participation in Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Activities ............................... VIII-1 3 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................. VIII-14 

RESOURCE USES: 1993/94 ........................................................................................... VIII-15 

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

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

Assessments of Change in Wild Resource be.. ............................................... VIII-16 

DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... VIII-1 7 

Patterns of Wild Resource Uses.. ....................................................................... viii-1 7 

Comparisons with Other Communities.. ............................................................ VIII-1 8 

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Port Graham ..................................................... VIII-1 9 

CHAPTER IX: NANWALEK f _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._....................... IX-4 

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

xi 
1992/93 Study Year.. .............................................................................................. IX-8 

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

RESOURCE USES: 1991/92.. ............................................................................................. IX-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-1 3 

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

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

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

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

RESOURCE USES: 1993/94.............................................................................................IX-l 7 

Participation in Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Activities.. ................................ IX-17 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................... IX-17 

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... IX-19 

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

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

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

Volume IV: Kodiak Island 

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

by Craig Mishler, Rachel Mason, and Jeffrey Barnhart 

CLIMATE, SRTING, 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-8 

Year Two ................................................................................................................. ..X- 8 

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

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

Participation Rates.. ............................................................................................... X-i 1 

Harvest Quantities.. ................................................................................................ X-1 2 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: YEAR TWO ............................................................ X-1 3 

Participation Rates.. ............................................................................................... x-13 

Harvest Quantities.. ................................................................................................ x-13 

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

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

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

DISCUSSION ........................................ ..~............................................................................x-l 7 

Trends.. ................................................................................................................... X-1 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.. ...................................................................................... Xl-2 

DEMOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... XI-2 

MONETARY ECONOMY ...................................................................................................... X1-3 

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

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS.. .................................................................................. Xl-7 

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

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

SOCIAL EFFECTS FINDINGS.. ............................................................................................ Xl-9 

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

CHAPTER XII: OUZINKIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.............................................................................. XII-l 

by Craig Mishler, Rachel Mason, and Vicki Vanek 

CLIMATE, SETTING, 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-1 1 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: YEAR THREE.. ..................................................... XII-1 2 

Participation Rates.. ............................................................................................. XII-1 2 

Harvest Quantities.. .............................................................................................. XII-1 3 

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

Harvest Trends.. ................................................................................................... XII-1 5 

Ongoing Issues.. .................................................................................................. XII-1 7 

SOCIAL EFFECTS SURVEY FINDINGS ........................................................................... XII-l 8 

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

by Craig Mishler, Rachel Mason, and Jeffrey Barnhart 

CLIMATE, SEl-RNG, AND GENERAL HISTORY ............................................................... XIII-1 

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

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

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

Sample Selection and Achievement.. .................................................................. XIII4 

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

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

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

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

. . . XIII 
Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................... XIII-8 

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

Participation Rates .............................................................................................. XIII-l 0 

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

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: YEAR THREE.. .................................................... XIII-1 3 

Participation Rates .............................................................................................. XIII-13 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................. XIII-l 3 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS.. .............................................................................. XIII-16 

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

Ongoing Local Issues ......................................................................................... XIII-1 7 

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

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

by Rachel Mason and James A. Fall 

SElTING 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-8 

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

CHAPTER XV: AKHIOK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ XV-l 

by Craig Mishler 

CLIMATE, SEl-TlNG AND GENERAL HISTORY.. ............................................................... XV-1 

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... Xv-2 

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

Fieldwork ................................................................................................................ XV-3 

Sample Selection and Achievement ...................................................................... XV-3 

DEMOGRAPHY.. .................................................................................................................. XV-3 

MONETARY ECONOMY .... . ................................................................................................ Xv-3 

RESOURCE HARVEST AND USES ..................................................................................... xv4 

Participation Rates ................................................................................................. XV4 

Harvest Quantities.. ................................................................................................ XV-5 

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

CHAPTER XVI: PORT LIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI-1 

by James A. Fall and Craig Mishler 

CLIMATE, SETTING, AND GENERAL HISTORY.. ............................................................. XVI-1 

RESEARCH METHODS ...................................................................................................... XVI-2 

DEMOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... XVI-2 

CASH ECONOMY ............................................................................................................... XVI-3 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES ................................................................................. XVI4 

Participation in Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources ....................................... XVI-4 

Harvest Quantities and Composition ................................................................... XVI4 

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

XIV 
Volume V: Alaska Peninsula and Arctic 

CHAPTER Xi/II: CHIGNIK BAY.. ................................................................................................................. ~11-1 

by Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough 

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

Setting ................................................................................................................... XVII-l 

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

Economy ...... ................. ....... ................................................................................ 

Government, Facilities, and Services 

El!-: 

.................................................................. - 

RESl3W-l METHODS.. ................................................................................................... XVII-3 

DEMOGRAPHY.. ................................................................................................................ x’/ll-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.. .... ................. ....... 

Government, Facilities, and Services 

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

~~V~I~ 

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

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

CASH ECONOMY: 1991/92.. .......................................................................................... XVIII-4 

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

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

SUBSISTENCE EQUIPMENT EXPENSES AND USE: 1991/92.. ................................. XVIII-10 

THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL AND CHIGNIK LAKE: 

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

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

CHAPTER XIX: KOTZEBUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 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-8 

MONETARY ECONOMY .................................................................................................... XIX-8 

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

COMPAF ON WITH EARLIER FINDINGS ..................................................................... XIX-l 3 

SOCIAL Ei-FECTS RESPONSES.. ................................................................................... XIX-15 

xv 
CHAPTER XX: 

CHAPTER XXI: 

CHAPTER XXII: 

KIVALINA ............................................................................................................................... xX-1 

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

COMMUNITY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... xX-1 

RESEARCH METHODS ....................................................................................................... xx-4 

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 

KAKTOVIK ............................................................................................................................ XXI-1 

by Sverre Pedersen 

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

RESEARCH MFTHODOLOGY 1992 .................................................................................. XXI-1 

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

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

DEMOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... XXI-3 

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

RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE ...................................................................................... XXI4 

COMPARISON WITH EARLIER FINDINGS ....................................................................... XXI-5 

NUIQSUT ........................................................................................................................... XXII-1 

by Sverre Pedersen 

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

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

DEMOGRAPHY.. 

................................................................................................................ XXII-4 

CASH ECONOMY.. ............................................................. ............................................... 

RESOURCE HARVEST AND USES 

XXII-5 

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

COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT 

XXII-5 

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

COMPARISON WITH 1985 SURVEY.. 

XXII-8 

... ......................................................................... XXII-1 1 

Volume VI: Summary and Conclusions 

CHAPTER XXIII: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._... 

by James A. Fall and Charles J. Utermohle 

XXIII-1 

DEMOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-..................... 

MONETARY ECONOMY 

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._......_................... 

WILD RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE 

XXIII-1 

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

Participation 

XXIII-3 

in Hawest and Use Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..__... 

Harvest Quantities 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-3 

. . . . . . . . . . . . ..-................................................................................ 

Breadth of Resource Use 

XXIII-5 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-........................................................... 

Commercial Fisheries as a Source of Resources for Home Use 

XXIII-9 

COMPARISONS WITH PREVIOUS SUBSISTENCE HARVESTS 

..*................. XXIII-10 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-10 

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 SURVN: CHENEGA BAY 1991/92 

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

xvii 
Xviii 
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-l 0. 

Table l-l 1. 

Table l-l 2. 

Table l-l 3. 

Table l-l 4. 

Table l-l 5. 

Table l-l 6. 

Table I-1 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-30 

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

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

Summary of Sampling Goals and Achievement, 1991 Study Year.. .................................. l-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 Surveys ................................................................................. l-38 

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

Household Assessment of Change in Salmon Uses Compared to the Previous 

Year (1990) 1991 Study Year .............................................................................................. I41 

Household Assessment of Change in Salmon Uses Compared to the Year 

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

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

Year (1990) 1991 Study Year ............................................................................................. I43 

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

the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988), 1991 Study Year ............................................................ I44 

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

Year (1999), 1991 Study Year ............................................................................................. I45 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/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 (1990) 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 (1990) 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 Harvest/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 (1996) 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 (1990) 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-60 

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

Compared to the Previous Year (1990) 1991 Study Year ................................................. l-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 
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 140. 

Table I-41. 

Table I-42. 

Table 143. 

Table 144. 

Table 145. 

Table 146. 

Table I-47. 

Table l-48. 

Table 149. 

Table I-50. 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

-51. 

-52. 

-53. 

-54. 

Table l-55. 

Table l-56. 

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

Compared to the Previous Year (1990), 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 (1990), 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-66 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Marine Mammals Compared 

to the Previous Year (199O), 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...“.. l-67 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Marine Mammals Compared 

to the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-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 (1999) 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 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._ l-76 

Household Assessment of Change in Marine Invertebrate Uses Compared 

to the Previous Year (1990) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-77 

Household Assessment of Change in Marine Invertebrate Uses Compared 

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

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Marine Invertebrates Compared 

to the Previous Year (1990), 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 . . . . . . . . . . . .._............... l-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 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988) 1991 Study Year . ..___........__._....._..__. l-82 

Household Assessment of Change in Plant Uses Compared to the 

Previous Year (1990), 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 (1990) 1991 Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._............._.__. l-85 

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

the Exxon 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-60. 

Table l-61. 

Table l-62. 

Table l-63. 

Table l-64. 

Table l-65. 

Table l-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 (1990) 1991 Study Year.. ................................................................... l-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 (1999) 1991 Study Year .................................................................... l-93 

Reasons for Decreased Harvest/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-l 00 

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

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ l-l 01 

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

Than Salmon, 1993 Study Year.. ........................................................................................ l-l 02 

Household Assessment of Change in Large Land Mammal Uses, 

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ I-103 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of large Land Mammals, 

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ l-l 04 

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-l 06 

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

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ I-1 07 

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

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ l-l 08 

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

1993 Study Year .................................................................................................................. I-109 

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

land Mammal/Furbearers, 1993 Study Year.. .................................................................. l-l 10 

Household Assessment of Change in Marine Mammal Uses, 

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ l-l 11 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Marine Mamrc :ds, 1993 Study Year.. ................. I-1 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 ............................................................................................... l-l 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 Harvest/Use of Birds, 

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

Household Assessment of Change in Marine Invertebrate Uses, 

1993 Study Year.. ................................................................................................................ l-l 1 g 

xxi 
Table l-68. 

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 l-l 00. 

Table I-101. 

Table I-102. 

Table l-l 03. 

Table l-l 04. 

Table l-l 05. 

Table I-106. 

Table l-l 07. 

Table l-l 08. 

Table l-l 09. 

Table l-l 10. 

Table 11-l. 

Table 11-2. 

Table 11-3. 

Table 114. 

Table 11-5. 

Table II-6 

Table II-7 

Table 11-8. 

Table 11-9. 

Table II-1 0. 

Table II-1 1. 

Table II-1 2. 

Table II-1 3. 

Table 11-14. 

Reasons for Increased Harvest/Use of Marine Invertebrates, 1993 Study Year.. ........... l-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-l 30 

Household Assessment of Change in Steller Sea Lion Population, 

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

Reasons for Steller Sea Lion Population Changes, 1991 Study Year .............................. I-1 32 

Monthly Expenses for Food, All Study Communities, 1991 Study Year .......................... I-1 33 

Monthly Expenses for Food, All Study Communities, 1993 Study Year .......................... l-l 34 

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

All Study Communities, 1991 Study Year.. ........................................................................ l-135 

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.. ........................................................................................ I-1 39 

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

Communities, 1991 Study Year .......................................................................................... l-142 

Plants Used for Medicine, All Study Communities, 1991 Study Year.. ............................. I-1 43 

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.. ........................................ 1140 

Community, Household, and Per Capita 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 ............................................ II43 

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-15 

Table II-1 6. 

Table 11-17. 

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 11-30. 

Table 11-31. 

Table 11-32. 

Table 11-33. 

Table 11-34. 

Table 11-35. 

Table 11-36. 

Table 11-37. 

Table 11-38. 

Table 11-39. 

Table 1140. 

Table 1141. 

Table 1142. 

Table 1143. 

Table 1144. 

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

Cordova, 1992.. .................................................................................................................... II48 

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

Employer Type, Cordova, 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.. ..................................................................... II-54 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, Cordova, lggl.............. II-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 ....................................................................................................... II-66 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Cordova, 1991 ................................................................................ II67 

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 Tyr-e 

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 Harvest, Cordova, 1993.. .............................................................................. II-96 

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 111-15. 

Table 111-16. 

Table 111-17. 

Table 111-18. 

Table 111-19. 

‘- .ble 111-23. 

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-1 00 

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-1 05 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Cordova, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ..................... II-108 

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-1 24 

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.. ...................................................... Ill-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, lggl............................................... Ill-28 

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

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

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

Valdez, 1992 ........................................................................................................................ Ill-31 

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

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

Commun”y, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Valdez, 1~33.. ...................................................................................................................... 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 .................................................................................................... III-43 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Valdez, 1991 ....................................................................................................... III-48 

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 
Table N-24. 

Table Ill-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 Ill-35 

Table 111-36. 

Table 111-37. 

Table 111-38. 

Table 111-39. 

Table 11140. 

Table 11141. 

Table 11142. 

Table 11143. 

Table 11144. 

Table 11145. 

Table 11146. 

Table 11147. 

Table 11148. 

Table 11149. 

Table 111-50. 

Table 111-51. 

Table 111-52. 

Table IV-l. 

Table IV-2. 

Table IV-3. 

Table IV4. 

Table IV-S. 

Table N-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.. ......................... 111-90 

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-l05 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ........................... Ill-1 12 

OCS Development Effects, Valdez, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................................. Ill-1 13 

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-lo. 

Table IV-l 1. 

Table IV-1 2. 

Table IV-l 3. 

Table IV-l 4. 

Table IV-15 

Table IV-l 6. 

Table IV-1 7. 

Table IV-l 8. 

Table IV-l 9. 

Table IV-20. 

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.. ..................................................................................................... IV-41 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Chenega Bay, 

1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ...................................................................................... IV43 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Chenega Bay, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 ............................................................... IV44 

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, 1984/85,1985/86,1989/90,1990/91,1991/92, 

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............IV-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, 1991/92.. ..................................................................................................... IV-84 

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............IV-7 4 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Chenega Bay, 1992193...................................................................................................... Iv-75 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Chenega Bay, 1992193 ....................................................................................................... IV-76 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Chenega Bay, 1992193 ....................................................................................................... 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 IV44. 

Table IV45. 

Table IV46. 

Table IV47. 

Table IV48. 

Table lV49. 

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, 1993/94.. ..................................................................................................... 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-1 01 

Sharing, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ................................................................ IV-1 02 

Political Activities, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ............................................... IV-104 

Significance of Place, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ......................................... IV-l 08 

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-121 

OCS Development Effects, Chenega Bay, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................ IV-l 22 

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, 

1991/92 and 1993/94.. ........................................................................................................ 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.. ........ V-46 

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-19. 

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-IO. 

Table VI-1 1. 

Table VI-1 2. 

Table W-13. 

Table VI-14. 

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, Tatitlek, 1993/94 .............................................................................................. V-63 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvest, Tatitiek, 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-101 

OCS Development Effects, Tatitlek, 19C i, 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, Househjld, 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............Vl-3 6 

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

Type, Kenal, 1993 ............................................................................................................... VI-38 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Kenai, 1993............Vl-3 9 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................ VI41 

. . . XXVIII 
Table VI-l 5. 

Table VI-l 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 VI40. 

Table VI-41. 

Table V142. 

Table V143. 

Table VI44. 

Table VI45. 

Table V146. 

Table V147. 

Table VI48. 

Table VI-49. 

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, and 1993.. .................................................................................................................. VI-44 

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 Harvest 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 Halvesting 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-9o 

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-1 95 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ............................... VI-I 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 VII6 

Table VII-7. 

Table VII-8. 

Table VII-g. 

Table VII-l 0. 

Table VII-l 1. 

Table VII-12. 

Table VII-13. 

Table VII-14. 

Table VII-15. 

Table VII-16. 

Table VII-l 7. 

Table VII-l 8. 

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-1 20 

Subsistence and Personal Use Salmon Harvests, Kenai, 

1982, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-125 

Subsistence/Personal Use Setnet Harvests, Selected Fisheries, 

Upper Cook Inlet, 1982, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1 26 

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.. ............................................................................................................ VII-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.. ............................................................................................................ VII-40 

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, 1991/92......Vll-4 3 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per 

Person by Resource Category, Seldovia, 1982, 1991/L, 1992/93, and 1993/94.........Vll-44 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Seldovia, 1982, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ........................................................... VII-44 

Estimated Harvest and Use of Fish, Mammal, Bird, and Plai it 

Resources, Seldovia, 1991/92 .......................................................................................... VII-49 

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-87 

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-89 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Seldovia, 1991/92 ....................................................................................... vii-80 

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 
Table VII-29. 

Table VII-30. 

Table VII-31. 

Table VII-32. 

Table VII-33. 

Table VII-34. 

Table VII-35. 

Table VII36. 

Table VII-37. 

Table VII-38. 

Table VII-39. 

Table Vll-40. 

Table Vll-41. 

Table VII-42. 

Table Vll43. 

Table Vll44. 

Table VII-45 

Table Vll-46. 

Table Vll-47. 

Table Vll-48. 

Table Vll-49. 

Table VII-50. 

Table VII-51. 

Table VII-52. 

Table VIII-l. 

Table VIII-2. 

Table VIII-3. 

Table VIll-4. 

Table VIII-5. 

Table Vlll-6. 

Table VIII-7. 

Table VIII-8. 

Table VIII-9. 

Table VIII-l 0. 

Table VIII-l 1. 

Table VIII-12. 

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 ........................................ VII-69 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Seldovia, 1992/93.. ............................................................................................................ 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 Harvest 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-8 6 

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.. ................................................ VII-1 05 

Effectiveness of Responses, Seldovia, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ..................................... VII-l 11 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Seldovia, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ....................... VII-1 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, Ail 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, AI: 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vfll-36 
Table VIII-1 3. 

Table VIII-l 4. 

Table VIII-l 5. 

Table VIII-l 6. 

Table VIII-l 7. 

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 Vlll-40. 

Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source 

Port Graham, 19X3/94.. .................................................................................................... VIII-37 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Port Graham, 1991/92, 

1992/93 and 1993/94.. ..................................................................................................... VIII-39 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Port Graham, 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94.. .............................................................. VIII-40 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, Port Graham, 

1991/92.. ........................................................................................................................... VIII-41 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Useable 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.. ................................................. VIII-42 

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...........VllI-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-60 

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 ....................................................................................... VIII-67 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Port Graham, 1992/93...........VllI-6 8 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Port Graham, 1992/93.. .................................................................................................... VIII-69 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Port Graham, 

1992193 ............................................................................................................................. VIII-70 

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 ...................................................................................................... VIII-80 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and Total Salmon 

Hawest, 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-84 

xxxii 
Table Vlll-41. 

Table Vlll-42. 

Table VIII43 

Table VIII44 

Table Vlll-45. 

Table Vlll-46. 

Table Vlll-47. 

Table Vlll-48. 

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-1 0. 

Table IX-l 1. 

Table IX-l 2. 

Table 1X-13. 

Table IX-l 4. 

Table 1X-15. 

Table IX-l 6. 

Table IX-l 7. 

Table IX-l 8. 

Table IX-1 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 Activities, 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-1 16 

OCS Development Effects, Port Graham ...................................................................... VIII-l 17 

Sample Participation: Nanwalek 1992, 1993, and 1994.. ................................................. IX-25 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Nanwalek, April 1992, 

.April 1993 and April 1994.. ................................................................................................. 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.. ................... IX-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, Household 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.. ....................................................................................................... IX-41 

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.. ............................................................................................................................. IX-43 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Useable Weight by Resource Category, 

Nanwalek, 1987, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94.. ................................. IX-44 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Nanwalek, 

1987, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94.. ................................................... IX-44 

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

Nanwalek, 1991/92 ............................................................................................................. IX-49 

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 1X-40. 

Table 1X-41. 

Table 1X-42. 

Table 1X-43. 

Table 1X-44. 

Table 1X-45. 

Table 1X-46. 

Table 1X-47. 

Table 1X-48. 

Table 1X-49. 

Table 1X-53. 

Table 1X-51. 

Table 1X-52. 

Table X-l. 

Table X-2. 

Table 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 Households Harvesting Fish Other Than Salmon by Gear 

Type and Species, Nanwalek, 1991/92 ............................................................................. IX-60 

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

Nanwalek, 1992/93.. ........................................................................................................... IX-82 

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-88 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Nanwalek, 1992/93.. ................ IX-69 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Nanwalek, 1992/93.. ........................................................................................................... IX-70 

Estimated Harvest 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 Activities, Nanwalek ............................................................................................ IX-1 00 

Significance of Place, Nanwalek.. .................................................................................... IX-l 05 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Nanwalek.. ............................................................ IX-l 11 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Nanwalek ........................................................... IX-l 17 

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, All Sources and by 

Employer Type, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 ....................................................... X-34 

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

Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 .................................................................................. X-35 

Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 ....... .-X-3 7 

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

Employer Type, Kodiak City, 1992 ...................................................................................... X-38 

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

Kodiak Cii, 1992 ................................................................................................................. x-39 

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

Employer Type, Kodiak Cii, 1993.. .................................................................................... X-41 

Commun’ky, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, 

Kodiak Cl, 1993.. ............................................................................................................... X42 

Kodiak Salmon Ex-Vessel Values (in Millions) and Average Prices 

1987, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ................................................................................................ X44 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Kodiak City, 

1991,1992, and 1993 ........................................................................................................... x45 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild 

Resources, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................................................ X46 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, 

Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 .................................................................................. X47 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Kodiak, 1982/83, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. .......................................................... X49 

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 ............................................. X60 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Kodiak RoadConnected Area, 1991 ......................................................................................................... X-61 

Percentage of Households Hawesting 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 .................................................................................. X-64 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 ............................................................ X-65 

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 Cii, 1992.. ............................................................................................................... X-75 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Kodiak City, 1992 ................................................................................................................. X-76 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Kodiak Cii, 1992 ................................................................................................................. x-77 

XXXV 
Table X-35. 

Table X-36. 

Table X-37. 

Table X-38. 

Table X-39. 

Table X40. 

Table X41. 

Table X42. 

Table X43. 

Table X44. 

Table X45. 

Table X46. 

Table X47. 

Table X48. 

Table X49. 

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 XI-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 Xl-l 6. 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kodiak City, 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 ........................................................................... X-88 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Kodiak Cii, 1993 ...................... X-89 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Kodiak Cii, 1993.. ............................................................................................................... X-96 

Estimated Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, 

Kodiak Cky, 1993.. ............................................................................................................... X-91 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Kodiak Cii, 1993.. ............................................................................................................... X-92 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kodiak City, 1993 .......................................................................................... X-93 

Uses of Wild Foods, Kodiak Cii, 1991, 1992, and 1993 .................................................. X-94 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ........................ X-96 

Resource Population Statuses, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................ X-98 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................. Xl 02 

Sharing, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................................................... X-103 

Political Activities, Kodiak City, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ..................................................... X-l 05 

Significance of Place, Kodiak City, 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-l 25 

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-17 

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 .......................................................................................................... Xl-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 .......................................................................................................... Xl-24 

Percentage of Households Sharing Resources by Community, 

Old Harbor, 1991/92 .......................................................................................................... Xl-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 .......................................................................................... XI-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 

xxxvi 
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 XII-l 3. 

Table X11-14. 

Table XII-l 5. 

Table XII-l 6. 

Table XII-l 7. 

Table XII-l 8. 

Table XII-l 9. 

Percentage of Households Harvesting 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.. ............................................................................................................................. XI-39 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Old Harbor, 1991/92 .......................................................................................................... XI40 

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 .............................................................................. XI-44 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Old Harbor, 1991 .................................................... Xl45 

Resource Population Statuses, Old Harbor, 1991 ............................................................ XI48 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Old Harbor, 1991............................................... Xl-49 

Sharing, Old Harbor, 1991 ................................................................................................. XI-50 

Political Activities, Old Harbor, 1991 ................................................................................. Xl-52 

Significance of Place, Old Harbor, 1991 ............................................................................ Xl-54 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Old Harbor, 1991 ................................................... Xl-59 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Old Harbor, 1991 ................................................. XI-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.. .......................................................................... XII-30 

Employment Characteristics, Ouzinkie, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. .................... XII-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.. ..................................................................................... XII41 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild 

Resources, Ouzinkie, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ................................................. XII42 

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, 

1989,1990/91,1991/92,1992/93, and 1993194 ............................................................ XII-44 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Ouzinkie, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1990/91, 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 XII-29 

Table X11-30. 

Table XII-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 XII-43 

Table XII-44 

Table X11-45. 

Table XII-46 

Table X11-47. 

Table X11-48. 

Table X11-49. 

Table X11-50. 

Table X11-51. 

Thsle 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-60 

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

Resources, Ouzinkie, 1992/93 .......................................................................................... XII-82 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Hawest, Ouzinkie, 1992/93 ............................................................................................... XII-67 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Ouzinkie, 1992/93 ........................................................................ XII-68 

Estimated Salmon Harvest 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 f-lawest, 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 ........................... xl f-90 

Resource Population Statuses, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ................................... XII-92 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and 1 gg3 ...................... 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-l 15 

OCS Development Effects, Ouzinkie, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ..................................... Xii-1 16 
Table X111-2. 

Table X111-3. 

Table X111-4. 

Table X111-5. 

Table XIII-8 

Table X111-7. 

Table Xlll-8. 

Table X111-9. 

Table XIII-l 0. 

Table XIII-l 1. 

Table X111-12. 

Table XIII-l 3. 

Table X111-14. 

Table XIII-l 5. 

Table X111-16. 

Table X111-17. 

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 Households, 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 1994.. ..................................................................... XIII-28 

Employment Characteristics, Larsen Bay, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ............... XIII-29 

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

Employer Type, Larsen Bay, 1971/92 ............................................................................. XIII-30 

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

Larsen Bay, 1991/92 ........................................................................................................ XIII-31 

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

Employer Type, Larsen Bay, 1992/93 ............................................................................. XIII-33 

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

Larsen Bay, 1992/93 ........................................................................................................ XIII-34 

Community, Household, 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, 1982/83,1986,1989,1990/91, 

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 Harvest, Larsen Bay, 1992/93.. ................................................................. XII l-65 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type and Species, Larsen Bay, 1992/93..............Xlll-6 6 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Larsen Bay, 1992/93 ........................................................................................................ XIII-67 

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 X111-41. 

Table X111-42. 

Table XIII43 

Table XIII44 

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 XIV-6. 

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, 1992/93 ........................................................................................................ XIII-89 

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-80 

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 Households 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-12 

Population Profile, Karfuk, April 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-1 3 

Employment Characteristics, Karluk, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-14 

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 Hawest, Karluk, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-30 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Karluk, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV-31 

xl 
Table XIV-l 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 XV-8. 

Table XV-g. 

Table XV-l 0. 

Table XV-1 1. 

Table XV-1 2. 

Table XV-l 3. 

Table XV-l 4. 

Table XV-1 5. 

Table XV-l 6. 

Table XV-l 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 Harvest of Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type, Karluk, 1991/92 .......... .-XIV-3 3 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Karluk, 1991/92 ................................................................................................................ XIV-34 

Percentage of Households 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 .................................................................. XIV-40 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Karluk, 1991 ..................................................... XIV42 

Sharing, Karluk, 1991 ........................................................................................................ XIV43 

Political 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 Households, Akhiok, April 1993.. ................................. XV-1 0 

Population Profile, Akhiok, April 1993.. ............................................................................. XV-l 1 

Employment Characteristics, Akhiok, 1992/93.. .............................................................. XV-l 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-14 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Akhiok, 1992/93 .................................... XV-l 6 

Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Akhiok, 1992/93.. .... ..XV-17 

Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Akhiok, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, and 1992/93.. .................................................. XV-18 

Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Akhiok 1982/83, 1986, 1989, and 1992/93 ...................................................................... XV-l 8 

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, 1992/93.. ............................................................................................... XV-27 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, 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 

Estimrted 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, 1992/93.. ............................................................................................................... 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, Household, 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-1 2. 

Table XVI-l 3. 

Table XVI-1 4. 

Table XVI-1 5. 

Table XVI-1 6. 

Table XVI-1 7. 

Table XVI-1 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-g. 

Table XVII-10. 

Table XVII-1 1. 

Table XVII-1 2. 

Table XVII-1 3. 

Table XVII-14. 

Table XVII-1 5. 

Table XVII-1 6. 

Table XVII-1 7. 

Table XVII-18. 

Community, Household, 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-1 6 

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-1 8 

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.. .. ..XVI-3 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 &e, 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 Hawest 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 Harvest 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.. ....... ..xVll4 3 

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, 

1991/92 ............................................................................................................................ XVII-45 

xlii 
Table XVII-1 9. 

Table XVII-20. 

Table XVII-21. 

Table XVII-22. 

Table XVII-23. 

Table XVII-24. 

Table XVII-25. 

Table XVII-26. 

Table XVII-27. 

Table XVII-28. 

Table XVII-29. 

Table XVII-30. 

Table XVIII-l. 

Table XVIII-2. 

Table XVIII-3. 

Table XVIII-Q. 

Table XVIII-5. 

Table XVIII6 

Table XVIII-7. 

Table XVlll-8. 

Table XVIII-9. 

Table XVIII-10. 

Table XVIII-l 1. 

Table XVIII-12. 

Table XVIII-13. 

Table XVIII-14. 

Table XVIII-15. 

Table XVIII-1 6. 

Table XVIII-17. 

Table XVIII-18. 

Table XVIII-19. 

Table XVIII-20. 

Table XVIII-21. 

Table XVIII-22. 

Tatiie 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 ...................................................................................................... XVII-46 

Percentage of Households 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 

Political Activities, 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-66 

OCS Development Effects, Chignik Bay, 1991 .............................................................. XVII-69 

Sample Participation: Chignik lake 1992.. ................................................................... XVIII-1 8 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Chignik Lake, April 1992.. .................... XVIII-19 

Population Profile, Chignik Lake, April 1992.. ................................................................ XVIII-20 

Employment Characteristics, Chignik Lake, 1991/92.. ................................................. XVIII-21 

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

Employer Type, Chignik Lake, 1991/92 ........................................................................ XVIII-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 ................................................................................................................. XVIII-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 

1964,1989, 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, l991/92........XVIll4 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 ................................................................................................... XVIII-43 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Chignik Lake, 1991/92 ............................................................................. XVIII-44 

Uses of Wild Foods, Chignik Lake, 1991 ...................................................................... XVIII-46 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Chignik Lake, 1991 ............................................. XVIII-47 

Resource Population Statuses, Chignik lake, 1991 .................................................... XVIII-48 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Chignik Lake, 1991 ........................................ XVIII-51 

Sharing, Chignik Lake, 1991 .......................................................................................... XVIII-52 

Political Activities, Chignik Lake, 1991 .......................................................................... XVIII-54 

xliii 
Table XVIII-27. 

Table XVIII-28. 

Table XVIII-29. 

Table XVIII-30. 

Table XIX-l. 

Table X1X-2. 

Table X1X-3. 

Table X1X-4. 

Table XIX-5 

Table X1X-6. 

Table X1X-7. 

Table X1X-8. 

Table X1X-9. 

Table XIX-1 0. 

Table XIX-1 1. 

Table XIX-1 2. 

Table XIX-1 3. 

Table XIX-1 4. 

Table XIX-1 5. 

Table XIX-1 6. 

Table XIX-1 7. 

Table XIX-l 8. 

Table XIX-1 9. 

Table X1X-20. 

Table X1X-21. 

Table X1X-22. 

Table X1X-23. 

Table X1X-24. 

Table XIX-25 

Table X1X-26. 

Table X1X-27. 

Table X1X-28. 

Table XIX-29 

Table XX-l. 

Table xX-2. 

Table XX-3. 

Table M-4. 

Table XX-5 

Table xX-6. 

Table XX-7. 

Significance of Place, Chignik Lake, 1991 .................................................................... XVIII-56 

Effectiveness of Oil Spill Responses, Chignik Lake, 1991 ........................................... XVIII-60 

Subsistence Food Safety Information, Chignik Lake, 1991 ......................................... XVIII-64 

OCS Development Effects, Chignik Lake, 1991 ........................................................... XVIII-65 

Sample Participation: Kotzebue 1992.. ........................................................................... XIX-21 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Kotzebue, 1992.. .................................... XIX-22 

Population Profile, Kotzebue, January 1992.. .................................................................. XIX-23 

Employment Characteristics, Kotzebue, 1991 ................................................................ XIX-24 

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

Employer Type, Kotzebue, 1991 ...................................................................................... XIX-25 

Community, Household, 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.. ..... .-XIX.3 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 ............................................................................ XIX-41 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, and Species Kotzebue, 1991 ...................... XIX-42 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Salmon by Gear Type and Species, 

Kotzebue, 1991 ................................................................................................................. XIX-43 

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 ................................................................................................................. XIX-45 

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 ..................................................... XIX-48 

Resource Population Statuses, Kotzebue, 1991 ............................................................. XIX49 

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, 1991 .................................................................... XIX-71 

Sample Participation: Kivs!ina 1993 ................................................................................. XX-16 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Kiialina, January 1993 ........................... XX-i 7 

Population Profile, Kiialina, January 1993.. ...................................................................... XX-l 8 

Employment Characteristics, Kivalina, 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, 

Kivalina, 1992 ..................................................................................................................... XX-21 

Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Kivalina, 1992.. ....................................... XX-23 

xliv 
Table X.X-8. 

Table xX-9. 

Table XX-l 0. 

Table xX-1 1. 

Table XX-l 2. 

Table XX-l 3. 

Table XX-l 4. 

Table XX-l 5. 

Table XX-l 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 Ml-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 XXI-1 0. 

Table XXI-l 1. 

Table XXI-l 2. 

Table XXI-1 3. 

Table XXI-1 4. 

Table XXI-l 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, Kiialina, 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, Kiialina, 1992 ................................................................................................. XX-28 

Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial 

Harvests, Kiialina, 1992 ..................................................................................................... xx-32 

Percentage of Salmon Harvest by Resource, Gear Type, and 

Total Salmon Harvest, Kiialina, 1992.. .............................................................................. XX-33 

Estimated Salmon Harvest by Gear Type, Kiialina, 1992.. .............................................. XX-34 

Percentage of Households 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, 

Kivalina, 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.. ................................................................................. XX-42 

Safety of Using Subsistence Foods, Kiialina, 1992 ......................................................... XX44 

Resource Population Statuses, Kiialina, 1992 ................................................................. XX-45 

Children’s Participation in Subsistence, Kiialina, 1992.. .................................................. XX-50 

Sharing, Kivalina, 1992 ...................................................................................................... XX-51 

Political Activities, Kiialina, 1992.. ..................................................................................... XX-52 

Significance of Place, Kivalina, 1992.. ............................................................................... XX-54 

Effectiveness of Organizations, Kivalina, 1992 ................................................................. XX-60 

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-1 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-1 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.........XXl-2 8 

XIV 
Table XXI-1 6. 

Table XXI-1 7. 

Table XXII-l. 

Table XXII-2. 

Table xX11-3. 

Table XXll-4. 

Table xX11-5. 

Table XXII6 

Table xX11-7. 

Table xX11-8. 

Table XXII-g. 

Table XXII-l 0. 

Table XXII-1 1. 

Table XXII-1 2. 

Table XXII-13. 

Table xX11-14. 

Table XXII-1 5. 

Table XXII-1 6. 

Table XXII-1 7. 

Table XXII-1 8. 

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 xX111-3. 

Table XXIII4 

Percentage of Fish Other than Salmon Harvested by Gear Type, 

Kaktovik, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-29 

Percentage of Households Harvesting Fish Other than Salmon by Gear Type 

and Species, Kaktovik, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-30 

Sample Participation: Nuiqsut 1994.. ............................................................................. XXII-15 

Demographic Characteristics of Households, Nuiqsut, January 1994 ......................... XXII-16 

Population Profile, Nuiqsut, January 1994 ..................................................................... XXII-1 7 

Employment Characteristics, Nuiqsut 1993 ................................................................... XXII-1 8 

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

Employer type, Nuiqsut, 1993 ......................................................................................... XXII-20 

Community, Household, 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 Households 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 Harvesting 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 ............................................................... XXII-40 

Children’s’ Participation in Subsistence, Nuiqsut, 1993 ................................................. XXII-44 

Sharing, Nuiqsut, 1993 .................................................................................................... XXII-45 

Political Activities, Nuiqsut, 1993 .................................................................................... XXII-46 

Significance of Place, Nuiqsut, 1993 .............................................................................. XXII-49 

Effectiveness of Organizations, Nuiqsut, 1993.. ............................................................. xX11-55 

OCS Development Effects, Nuiqsut, 1993.. .................................................................... XXII-58 

Various Demographic and Economic Characteristics of the Study 

Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII-1 3 

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 l-4. 

Figure l-5. 

Figure l-6. 

Figure I. -7. 

Figure I- .8. 

Figure I. -9. 

Figure l-l 0. 

Figure I-1 1. 

Figure I. -12. 

Figure I, -13. 

Figure I, -14. 

Figure I, -15. 

Figure l-l 6. 

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 11-10. 

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 ....................................................................... I40 

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 u No” or u Not Sure,” 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years.. ................................... l-l 50 

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-l 53 

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 ..... I-1 54 

Percentage of Households Reporting Being Adequately Informed about Subsistence 

Food Safety, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years .............................................................. l-155 

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-1 58 

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 ............................................... l-160 

Percentage of Respondents Predicting More Jobs Available as a 

Consequence of OCS Development, 1991, 1992, and 1993 Study Years ....................... l-l 61 

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-162 

Changes in Subsistence Harvest Levels in the Year After the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill ...... l-163 

Subsistence Harvests in 1990/91 Compared to Pre-spill Averages 

and 1989, Selected Spill-Area Communities ..................................................................... I-1 64 

Cordova Census Population, 1880 - 1990.. ........................................................................ 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 ........................................................................... II-44 

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 ...................................................................................................................... II-60 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Cordova, 1992 .................................................................................................... II-73 

xlvii 
Figure 11-13. 

Figure 11-14. 

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 Ill-l 0. 

Figure Ill-l 1. 

Figure 111-12. 

Figure 111-13. 

Figure 111-14. 

Figure IV-l. 

Figure IV-2. 

Figure IV-3. 

Figure IV-4. 

Figure IV-5. 

Figure IV-6. 

Figure IV-7. 

Figure IV-8. 

Figure IV-9 

Figure IV-l 0. 

Figure IV-l 1. 

Figure IV-l 2. 

Figure IV-13. 

Figure IV-l 4. 

Figure IV-l 5. 

Figure IV-l 6. 

Figure IV-l 7. 

Figure V-l. Tatitlek Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . ..-.................................................................... 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 - 1999 ............................................................................ Ill-l 8 

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 ............................................................................................ Ill-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.. .......................................................... IV-42 

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/Q 1990/91,1~91/92.1992/93, 

and 1993/94 ........................................................................................................................ IV-48 

Per Capita harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, Chenega Bay...............IV$l 

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-6C 

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 VI-6. 

Figure VI-7. 

Figure VI-8. 

Figure VI-g. 

Figure VI-1 0. 

Figure VI-1 1. 

Figure VI-1 2. 

Figure VI-I 3. 

Figure VI-1 4. 

Figure VII-l. 

Figure VII-2. 

Figure VII-3. 

Figure VII4. 

Figure VII-5 

Figure VII6 

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, Tatitlek, 1993/94.. ...................................................................... V-37 

Average Number of Resources Used Per Household, 

Tatitlek, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1991/92, and 1993/94 ........................... V-41 

Percentage of Households Attempting to Harvest Resources, 

Tatitlek, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1991/92, and 1993/94 ........................... V-42 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable Weight per Capita, 

Tatitlek, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1991/92, and 1993/94.. ......................... V-43 

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 Households’ 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 ............................................................................. ..Vl4 1 

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 ............ ..VI4 8 

Percentage of Kenai Households Reporting Lower Levels of Uses of Wild Resources 

Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.. ...................................... VI-49 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Kenai, 1992 ............... VI-62 

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, 1993/94.. ................................................................. VII-38 

xlix 
Figure VIM. 

Figure VII-g. 

Figure VII-l 0. 

Figure VII-l 1. 

Figure VII-l 2. 

Figure VII-l 3. 

Figure VII-l 4. 

Figure VII-15. 

Figure VII-l 6. 

Figure VII-l 7. 

Figure VIII-l. 

Figure VIII-2. 

Figure VIII-3. 

Figure VIII-4. 

Figure VIII-5. 

Figure VIII6 

Figure VIII-7. 

Figure VIII-8. 

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 1X-4. 

Figure 1X-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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-46 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Seldovia, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII47 

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/M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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-l 25 

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.. ......................... VIII-43 

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.. ....... ..Vlll4 6 

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/M.. ................................................................ IX-40 

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.. ................................ lx-46 

I 
Figure IX-l 0. 

Figure IX-l 1. 

Figure IX-1 2. 

Figure IX-l 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 X-8. 

Figure X-9. 

Figure X-l 0. 

Figure X-l 1. 

Figure X-12. 

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 

1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-......................................................................... IX-47 

Percentage of Nanwalek Households 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 

1992193 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... IX-61 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Nanwalek 

1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... IX-74 

Composition of Harvests by Resource Category, Nanwalek, 1987,1989, 

1990/91,1991/92,1992/93, and 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-88 

Kodiak Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Cii, as of April 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-32 

Employment by Industry, Kodiak Road-Connected Area, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-36 

Employment by Industry, Kodiak, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X40 

Employment by Industry, Kodiak, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X43 

Harvests 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 Harvests by Resource 

Category, Kodiak, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-79 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Kodiak, 1982/83, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-80 

Old Harbor Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI-14 

Population Profile, Old Harbor, April 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xl-l 7 

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, 1990/91, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._._........................ Xl43 

Old Harbor: Respondents’ Assessments of Resource Status in 1991 

Compared to 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._....._._.................... XI-67 

Ouzinkie Census Population, 1880 - 1990.. ...................................................................... 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-l 0. 

Figure XII-l 1. 

Figure XII-l 2. 

Figure XII-l 3. 

Figure X11-14. 

Figure XIII-l. 

Figure X111-2. 

Figure X111-3. 

Figure X111-4. 

Figure X111-5. 

Figure X111-6. 

Figure X111-7. 

Figure X111-8. 

Figure X111-9. 

Figure X111-10. 

Figure XIII-l 1. 

Figure XIII-1 2. 

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, 

1990/91, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII-46 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Ouzinkie, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII47 

Percentage of Ouzinkie Households Repotting 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, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._....._ XII-76 

Larsen Bay Census Population, 1880 - 1998 ................................................................... 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 ............. XIII-43 

Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Larsen Bay, 1982/83, 

1986, 1989, 1990/91,1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94.. ................................................. XIII-44 

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/t%. ........................... XII:-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-1 5 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable 

Weight per Capita, Karluk, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, 1990/91, 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 N-3. 

Figure XV-4 

Figure XV-5 

Figure XV6 

Figure XV-7. 

Akhiok Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV-8 

Population Profile, Akhiok, April 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv-l 1 

Employment by Industry, Akhiok, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w-1 5 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable 

Weight per Capita, Akhiok, 1982/83, 1986, 1989, and 1992/93 . . ..__................................ XV-l 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 XVI-3. 

Figure XVI-4. 

Figure XVI-5. 

Figure XVI6 

Figure XVI-7. 

Figure XVI-S. 

Figure XVII-l. 

Figure XVII-2. 

Figure XVII-3. 

Figure Xvii-4 

Figure XVII-5. 

Figure XVII6 

Figure XVII-7. 

Figure XVII-S. 

Figure XVIII-l. 

Figure XVIII-2. 

Figure XVIII-3. 

Figure XVIII-4. 

Figure XVIII-5. 

Figure XVIII6 

Figure XVIII-7. 

Figure XVIII-S. 

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-1 5 

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............XVI-35 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Port Lions, 1982183, 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 1991192 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII-34 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Chignik 

Bay, 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII-35 

Percentage of Chignik Bay Households Repotting Lower Levels of Uses of 

Wild Resource Compared to 1988, the Year Before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill............XVll-36 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Chignik 

Bay, 1984, 1989, and 1991/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._...._._.. XVII-48 

Chignik Lake Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.. XVIII-1 7 

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. 

Figure X1X-2. 

Figure X1X-3. 

Figure XIX-Q. 

Figure X1X-5. 

Figure XX-l. 

Figure XX-2. 

Figure XX-3. 

Figure xX-4. 

Figure XX-5 

Figure xX-6. 

Figure XX-7. 

Figure xX-8. 

Figure XXI-l. 

Figure XXI-2. 

Figure XXI-3. 

Figure xX1-4. 

Figure XXI-5. 

Figure xX1-6. 

Figure XXII-l. Nuiqsut Census Population, 1880 - 1990.. ...................................................................... XXII-14 

Figure XXII-2. Population Profile, Nuiqsut, January 1994 ..................................................................... XXII-17 

Figure XXII-3. Employment by Industry, Nuiqsut, 1993 ........................................................................ XXII-19 

Figure xX11-4. Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Nuiqsut, 1993.........XXll-2 3 

Figure XXII-5. Wild Resources Harvests by Resource Category, Nuiqsut, 1985/86 and 1993,. ....... ..XXll-2 7 

Figure XXIII-l. 

Figure XXIII-2. 

Figure XXIII-3. 

Figure XXlll-4. 

Figure XXIII-5. 

Figure XXIII6 

Figure XXIII-7. 

Figure XXIII-S. 

Figure XXIII-9 

Kotzebue Census Population, 1680 - 1990 ..................................................................... XIX-20 

Population Profile, Kotzebue, January 1992 ................................................................... XIX-23 

Employment by Industry, Kotzebue, 1991 ...................................................................... XIX-27 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Kotzebue, 1986 and 1991 ................................................................................................ XIX-33 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Kotzebue, 1991 ............................................................................................... XIX-34 

Kialina Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX-l 5 

Population Profile, Kivalina, January 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX-l 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, Kllalina, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX-40 

Comparison of Per Capita Harvests of Seven Major Resources in 

Three Harvest Years, Kiialina, 1982/83, 1983/84, and 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX-41 

Kaktovik Census Population, 1880 - 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-8 

Population Profile, Kaktovik, June 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-1 1 

Employment by Industry, Kaktovik, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-15 

Harvests of Wild Resources for Home Use, Pounds Usable Weight 

per Capita, Kaktovik, 1985/86, 1986/87, and 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-1 9 

Composition of Wild Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Kaktovik, 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-20 

Per Capita Harvests of Wild Resources by Resource Category, 

Kaktovik, 1985/86, 1986/87, and 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI-21 

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I........................................... 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.. ...... ..XXlll-2 7 

Figure XXIII-12. Percentage of Population Hunting, Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993.........XXIIl-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.. ................................................................. XXIII-30 

Figure XXIII-15. Subsistence Harvests of Salmon, Pounds Usable Weight per Person, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................................................. XXIII-31 

Figure XXIII-16. Subsistence Harvests of Fish Other than Salmon, Pounds Usable Weight per 

Person, Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ..................................................... XXIII-32 

Figure XXIII-17. Subsistence Harvests of Land Mammals, Pounds Usable Weight per Person, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................................................. XXIII-33 

Figure XXIII-18. Subsistence Harvests of Marine Mammals, Pounds Usable Weight per Person, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................................................. XXIII-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 xX111-22. Average Number of Resources Used Per Household, 

Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993.. ................................................................. XXIII-38 

Figure xX111-23. 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 ................................................................... XXIII-40 

Figure xX111-25. 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 ................................................................... XXIII42 

Figure xX111-27. Percentage of Total Harvest for Home Use Removed from Commercial 

Catches, Study Communities, 1991, 1992, and 1993 ................................................... XXIII-43 

Figure XXIV-1 _ 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 XVII: CHIGNIK BAY 

by 

Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 

Setting 

The community of Chignik Bay is located approximately 180 miles (290 km) southwest of King 

Salmon. It is situated at the southern end of Chignik Bay at the head of Anchorage Bay (Fig. l-l). It has 

a spectacular setting with 3,000-foot mountains behind the village and the snow-capped Aleutian Range 

visible to the north across Chignik Bay. 

The volcanic Aleutian Range is the primary landform throughout the Alaska Peninsula with 

approximately a dozen volcanoes rising to elevations of 4-8,000 feet. Throughout the peninsula, water is 

prevalent in the form of lakes, streams, rivers, wetland areas, coastal bays, coves, and tidal flats, all of 

which provide prime habitat for land and marine mammals, birds, fish, and plants. 

The climate is maritime to transitional (Selkregg 1976:4) and influenced greatly by the Pacific 

Ocean to the south, and the Bering Sea to the north that separately bring winds and moisture to the land. 

The mountains trap clouds, fog, and moisture, particularly on the Pacific side, leaving Chignik Bay with 

average annual precipitation deposits of over 127 inches, including 57 inches of snow. Temperatures 

are moderate with average summer temperatures of 50 degrees and winter temperatures of 35 degrees 

(Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (ADC&RA) 1982a:np). 

History 

As early as 6,000 years ago, the maritime hunting cultures of Pacific and Yupi’k Eskimos and 

Aleuts occupied the Alaska Peninsula. They were ancestral to today’s Alaska Peninsula Native people 

(Clark 1984:136-l 37). Archaeological evidence along the Chignik River documents that throughout the 

first millennium AD, people lived along the Chignik River and depended heavily on salmon (Dumond 

1987:67-71). 

Russian explorers moved into the area during the late 1700’s and established the Russian 

American Company which involved the exploitation of fur-bearing marine mammals as well as the labor 

of Native people. The Russian American Company was replaced with the Alaska Commercial Company 

when the United States purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867. The Americans continued to monopolize 

the resources and Native people, much as the Russians had (Tuten 1977:24). 

The first reference to a village at Chignik Bay was noted by Ivan Petroff in 1880. The 

community he reported was named “Kaluiak”, a small village of “deer” [caribou] hunters (Tuten 1977:25). 

In 1888, the Fisherman’s Packing Company of Oregon set up a salmon Saltery at Chignik Bay, and the 

XVI l-l 
following year, two canneries were built in Chignik Lagoon. In 1896, Chignik Bay received its first two 

canneries owned by the Pacific Steam Whaling Co. and Hume Bros. & Hume. In 1901 they joined with 

Pacific Packing and Navigation Co. and in 1904, Northwestern Fisheries bought the two canneries (Davis 

1986:91-94). 

At first the canneries offered employment for people from all over the world including 

Scandinavia, Italy, China, Mongolia, Hawaii, and the Philippines, but did not employ many Alaska Native 

people (Davis 1986:94). But, by the turn of the twentieth century, the Natives were involved in trapping 

foxes in the winter and working as fishermen and in the canneries in the summer. During the Russian 

colonial era, there were many marriages between Natives and Russians. Later, around 1900, many 

Natives intermarried with Scandinavians and other newcomers. The people living in the Chignik villages 

today are descended from such unions. 

Throughout the years, Chignik has remained a center for commercial fishing. The fishing fleet 

has evolved from small boats and fish traps owned by the canneries to the privately-owned hand and 

purse seine boats that are in operation today. The seafood processing plants evolved as well, changing 

ownership and preservation methods. Canneries in Chignik Bay have since been replaced with two cold 

storage facilities, Aleutian Dragon Fisheries and Chignik Pride Fisheries, that process, freeze, and salt 

salmon, cod, and halibut for commercial sale. 

Economy 

Today, fishing remains the mainstay of the cash economy at Chignik Bay. Almost every 

household in Chignik Bay either fishes commercially, or works for Aleutian Dragon Fisheries (ADF) or 

Chignik Pride Fisheries (CPF), the two local seafood processing plants. Salmon is the primary resource 

harvested in Chignik Bay. However, halibut and cod are also processed, and other resources including 

herring, crab, and shrimp have also been produced there as well. During the peak seasons, workers 

from outside the community continue to come to Chignik Bay to work in the fisheries. 

Chignik Bay is located within the Chignik River system, one of Alaska’s major producers of 

sockeye salmon. This system also supports king, coho, pink, and chum salmon. The headwaters to the 

Chignik area originate in the western slopes and glaciers of the Aleutian Range as well as waters from 

the Black Lake region, which flow into the upper Chignik River, Chignik Lake, the lower Chignik River, 

Chignik Lagoon, and Chignik Bay. 

This system is managed by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) in order to allow for 

commercial and subsistence harvesting of salmon while insuring that desired escapement requirements 

are met. Approximately 100 commercial limited entry salmon permits are allowed for the Chignik region, 

and the majority of the fish caught are sold to either ADF or CPF. 

Most of the year-round residents of Chignik Bay depend on these salmon runs as part of their annual 

subsistence harvest in order to satisfy some of their nutritional needs. In addition, local residents harvest 

a variety of resources for subsistence, some of which include other saltwater fishes, freshwater fishes, 

XVII-2 
marine invertebrates, marine mammals, waterfowl, land mammals and a variety of wild plants and 

berries. 

Government, Facilities and Services 

Chignik Bay was incorporated into a second class city in 1983 and has a mayor, city council and 

village administrator. In addition, Far West Inc. village corporation and traditional council members 

represent Chignik’s Native population. 

Some of the facilities and services in Chignik Bay include but are not limited to: a school 

offering grades pre-school to 12, gymnasium, recreation hall, post office with daily service (depending on 

weather), firehouse with fire truck, a 2,700-foot gravel airstrip with daily commercial air service (weather 

depending), water and sewer system, telephone and electricity, city office, two large well-stocked stores, 

a restaurant that operates in the summer months, health clinic with two health aides and a physician’s 

assistant, a radio station, public safety officer, Bible chapel, an old Russian Orthodox church, and two 

cold seafood processing facilities with dormitories and cafeterias and deep water docks that allow for 

services of ocean-going vessels at Chignik Bay and service with the Alaska Marine Highway ferry. 

Chignik Bay is accessible by air and the sea. In 1992, Peninsula Airways and Mark Air provided 

daily transportation, mail, and cargo service into Chignik Bay. The Alaska Marine Highway ferry services 

Chignik Bay four times a year from May-September. Commercial fishing boats and a variety of other 

vessels utilize Chignik Bay’s docks or anchor in Anchorage Bay on a daily basis primarily to bring fish or 

supplies in and out of the village. The City of Chignik and the state of Alaska maintain roads throughout 

the community as well as a 2.5mile long road leading to the airstrip. All-terrain vehicles and 

automobiles are commonly owned by residents of Chignik Bay. 

RESEARCH METHODS 

Subsistence Resource Specialist Lisa Scarbrough communicated with Chignik Bay’s Village 

Council President, Rick Skonberg on December 2, 1991, via telephone to discuss the project. A copy of 

the research design was faxed to him and he presented the design to the Village Council on December 3, 

and they approved the study. 

Fieldwork in the community of Chignik Bay occurred only in the first year of the three-year study. 

The fieldwork was conducted from April 13-21, 1992, by Scarbrough, Susan Savage with Katmai 

National Park, and Tracy Andrews with Minerals Management Service (MMS). Chignik Bay village 

residents assisting included Rick Skonberg, Kevin Murphy, and John Harrod who helped with household 

lists, and Olive Kalmakoff who assisted for two days to help set up interviews. Aleutian Dragon Fisheries 

provided us with a vehicle free of charge to enable us to get to households located “across the bay.” 

XVII-3 
Chignik Bay’s population fluctuates greatly from winter to summer because of the commercial 

fishing and processing operations, but there are a core number of people that live in the village yeararound and claim Chignik Bay as their home. The goal was to interview every household in the village 

that had spent eight months or more in Chignik Bay during the study year (April 1991-March 1992), and 

did not claim residency elsewhere. Because of this criterion, households that have kinship ties to the 

village and perform a fair amount of subsistence activities, yet only spend part of the year in the Chignik 

region, could not be counted as permanent residents and were excluded from the target sample. On the 

other hand, several households that moved to Chignik Bay for a full-time permanent job such as with the 

school or fisheries, yet have little time for subsistence activities, were included if they did not claim 

residency anywhere else. 

Village Council President Rick Skonberg provided the research team with a list of households 

living in Chignik Bay. In addition, the team met with fisheries production managers, Kevin Murphy (ADF) 

and John Harrod (CPF) who provided a list of households permanently employed at the fish processors 

during the study period. Those not fitting the residency requirement were dropped from the list. These 

lists were double checked with households that ADF&G had interviewed in 1990 as well as those 

surveyed in 1991 during the MMS social indicators oil spill sun/ey. Chignik Bay’s population size 

remained steady; however, the community’s household composition had changed considerably with only 

50 percent of the 1990 households still present in the village. 

There were 44 households which fit the residency criteria. Generally the harvest survey was 

conducted first followed by the social effects survey. The harvest survey took on average 66 minutes to 

complete in Chignik Bay (Table l-7). Many of the households elected to do the second survey at a later 

time because of the length of the harvest survey. The social effects survey took on average 42 minutes 

per household (Table l-8). 

The harvest survey was usually conducted with the primary harvester in the household but often 

included more than one person. The social effects survey only allowed for one randomly selected 

member over 16 years of age per household to be interviewed. Twenty-eight percent of those names 

randomly selected were substituted with another person because either there was only one member or 

one gender in the household, or the selected person was unavailable. If the household had a panel 

member interviewed in 1991 by the MMS social indicators study, and if they were willing, that person was 

interviewed in place of the name randomly selected. This, however, did not occur often because the 

1991 panel included 23 people, but of these, 11 had moved from Chignik Bay and only 12 still remained. 

Of the 12 that remained, only 5 were interviewed because 3 declined and 4 were out of town. 

Of the 44 households, 30 subsistence harvest surveys or 68 percent of the total, and 29 social 

effects surveys, or 66 percent of the total were completed. Four households declined the harvest survey, 

and five declined the social effects survey. Most of the remaining 10 households were away from the 

village during the time of the survey. The primary reasons for refusals were that people were tired of 

surveys or they were too busy preparing for the upcoming fishing season. 

XVII-4 
DEMOGRAPHY 

The 1990 United States census reported the population of Chignik Bay at 188, which was 

consistent with the 1980 census of 178. The population of Chignik Bay in the 1950’s and 1960’s was 

higher, topping 253, and dropped to below 100 in the 1960’s and 1970’s (Fig. XVII-l, Table l-l). In 1992 

at the time of this study, the Division estimated the permanent population at 128’. Overall there were 44 

households containing an average of 2.9 people per household, with 52.9 percent females and 47.1 

percent males, and 51.7 percent Alaska Natives. The average age of the residents was 26.1 years, and 

the mean length of residency for household heads was 12.4 years (Fig. XVII-2; Table XVII-2, Table XVII3) 

CASH ECONOMY 

The fishing industry remains the primary employment category in Chignik Bay either through 

commercial fishing or the fish processing plants. Other major employers include: the City of Chignik, the 

school, the health clinic, and the retail grocery and supply stores. Of the estimated 85.1 adults in Chignik 

Bay, 91.4 percent were employed with an average of 1.8 jobs each. Of these, 18.9 percent had year-round 

jobs, but the average length of employment was 8.1 months. There were an average of 1.8 employed 

adults holding a mean of 3.1 jobs per household (Table XVII-4). 

Chignik Bay’s average household income from all sources was $45098.29, with a mean per capita 

income of $15,551.13. The most important single source of earned income was from the seafood 

processing facilities, yet these provided only 19 percent of the jobs held in the community. Commercial 

fishing provided for 42 percent of the jobs, but ranked second below the cannery jobs in terms of per 

capita income Fig. XVII-3; Table XVII-5). 

The total amount of other income for Chignik Bay in 1992 was $178.713.33, with a household 

average of $4,061.67, and a per capita income of $1,400.57. The primary source of other income was the 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which 76.7 percent of the households received (Table XVII-6). 

The mean monthly expense for food estimated by sampled Chignik Bay households was $454. 

The median food expense per month was $400. The latter represents 10.7 percent of the total average 

household income in the community (Table l-101). 

The largest number of sampled Chignik Bay households (40.0 percent) reported that their financial 

situation was better during the 1991/92 study year than before the Exxon Valdez oil spill (March 1989). On 

1 Employees of the seafood processing plants and other residents were not included in this estimate if they claimed residence elsewhere 

or if they lived in Chignik Bay less that eight months during the study year. During the peak of the salmon season, the population of 

Chignik Bay oflen expands to over 1,000 people. Of the 188 people counted by the US Census for 1990, 28 lived in “group quarters” (or 

fish processing facilities)(Alaska Department of Labor 1991:95). 

XVII-5 
the other hand, 33.3 percent of the households claimed that their financial situation had worsened since the 

spill, and 20.0 percent said it had remained the same (Table l-103). 

RESOURCE USES: 1991/92 

The largest percentage of sampled households in Chignik Bay (63.3 percent) in 1991/92 estimated 

that between 1 to 25 percent of their annual use of meat, fish and poultry derived from wild foods. As 

shown in Table l-l 04, 23.3 percent of the households provided an estimate of 26 to 50 percent, 6.7 percent 

said 51 to 75 percent, and 6.7 percent estimated that 76 to 99 percent of their meat was subsistence foods. 

While 100 percent of the households in Chignik Bay reported using at least one resource in 

1991/92 (Table XVII-8), the majority of residents also participated in the harvesting and processing of 

subsistence resources. Table XVII-9 demonstrates that 82.8 percent of all residents attempted to harvest at 

least one resource, and 78.2 percent processed resources. As shown in Table XVII-g, 25.3 percent of the 

community’s population hunted game, 64.4 percent fished, 71.3 percent gathered plants, and 1.2 percent 

trapped or hunted furbearers. 

Chignik Bay households were involved in sharing of resources with at least 21 other Alaska 

communities (Table XVII-10). Many of these communities are located on the Alaska Peninsula; but mostly 

Chignik Bay households shared and gave away resources to people living in their own community. In 1991 

almost every household (96.7 percent), received wild resources, while 63.3 percent gave resources away. 

Sharing patterns have not varied much since 1984. In Chignik Bay, there are fewer elders in 1991/92 than 

in 1984; but, sharing with those now present is reported to be at about the same as previous levels. 

RESOURCE HARVEST QUANTITIES: 1991/92 

The per capita harvest for all resources in Chignik Bay was 357.5 pounds usable weight. The mean 

household harvest in pounds was 1,036.6 (Table XVII-8). It was reported that 93.3 percent of the 

households attempted to harvest wild resources, 90.0 percent were successful, and 100 percent received 

and used wild resources. On average, households used 16.4 different kinds of wild resources, attempted 

to harvest 10.7 kinds, harvested 9.7 types, received 9.0 varieties, and gave away 6.5 different wild 

resources. 

Over three-fourths (79.0 percent) of the harvest of wild resources in Chignik Bay was fish, 281.0 

pounds per capita (Table XVII-l 1). Most of the fish were salmon, providing 171 .l pounds per capita (4403 

fish) or 47.8 percent of the total harvest (Table XVII-12). Sockeye salmon made up the greatest portion of 

salmon harvested. The sockeye harvest totaled 2,398.0 fish for 12,109.g pounds, averaging 94.9 pounds 

per capita. Spawning sockeye salmon ranked second with a total of 896.1 fish at 2,105.g pounds, but coho 

salmon provided for more in edible pounds at 4,308.O from 803.7 fish harvested. In addition, 3,021.5 

XVI l-6 
pounds of chinook salmon, 141.7 pounds of pink salmon, 83.6 pounds of chum salmon, and 54.8 pounds 

of spawning coho salmon were also harvested for home use by Chignik Bay residents (Table XVII-13). 

By gear type, in pounds, 32.4 percent of all resources harvested by Chignik Bay residents were 

removed from commercial fish catches (Table XVII-14). Of the total salmon harvested in pounds, 21.9 

percent were removed from commercial catches, 68.2 percent were taken with subsistence gear, and 9.9 

percent with rod and reel gear (Table XVII-15). 

Of the 2,398 sockeye salmon (fresh) harvested, 473.7 were removed from commercial catches, 

684.9 were caught with subsistence nets, 1,210.O were caught with purse seines, none with beach seines, 

and 29.3 with rods and reels (Table XVII-16). Chignik Bay households reported that 43.3 percent removed 

some salmon from commercial catches, 43.3 percent caught salmon using various subsistence gear, and 

40.0 percent used rods and reels. Eighty percent of Chignik Bay’s households harvested salmon in 

1991/92 with sockeye salmon being the most popular. Coho and chinook salmon were the most popular 

salmon caught by rod and reel (Table XVII-17). 

Eight different methods were used by Chignik Bay households to preserve their salmon harvests 

(Table l-106). On average, households used 2.6 methods. These methods included freezing (used by 83.3 

percent of the households), smoking (40.0 percent), drying (33.3 percent), canning (30.0 percent), pickling 

(30.0 percent), salting (30.0 percent), kippering (13.3 percent), and fermenting (3.3 percent). 

For non-salmon fish, the largest per capita harvest was halibut at 100.5 pounds. This level is 

slightly higher than that for sockeye salmon. Pacific cod provided 4.8 pounds per person, the second 

largest non-salmon resource harvested. The total non-salmon per capita harvest was 109.9 pounds, 

representing 30.7 percent of all wild resources harvested (Table XVII-1 1, Table XVII-12, Table XVII-13). 

By gear type, 9,113.8 pounds of non-salmon fish were removed from commercial catches by 

residents of Chignik Bay (Table XVII-18). Of total pounds harvested, 65.0 percent of the non-salmon fish 

were taken from commercial catches, 20.7 percent by subsistence gear, and 14.3 percent with rods and 

reels (Table XVII-19). Chignik Bay households reported that 43.3 percent removed some non-salmon other 

fish from commercial catches, 33.3 percent used subsistence gear, and 26.7 percent used rods and reels 

(Table XVII-20). 

In 1984 and 1989, subsistence surveys also determined that salmon and other fish provided the 

majority of wild foods for Chignik Bay residents. In 1991/92, however, their harvest levels were 

substantially higher for salmon and other fish, as well as marine invertebrates (Fig. XVII-5, Fig. XVII-8). 

Salmon harvests in 1984 provided 136.8 pounds per person; in 1989, 111.6 pounds per person; and 171 .l 

pounds per person in 1991/92. Other fish that consisted mostly of cod, halibut, and trout provided 22.0 

pounds per person in 1984,54.8 pounds in 1989, and 109.9 pounds per person harvested in 1991/92. 

The majority of respondents (46.2 percent) reported that their overall use and harvest of salmon in 

1991/92 was higher as compared to the previous year (Table l-9). Of all respondents, 38.5 percent thought 

that their household used and harvested the same amount of salmon, and 15.4 percent thought they used 

XVII-7 
and harvested less in 1991 than in 1990. When asked to compare 1991/92 with the year before the 1989 

Exxon Valdez oil spill, 66.7 percent thought their use and harvest was about the same, 22.2 percent said it 

was more, and 11.1 percent thought it was less in 1991/92 than in 1988 (Fig. XVII-7, Table l-l 0). 

Of non-salmon other fish, 65.4 percent thought their use and harvests were about the same 

comparing the study year with the year prior, while an 19.2 percent of respondents thought their levels 

were less and 15.4 percent claimed more (Table l-15). When asked to compare their use and harvests with 

the year prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, 64.7 percent said there was little change, 17.6 percent thought 

there was more and 17.6 percent thought it was less (Table l-l 6). 

Marine invertebrates harvested by Chignik Bay residents made up 10.9 percent of the total 

resources harvested (Fig. XVII-6). They totaled 4,958.5 pounds and averaged 38.9 pounds per capita. 

Some of the shellfish species harvested included: 15.7 pounds per capita of crab (Dungeness, Tanner, and 

king), 11.9 pounds of clams (butter, razor, steamer, and pinkneck), 8.1 pounds of octopus, 1.4 pounds of 

sea urchins, and 1.4 pounds per capita of chitons (bidarkies) (Table XVII-13; Fig. XVII-5). Shellfish harvests 

more than doubled each year the harvest surveys were conducted, showing 7.4 pounds per person in 

1984, 15.6 pounds in 1989, and 38.9 pounds in 1991/92 (Table XVII-11). 

When the sampled households were asked to make an assessment of changes in their subsistence 

uses and harvests, half (50.0 percent) of the Chignik Bay respondents thought their use and harvests of 

marine invertebrates were about the same as compared to the previous year, while 30.8 percent reported 

higher levels and 19.2 percent reported less (Table l-45). When respondents compared their use and 

harvest of shell fish to the year before the spill, the majority (63.2 percent) felt there was little change while 

21 ,I percent thought there was more and 15.8 percent thought less (Table l-46). 

For land mammals, the Chignik Bay average harvest was 24.4 pounds per person in 1991/92 with 

a community total of 3,112.3 pounds, which represented 6.8 percent of the total harvest. In 1989, the 

harvest was reported at 15.8 pounds per person, and in 1984, 14.1 pounds per person (Fig. XVII-5, Fig. 

XVII-6; Table XVII-11, Table XVII-12). In 1991/92, 13.2 caribou were harvested, providing the largest 

percentage of game for the community at 15.5 pounds per capita. Deer, which were harvested by Chignik 

Bay residents on Kodiak Island, provided 5.0 pounds of meat per capita. There were no small land 

mammals harvested for food (Table XVII-13). 

Of the sampled households, 54.2 percent thought their use and harvest of large game during the 

study year was about the same as compared to the previous year. On the other hand, 20.8 percent of 

households reported more use and harvests and 25.0 percent reported less (Table 1-21). When asked to 

compare the 1991/92 study year with the year before the oil spill, again, the majority (61 .l percent) thought 

their harvest of large game was about the same, 27.8 percent thought it was less, and 11 .l percent thought 

it was higher in 1991/92 than in 1988 (Table l-22). When asked to compare use and harvest of small game 

and furbearers, 80.0 percent of the responding households felt their use was the same as the previous year 

XVII-8 
and a similar proportion, 85.7 percent, thought it was the same as compared to the year before the spill 

(Tables l-27. Table l-28). 

Marine mammals, birds, eggs, and wild plant harvests remained relatively consistent throughout 

the three study years with land mammal harvests, birds, and plants being slightly higher and marine 

mammals harvests as slightly lower in 1991/92 than in the previous study years (Fig. XVII-5, Fig. XVII-8). 

Harbor seals were the only marine mammals that were reported harvested by Chignik Bay 

residents in 1991/92, and represented less than one percent (0.7 percent) of the total harvest. 

Approximately six seals were harvested providing a total of 328.5 pounds and a per capita harvest of 2.6 

pounds. Marine mammal use has declined slightly since 1989 when 3.1 pounds, and from 1984, when 5.9 

pounds per capita were reported harvested (Fig. XVII-5, Fig. XVII-8; Table XVII-1 1, Table XVII-12, Table XVII13). 

Of the sampled Chignik Bay households, almost all (94.4 percent) reported that their 1991/92 use 

and harvest of marine mammals was about the same as the previous year. Households reporting more 

totaled 5.6 percent, and no one reported using less in 1990 (Table l-33). When asked to compare 1991/92 

harvest and use to the year before the spill (1988), every interviewed household said it was about the same 

while no one reported lesser or greater levels (Table l-34, Fig. XVII-7). When these households were asked 

to evaluate the populations of Steller sea lions in their region, 65.2 percent thought there were more than 

before the spill, while 21.7 percent thought there was no change and 13.0 percent thought less (Table l-99). 

General reasons were primarily given to explain why certain individuals felt the numbers of sea lions had 

increased, but these mostly had to do with increased sea lions in Anchorage Bay (Table l-100). For a few 

winters following the spill, the two seafood processing facilities in Chignik Bay that usually are open in the 

summer for salmon, began a winter operation of processing cod. The additional waste dumped in the bay 

attracted numerous sea lions, particularly the large bulls. Some residents who do not frequently travel 

outside the village reported that they have never seen so many sea lions. Others, however, that do get out 

when they fish or hunt outside the bay reported that they thought the numbers of seals and sea lions were 

down considerably since the spill. 

Birds and eggs were taken at an average of 4.4 pounds per capita, or 1.2 percent of the total 

harvest. This is similar to the 1989 per capita levels of 3.7 pounds per person. In 1984, only 1.8 pounds 

per person were reported (Fig. XVII-5, Fig. XVII-8, Table XVII-l 1, Table XVII-12, Table XVII-13). In 1991/92, 

almost all of Chignik Bay’s bird harvest consisted of ducks (3.6 pounds per capita). The most frequently 

taken species of ducks were harlequin, scoter, mallard, and goldeneye. No eggs were harvested; however, 

some were received from other communities (Fig. XVII-13). 

When asked to compare the study year’s use and harvest of birds, and eggs to the previous year, 

55.0 percent of the respondents felt there was no change, while 25.0 percent of respondents reported they 

had a greater harvest and use and 25.0 percent thought less (Table l-39). When asked to compare 

1991/92 with the year before the 1989 Emon Valdez oil spill, 70.6 percent thought their use and harvest was 

XVII-9 
about the same, 17.3 percent said it was less, and 11.8 percent thought they used more in 1991 than in 

1988 (Table I-40). 

Plants and berries provided 1.8 percent of the total resource harvest at 6.3 pounds per person. In 

1989, four pounds per person were reported; in 1984, this information was not collected (Table XVII-11). 

Berries mostly represented this category, with 202.4 gallons harvested in 1991/92, which equates to 6.3 

pounds per capita (Table XVII-13). Two households (6.7 percent) used plants for medicinal purposes (Table 

l-109). These households used high bush cranberries [Viburnum e&/e (Table l-108)] for colds and 

coughs. 

Most responding households in Chignik Bay, 56.5 percent, said their use and harvest of plants and 

berries and firewood was about the same as the previous year, while the second largest group (30.4 

percent) thought it was less (Table 1-51). Of those assessing subsistence plant use and harvest levels 

compared to the year before the oil spill, 77.8 percent reported no change, while 16.7 percent reported less 

uses (Table l-52). 

When Chignik Bay respondents were asked how they would compare their overall use and harvest 

of wild resources during the 1991/92 study year with the previous year, half (50.0 percent) of those 

responding felt that there was little change. As shown in Table l-57, 34.6 percent reported their use and 

harvests were higher than the previous year, while 15.4 percent thought they harvested or used less wild 

resources than they did the year before. When they compared the study year to the year before the 1989 

oil spill, 63.2 percent reported their use and harvests were the same, 26.3 percent thought it was higher, 

and 10.5 percent thought it was less than before the oil spill (Table l-58). Economic reasons were the 

primary responses given by those reporting increases or decreases in harvest levels (Tables l-59-62). 

Some felt a need to put up additional subsistence foods to make up for economic losses due to the spill, 

and others were able to get more subsistence foods because they were better off financially and could 

afford the gas or equipment to get out and harvest the foods. 

Five sampled households in Chignik Bay (16.7 percent) discarded resources during the study year 

because of perceived abnormalities (Table l-107). Most often, salmon were discarded (three households; 

10.0 percent). Explanations offered for these abnormalities in the salmon varied, and included disease and 

abnormal appearance. The three households could not provide explanations for the abnormalities. One 

household discarded shellfish because they feared oil contamination. 

SUBSISTENCE EQUIPMENT EXPENSES AND USE 

Subsistence activities require the use of tools and equipment to aid in harvesting and processing 

various resources. As summarized in Table XVII-7, on average Chignik Bay households used 11 different 

types of equipment to assist them with their subsistence activities in 1991/92. Some of this equipment and 

XVII-1 0 
supplies included: boats, motors, all terrain vehicles (ATVs), guns, fish nets, tackle, smokehouses, camp 

houses, camp gear, freezers, freezer bags, salt, and gasoline. 

The value of Chignik Bay’s equipment used in any capacity for subsistence activities in 1991/92 

averaged $35,564 per household. Annual fuel costs for all resource activities averaged $978 per 

household. The annual maintenance costs of equipment (boats, guns, nets, smokehouses) and supplies 

(bullets, fish tackle, salt, plastic bags) averaged $1,838 per household. Some of this equipment was used 

for other purposes, such as commercial fishing. Residents estimated that on average they used the 

equipment for subsistence activities 13.7 percent of the time. When calculated for subsistence activities 

only, the average household value of equipment and expenses in the study year was $5,261, with a 

community total value of $231,462. Households in Chignik Bay also regularly borrowed subsistence 

equipment from (63.3 percent of all households) and loaned (50.0 percent of households) subsistence 

equipment to other households (Table XVII-7). 

THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL AND CHIGNIK BAY: 

THE SOCIAL EFFECTS QUESTIONNAIRE, 1991/92 

The following section will discuss some of the study findings regarding possible social effects of 

the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) that originated in Prince William Sound, but spread as far as the 

Chignik region. Selected findings of the social effects questionnaire are summarized in Figures l-l to I16 and Tables XVII-21 to XVII-30. For a review of oil spill-related events occurring in Chignik Bay in 

1989, see the “Oiled Mayors” study (Impact Assessment Inc. [IAIJ 199Oc:109-116). Also, Cuttiss Rooks 

discusses the results of key respondent interviews he conducted in Chignik Bay following the oil spill 

1989 for the MMS-sponsored social indicators study (Rooks 1993:819-849). 

Both of the above mentioned studies as well as this study (social effects questionnaire results) 

found that the damage occurring in the Chignik region is not easily measurable because much of the oil 

spill’s effects in these communities were social, such as increased conflicts between people, increased 

stress and drinking, and clinical depression, due mostly to loss of income as a result of the almost 

complete closure of the 1989 Chignik commercial fishery. Commercial fisherman, cannery workers, 

local businesses and the City of Chignik all suffered due to loss of income and the uncertainty of the 

eventual physical and biological damage that the spill might have caused. People also were uncertain 

about the safety of eating subsistence foods, but felt they needed to put up more food to make up for the 

loss of income. 

In 1991192, the social effects questionnaire tried to assess the importance of living in the 

community to the residents of Chignik Bay (Table XVII-27). This survey asked household respondents to 

rate a list of reasons why they live in their community. The most popular reason given by Chignik Bay 

residents was that they have job opportunities (96.6 percent). Other high ranking reasons given 

XVII-I 1 
included: the beauty of the area attracts them (89.7 percent), the area provides them with the necessary 

personal freedoms (89.7 percent), and less crime (82.8 percent). 

When asked why they moved or returned to Chignik Bay, the majority of respondents stated it is 

where they were from or born (79.3 percent) or had friends or relatives that lived there (65.5 percent). 

For those not born in Chignik Bay, 79.3 percent said that Chignik’s hunting and fishing opportunities were 

the top reasons as to why they moved or returned to the community. These responses are representative 

of the settlement patterns for Chignik Bay, where the population today is almost equally divided between 

Alaska Native people who established Chignik Bay as their home generations ago, and non-Alaska 

Natives who came to Chignik Bay to work at the canneries or to fish. 

When asked why they remained in Chignik Bay, the main reason respondents provided was 

employment opportunities (48.3 percent). When asked if they like living in Chignik Bay more, the same 

or less since the EVOS, most responded “the same” (83.3 percent), while 12.5 percent liked Chignik Bay 

less and 4.2 percent had greater appreciation. Those who were less satisfied with Chignik Bay felt that 

since the spill, animals were harder to find, and there was increased conflict in the community. As one 

Chignik Bay respondent put it: 

Since the spill I’ve become more aware of political problems exposed by the spill that 

made me less happy with village life and the people here; the problems that occurred 

related to greed for money. I now have a greater appreciation of what we have here and 

a greater awareness of how it can be threatened. 

Residents content with life in Chignik Bay (44.8 percent) were nearly equivalent to those wishing 

to live somewhere else (51.7 percent). Also, 62.1 percent felt they would not be living in Chignik Bay 

when they are old as compared to 34.5 percent that thought they would stay the rest of their lives. 

Over half of the respondents (65.5 percent) were confident that hunting, fishing, and gathering 

opportunities would remain the same in the future, while 34.4 percent were not certain or did not think the 

opportunities would be the same. Those concerned about change in subsistence opportunities felt that 

increased development (44.4 percent), population pressures (22.2 percent), and the environment being 

vulnerable to damage (22.2 percent) were reasons to be uncertain. When asked if they would continue 

to live in the region if wild foods were no longer available, 55.2 percent said “yes”, and 44.8 percent said 

“no”. 

We wouldn’t continue to live here if wild foods weren’t available in the area because we 

couldn’t afford it and it’s not healthy to eat just store bought food. 

The social effects questionnaire also tried to determine the significance of wild foods to the yearround residents. The results are presented in Table XVII-21. Of all Chignik Bay respondents, 24.1 

percent claimed they had eaten wild foods the day before the survey was conducted, compared to 72.7 

percent of Chignik Lake respondents (Fig. l-3). Only 17.2 percent of Chignik Bay respondents said their 

wild foods that day were a major part of at least one of their meals; while 59.1 percent of respondents 

XVII-12 
from the neighboring village of Chignik Lake had wild food as a major meal the day prior to their 

interviews. The majority of Chignik Bay respondents who ate wild foods the day prior said the food was 

harvested by the respondent (10.3 percent) or by a friend in another household (10.3 percent). Chignik 

Lake respondents said their wild food meals were obtained by the respondent (31.8 percent) or by a 

relative in another household (27.3 percent) (Table XVIII-21). 

When asked if bidarkies (chitons), clams, or seals were important, every respondent in Chignik 

Bay, said clams were important. Bidarkies and seal meat were not as important to the respondents in 

Chignik Bay with 79.3 percent saying bidarkies were not important and 82.8 percent commenting that 

seal oil or meat was insignificant (Table XVII-22). Some of the elder respondents that said seal meat 

was not important, but would clarify their answer by saying that eating seal oil and meat was important to 

them in the past when growing up, but rarely eat it anymore because there are not many seals around, or 

the younger hunters do not hunt seals anymore. One man in Chignik Bay said: 

I don’t eat seal meat much anymore, not like when I was young. Sometimes I still crave 

it [seal meat, oil] but [I] have gotten away from it now. I really like octopus dipped in seal 

grease. 

Most of the respondents who said bidarkies and seals were important to them also felt that these 

resources were safe for children to eat. At Chignik Lake, 90.9 percent also felt clams were safe for 

children to eat, but Chignik Bay residents were more skeptical with 46.4 percent feeling they were not 

safe or uncertain (Table XVII-22, Table XVIII-22). Many of those skeptical in Chignik Bay (44.4 percent), 

however, did not have pollution concerns, but were afraid of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), because 

of a recent incident where a resident of Sand Point died from eating clams that were PSP contaminated. 

About one-fourth (22.2 percent) of Chignik Bay respondents felt clams were unsafe because of pollution 

or uncertainty of safety. 

The respondents were asked to compare their observations of the availability of various 

resources in their region with the year before the spill (Tables XVII-23). The majority of Chignik Bay 

respondents in 1991/92 felt that land mammal numbers were the same as 1988. Over 50 percent of 

respondents agreed that clam populations showed little change. Chignik Bay residents felt that salmon 

availability was either the same (39.1 percent) or less (39.1 percent). Of Chignik Bay respondents, 36.4 

percent were uncertain and 31.8 percent felt there was the same amount of sea ducks in 1991 than in 

1988, the year prior to the spill. 

When asked if the spill affected their participation with children in the harvesting and processing 

of wild foods, very few respondents (8.0 percent) in Chignik Bay said “yes” (Table XVII-24). One Chignik 

Bay respondent commented that her children’s behavior changed following the spill. She had to go 

fishing that summer and they couldn’t find someone to watch their children. 

Everybody was working on the cleanup: the oldest was 12 at the time and had to care for 

the younger kids. The oldest became more rebellious- she was resentful about having to 

take on the responsibility of constantly caring for her siblings. 

XVII-1 3 
The most common reason in both communities given by those feeling the spill had an impact 

was that they (the adults) did not trust the safety of eating the wild foods that they have always depended 

on. Comparing Chignik Bay with communities closer to the spill such as Tatitlek and Nanwalek, over 50 

percent of the respondents in the latter two villages said the spill impacted their participation with 

children in the harvesting and processing of wild foods (Fig. l-6). 

The social effects questionnaire also addressed the possible spill impact on the distribution and 

exchange of subsistence foods, activities, hunting and fishing gear, money, and labor (Table XVII-25). 

Most of the Chignik Bay respondents, 79.3 percent, said they share subsistence foods, labor, and 

equipment with others. When asked to compare sharing of wild resources with the previous year, 71.4 

percent of Chignik Bay respondents felt there was no change, while 25.0 felt they shared more. The 

results were the same when respondents were asked to compare sharing of wild resources to the year 

before the EVOS, with 66.7 percent feeling there was no change. Chignik Lake residents concurred that 

there was little change between time periods, where 81 .O percent felt sharing was the same compared to 

the previous year and 80.0 percent saw no change from 1988 (Table XVIII-25). Again, communities 

closer to the spill site were more impacted than these Chignik-area communities when it came to sharing 

of wild resources (Fig. l-7). 

The Chignik Bay community felt the influence of elders in politics and guidance over the last 

three years had either remained the same (32.1 percent) or decreased (32.1 percent). Many of the 

respondents commented that this was not due to the oil spill but because there were fewer elders in the 

village than three years before. Of Chignik Bay respondents, 37.9 percent belonged to a native 

corporation; primarily Bristol Bay Native Corporation (Table XVII-26). Respondents thought the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill had little impact on how they viewed a leader. One respondent in Chignik Bay 

commented about leadership following the spill: 

Since the spill, I’ve become more aware of the people who are in leadership positions 

and I learned what is needed for a leader. 

Table XVII-28 presents the results of questions asked about the effectiveness of various services 

in dealing with problems that resulted as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Because the Chignik 

communities had limited exposure of the Exxon Valdez oil spill compared to a Prince William Sound 

village such as Chenega Bay, this section of the social effects survey was confusing to many of those 

interviewed. Only those who were involved in the local clean-up, or had a local government job during 

the clean-up really understood the questions. As a result, most of the categories asked were responded 

to with “do not know,” or “somewhat effective.” The majority of respondents felt Exxon was ineffective; 

this was Chignik Bay’s evaluation of Veto as well. Veto was the group that organized and ran the cleanup operations in the Chignik region. Chignik Bay respondents felt that the Chignik Seiners Association 

(the local commercial fishing group) was effective (44.0 percent) as well as the local law enforcement 

(37.5 percent) and their city council (20.0 percent). 

XVII-14 
Concerning the safety of wild foods following the Exxon spill, 53.6 percent of Chignik Bay 

respondents felt they were adequately informed about the safety of eating these foods (Fig. l-9, Table 

XVII-29). However, 32.1 percent said they were not adequately informed. Some felt they did not receive 

clear or definitive advice or got incomplete information (30.8 percent), others received no information 

(23.1 percent), and 15.4 percent felt the information was deliberately withheld. As one Chignik Bay 

respondent put it: 

We didn’t get information about what we could or could not eat; [we] gave salmon that 

looked like it had oil inside to the VPSO who gave it to DEC, but they never answered 

our questions directly, just said it was lucky we hadn’t eaten it; everything had to be 

hush-hush and we still don’t know what was wrong with it. 

Another Chignik Bay respondent made the following comments regarding information about food safety 

following the spill: 

The spill generated more awareness of what needs to be done to protect this area and 

keep it clean. But I feel more information should have been available about how to 

identify fish that were unsafe to eat and what the oil does to the fish. More information 

should have been available through the general media. 

Also, 53.8 percent of the Chignik Bay respondents who were uninformed did not provide a reason why 

they felt lefl in the dark. 

The last section of the social effects survey asked about outer continental shelf (OCS) 

development and tried to determine how people felt about off-shore oil exploration and development, 

and how it might affect various wild resources in the region (Table XVII-30). The majority of respondents 

in both Chignik Bay and Chignik Lake felt that if there was oil development in the off-shore area of their 

region, fish, shellfish, marine mammals, and birds would decrease (Table XVII-30, Table XVIII-30). 

Chignik Bay and Lake respondents were more pessimistic than most of the other communities in the 

1991/92 study year regarding the effect on fish populations if OCS development were occur in their 

region (Fig. I-IO). Approximately 50 percent of Chignik Bay respondents predicted lower populations of 

marine mammals, marine invertebrates, and birds. The majority of respondents in Chignik Bay (48.3 

percent) felt land mammal populations would not change, while Chignik Lake respondents were equally 

divided, feeling uncertain of the effect, and whether they would decrease or show no change (Figs. I-1 1 

to l-14). A Chignik Bay respondent commented about OCS development: 

OCS development: even if [they] just search for oil [it] can cause decrease in wild foods; 

if [they] had to build to support the development, like an airport, that would affect the 

game on the land... activity in the ocean scares the fish away. 

Another respondent said that he was unsure what the impact of OCS development would be: 

If it was managed correctly and there were no spills, it would probably be OK. But if 

there was a spill all resources would decrease. 

XVII-1 5 
Few Chignik Bay respondents (37.9 percent) felt that OCS activities would bring more jobs to 

their community if it were to occur in their region (Fig. l-15). Many of the respondents commented that 

oil exploration and development in their region would certainly provide jobs, but not to anyone in their 

community but rather to specialists from outside. One Chignik Bay respondent described who got jobs 

after the Exxon spill: 

ADEC hired people to work on the clean-up who were not real qualified so the quality of 

their work suffered, but they tried. Some organizations sent Native folks to Kodiak to get 

training, but some of the Natives didn’t have enough education to pass the exams, so 

outsiders were hired. Exxon spent money in the wrong areas-- didn’t spend their money 

wisely. 

Another Chignik respondent commented about the oil spill jobs: 

Outsiders got more benefit from the spill than locals; even for health care the locals had 

to wait longer because there were a lot of people here from the outside. 

When asked if a small oil spill could be contained and cleaned up in their region, 41.4 percent of 

Chignik Bay respondents did not think it could be done. Even more respondents did not think a large oil 

spill (smaller than the EVOS) could be contained and cleaned up in their region (65.5 percent) (Table 

XVII-30). One Chignik Bay respondent commented: 

If a small spill occurred near a location where there is cleanup equipment and they can 

get to it quickly--maybe they can clean it up. No way can another big spill be effectively 

contained and cleaned up. 

Another Chignik Bay respondent stated: 

A small spill maybe can be cleaned up depending on where it occurred: a spill in the 

Shelikof Strait can’t be contained due to the currents and weather. 

DISCUSSION 

Prior to 1992, the Division of Subsistence conducted subsistence harvest surveys in Chignik Bay 

pertaining to 1984 and 1989. The village’s subsistence harvests did not change much from 1984 to 1989, 

but rose dramatically in 1991/92. In 1984, per capita subsistence harvests totaled 188.0 pounds, and 208.8 

pounds in 1989 (Morris 1987; Fall et al. forthcoming). However, in 1991/92 harvests increased 

substantially with Chignik Bay residents harvesting 357.5 pounds (edible weight) of wild resources per 

person. 

Subsistence harvests of land mammals, marine mammals, birds and plants have remained virtually 

the same throughout the three separate study years. Salmon, other fish, and shellfish harvests, however, 

have varied. Other fish and shellfish levels have almost doubled from the estimated 1989 levels, and that of 

salmon has increased by about 50 percent from 1989. 

XVII-1 6 
Every spring, most Chignik residents put up most of their subsistence salmon just prior to the first 

Chignik commercial salmon opening. During this period in 1989, oil from the EVOS was noticed in the 

Chignik area. People were concerned about the safety of the salmon as a food source. As a result of the 

fear and confusion, most did not put up their usual amount of subsistence salmon in 1989. Average 

household subsistence salmon harvest levels in 1989 dropped to 344 edible pounds (134 pounds were 

removed from commercial catches). By contrast, Chignik Bay’s pre-spill average household salmon 

harvest in 1984 was 590 pounds, including 159 pounds removed from commercial catches. In 1991/92, 

salmon harvests averaged 496 pounds per household (109 pounds were removed from commercial 

catches). 

Thus, one possible explanation for the documented increase in harvest levels in 1991/92 

compared to 1989 is that fear of oil contamination as a result of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill prevented 

many people from harvesting the desired number of fish and shellfish they normally take due to health 

warnings and lack of confidence in resources harvested from the sea. By 1991/92, most people reported 

that they no longer feared contamination. Most local residents in 1989 and 1991/92 did not feel that the 

spill had much effect on land mammals, birds, and plants, since most of these are found inland from the 

sea. Game harvests at Chignik Bay are much lower that at Chignik Lake because these animals are 

generally available inland near Chignik Lake and not near Chignik Bay, requiring a much greater effort to 

obtain them. 

The composition of the community of Chignik Bay has changed dramatically over the years. About 

three-fourths of the households in 1984 and half of the households surveyed in 1989 had moved away from 

the village by 1991/92. On the other hand, the population of year-round residents has almost doubled 

from 25 households in 1984 to 44 in 1991/92 due to more year-round jobs provided by the local fish 

processing facilities. Many families who move to the community for their jobs leave after a few years, 

however, contributing to the high household turnover rate. 

The majority of households in Chignik Bay participate in commercial salmon fishing. In 1989, the 

Chignik Management Area was virtually shut down due to oil that was present in Chignik Bay as a result of 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) in Prince William Sound. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

decided to delay opening commercial fishing until the safety level was determined. Once fishing opened, 

Chignik fisherman were only allowed to fish inside of Chignik Lagoon. This forced 102 boats to trade off 

fishing in the confined area. Exxon told Chignik fisherman that they had to fish in order to make a loss of 

income damage claim. Only six Chignik Bay residents were hired to do part-time clean-up work in 1989 as 

a result of the EVOS earning a household mean of $2,662 (Fall et al, forthcoming). 

As a result of the spill, income in 1989 was less than in 1991/92. In 1989, Exxon made payments 

to 37 percent of Chignik’s households totaling $114,920.00 for damage claims. This money provided an 

average of $8,025.39 to every household’s income in 1989. In 1989, average household income from all 

sources including Exxon damage claims was $89,281.39, while in 1990/91, it was $45,098.29 (Table XVII 5, 

XVII-1 7 
Table XVII-6; Fall et al. forthcoming). Income information was not collected by the Division of Subsistence 

in 1984 (Morris 1987). 

Many families claimed they never were compensated for their spill-related commercial fishing 

losses in 1989, and that less is being made commercial fishing now than before 1989. Some families that 

previously left in the winter are now staying year-round in Chignik to save money. These families are 

comprised of people who grew up in the area. They put up additional subsistence foods to keep their food 

costs down. This may account, in part, for some of the increase in subsistence harvests. Also, the cost of 

living has increased and perhaps more people need subsistence foods to supplement the expense of living 

in the community. 

In summary, the oil spill caused a great deal of confusion, disruption, stress, and anger in Chignik 

Bay in the summer of 1989. People were concerned about the safety of their subsistence foods and had to 

decide if it was safe to eat them, and worried what they would do without these foods if they did not harvest 

them. The biggest stress was related to income loss as a result of the disruption to the commercial fishery. 

Fisherman felt that Exxon did not live up to its promise to pay for their loss of income from fishing. Only a 

few Chignik Bay residents were hired to do test fishing and work the clean-up. Some felt the Chignik 

clean-up was just a front put on by Veto to show the public that Exxon was making an effort. Others felt 

that there was not enough oil present to warrant closing down commercial fishing or the clean-up. By 

1992, however, most Chignik Bay residents no longer had any concerns about the safety of their 

subsistence foods and felt that their community was back to normal. Financially, however, over half of 

Chignik Bay’s households in 1991, felt that they were about the same or worse off than they were before 

the oil spill and had never caught up with their loss from 1989. 

The Chignik communities rank high compared to the other communities regarding their 

predictions of negative effects of OCS activities on their local resource populations. Because they do 

not currently have any off-shore oil wells in their region, they do not have anything to compare the 

impacts to, except seeing that the leaking oil from the Exxon Valdez oil tanker wreck, hundreds of miles 

away from Chignik Bay, still managed to find its way to their beaches, and threatened their local wild 

resources. Also, because both communities get most of their income from the commercial fishing 

industry, there is great fear that oil exploration and development in their region might severely impact the 

fish and their livelihood. This is something the people of the Chignik area are not willing to gamble on, 

especially if OCS development would not bring the increased employment. 

In 1994, certain residents of both Chignik Bay and Chignik Lake still blamed the EVOS for many 

of the financial problems they have today. Several commercial permit holders had been forced to sell 

their permits and boats because they never recovered from the losses they suffered from the 1989 

commercial fishing closure. Others were concerned that the amount of salmon, particularly silvers and 

chums have not returned to the pre-1989 return levels. Others thought that ducks and clams were much 

less since 1989, and blamed the 1989 Exxon oil tanker spill. Many claimed that their subsistence 

harvest levels are the same, but they have to travel further and spend more days to find resources that 

XVII-1 8 
only a few years ago could be more easily obtained. Tar balls continued to wash up on the beaches after 

storms, particularly near Perryville, which concerned some residents Chignik Bay and Chignik Lake. On 

the other hand, there are many other residents who had recovered from the spill and were back to life as 

normal. They felt that the spill no longer has any presence in their lives and community. For this they 

were thankful, and hoped a large spill will never occur again. 

XVII-1 9 
XVII-20 
Table XVII-l. Sample Participation: Chignik Bay 1992 

Estimated Household Structures 

Non-Residential Structures 

Estimated Households 

Interview Goal: 

Households Interviewed 

Failed to ContactlUnavailable 

Vacant Residential Structures 

Seasonal Households” 

Non-Resident Household l ** 

invalid Households and Vacancies 

Failed to Contact: HH Interviewed 

Refused: HH Interviewed 

St Household Moved 

SI Respondent Deceased 

SI Panel Disposition 

Total Households Attempted: 

Refusal Rate: 

Non-Perm. HH Rate (“Vacancy Rate”): 

Interview Goal (Percentage) 

Total Permanent Households 12 32 44 

Percentage Interviewed 41.67% 78.13% 88.18% 

Percentage of Total Households 27.27% 72.73% 100.00% 

Interview Weighting Factor 2.400 1.280 1.487 

NOTES: 

. Includes panel members who were not attempted to contact. 

* * Seasonal households are households which maintain a permanent domicile elsewhere where they spend the 

majority of their time. 

l * l Non-resident households are households which were not present during the study year or which were resident 

less than the required number of months. 

XVII-21 
Table XVII-2. Demographic Characteristics of Households, Chignik Bay, April 1992 

Characteristics 

Sampled Households 

Number of Households in the Community 

Percentage of Households Sampled 

Household Size 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Sample Population 

Estimated Community Population 

30 

44 

68.18 

2.98 

1.00 

7.00 

87 

127.60 

Age 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Median 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

26.07 

0.06 

72.84 

27.641 

12.36 

0.06 

70.13 

17.59 

0.63 

70.13 

Sex 

Males 

Females 

Number 60.13 

Percentage 47.13 

Number 67.47 

Percentage 52.87 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 26.40 

Percentage 60.00 

Estimated Population 

Number 66.00 

Percentage 51.72 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992. 

XVII-22 
r.- -- -111 es n--__I_.:_- n--r:,- ,.L:__:,_ ma.. A-2, .cLn-. 

r 

70-74 

60 - 64 

g XI-54 

a 

g 40-44 

z 30-34 

i5 

+ 20-24 

10-14 

o-4 

1 

15 10 -5 0 5 10 15 

POPULATION 

I3 MALE H FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Table XVII-3 Population Profile, Chignik Bay, April 1992 

o-4 4.40 

5-9 2.93 

lo-14 2.93 

15 - 19 4.40 

20-24 5.87 

25 - 29 5.87 

30 - 34 8.80 

35-39 11.73 

40-44 2.93 

45-49 1.47 

50-54 1.47 

55-59 1.47 

60-64 2.93 

65-69 1.47 

70 - 74 1.47 

75 - 79 0.00 

80 - 84 0.00 

85 - 89 0.00 

90 - 94 0.00 

95-99 0.00 

100 - 104 0.00 

Missing 0.00 

TOTAL 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

60.13 

7.32% 7.32% 

4.88% 12.20% 

4.88% 17.07% 

7.32% 24.39% 

9.76% 34.15% 

9.76% 43.99% 

14.63% 58.54X 

19.51% 78.05% 

4.88% 82.93% 

2.44% 85.37% 

2.44% 87.80% 

2.44% 90.24% 

4.88% 95.12% 

2.44% 97.56% 

2.44% 1 WW% 

0.00% 100.00% 

0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.00% 100.00% 

0.00% lW.W% 

0.00% 100.00% 

0.00% lW.W% 

O.W% lW.OO% 

47.13% 

Il.73 17.39% 17.39% 

5.87 8.70% 26.09% 

10.27 15.22% 41.30% 

5.87 8.70% 50.00% 

2.93 4.35% 54.35% 

8.80 13.04% 67.39% 

7.33 10.87% 78.26% 

7.33 10.87% 89.13% 

4.40 6.52% 96.65% 

1.47 2.17% 97.83% 

0.00 0.00% 97.83% 

1.47 2.17% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.oq?h lW.W% 

0.00 O.@b lW.W% 

0.00 o.Q& lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% lOO.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 100.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.OO% 

67.47 52.87% 

16.13 12.64% 12.64% 

8.80 6.90% 19.54% 

13.20 10.34% 29.89% 

10.27 8.05% 37.93% 

8.89 6.90% 44.83% 

14.67 11.49% 66.32% 

16.13 12.64% 68.97% 

19.07 14.94% 83.91% 

7.33 5.75% 89.66% 

2.93 2.30% 91.95% 

1.47 1.15% 93.10% 

2.93 2.30% 95.40% 

2.93 2.30% 97.70% 

1.47 1.15% 98.85% 

1.47 1 .l5% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 100.00% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 O.W% 100.00% 

127.60 lOC.OO% 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

XVI l-23 
Table XVII-4 Employment Characteristics, Chignik Bay, 1991/92 

Characteristics 

ADULTS 

Total 

Employed 

Number 77.73 

Percentage 91.38 

Jobs 

Number 136.46 

Mean 1.75 

Minimum 1 

Maximum 4 

Months Employed 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Year-Round 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Total 

Employed 

Number 44.00 

Percentage 100.00 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Employed Adults 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992. 

1 

65.07 

8.08 

1 

12 

18.87% 

44.00 

3.10 

1 

8 

1.77 

1 

3 

XVI i-24 
Table XVII-5. Community, Household, and Per Capita incomes, All Sources and by Employer Type, Chignik Bay, 1991/92 

INCOME SOURCE 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources 61.984,324.80 $45.098.29 $15,551.13 

Earned Income 61,805,611.47 $41.036.62 $14.15056 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 489.04533 11,114.67 3.832.64 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 489.045.33 11.114.67 3.832.64 

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Fishing 489,045.33 11.114.67 3p832.64 

Hunting/Trapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Construction 7.333.33 166.67 57.47 

Manufacturing 604.630.06 13.74159 49738.48 

Cannery 604.630.00 13.741.59 4738.48 

Other Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Logging/Timber 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

61512.00 1,398.OO 482.07 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

61512.00 1,398.OO 482.07 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 586.67 13.33 4.60 

Services 115,808.OO 29632.00 907.59 

Government 526,696.13 11,970.37 4.127.71 

Federal 105.799.47 2.40453 829.15 

State 12.613.33 286.67 98.85 

Local 408.283.33 9.279.17 3.199.71 

Local Government 183.883.33 4,179.17 1.441.09 

Local Education 224,400.OO 5,100.00 1,758.62 

Unknown 0.00 0.00 

Other Income $178.713.33 $4,061.67 

0.00 

$1.400.57 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

xvii-25 
Table XVII-6. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Chignik Bay, 1991/92 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

,I1 Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Secunty 

Workman’s CompIlnsurance 

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 Leasrng 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assrstance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

Women, Infants. and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

lnhentance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

Other 

0.00 

3.33 

0.00 

0.00 

3.33 

3.33 

13.33 

0.00 

10.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

60.00 

6.67 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

76.67 

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 

$178,713.33 

0.00 

11,440.00 

0.00 

0.00 

5866.67 

2.56667 

50,113.07 

0.00 

3,784.OO 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

25247.20 

1,842.13 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

77.853.60 

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 

$4,061.67 $1,400.57 

0.00 0.00 

260.00 89.66 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

133.33 45.98 

58.33 20.11 

1,138.93 392.74 

0.00 0.00 

86.00 29.66 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

573.80 197.86 

41.87 14.44 

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 

1.769.40 610.14 

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 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

XVII-26 
XVI l-27 
a 

XVI l-28 
Table XVII-a. Characteristrcs of Resource Harvest and Use, Chignik Bay, 1991192 

tudy Community 

lean Number Of Resources Used Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 

Median 

lean Number Of Resources Attempted To Harvest Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

lean Number Of Resources Harvested Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

lean Number Of Resources Received Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

/lean Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 

Median 

Aean Household Harvest, Pounds 

Minimum 

Maximum 

*otal Pounds Harvested 

Community Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 

‘ercent Using Any Resource 

zercent Attempting To HaNeSt Any Resource 

‘ercent HaNeSting Any Resource 

‘ercent Receiving Any Resource 

yercent Giving Away Any Resource 

Vumber Of Households In Sample 

Number of Resources Available 

hignik Bay 

16.37 

3 

34 

11.30 

15.5 

10.67 

0 

28 

16.07 

8.5 

9.67 

0 

26 

16.67 

8 

9.00 

1 

23 

12.94 

9 

6.50 

0 

25 

22.86 

5 

1,036.59 

0.00 

7.639.80 

45610.12 

357.45 

100.00 

93.33 

90.00 

100.00 

73.33 

30 

100 

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

XVII-29 
Table XVII-9. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Chignik Bay, 1991192 

Total Number of People 

GAME 

FISH 

FURBEARERS 

=LANTS 

4NY RESOURCE 

Hunt 

Process 

Fish 

Process 

Hunt or Trap 

Process 

Gather 

Process 

Attempt 

Process 

Number 32.27 

Percentage 25.29 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 57.20 

Percentage 44.83 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 82.13 

Percentage 64.37 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 88.00 

Percentage 68.97 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

1.47 

1.15 

0.00 

0.00 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

1.47 

1.15 

0.00 

0.00 

Number 90.93 

Percentage 71.26 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

63.07 

49.43 

0.00 

0.00 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

105.60 

82.76 

99.73 

78.16 

lf Subsistent 

Percent 

URCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Divisio 

Household Survey, 1992. 

127.60 

XVII-30 
!2! 6888R86888888888883888888 ” 

.t E d v 

dddd~ddddddddddddd~dddddd 

Q 2 8888688888288888888888888 

B RdddddddddrndddddddddddddO 
Table XVII-1 1. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight 

per Person by Resource Category, Chignik Bay, 1984, 1989, 

and 1991192 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

1984 1989 1991 I92 

Salmon 136.8 111.8 171.1 

mother Fish 22.0 54.8 109.9 

‘Marine Invertebrate 7.4 15.6 38.9 

Land Mammals 14.1 15.8 24.4 

Marine Mammals 5.9 3.1 2.6 

Birds and Eggs 1.8 3.7 4.4 

Wild Plants * 4.0 6.3 

IAll Resources 1 188.0 208.8 357.5 

* No plant data collected for 1984 

Table XVII-12. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Chignik Bay, 1984, 1989, and 1991/92 

Percentage of Total Harvest 

1984 1989 1991/92 

Salmon 72.8% 53.5% 47.8% 

Other Fish 11.7% 26.2% 30.7% 

Marine Invertebrate 3.9% 7.5% 10.9% 

Land Mammals 7.5% 7.6% 6.8% 

Marine Mammals 3.1% 1 .5% 0.7% 

Birds and Eggs 1 .O% 1.8% 1.2% 

Wild Plants * 1.9% 1.8% 

* No plant data collected for 1984 

XVII-32 
XVII-33 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ci d d d d 

a3 co d z 0 a3 8 F F T- - 7 

UOSJad lad SpUtIOd 

SWWd PI!M 

Sfl63 PUE SpJ!a 

sleulueyy aU!JI?w 

XVII-34 
XVI l-35 
L sa3Jnosa~ lpj 

ni c-4 

saleJqa3Jaw 

au!Jew 
XVII-37 
XVI l-38 
t 

XVII-39 
XVII-40 
XVII-41 
XVII-42 
XVI l-43 
XVll-44 
XVI l-45 
XVII-46 
XVII-47 
XVII-48 
G J 

C SC 

E 

8 

+-+-+ + 

XVI l-49 
+-; 

XVII-50 
R 

W 

ii 

2 

m t 

Y 

XVII-51 
R 

XVI l-52 
.- 

6 

W 

ii 

2 

XVII-53 
XVII-54 
b 

XVII-55 
XVII-56 
I 

+-+ 

XVII-57 
XVII-58 
G 

s .E 

z 

8 

+-+-+ + 
. , k : 

, 

al 

XVII-60 
L .L 

E .!i - 

XVII-61 
5 ol 

.C 

E 

XVI l-62 
.C 

,n 

XVI l-63 
XVI l-64 
I II 

+-+-+ + 

XVI l-65 
.C 

0 

4 

z 

al 

XVI l-66 
Y +- 

XVII-67 
R 

XVII-68 
P 

.- 

Y 

XVII-69 
;- 

XVII-70 
CHAPTER XVIII: CHIGNIK LAKE 

by 

Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 

Settinq 

The community of Chignik Lake is located on the Alaska Peninsula approximately 190 miles 

(306 km) southwest of King Salmon near the mouth of the lake that shares its name. Chignik Lake is 

situated within a narrow pass that leads through the volcanic Aleutian Range from Bristol Bay near Port 

Heiden to the Pacific Ocean side of the Alaska Peninsula (Fig. l-l). 

The Aleutian Range is the primary landform throughout the Alaska Peninsula, containing a dozen 

volcanoes rising to elevations of 4-8,000 feet. Water is a major feature throughout the Alaska Peninsula 

in the form of lakes, streams, rivers, ponds, wetland areas, bays, lagoons, and tidal flats. Water 

combined with high brush and alpine tundra all provide prime habitat for fresh and saltwater fishes, 

marine and land mammals, waterfowl, and plants. 

The climate is maritime to transitional (Selkregg 1976:4) and influenced greatly by the Pacific 

Ocean to the south, and the Bering Sea to the north that separately bring winds and moisture to the land. 

The beauty of Chignik Lake’s setting is paid for by the almost constant winds that funnel back and forth 

through the pass. The area is appropriately named for Chignik means “windy place” in the local Alutiiq 

language. Chignik Lake does not have its own weather station; however in 1982, a weather station at 

Chignik Bay, a village inside of Anchorage Bay approximately 20 miles east of Chignik Lake, recorded 

an average of 127 inches of annual precipitation with an annual snowfall of 59 inches, average summer 

temperatures of 50 degrees, and winter temperatures of 35 degrees (Alaska Department of Community 

and Regional Affairs (ADCXRA) 1982b). 

History 

Scattered around the village as well as throughout the Chignik region are artifacts including lithic 

tools, stone lamps, and house depression remains. Little is known about these early Chignik occupants. 

Archaeological evidence along the Chignik River documents that throughout the first millennium AD, 

people lived along the Chignik River and depended heavily on salmon (Dumond 1987:67-71) It is 

believed that as early as 6,000 years ago, the maritime hunting cultures of Pacific and Yupi’k Eskimos 

and Aleuts occupied the Alaska Peninsula. They were ancestral to today’s Alaska Peninsula Native 

people (Clark 1984:136-l 37). 

XVIII-1 
Many of the residents of Chignik Lake are descendants of a Native woman named Dora Artemie 

Lind Andre born in 1903 at Bear River near Port Moller (Davis 1986:44). Her father was from Old Harbor 

and her mother from Ugashik. Her parents raised her at Old Village (near the Chignik Lagoon sandspit), 

where they stayed in the summers. They wintered at Chignik Lake to trap and because subsistence 

foods were easier to get there than other areas they had lived. Chignik Lake remained a winter trapping 

camp until the early 1960’s when Dora and others established a school and Russian Orthodox Church 

there. This school was constructed by local people to provide for children living in communities like Old 

Village, Kanatak, Ilnik, and Port Moller. Before this, these children had to travel to Port Heiden, Pilot 

Point, or Kodiak if they wanted to attend school (Morris 1987:29). In addition these residents wanted to 

remain of one faith, Russian Orthodox, and therefore chose not to move across Chignik Lagoon to 

Chignik Lagoon village (Davis 1986:45). (See Chapter XVII for more specific history of Chignik area.) 

Economy 

Commercial fishing provides the primary income for residents of Chignik Lake. Also, the school 

employs a great number of people in the village. Other employers include the Bristol Bay Area Health 

Corporation, and the local village corporation. The 1990 United States census stated that the mean 

household wage and salary income in 1989 was $21,760 with per capita income of $7,765 (U.S. Bureau 

of the Census 1992a). 

Chignik Lake is part of the Chignik River system which includes Black Lake, upper and lower 

Chignik River, Chignik Lagoon, and Chignik Bay. This system produces the largest sockeye salmon run 

on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula as well as coho, king, pink, and chum salmon. It is managed 

by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) in order to allow for commercial and subsistence 

harvesting of salmon surplus to the desired escapement requirements. Approximately 100 commercial 

salmon permits are allowed for the Chignik region, and the majority of the fish caught are sold to either 

Aleutian Dragon Fisheries (ADF) or Chignik Pride Fisheries (CPF), both located in Anchorage Bay at the 

community of Chignik Bay. A large portion of Chignik Lake households either own or lease a Chignik 

salmon permit or work as crewmen on a boat. 

In addition, most Chignik Lake residents depend on these salmon runs as part of their annual 

subsistence harvest in order to satisfy some of their nutritional needs. Other resources utilized include: 

other saltwater and freshwater fishes, marine invertebrates, marine mammals, waterfowl, land mammals, 

and a variety of wild plants and berries. 

Government, Facilities, and Services 

Chignik Lake is part of the Lake and Peninsula Borough and is governed by the Chignik Lake 

Village Council. The village council employs a village administrator and administrative clerk to handle 

village business matters. The Village Native Corporation is Chignik River, Limited. 

XVIII-2 
Chignik Lake’s facilities include a 2,800-foot gravel airstrip managed by the Alaska Department 

of Transportation, a contract post office, a Russian Orthodox Church with a priest, health clinic with two 

village health aides operated by the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, a washateria with showers, 

village corporation office, water, sewer, electricity, telephone and television service, a local store with 

limited supplies owned by one of the families in the community, and the Lake and Peninsula School 

District school with classes held for pre-school through 12th grade, gymnasium, library, kitchen, 

workshop, darkroom, and teachers’ quarters. 

Transportation into and out of Chignik Lake village is by air or water, but limited due to the 

weather, and tides and ice in Chignik River. In 1992, two commercial airline companies serviced Chignik 

Lake, providing daily transportation service, as well as mail and cargo delivery. Boats including skiffs to 

small barges can be navigated from Chignik Lagoon up the lower Chignik River to the village providing 

the tide is high, and the river is free of ice. Roads are limited to the village. There are a few trucks in 

the village but primarily residents use snowmachines, all terrain vehicles (ATVs), or skiffs for 

transportation. 

RESEARCH METHODS 

James Fall, the Division of Subsistence Regional Program Manager and Lisa Scarbrough, 

Subsistence Resource Specialist traveled to Chignik Lake on December 4, 1991, where they met with 

Chignik Lake Village Council President, Harry Kalmakoff Jr., about the project. On December 5, they 

met with the village council to present information on the project and the council approved the study. 

The study took place in Chignik Lake only in the first year of the three-year project. The fieldwork was 

conducted from April 6-13, 1992, by Scarbrough, Susan Savage with Katmai National Park (NPS), and 

Tracy Andrews with Minerals Management Service (MMS). Chignik Lake village residents assisting 

included Lola Lind who provided a list of household compositions, and Annette Takak who helped the 

researchers set up appointments and describe the project to residents. 

The goal was to interview every household in the village that had spent eight months or more in 

Chignik Lake during the study year (April 1991-March 1992), and did not claim residency elsewhere. 

Village administrator Lola Lind provided a list of 33 households in the village that fit the residency 

criteria. Her list was double checked with a list of households that the division interviewed in 1990. 

Chignik Lake’s population and household compositions remained steady over the previous two years. 

The 1990 Social Indicators study was not conducted in Chignik Lake. 

The harvest survey was usually conducted with the primary harvester in the household but often 

included more than one person. The social effects survey only allowed for one randomly selected 

member over 16 years of age per household to be interviewed. Sixteen percent of those names 

randomly selected were substituted with another person because either there was only one gender in the 

household, or the selected person was unavailable. 

XVIII-3 
The harvest survey was almost always administered first, followed by the social effects survey. 

The harvest survey took on average 97 minutes to finish in Chignik Lake, because the village is very 

active with subsistence activities (Table l-7). As a result, many of the households elected to do the 

social effects survey a different time. The social effects survey took an average of 47 minutes per 

household to complete (Table l-8). 

Of the 33 households, 24 subsistence harvest surveys, or 73 percent of the total, and 22 social 

effects surveys, or 67 percent of the total, were completed. Six households declined the subsistence 

harvest survey, and seven declined the social effects survey (Table XVIII-I). The remaining households 

not surveyed were either away from the village during the time of the survey or were elder households 

that family members requested we not interview. The illness of a senior member of one prominent 

family had many people in the village preoccupied, which possibly contributed toward some of the 

refusals and out of town households. In addition, other reasons for refusals were that people were tired 

of being interviewed, and some households felt uncomfortable talking to a female researcher about 

hunting and fishing activities. A few of the households have never participated in an interview with the 

Division because they do not trust ADF&G. 

DEMOGRAPHY 

The population of Chignik Lake has remained relatively the same since it was established in the 

late 1950’s, according to the U.S. census reports (Fig. XVIII-I. Table l-l). The 1990 U.S. census 

reported the population of Chignik Lake at 133. In 1992 at the time of this study, researchers found 

Chignik Lake’s population was 131 with 92.0 percent of the residents classified as Alaska Native (Table 

XVIII-2). The 33 households contained an average of 4.0 people per household. During the summer 

months, the population increases slightly because family members return to the village to fish and visit 

relatives. The proportion of females to males was about equal at 49.5 percent and 50.5 percent, 

respectively. The mean age of Chignik Lake residents was 25.0 years, and length of residency for 

household heads was 24.0 years (Table XVIII-2, Table XVIII-3, Fig. XVIII-2). 

CASH ECONOMY: 1991/92 

Of the estimated 75.6 adults in Chignik Lake in 1991/92, 69.1 percent were employed during the 

study year with an average of 1.6 jobs each (Table XVIII-4). From these, 7.9 percent had year-round 

employment, and the average length of jobs was 7.2 months. There were an average of 1.7 employed 

adults per household holding a mean of 2.7 jobs. 

Chignik Lake’s average household income from all sources was $32,563.28 with a mean per capita 

income of $8,226.51 (Table XVIII-5). The most important single source of earned income was commercial 

fishing, providing an average household income of $13,332.50. Commercial fishing represented 51 percent 

XVIII-4 
of Chignik Lake’s employment (Fig.-XVIII-3). The school ranked second, providing 21 percent of the 

community’s jobs. 

The total amount of other income for Chignik Lake in 1991/92 was $206,220.67, with a household 

average of $6,249.11, and a per capita income of $1578.72 (Table XVIII-6). The primary source of other 

income was the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which 87.5 percent of the households received. 

The mean monthly expense for food estimated by sampled Chignik Lake households was $540. 

The median food expense per month was $525. The latter represents 19.3 percent of the total average 

household income in the community (Table I-101). 

The greatest proportion of sampled Chignik Lake households (37.5 percent) reported that their 

financial situation was worse during the 1991/92 study year than before the Exxon Valdez oil spill (March 

1989). Thirty-three percent of the households claimed that their financial situation was about the same, and 

thirteen percent said it was better than before the spill (Table l-103). 

RESOURCE USES: 1991/92 

The largest percentage of sampled households in Chignik Lake (33.3 percent) estimated that 

between 26 to 50 percent of their annual use of meat, fish and poultry derived from wild foods. As shown in 

Table I-104, 29.2 percent of the households estimated the contribution of wild foods at 51 to 75 percent; 

20.8 percent estimated at 76 to 99 percent, and 16.7 percent estimated at 1 to 25 percent. 

Every household in Chignik Lake reported using and harvesting one or more subsistence 

resources during the 1991/1992 study year. Individuals from Chignik Lake who harvested a resource 

totaled 103.1 or 78.9 percent of all residents, and 64.2 percent processed wild foods. On average, Chignik 

Lake households used 24.0 kinds of wild resources in 1991/92, the widest range of any of the study 

communities in the three years of the project. Also, households on average attempted to harvest 14.6 

kinds of wild resources, harvested 14.4 kinds, received 15.2 kinds, and gave away 13.3 varieties (Table 

XVIII-8, Table XVIII-9). 

As shown in Table XVIII-9, 59.0 percent gathered plants, 72.9 percent fished, 45.4 percent of the 

community’s population hunted game, and 3.2 percent trapped or hunted furbearers. Ninety-six percent of 

Chignik Lake’s households harvested salmon in 1991, with spawning sockeye salmon (“reds”) being the 

most popular followed by fresh sockeye salmon (Table XVIII-13). 

Chignik Lake’s households were involved in sharing resources with at least 18 other Alaska 

communities (Table XVIII-10). Many of these communities are located on the Alaska Peninsula, a pattern 

consistent with past study years. In 1991/92, 95.8 percent of Chignik Lake’s households received wild 

resources, while 91.7 percent gave resources away. Most Chignik Lake households shared their 

subsistence food with people living in their own community, as well as the other Chignik area villages. 

Sharing patterns have not varied much since 1984 when the Division of Subsistence first conducted harvest 

XVIII-5 
surveys in the region (Morris 1987). In Chignik Lake, there were fewer elders in 1991 than in 1984; 

however, sharing with those now present is reported to be at about the same as previous levels. 

RESOURCE HARVEST QUANTITIES: 1991/92 

The mean per capita harvest for all resources in Chignik Lake was 442.4 pounds usable weight. 

The mean household harvest in pounds was 1,751.0 (Table XVIII-13). These harvest levels were almost 

equivalent to 1989 levels of 453.0 pounds per person but much greater than 1984 when estimated harvests 

totaled 279.0 pounds per person (Fig. XVIII-4, Table XVIII-1 1). In all three study years, salmon and land 

mammals made up the largest portion of resource harvest by Chignik Lake residents (Fig. XVIII-5, Fig. 

XVIII-6, Table XVIII-12). 

In 1991/92, over half (55.8 percent) of the harvest of wild resources in Chignik Lake was fish, 245.3 

pounds per capita (Table XVIII-11, Table XVIII-12). Most of the fish were salmon, providing 203.7 pounds 

per capita (6,599.3 fish) or 46.0 percent of the total harvest (Fig. XVIII-5, Fig. XVIII-6, Fig. XVIII-7, Fig. XVIII8). Sockeye salmon made up the greatest portion of salmon harvested. These totaled 2,923.3 fish at 

14,762.4 pounds, averaging 113.0 pounds per capita. The harvest of spawning sockeye salmon was 

almost the same with a total of 2,610.4 fish at 6,134.5 pounds. There were 491.0 coho salmon harvested 

that provided for 2,631.l pounds. In addition, 1,867.4 pounds of chinook salmon, 603.5 pounds of pink 

salmon, 215.5 pounds of chum salmon, and 195.2 pounds of spawning coho salmon were also harvested 

for subsistence by Chignik Lake residents (Table XVIII-13). 

By gear type, in pounds, 28.5 percent of all resources harvested by Chignik Lake residents were 

removed from commercial fish catches (Table XVIII-14). Of the total pounds harvested of salmon, 23.3 

percent were removed from commercial catches, 68.3 percent were taken with subsistence gear, and 8.4 

percent with rod and reel gear (Table XVIII-15). 

Of the 2,923.3 sockeye (fresh) salmon harvested, 675.1 were removed from commercial catches, 

2,248.l harvested with subsistence gear, and none taken with rod and reel (Table XVIII-16). It was reported 

that 66.7 percent of Chignik Lake households removed some salmon from commercial catches, 70.8 

percent used various subsistence gear, and 37.5 percent used rod and reel in order to harvest their home 

use salmon (Table XVIII-17). Coho was the most popular species of salmon caught by rod and reel. 

Subsistence harvests of salmon by Chignik Lake residents occur in Chignik Lake itself as well as from fish 

camps along Chignik Lagoon. Community residents participate in commercial fisheries within the Chignik 

Management Area. Chignik Lake itself is closed to commercial fishing. 

Eight different methods were used by Chignik Lake households to preserve their salmon harvests 

(Table l-106). On average, households used 4.0 methods. These methods included freezing (used by 95.8 

percent of the households), drying (62.5 percent), smoking (54.2 percent), salting (54.2 percent), canning 

(50.0 percent), pickling (45.8 percent), kippering (25.0 percent), and fermenting (8.3 percent). 

XVIII-6 
Harvest estimates of salmon for Chignik Lake for 1984 and 1989 were very similar to each other, 

with 139.5 pounds per person in 1984 and 152.7 pounds per person in 1989. The 1991/92 salmon harvest 

estimate was higher at 203.7 pounds per person (Fig. XVIII-5, Fig. XVIII-6). As reported in Table l-9, 61.9 

percent of the interviewed households in Chignik Lake believed that their salmon uses in 1991/92 were 

about the same as the previous year, while 9.5 percent said they were higher, and 28.6 percent said they 

were lower. Compared to before the oil spill, 82.4 percent of the households estimated that their salmon 

uses during the study year were about the same, 5.9 percent said they were higher, and 11.8 percent said 

they were lower (Fig. XVIII-7, Table l-10). 

For non-salmon fish, the largest per capita harvest was halibut at 30.8 pounds. Pacific (gray) cod 

provided 4.6 pounds per person, the second largest non-salmon resource harvested. The total nonsalmon per capita harvest was 41.6 pounds, representing 9.4 percent of all wild resources harvested by 

Chignik Lake residents (Fig. XVIII-5, Fig. XVIII-6, Fig. XVIII-7, Fig. XVIII-8, Table XVIII-13). 

By gear type, 3,314.6 pounds of non-salmon fish were removed from commercial fish catches by 

residents of Chignik Lake (Table XVIII-18). Of total pounds harvested, 61 .l percent were taken from 

commercial catches, 36.1 percent harvested with subsistence gear, 2.1 percent taken with rods and reels 

and 0.7 percent by ice fishing (Table XVIII-19). Chignik Lake households reported that 58.3 percent 

removed some non-salmon fish from commercial catches, 41.7 percent used subsistence gear, 16.7 

percent used rod and reel, and 4.2 percent fished through the ice (Table XVIII-20). 

Non-salmon fish harvests were virtually the same in 1989 (38.9 pounds per person) and 1991/92 

(41.6 pounds per capita), but were lower in 1984 at 16.2 pounds per person (Fig. XVIII-5, Fig. XVIII-6). Of 

the sampled Chignik Lake households, 76.2 percent reported that their overall use and harvest of fish other 

than salmon was about the same in 1991/92 as it was the previous year (Table l-15). Only 9.5 percent 

reported an increase in harvest and use, and 14.3 percent reported a decrease. When asked to compare 

1991/92 with the year before the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, 80.0 percent thought their use and harvest was 

about the same, 13.3 percent said it was higher, and 6.7 percent thought it was less in 1991/92 than in 

1988 (Fig. XVIII-7, Table l-16). 

Marine invertebrates harvested by Chignik Lake residents made up 4.7 percent of all resources 

harvested (Fig. XVIII-6). They totaled 2,710.g pounds and averaged 20.8 pounds per capita. Some of the 

shellfish harvests included: 11 .l pounds per capita of clams (butter, razor and steamer), 4.5 pounds per 

person of cockles, 2.5 pounds per person of crab, 1.2 pounds per person of octopus, and 1 .l pounds per 

person of chitons (Table XVIII-13). These harvests occur along the Pacific coast of the Alaska Peninsula, 

such as along Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Bay, and Kuiukta Bay (Morris 1987). 

Marine invertebrate levels did not vary much either in the last two study years, with 1989 per capita 

harvests of 15.9 pounds and 20.8 pounds in 1991/92. Levels of shellfish harvest in 1984 were lower at 3.3 

pounds per person (Fig. XVIII-5, Fig. XVIII-7, Fig. XVIII-8). Of all Chignik Lake respondents, 54.5 percent 

thought their use and harvests of marine invertebrates in 1991/92 were about the same as compared to the 

XVIII-7 
previous year, while 31.8 percent reported more and 13.6 reported less (Fig. XVIII-7, Table l-45). 

Compared to before the spill in 1988, most Chignik Lake respondents felt shellfish use and harvests were 

the same (73.7 percent) with 15.8 percent seeing an increase and 10.5 percent seeing a decrease in 

1991/92 (Table l-46). 

For land mammals, Chignik Lake’s 1991/92 per capita harvest was 152.6 pounds and the 

community’s total harvest was 19,929.3 pounds, which provided for 34.5 percent of the total harvest. There 

was a harvest of 104.5 caribou, averaging 3.2 animals (475.0 pounds) per household. Moose harvests 

totaled 6.9 animals that provided 112.5 pounds per household. Other game animals reported harvested 

per household included brown bear (14.2 pounds), porcupine (2.0 pounds), hare (0.3 pounds), and fox 

(12.4 individuals for fur only) (Fig. XVIII-6, Table XVIII-13). 

In 1984, Chignik Lake’s game harvests averaged 112.7 pounds per person. This estimate is 

believed to be low since a few of the primary hunters of the village were not interviewed at that time. The 

1989 harvest level of 216.4 pounds is believed to be more representative of the village’s use. In 1991/92, 

the harvest levels were down from 1989 at 152.6 pounds per person. Residents reported that caribou were 

hard to find in 1991/92 and therefore, they were not able to achieve their normal harvest levels (Fig. XVIII5, Fig. XVIII-7, Fig. XVIII-8). 

Of the sampled households, 54.5 percent thought their use and harvest of large game during the 

study year was about the same as compared to the previous year (Table l-21). On the other hand, there 

was an even split of households reporting more use and harvests (22.7 percent) and those reporting less 

(22.7 percent). When asked to compare the 1991/92 study year with the year before the oil spill, again, the 

majority (82.4 percent) thought their harvest of large game was about the same, 11.8 percent thought it 

was higher, and 5.9 percent thought it was less in 1991/92 than in 1998 (Table l-22). When asked to 

compare use and harvest of small game and furbearers, 81.3 percent of the responding households felt 

their use was the same as the previous year, and 71.4 percent thought it was the same as compared to the 

year before the spill (Table l-27, Table l-28). 

Harbor seals were the only marine mammals that were reported harvested by Chignik Lake 

residents in 1991/92 and made up only one percent of their subsistence harvest (Fig. XVIII-6). The total 

community harvest in pounds of seal totaled 539.0 pounds for the 9.6 animals harvested (Table XVIII-13). 

Marine mammal use has remained virtually the same from 1984 to 1991/92 with per capita harvests in 1984 

at 3.7 pounds, 1989 at 6.5 pounds, and 1991/92 at 4.1 pounds (Fig. XVII&). Of the sampled Chignik Lake 

households, 72.2 percent reported that their 1991/92 use and harvest of marine mammals was about the 

same as the previous year (Table l-33). Households reporting less totaled 27.8 percent, and no one 

reported more use. When asked to compare 1991/92 marine mammal harvest and use to the year before 

the spill (1988), 80.0 percent said it was about the same, and 20.0 percent thought it was less, while no one 

reported more (Fig. XVIII-7, Table l-34). 

XVIII-8 
Despite the fact that most saw little change in their harvest and use of marine mammals, many 

respondents (64.3 percent) felt there was an increase in the populations of Steller sea lions in their region 

since the spill, 28.6 percent thought they were about the same, and 7.1 percent thought there were less 

(Table l-99). Many of those thinking there were more sea lions have noticed more in Anchorage Bay 

because since the spill, the sea food processing facilities have stayed open in the winter to process cod, 

which put additional waste products in the bay and attracted numerous sea lions (Table l-100). 

Birds and eggs were taken at an average of 13.2 pounds per capita, or 3.0 percent of the total 

harvest. This is similar to the 1989 per capita levels of 15.3 pounds per person. In 1984, 3.6 pounds per 

person were reported (Fig. XVIII-5, Fig. XVIII-6). In 1991/92, almost all of Chignik Lake’s bird harvest 

consisted of ducks (5.9 pounds per capita). The most frequently taken species of ducks were oldsquaw, 

mallard, teal, goldeneye, and pintail. Some other bird resources harvested included: ptarmigan at 3.5 

pounds, eggs at 3.1 pounds, and geese at 0.8 pounds per capita (Table XVIII-13). When asked to compare 

the study year’s use and harvest of birds and eggs to the previous year, 52.4 percent of the respondents 

felt there was no change, 42.9 percent said it was less, and only 4.8 percent reported an increase (Table I39). When asked to compare 1991/92 use and harvest of birds and eggs to the year before the EVOS, 62.5 

percent saw little change while 31.3 percent thought their harvest was less and 6.3 percent saw an increase 

(Table I-40). 

Plants and berries provided 1.5 percent of the total resources harvested at 6.5 pounds per person, 

which was about equivalent to 1989’s average of 7.4 pounds (Fig. XVIII-5, Fig. XVIII-6). This information 

was not collected in 1984. Berries mostly represented this category with a community total of 161.2 

gallons harvested which equates to 4.9 pounds per capita (Table XVIII-13). Six households at Chignik Lake 

(25.0 percent) used plants for medicinal purposes (Table l-109). These households used cranberries 

[Oxycoccus (Table l-108)] and wild celery (Heracleum lanarum) for colds and coughs, swamp grass for 

steam baths, and an unknown plant as a pain killer. 

Of responding households overall, 63.6 percent thought their use and harvest of plants and berries 

and firewood was about the same as the previous year, while the second largest group (27.3 percent) 

thought it was less, and 9.1 percent said they had an increase (Table l-51). Seventy-five percent reported 

that their use and harvest was the same as compared to 1988, and 25.0 percent said it was less (Table I52). 

When Chignik Lake respondents were asked how they would compare their overall use and 

harvest of wild resources during the 1991/92 study year with the previous year, 68.2 percent of those 

responding felt that there was little change. As shown in Table l-57, 18.2 percent reported their use and 

harvests were higher during the study year, while 13.6 percent thought they were less. Their responses 

were similar when they compared the study year to the year before the spill; 77.8 percent reported their use 

and harvests were the same, 16.7 percent said they were less, and 5.6 percent thought they were greater 

than before the oil spill (Table l-58). When interviewed in 1990 about their subsistence uses in the year 

XVIII-9 
following the oil spill, a larger percentage of households (23.8 percent) said their uses had declined 

compared to the year before (Fig. XVIII-7). 

Five sampled households in Chignik Lake (20.8 percent) discarded resources during the study 

year because of perceived abnormalities (Table l-107). Most often, shellfish were discarded (two 

households: 8.3 percent). Explanations offered for these abnormalities varied, and included disease and 

abnormal appearance. One household thought the reason for the abnormalities was normal variation and 

the other could not provide an explanation for the abnormalities. Other species discarded included 

salmon, game, and birds. 

SUBSISTENCE EQUIPMENT EXPENSES AND USE: 1991/92 

Subsistence activities require the use of tools and equipment to aid in harvesting and processing 

various resources. Chignik Lake households used on average 21 different types of equipment to assist 

them with their subsistence activities in 1991/92 (Table XVIII-7). Some of this equipment and supplies 

included: boats, motors, ATVs, guns, fish nets, tackle, smokehouses, camp houses, camp gear, freezers, 

freezer bags, salt, and gasoline. 

The replacement value of Chignik Lake’s subsistence equipment in 1991/92 averaged $49,776 per 

household. Annual fuel costs for all resource subsistence activities averaged $2,397 per household. The 

annual maintenance costs of equipment (boats, fish racks, nets, guns) and supplies (bullets, fish tackle, 

salt, storage bags) averaged $1,320 per household. Some of this equipment was used for other purposes, 

like commercial fishing. Residents estimated that on average 26.9 percent of the use of this equipment was 

for subsistence activities. When calculated for subsistence activities only, the average household value of 

equipment and expenses in the study year was $14,392, with a community total value of $474,938. 

Households in Chignik Lake also borrowed (87.5 percent) subsistence equipment from and loaned (87.5 

percent) subsistence equipment to other households (Table XVIII-7). 

THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL AND CHIGNIK LAKE: 

THE SOCIAL EFFECTS QUESTIONNAIRE, 1991/92 

The following section will discuss some of the study findings in Chignik Lake about the social 

effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS). As discussed in Chapter I, the oil from this spill in 

Prince William Sound spread to and beyond the Chignik region. Chignik Lake is not situated directly on 

the coast; however, most of this community’s subsistence activities and income depend on the resources 

in waters that were oiled by the spill. Selected findings of the social effects questionnaire are 

summarized in Figures l-l through l-16 and Tables XVIII-21 through XVIII-30. For a review of oil spillrelated events occurring in Chignik Lake in 1989, see the “Oiled Mayors” study (Impact Assessment Inc. 

[IAI] 199Oc:109-110,120-122). 

XVIII-10 
In addition, Curtiss Rooks discusses the results of key respondent interviews he conducted 

following the oil spill in Chignik Bay in 1989 for the MMS-sponsored social indicators study (Rooks 

1993:819-849). Rooks, as well as this study, found that the damage occurring in the Chignik region had 

more of an impact financially and emotionally than the actual loss of subsistence harvests. Since 

commercial fishing is the major source of income for the Chignik communities, the shut down, then 

confinement of the commercial fishery in 1989 due to oil from the EVOS found in the area, disrupted all 

these communities. Chignik Lake villagers were probably hurt harder economically than the neighboring 

villages of Chignik Lagoon and Chignik Bay, because their average incomes are much less than the 

other communities. They did not have disposable income to cover them for a year of lost income. 

Following the year of the spill, several of Chignik Lake’s residents who owned commercial fishing permits 

were forced to foreclose on their loans and to sell their permits and boats. These people thought this 

was unfortunate because they hoped to pass their permits and boats on to their children someday. Also 

people felt a need to put up additional wild foods to make up for the lost income as well as a poor caribou 

harvest that winter (which was not oil spill related). One Chignik Lake respondent commented on this 

subject: 

I used to just crew (commercial fishing boat deck hand) for other people - but I never 

was lucky and didn’t get on a good boat. So I bought my own boat- then the oil spill 

happened and the shut down of the Bay and Lagoon (Chignik) for several weeks. Exxon 

paid the boat owners $15,000 each in compensation for losing these weeks out of the 

season (salmon fishing) - but that hardly begins to cover our losses. 

In 1991/92, the social effects questionnaire asked respondents questions to try to assess the 

importance of living in the community to the people, such as why they live there (Table XVIII-27). The 

most popular reasons given by Chignik Lake respondents were the beauty of the area, necessary 

personal freedoms, less crime (each 86.4 percent), followed closely by hunting and fishing opportunities 

(81.8 percent). 

When asked why they moved or returned to Chignik Lake, the majority of responses were family 

related: 18.2 percent said they were born or reared there, 18.2 percent married a person from there, and 

31.8 percent said they moved there because their family lived there. Also, 18.2 percent said they came 

to Chignik Lake for employment reasons, such as to teach in the school or to commercial fish. 

When asked why they remained in Chignik Lake, the main reason provided was because they 

have relatives that live in the village (31.8 percent). Also, 18.2 percent thought subsistence opportunities 

were a main factor, and 18.2 percent said Chignik Lake offers the quality of life they prefer. When 

asked if they like living in Chignik Lake more, the same or less since the EVOS, most responded “the 

same” (89.5 percent), while one person (5.3 percent) liked it less and another person had greater 

appreciation. 

The majority of respondents (77.3 percent) said they would rather not live somewhere else if they 

could, while 22.7 percent would prefer to live somewhere else. Additional evidence of satisfaction with 

XVIII-1 1 
the community was the finding that 63.6 percent of the respondents expected to be living in the region 

when they were old, while 36.3 percent said no or were uncertain. 

About three-fourths of Chignik Lake’s respondents (72.7 percent) were confident that hunting, 

fishing and gathering opportunities would remain the same in the future, while the remaining said “no” or 

were uncertain. A reason given by those concerned was they thought the resources in their region are 

vulnerable to environmental damage and increased development (33.3 percent). When asked if they 

would continue to live in the region if wild foods were no longer available, the majority 72.7 percent said 

“yes”. 

The social effects questionnaire also tried to determine the significance of wild foods to the yearround residents. The results for Chignik Lake are presented in Table XVIII-21. Of those questioned in 

Chignik Lake, 72.7 percent reported they had eaten wild foods the day before the survey was conducted 

and 59.1 percent had eaten this wild food as a major meal (Fig. l-3). Chignik Lake respondents said their 

wild food meals were obtained by the respondent (31.8 percent) or by a relative in another household 

(27.3 percent). By contrast, in the nearby community of Chignik Bay, 24.1 percent of the respondents 

ate wild foods the day before, with these foods mostly consisting of minor parts of their meals the day 

before their survey (Table XVII-21). These levels might not be representative in both of these 

communities, especially Chignik Lake where most residents are Russian Orthodox, because the surveys 

were conducted during Lent when certain foods are restricted until Easter. 

When asked if bidarkies (chitons), clams, or seals were important, every respondent in Chignik 

Lake said clams were important. Half (50.0 percent) of the Chignik Lake respondents said bidarkies 

were important while 40.9 percent appreciated seal meat and oil. Of the respondents that said they eat 

these resources, everyone in Chignik Lake thought seals were safe for children to eat, while 90.9 

percent of Chignik Lake felt clams and bidarkies were safe for children to eat (Table XVIII-22). One 

respondent said that for a long time he could not take his family to harvest clams because of fears of oil 

contamination. Three others commented about the safety and concern of eating clams following the 

EVOS: 

After the spill, no sea food was safe 

Right after the oil spill the community was spooked about the safety of clams and didn’t 

harvest any for several months. 

They (ADEC) told everyone not to eat clams in this area (following the spill), but I went 

to the places that hadn’t been affected by oil and opened up the clams to see how they 

looked. They looked fine and I ate them. I have been raised up with clams and other 

foods like that and I can’t be without them. 

Chignik Bay residents were more skeptical about clams with 46.4 percent feeling they were not 

safe or uncertain (Table XVII-22). Many of those skeptical in both communities did not have oil pollution 

concerns, but rather were cautious of the time of year they harvested them because of fears of paralytic 

shellfish poisoning (PSP). 

XVIII-12 
The respondents were asked to compare their observations of the availability of various 

resources in their region in 1991/92 with the year before the spill (Table XVIII-23). The majority of 

Chignik Lake residents in 1991/92 felt that land mammals were the same as 1988, but were more 

uncertain about marine mammal populations in their area. Over 50 percent of respondents in both 

Chignik Lake and Chignik Bay agreed that clam populations showed little change (Table XVII 23, Table 

XVIII-23). Half of Chignik Lake’s respondents felt that there was little change in the availability of 

salmon, with 25 percent believing salmon were fewer than the year prior to the spill. A large number of 

respondents (35.0 percent) thought there were fewer ducks in 1991 than in 1988. 

When asked if the spill affected their participation with children in the harvesting and processing 

of wild foods, very few respondents (13.6 percent) in Chignik Lake said “yes” (Table XVIII-24). These 

respondents said the spill affected their participation with children in the harvesting and processing of 

wild foods because they did not trust the foods (66.7 percent), and they were too busy with spill-related 

activities to do things with them (33.3 percent). Even fewer (8.0 percent) of Chignik Bay residents felt 

there was a change (Table XVII-24); however, in communities closer to the source of the spill such as 

Tatitlek and Nanwalek, over 50 percent of those households felt the spill impacted their levels of doing 

subsistence activities with children (Fig. l-6). 

The social effects questionnaire also addressed the spill’s possible impact on the distribution and 

exchange of subsistence foods, hunting and fishing gear, money, and labor (Table XVIII-25). Of all 

Chignik Lake respondents, 95.5 percent said they share subsistence foods, labor, and equipment with 

others. When asked to compare sharing of wild resources with the previous year, Chignik Lake 

respondents felt there was little change between time periods (81.0 percent). Eighty percent saw no 

change with their sharing of wild resources compared to 1988. Again, communities closer to the spill site 

were more impacted than the Chignik area communities when it came to sharing of wild resources (Fig. 

l-7). Some of the responses in Chignik Lake about sharing illustrate central cultural values of the 

community: 

My grandma taught us to always share with people. 

I was raised helping people. 

I like to share with people. 

If you share with someone, that person with share with you. 

Our village works that way, if somebody needs something, we will share. 

By sharing, we are able to accomplish getting food. 

The economy is bad and people need the help. 

As in Chignik Bay, respondents in Chignik Lake felt the influence of elders in politics and 

guidance over the last three years had either remained the same (52.6 percent) or decreased (42.1 

percent). Many of the respondents commented that the decrease was not due to the oil spill but because 

there were fewer elders in the village than three years before. Of all Chignik Lake respondents, 77.3 

XVIII-13 
percent belonged to a regional native corporation, with the majority of those belonging to Bristol Bay 

Native Corporation. Both communities of Chignik Lake (80.0 percent) and Chignik Bay (92.3 percent) 

felt the Exxon Valdez oil spill had little impact on how they viewed a leader (Table XVII-26, Table XVIII26). 

Table XVIII-28 present the results of questions asked about the effectiveness of various services 

in dealing with problems that resulted from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Because the Chignik communities 

had limited exposure of the oil spill compared to a Prince William Sound village such as Chenega Bay, 

this section of the social effects survey was confusing to many of those interviewed. Only those who 

were involved in the local clean-up, or had a local government job during the clean-up really understood 

the questions. As a result, most of the categories asked were responded to with “do not know” or 

“somewhat effective.” Only a few of the respondents in Chignik Lake felt Exxon was effective (11.1 

percent); however, they thought Veto did a good or somewhat effective job (61.9 percent). The 

community thought Veto was effective in dealing with spill-related problems, since Veto was the group 

that organized and ran the clean-up operations in the Chignik region. Other groups rated effective with 

dealing with spill related problems included: the Chignik fishing group (50.0 percent), and local law 

enforcement (30.8 percent). 

Concerning the safety of wild foods following the Exxon spill, 59.1 percent of Chignik Lake 

residents felt they were adequately informed about the safety of eating these foods (Fig. l-9, Table XVIII29). However, 18.2 percent said they were not adequately informed, and felt they did not receive clear 

or definitive advice (37.5 percent), got incomplete information (25.0 percent), received no information 

(12.5 percent), or the information was untimely (12.5 percent). 

The last section of the social effects survey asked about outer continental shelf (OCS) 

development and tried to determine how people felt about off-shore oil exploration and development, 

and how it might affect various wild resources in the region (Table XVII-30, Table XVIII-30). The majority 

of respondents in both Chignik Lake and Chignik Bay communities felt that if there was oil development 

in the off-shore area of their region, fish, shellfish, marine mammals, and birds would decrease. They 

were more pessimistic than most of the other communities in the 1991/92 study year regarding the effect 

on fish populations if OCS development were to occur in their region (Fig. l-10). Chignik Lake also 

ranked high compared to other study communities regarding residents opinions of the effects on marine 

mammals and marine invertebrates, and topped the list with 68.2 percent fearful of damage to bird 

populations (Fig. l-11, Fig. l-12, Fig. 1-14). Chignik Lake respondents were equally divided about 

possible effects on land mammal populations (Fig. l-l 3). 

When asked if they thought if OCS activities would provide more jobs to residents of their 

community, most, 59.1 percent, felt confident that jobs would be available; while 40.9 percent were 

uncertain or thought there would be little economic benefit to their community (Fig. I-1 5, Table XVIII-30). 

However, many of the respondents from both communities commented that oil exploration and 

XVIII-14 
development in their region would certainly provide jobs, but not to anyone in their community but rather 

to specialists from outside. 

When asked if a small oil spill could be contained and cleaned up in their region, 63.6 percent 

were uncertain or did not think it could be done. Even more, 81.8 percent of the respondents did not 

think a large oil spill (smaller than the EVOS) could be contained and cleaned up in their region (Table 

XVIII-30). 

DISCUSSION 

The study results confirmed earlier findings concerning the importance of subsistence uses to 

Chignik Lake. Chignik Lake residents harvested a per capita of 442.4 pounds (edible weight) of wild 

resources from April 1991 through March 1992. A mean of 24 different resources were used per 

household. Every household used and harvested wild resources during the study year. Salmon and nonsalmon other fish represented 55.5 percent of the wild resources harvested, with game animals at 34.5 

percent. 

The Division of Subsistence has conducted subsistence harvest surveys in Chignik Lake for three 

separate study years, 1984, 1989, and 1991/92. Per capita subsistence harvests in 1984 totaled 279.0 

pounds, while 1989’s level of 453.0 pounds was almost identical to 1991/92 at 442.5 pounds (Morris 1987; 

Fall et al. forthcoming). The higher level in 1989 compared to 1984 was due to greater harvests of caribou 

in the latter year. Harvests of non-salmon other fish, shellfish, marine mammals, birds, and plants have all 

remained consistent from 1989 to 1991, and only vary slightly from 1984. Per capita salmon harvest levels 

were about the same in 1984 and 1989, and increased by 50 pounds in 1991/92; however, the per capita 

harvest of game animals in 1991/92 decreased by about 29 percent from 1989. 

Chignik Lake residents reported to the Division researchers that caribou in 1991/92 were relatively 

scarce in their local harvest area and therefore they harvested more salmon to make up for the loss of 

game meat. Fear of oil contamination as a result of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill prevented some people 

in 1989 from harvesting the desired number of fish and shellfish they normally take due to health warnings 

and lack of confidence in resources harvested from the sea, but most felt that the spill had little effect on 

the remaining resources. One Chignik Lake resident in 1990 stated: 

After the oil spill, we haven’t eaten or harvested clams. There’re some brave ones [people] 

around here that still go and get them. We usually eat bidarkies and sea urchins all the 

time, but not no more. I heard on the radio there’s a cancer-causing thing in the clams. 

In 1992, another household stated that they were still concerned about contamination of the 

shellfish following the spill, but got their clams in other areas where they thought that the oil had not 

touched. By 1991, however, most people at Chignik Lake reported that they no longer feared that oil 

contamination was a problem with any of the resources. For example, in 1984, 56.5 percent of Chignik 

XVIII-15 
Lake residents tried to harvest and 91.3 percent used shellfish. In 1989, the year of the spill, 47.6 percent 

tried to harvest, and 81 .O percent used marine invertebrates, and in 1991/92, 72.2 percent reported that 

they tried to harvest and 100 percent used shellfish. In 1984, every Chignik Lake household attempted to 

harvest salmon, but in 1989, this level dropped slightly to 85.7 percent. In 1991/92, 95.8 percent reported 

that they attempted to harvest salmon. 

According to interviews conducted by the division for 1989, only one Chignik Lake resident was 

hired to do part-time clean-up work in 1989 as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In 1989, households 

reported average earnings from Exxon commercial fishing damage claims of $4018.18 in 1989, and none in 

1991/92. This information suggests that the oil spill contributed little to the income of people in this 

community (Table XVIII-5, Table XVIII-6, Fall et al. forthcoming). Despite the reported Exxon claims, many 

Chignik Lake families commented to the researchers in 1990/91 that they never were completely 

compensated for their commercial fishing losses in 1989 and that less is being made commercial fishing 

than previously. 

In 1994, during interviews with Chignik Lake residents, opinions differed about the lasting effects 

of the oil spill. Some residents of Chignik Lake expressed some lingering, or even increasing concern 

about the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on natural resources. Because Chignik Lake is far from 

the main source of the spill, in Prince William Sound, some felt that oil is more apparent now (1994) than 

it was in 1989 and 1991. 

The Chignik region is situated along the coast in the direction that ocean currents and other 

debris travel from the Northern Gulf of Alaska, where the spill occurred. Thus, Chignik area residents, 

suspect that the effects of the oil spill are just starting to show in the Chignik region. They cite several 

examples of these concerns. Residents of all five villages in the Chignik region reported that they 

continue to see tar balls that land on their beaches, particularly after storms. The return of salmon, 

especially chums and silvers, are reported to be less than they were prior to the spill or in 1991/92 when 

the social effects survey was conducted. Some fisherman report finding salmon that are diseased inside 

and outside, which they did not notice occurring prior to the spill. Clams are down, they report, and there 

appears to be fewer large butter clams with an increased number of clams found empty on the beaches. 

Eider ducks, once seen in large quantities near their village, are almost gone according to several 

Chignik Lake residents. Financial losses continue to haunt many of their families and a couple of 

Chignik Lake’s commercial permit holders have been forced to sell their permits and boats because they 

have not been able to recover the loss from the 1989 commercial fishing closure. On the other hand, 

other residents have almost forgotten about the oil spill and feel that their lives and subsistence activities 

have recovered and are back to normal. 

XVIII-16 
0 

uo!pqndod snsua=) 

XVIII-17 
Table XVIII-l. Sample Participation: Chignik Lake 1992 

IVARIABLE I TOTAL I 

Estimated Household Structures 

Non-Residential Structures 

Estimated Households 

Interview Goal: 

Households Interviewed 

Failed to ContacVUnavailable 

Refused 

Vacant Residential Structures 

Seasonal Households’ 

Non-Resident Household l * 

Invalid Households and Vacancies 

Total Households Attempted: 

Refusal Rate: 

Non-Penn. HH Rate (“Vacancy Rate”): 

Interview Goal (Percentage) 

I 33 

33 

I 24 

I 3 6 

I 

0 

33 

20.00% 

Social Effects Surveys Completed 

Total Permanent Households 

Percentage Interviewed 

Percentage of Total Households 

Interview Weiahtino Factor 

I 22 1 

NOTES: 

* Seasonal households are households which maintain a permanent 

domicile elsewhere where they spend the majority of their time. 

l * Non-resident households are households which were not present 

during the study year or which were resident 

less than the required number of months. 

XVIII-1 8 
Table XWl-2. Demographic Characteristics of Households, Chignik Lake, April 1992 

Characteristics 

Sampled Howeholds 24 

Number of Househo& in the Community 33 

Percentage of Households Sampled 72.73 

Househofd Size 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

3.96 

1.00 

7.00 

Sample Population 95 

Estimated Community Population 130.63 

Age 

Mean 25.03 

Minimum 0.20 

Maximum 69.65 

Median 22.335 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

16.42 

0.20 

52.28 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

23.68 

0.63 

52.28 

Males 

Females 

Number 66.00 

Percentage 50.53 

Number 64.63 

Percentage 49.47 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 

Percentage 

Estimated Population 

Number 

Percentage 

27.50 

83.33 

119.63 

91.58 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992. 

XVIII-19 
60-64 

50-54 

40-44 

20-24 

lo-14 

o-4 

15 

r I 

10 5 0 5 10 

POPULATION 

0 MALE n FEMALE 

--I 

15 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Table XVIII-3. Population Profile, Chignik Lake, April 1992 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCEN 

O-4 6.88 10.42% 10.42% 11.00 17.02% 17.02% 17.88 13.68% 13.68% 

5-9 6.88 10.42% 20.83% 9.63 14.89% 31.91% 16.50 12.63% 26.32% 

10-14 ll.Do 16.67% 37.59% 6.88 10.64% 42.55% 17.88 13.68% 40.00% 

15-19 4.13 6.25% 43.75% 6.88 10.64% 53.19% 11.00 8.42% 48.42% 

20-24 5.50 8.33% 52.08% 2.75 4.26% 57.45% 8.25 6.32% 64.74% 

25-29 8.25 12.50% 64.58% 4.13 6.38% 63.83% 12.38 9.47% 64.21% 

30 - 34 1.36 2.08% 66.67% 5.50 8.51% 72.34% 6.88 5.26% 69.47% 

35 - 39 6.66 10.42% 77.081 2.75 4.26Oh 76.60% 9.63 7.37% 76.84% 

40-44 2.75 4.17% 81.25% 5.50 8.51X 85.11% 8.25 6.32% 63.16% 

45-49 4.13 6.25% 87.50% 4.13 6.38% 91.49% 8.25 6.32% 89.47% 

50-54 4.13 6.25% 93.75% 1.38 2.13% 93.62% 5.58 4.21% 93.68% 

55-59 0.00 O.W% 93.75% 0.00 0.00% 93.62% 0.00 0.00% 93.68% 

W-64 1.38 2.08% 95.83% 1.36 2.13% 95.74% 2.75 2.11% 95.79% 

65-69 2.75 4.17% 100.00% 1.38 2.13% 97.87% 4.13 3.16X 98.95% 

70-74 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 97.87% 0.00 0.00% 98.9596 

75 - 79 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 1.38 2.13% lOO.W% 1.38 1.05% lOO.W% 

80-84 0.00 0.00% iW.W% 0.W 0.00% lW.oo% 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 

85-89 0.00 0.00% 100.09% 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 

90 - 94 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.W 0.00% 1 W.W% 0.w O.W% 1 W.W% 

95-99 0.00 0.00% lOO.W% 0.00 0.00% 1 W.GC% 0.00 0.00% lOO.W% 

100-104 0.00 0.00% lOO.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 O.WOb lOO.W% 

Missing 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 

TOTAL 66.00 50.53X 64.63 49.47% 130.63 lW.OO% I 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

XVIII-20 
Table XVlll-4. Employment Characteristics, Chignik Lake, 1991I92 

#tudy Year 

ADULTS 

Total 

Employed 

Number 52.25 

Percentage 69.09 

Jobs 

Number 83.88 

Mean 1.61 

Minimum 1 

Maximum 4 

Months Employed 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Year-Round 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Total 33.00 

Employed 

Number 30.25 

Percentage 91.67 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

2.77 

1 

6 

Employed Adutts 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

1.73 

1 

4 

1991192 

75.63 

7.24 

1 

12 

7.89% 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992. 

xv111-21 
Table XVIII-S. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by Employer Type, Chignik Lake, 1991/92 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITI 

INCOME SOURCE 

All Sources 

Earned Income 

Agricutture, Forestry, and Fishing 

Agriculture 

Forestry 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 

Hatchery/Enhancement 

Commercial Fishing 

Hunting/Trapping 

Mining 

Construction 

Manufacturing 

Cannery 

Other Manufacturing 

Logginflimber 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 

Services 

Government 

Federal 

State 

Local 

Local Government 

Local Education 

Unknown 

Other Income 

$1,074,566.17 

$868,367.50 

439.972.50 

0.00 

0.00 

439.972.50 

0.00 

439,972.50 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.w 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

10.725.W 

0.00 

0.00 

AMT UNK 

3987.50 

48,345.W 

365337.50 

27,390.W 

866.25 

337,081.25 

22,687.50 

314-393.75 

0.00 

$32.563.28 $6,226.51 

$26,314.17 $6,647.79 

13J32.50 3.368.21 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.w 

13J32.50 3J68.21 

0.00 0.00 

13332.50 3.368.21 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

325.00 82.11 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

AMT UNK AMT UNK 

120.63 30.53 

1465.00 370.11 

11,070.63 2,796.&l 

830.00 209.68 

26.25 6.63 

10,214.56 2560.53 

587.50 173.58 

9.527.08 2.406.84 

0.00 0.00 

$206,220.67 $6,249.11 $1578.72 

OURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

XVIII-22 
Table XVIII6 Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Chignik Lake, 1991192 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

rll Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Securii 

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 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

Women, Infants, and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

lnherlance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

0.00 

8.33 

4.17 

0.00 

0.00 

8.33 

16.67 

0.00 

62.50 

4.17 

8.33 

0.00 

75.00 

16.67 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

87.50 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

$206.22967 $6,249.11 $1.578.72 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

13945.25 422.58 106.76 

5,527.50 167.50 42.32 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

8,250.W 250.00 63.16 

15.840.w 480.00 121.26 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

12.375.00 375.00 94.74 

59527.50 167.50 42.32 

165W.W SW.00 126.32 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

21,216.25 642.92 162.42 

2,016.67 61.11 15.44 

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 

104,610.W 3,170.w 800.84 

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 4.17 412.58 12.50 3.16 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

XVIII-23 
XVIII-24 
XVIII-25 
Table XV111-6. Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Chignik Lake, 1991192 

Idy Year 

an Number Of Resources Used Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

ran Number Of Resources Attempted To Harvest Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidencs Limit (+I-) 

Median 

ran Number Of Resources Harvested Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 

Median 

?an Number Of Resources Received Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

?an Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

san Household Harvest, Pounds 

Minimum 

Maximum 

tal Pounds Harvested 

)mmunity Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 

wxnt Using Any Resource 

lrcent Attempting To Harvest Any Resource 

!rcent Harvesting Any Resource 

went Receiving Any Resource 

rrcent Giving Away Any Resource 

umber Of Households In Sample 

umber of Resources Available 

1991 I92 

24.00 

7 

41 

8.75 

23.5 

14.63 

1 

30 

14.03 

15 

14.42 

1 

30 

14.20 

15 

15.17 

1 

34 

14.70 

14 

13.25 

0 

33 

17.36 

11.5 

1,750.99 

4.52 

4,419.69 

57,782.61 

442.35 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

91.67 

24 

100 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

XVIII-26 
Table XVIII-9. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Chignik Lake, 

1991192 

Total Number of People 

GAME Hunt 

FISH Fish 

Process 

Process 

FURBEARERS Hunt or Trap 

PLANTS Gather 

Process 

Process 

ANY RESOURCE 

Attempt 

Process 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

45.38 

34.74 

0.00 

0.00 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

68.75 

52.63 

0.00 

0.00 

Number 72.88 

Percentage 55.79 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 79.75 

Percentage 61.05 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 4.13 

Percentage 3.16 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 8.25 

Percentage 6.32 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

77.W 

58.95 

0.00 

0.00 

Number 44.00 

Percentage 33.68 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

103.13 

78.95 

85.25 

65.26 

1 of Subsists 

Percent 

3URCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divis 

Household Survey, 1992. 

136.63 

Ice. 

XVIII-27 
XVIII-28 
Table XVIII-1 1. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight 

per Person by Resource Category, Chignik Lake, 1984,1989, 

and 1991192 

Salmon 

Other Fish 

Marine Invertebrate: 

Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Birds and Eggs 

Wild Plants 

All Resources 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

1984 1989 1991 I92 

139.5 152.7 203.7 

16.2 38.9 41.6 

3.3 15.9 20.8 

112.7 216.4 152.6 

3.7 6.5 4.1 

3.6 15.3 13.2 

l 7.4 6.5 

279.0 453.0 442.4 

* No plant data collected for 1984. 

Table XVIII-12. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Chignik Lake, 1984, 1989, and 1991192 

I Percentage of Total Harvest 

I 1984 1989 1991192 

Salmon 

Other Fish 

Marine Invertebra 

r-and Mammals 

Jlarine Mammals 

3irds and Eggs 

Nild Plants 

50.0% 33.7% 46.0% 

5.8% 8.6% 9.4% 

1.2% 3.5% 4.7% 

40.4% 47.8% 34.5% 

1.3% 1.4% 0.9% 

1.3% 3.4% 3.0% 

* 1.6% 1.5% 

* No plant data collected for 1984 

XVIII-29 
eyde=) Jad 3q6p~ alqesn spunod 

XVIII-30 
%Wd PI!M 

S663 pUe SpJ!a 

slewwew puef 

0 9 9 0 0 

a 5: 7 8 F5: d 

UOSJad lad SpUIIOd 

XVIII-31 
XVIII-32 
s ‘? 

2 

I sll 

I I f II 

qewwew auyelly 

atueg a6Jel 

sateJqaa.4anul 

auyew 

W!zl JWO 

uowles 
XVIII-34 
XVIII-35 
XVIII-36 
c 

XVIII-37 
XVIII-38 
- 

- 

- 

- 

XVIII-39 
XVIII-40 
XVIII-41 
XVIII-42 
XVIII-43 
cn 

h ZE888888888”8 ~ d d d d d d d d d $ d 

3 

XVIII-44 
XVIII-45 
+-+-+ 

;zq;-* 

I3u.l I 8: 

:Ei;“-’ I I 

I I 

+-+A 

__ 

P 

2 

.- 

z 

z 

+ 

XVIII-46 
+- + 

XVI II-47 
XVIII-48 
+-; 

. . 

2 

XVIII-49 
XVIII-50 
XVIII-51 
.C 4-l 

5 

2 

?-+-+ 

. . a. 
R 

2 

4 

Y 

‘E 

.z 

r 

XVIII-53 
al 

ii 

2 

XVIII-54 
XVIII-55 
XVIII-56 
XVIII-57 
XVIII-58 
XVIII-59 
. . 

$ 

2 

XVIII-60 
$ *; g* “3-- 000 Z”” 

w 

XVIII-61 
XVIII-62 
.C 

,P 

.- 

0 

w 

0 

XVIII-63 
XVIII-64 
XVIII-65 
XVIII-66 
CHAPTER XIX: KOTZEBUE 

by 

James Magdanz, Susan Georgette, and Jimmie Evak 

COMMUNITY OVERVIEW 

Kotzebue is located 26 miles north of the Arctic Circle on the eastern shore of Kotzebue Sound 

in northwest Alaska. In 1990, the community served as a regional service and distribution center for the 

Northwest Arctic Borough, an area of 43,298 square miles with a total population of 6,113. 

Approximately 45 percent of the borough’s population resided in Kotzebue, while 55 percent resided in 

10 smaller outlying communities. Despite its size, in 1990 Kotzebue remained a predominantly ltiupiat 

community, with 75.1 percent of its 1990 population Alaska Native according to the U.S. Census. 

Occupancy of the present Kotzebue site (in lfiupiaq, Qikiqfagruk) has been documented as early 

as about 600 years ago, but quite likely occurred much earlier. Human occupancy of northwest Alaska 

has been documented for approximately 10,000 years and the archeological record is incomplete, 

because during the past 20,000 years the sea level has changed. Coastal sites from as recently as 

2,500 years ago may now be submerged and inaccessible. Available evidence suggests that the earliest 

occupants were full-time hunters of land animals such as caribou (but sea level changes may account for 

a lack of evidence of marine mammal use in the earlier cultures). Beginning about 5,000 years ago, 

evidence appears of small marine mammal hunting and of at least seasonal occupancy of the coast. 

Evidence of the occupation of the Kotzebue Sound area spans at least the past 4,000 years, with 

ancestral Eskimo cultures evident throughout the past 2,500 years. Between 1,500 and 1,000 years ago, 

the culture and hunting technology changed dramatically and gave rise to the Northern Maritime 

Tradition, which in this area included Birnirk, Western Thule, and Kotzebue cultures. This sequence of 

cultures evolved into the historic culture which greeted European explorers in the eighteenth century, and 

whose members referred to themselves as lirupiat or IAuit. Much more is known about lnupiat than 

about earlier cultures, including details of social organization, territoriality, ceremony, and warfare. 

Traditional liiupiat societies were comprised of large, bilaterally extended families living in one or 

more settlements, and were socially, territorially, and culturally distinct. Eleven liiupiat societies 

occupied the area now identified as the Northwest Arctic Borough, including the Qikiqtagrunmiit, or 

Kotzebue people. These societies occupied discrete territories with distinct boundaries, which were 

vigorously defended. Settlement patterns were related to the local availability of natural resources. 

Before 1900, most of the lnupiat of northwest Alaska lived widely scattered across the land in small 

settlements of 30 to 60 people. The largest settlements included several hundred people and were 

located at a few unusually productive locations along the coast where sea mammal migrations were 

XIX-1 
easily accessed. Wales and Point Hope were examples of large traditional settlements. The exact size 

of Qikiqfagruk in traditional times is unknown, but it was among the larger communities. The Kotzebue 

society has been estimated to include about 375 people in 1840; most but not all of that number wintered 

just south of the present Kotzebue town site. The relatively large population was supported by a rich 

local environment that included the lower Noatak River, the protected waters of Hotham Inlet, the coastal 

lagoons between Sisualik and Cape Krusenstern, and the open ocean of the eastern Chukchi Sea. To a 

degree unusual in northwest Alaska, traditional residents of Kotzebue had relatively easy and 

dependable access to inland forested riverine environments, coastal Arctic tundra environments, and 

marine sea ice environments. 

Kotzebue’s location was also conducive to trade, as it was near the mouths of three major rivers 

-- the Noatak, Kobuk, and Selawik -- which provided access to the interior. Kotzebue people were hosts 

to the largest seasonal gathering of liiupiat in northwest Alaska during an annual trading fair at Sisualik, 

about ten miles northwest of the present community of Kotzebue. In the early nineteenth century, this 

fair attracted as many as 2,000 people. The fair lasted several weeks, attendance peaked in mid-July, 

and traders traveled from as far away as Point Hope, Wales, and the Asiatic mainland. Virtually all 

commodities and technologies used in traditional life could be obtained at the fair. Tobacco, metal, and 

firearms reached Sisuahk through trade routes from Russian before Europeans arrived in the region. 

A great famine in 1882-84 decimated the Kotzebue society. Other factors, including European 

diseases introduced by explorers, whalers, traders, miners, and missionaries, eroded traditional societies. 

In 1898, more than 1,000 prospectors poured into Kotzebue on their way to inland gold fields, particularly 

along the Kobuk River. Most left the region the following summer after the discovery of gold in Nome. 

The first mission in the region was established in Kotzebue by the Religious Society of Friends in 1897, 

and Kotzebue became the focus of additional missionary activity in the surrounding villages. The 

missions and associated schools encouraged consolidation of the scattered population. By 1910, the 

traditional lnupiat societies had been overwhelmed by European and American influences. The average 

community size increased while the number of communities decreased. During this period of change 

and consolidation, several different communities might have emerged as the regional center. Shungnak 

was the largest community in the region in 1910; Noorvik was the largest in 1920. Noatak, Selawik, and 

Kotzebue were of similar size in 1930, all having populations of 200 to 300 people. But following World 

War II, Kotzebue gradually evolved into the dominant regional center, at least in part because of a 

continually developing transportation infrastructure that facilitated trade and commerce. Several barge 

companies based in Kotzebue lightered supplies to the various outlying communities. The Air Force 

established a radar station just south of Kotzebue in the 1960s, providing employment and further 

improving the airport. Many government agencies chose Kotzebue as the location for their regional 

offices. Kotzebue’s population more than doubled between 1950 and 1960, and continued to outpace the 

growth of other communities in the region through the 1980s. Much of this growth was due to inXIX-2 
migration from surrounding communities, whose residents were attracted to Kotzebue by wage 

employment, proximity to the hospital and schools, and modern amenities like sewer and water. 

As a regional center, Kotzebue offered many goods and services not available in the smaller, 

outlying communities. These included a bank, hotel, barge company, jet airport, community college, 

hospital, dental clinic, vocational school, senior citizen center, police and fire protection, and variety of 

retail stores. Nonetheless, Kotzebue offered far fewer goods and services than urban centers such as 

Fairbanks and Anchorage. In the 1990s government dominated Kotzebue’s economy and employment 

opportunities. Kotzebue’s private sector was limited, although tourism was increasing, commercial 

fishing contributed significantly to the local economy in some years, and the opening of the Red Dog 

mine near Kotzebue in the late 1980s provided a new source of private sector jobs. A 1986 Division of 

Subsistence survey found that 69.4 percent of Kotzebue households had at least one person employed 

by the government. Local government, primarily the Northwest Arctic Borough School District and the 

City of Kotzebue, accounted for most of these jobs. Other significant employment categories in 

Kotzebue included services (27.3 percent of households) and trade (16.5 percent of households). The 

commercial salmon fishery provided employment to 14.1 percent of households in 1986. 

Most liiupiat families in Kotzebue continued to rely on wild foods for a major portion of their diet. 

In 1987, the Division of Subsistence surveyed 90 Kotzebue households to estimate wild food harvests for 

1986. The estimated total community harvest exceeded one million pounds of edible wild food, the 

equivalent of 1,395 pounds per household and 398 pounds per capita. This was the highest per capita 

harvest yet documented for a community in Alaska with more than 2,500 people. Substantial differences 

in harvest quantities existed between Native and non-Native households in 1986. For Native 

households, the mean per capita harvests of fish, birds, and berries were almost three times greater than 

in non-Native households, the mean per capita harvest of big game five times greater, and the mean per 

capita harvest of marine mammals 200 times greater. Overall, Native households’ mean harvest of 

edible wild resources was 518.1 pounds per capita, compared with the non-Native households’ mean 

harvest of 112.2 pounds per capita. The wild food harvests reported by Kotzebue’s Native households in 

1986 were similar in magnitude to those reported for smaller communities in Northwest Alaska. 

In 1966 the Northwest Alaska Native Association (NANA) was organized to represent regional 

interests during the land claims settlement with Congress. After the passage of the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971, many NANA leaders joined the newly created NANA Regional 

Corporation, headquartered in Kotzebue. Ten of the eleven new ANCSA village corporations in the 

region merged with NANA, fostering a new regional identity and unity. Unlike shareholders in the smaller 

village corporations, the shareholders of the Kotzebue village corporation, Kikiktagruk liiupiat 

Corporation (KIC), chose not to merge with NANA. Thus they remained shareholders in both NANA and 

KIC. Relationships between the two corporations appeared cordial; a merger occasionally has been 

discussed. Regardless of which community they called home, NANA shareholders began referring to 

XIX-3 
themselves as residents of the NANA region, and NANA assumed political and social responsibilities 

quite outside the usual corporate realm. In some ways NANA came to resemble a traditional lfiupiat 

society, albeit in a very different social, economic, and political environment. For example, NANA has 

represented the region in political forums ranging from local councils to the U.S. Congress, it supported 

employees who serve in public functions like the regional school board, and, it patrolled Native lands to 

prevent trespass by non-shareholders during hunting season. 

The dominating presence of government agencies, on the one hand, and Native corporations, on 

the other, created a different economic atmosphere in Kotzebue than that in more economically diverse 

communities in south central Alaska. Relatively high government wages increased the expectations of 

the labor force, forcing private employers to pay more for labor. Agencies and Native corporations 

managed large blocks of housing stock, both single family and multi-family residences. One of the two 

major general stores, Hanson’s Trading Company. was owned by a KIC subsidiary. The other, the 

Alaska Commercial Company, leased its building from KIC. NANA provided most of the tourism 

services, and owned the major hotel. NANA and KIC were eager to develop the region and provide jobs 

for shareholders, and possessed ample resources. Successful private businesses were likely to find 

themselves in competition with a Native Corporation, as have several tourism businesses. 

Transportation businesses were an exception, as the air taxis and the lighterage company were privately 

owned and neither NANA or KIC have ventured into the sector. 

Much has changed in Kotzebue and the Northwest Arctic Borough since the first European 

explorers arrived in the early nineteenth century. Most evident have been changes in material culture, 

such as tools, dwellings, transportation technologies, and clothing. Also obvious are the enormous 

changes in other aspects of the local economy, which was once capitalized entirely by local families and 

is now capitalized by government, Native corporations, and a handful of other concerns. Arguably most 

important, however, have been changes in land status and political power. During the late nineteenth and 

throughout the twentieth century, control of lands and resources was slowly wrested from the indigenous 

inhabitants and vested in the state and federal governments or transferred to private individuals and 

companies. Material living standards have increased, but individual and regional autonomy have 

decreased. Throughout the twentieth century, lnupiat have been working to regain a measure of the 

autonomy they traditionally enjoyed, with mixed results, In the Kotzebue Sound area in recent year-s, 

Iiiupiat have reassumed responsibility for local and regional governments, for education, for health care, 

and for many social services. Ifiupiat also have played an increasing role in natural resource 

management. But the state and federal governments have been especially reluctant to share 

meaningful responsibility for natural resource management. With the exception of a few narrow and 

carefully constructed cooperative agreements for wildlife management, lnupiat have had only advisory 

roles in managing natural resources on their traditional lands. They do not manage the fish and wildlife 

on which their traditional way of life depends, nor do they manage access to and use of the public lands 

XIX-4 
and waters that comprise the majority of the region, nor do they manage the development of nonrenewable resources like oil and gas. This continues to be a source of considerable frustration for liiupiat 

leaders. 

It is useful to consider, in general terms, environmental, social, and economic conditions before 

and after the Exxon Valdez oil spill that might not be apparent from the survey results later in this 

chapter. The Kotzebue Sound marine environment was not directly affected by the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill, as Kotzebue is 600 miles north and west of Valdez. The expected impact of the spill in Kotzebue 

would have been marginally increased employment opportunities. An Anchorage-based NANA 

subsidiary, Purcell Security, provided security services during the oil spill clean-up. Some NANA 

shareholders were hired by Purcell to work on spill-related activities. None of the environmental, social, 

and economic changes that occurred in Kotzebue during the period between 1986 and 1991 could 

compare with the magnitude of the changes that were occurring in communities which used marine 

environments that were directly contaminated by oil from the Exxon Valdez. 

With a few exceptions, the natural environment surrounding Kotzebue has been little altered by 

industrial activities. The region is not connected by road or railroad to any other region of Alaska; access 

is by boat, by snow machine, by dog team, or by air. There are only two small commercial fisheries in 

the region, a salmon fishery and a winter sheefish fishery, both in Kotzebue Sound. The commercial 

salmon fishery and salmon markets were depressed in 1986 and continued to be depressed through 

1991, resulting in lower than normal harvests and even lower incomes for fishing permit holders. 

Dall sheep populations in the Baird and DeLong Mountains declined unexpectedly in 1989 and 

continued at low levels through 1994. This resulted in reductions in sheep seasons in some areas and 

total closures of sheep hunting in other areas. The caribou population increased during the period from 

1986 to 1991, reaching the highest levels yet recorded. But caribou were readily available during a yearround season in 1986, so the increase in abundance may not have had much effect on harvests. Moose 

and brown bear populations were in decline in the middle Noatak River drainage during the period, but 

that decline was only just becoming apparent in 1991 and reductions in seasons and bag limits had not 

yet occurred in 1991. 

The population of Kotzebue continued to grow, although slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 

previous two decades. Kotzebue construction activities appeared to continue at a normal pace, with 

some additional residential and commercial buildings added to the stock in the period. Housing prices 

remained stable. 

The most significant economic development to occur in the region was at Red Dog, about 100 

miles northwest of Kotzebue. In the period between the 1986 and 1991 harvest surveys, NANA and 

Cominco Inc. constructed and began operating a mine for lead and zinc. The State of Alaska 

constructed a road from Red Dog Mine to the Chukchi Sea coast about 50 miles northwest of Kotzebue. 

Ore from Red Dog Mine is trucked along the road to the coast, then shipped over water to smelters. The 

XIX-5 
opening of Red Dog Mine provided additional jobs for NANA shareholders and other residents of 

Kotzebue. A widely publicized water contamination incident in Red Dog Creek shortly after the mine 

went into production heightened public concerns about industrial development. By the following year, 

Cominco had contained the natural source of the contamination, and was treating the affected water. 

FIELDWORK 

The project goal was to interview 100 randomly selected households in Kotzebue. This goal 

was achieved. The 100 households represent a sample of 12.36 percent of Kotzebue’s estimated total of 

809 households (Table XIX-Z). The interviews took place between April 6 and May 22, 1992. 

Community Aoproval 

Obtaining community approval required approximately four months in Kotzebue, longer than in 

other communities in this study. Although a majority of community leaders supported the project in 

concept, most were concerned that the proposed sampling method would over represent non-Native 

households and underestimate subsistence harvests. They noted that in 1986, residents of Native 

households reported a per capita harvest more than four times as large as that reported by residents of 

non-Native households. The 1986 survey had employed a stratified random sample. Community 

leaders and researchers agreed this method could provide more reliable results, but it was more 

expensive and time-consuming to implement. From January through April, 1992, Division of 

Subsistence staff attended a series of meetings with the Kotzebue IRA Council, the Kotzebue City 

Council, and the Northwest Arctic Borough Assembly to discuss the study and the sampling issue. Other 

local organizations deferred to the IRA Council, and the Council ultimately approved the project on April 

3 under the condition that an ethnic based stratification be used in analysis, that year-round camp 

households in Kotzebue Sound be included in the Kotzebue household list, and that the IRA council have 

opportunities for review of the sampling process and the draft survey results. The prolonged approval 

process heightened community awareness of the project, especially because some of the community 

meetings were carried live on the local radio station. A small minority of community leaders were vocal 

opponents throughout the approval process. 

Samolinq 

The sample for this community consisted of two separate random samples. The first random 

sample was a Social Indicators panel which already existed in Kotzebue; the original panel included 72 

XIX-6 
households, 53 were determined to be still valid for this project. Although the Social Indicators sample 

had been randomly drawn, it was approximately four years old in 1992. Of the remaining 53 valid 

households, 9 had moved away by 1992, 1 declined to be interviewed, and 11 were unavailable for other 

reasons. The final Social indicators sample included 32 households from the original panel. As a result, 

the Social Indicators sample was biased toward less transient and more stable households. 

The second random sample was drawn from a list of 847 households, of which 833 households 

comprised the contiguous community of Kotzebue and 14 were “camp” households located near 

Kotzebue and associated with Kotzebue but outside the city limits. Virtually all households within the city 

had electrical service, so researchers used a customer list provided by the local electric utility to 

assemble the Kotzebue household list. The list was edited to remove business listings, and compared 

with the 1986 survey list to further edit and identify occupied households. Camp households were added 

to the master list only if the camp residents did not maintain a household in Kotzebue. Kotzebue 

households which maintained seasonal camps were sampled as part of the utility-based list. Once the 

list was final, each household was assigned a number and computer-aided random samples were drawn. 

Each household was contacted in the order in which it arose in the random sample. Of the second 

random sample, 36 households refused to participate, 38 households were not available for one reason 

or another, and five were new to Kotzebue. When the sample was filled, researchers had contacted 

almost 200 households to obtain the necessary sample. 

The sampling problems were the result of several factors. The protracted community approval 

process resulted in a late start to field work. In April and May, residents of Kotzebue were ice fishing, 

whaling, traveling, or (in some cases) in the process of moving to camp. Researchers made three 

separate attempts to contact each household in the sample (not counting telephone calls); after three 

failed attempts researchers dropped the subject household and moved on to the next household on the 

list. This biased the sample toward households which were less active hunters, fishers, and gatherers. 

However, a few households known to be high harvesters or community leaders were pursued more 

diligently than this (as a result of inadequate staff training in procedures). This biased the sample toward 

more active hunters, fishers, and gatherers. The protracted community approval process, which 

highlighted weaknesses in sampling methods and risks of participation, may be partially responsible for a 

higher-than-expected rate of refusals. Also, at the same time the field work for this project was being 

conducted an unrelated National Science Foundation (NSF) study was being conducted in Kotzebue. 

The instrument in that study included some personal and possibly offensive questions about sexual 

behavior. There may have been some confusion by respondents about which survey they were being 

asked to participate in. 

Confidentiality was also an issue among field workers and respondents. Respondents were paid 

$25 for their time. Payment was by check and to receive payment, respondents had to complete a form 

with their name and address and sign a statement informing them that they might be contacted later. 

XIX-7 
Four or five respondents refused to accept payment to protect their confidentiality. Finally, under 

reporting and over reporting of harvests was believed to have occurred in a few instances for Dall sheep. 

When harvests appeared to be in excess of legal limits, one field worker (who did not trust that 

confidentiality would be honored) was found to be recording the legal limit rather than the reported 

harvest. Some respondents likewise may have reported legal rather than actual harvests. Researchers 

also suspect that one respondent, who was aware of the political ramifications of high subsistence 

harvests, may have inflated his actual harvests when he responded to the survey. 

In the end, the cumulative effect of the sampling, confidentiality, and harvest reporting problems 

was unknown. A bias in the Social Indicators sample toward higher harvesting households may have 

been countered by a bias in the other sample toward lower harvesting households. A few deflated 

harvest reports may have been balanced by a few inflated harvest reports. The high political profile of 

this project during the community approval phase aggravated some of these problems and, while 

unavoidable and even appropriate, was statistically unfortunate. But researchers had no reason to 

believe the majority of the respondents were not truthful and complete in their responses. 

DEMOGRAPHY 

According to the federal census, Kotzebue had a population 2,751 people in 1990. For 1991, 

the population estimate based on household survey results was 3,648.59 people in 809 households 

(Table X1X-2). Of the total population, 53.35 percent were identified as male and 46.65 percent as 

female (Fig. X1X-2, Table X1X-2). Alaska Natives made up 86.00 percent of the population of Kotzebue, 

according to survey results, compared with 75.1 percent, according to the 1990 Census. The higher 

population and the higher proportion of Native residents estimated by the survey might be explained by a 

combination of factors. First, real population growth would be expected, perhaps on the order of the 1.5 

percent growth annually that occurred from 1980 to 1990, but not the 33 percent suggested by the survey 

results. Second, the 1990 census may have undercounted Kotzebue. Third, and probably most 

significant, the Social Indicators sample selected for four-year-plus residents and longer-term residents 

are more likely to be Native and to live in larger households. The actual population was probably about 

3,000; in 1994 the City of Kotzebue estimated the population to be 2,952. 

MONETARY ECONOMY 

Kotzebue’s monetary economy is founded primarily in the provision of public and private 

services to the community and the region. Compared with the smaller surrounding communities, 

Kotzebue exhibited higher rates of employment and higher mean incomes, which is consistent with its 

XIX-8 
role as a regional center. As shown in Table X1X-4, 73.06 percent of adults in the sampled households 

(persons age 16 years or older) held some form of cash employment in 1991. Slightly more than half of 

the employed adults, however, held seasonal jobs. This was a function both of the inherent seasonality 

of available employment such as construction and commercial fishing, and of the desire of many 

Kotzebue adults to have jobs which allowed ample time for hunting, fishing, and gathering. The average 

number of months employed for these employed adults was 8.63 months. Of all adults with 

employment, 45.81 percent were employed year-round. Figure XIX-3 illustrates employment by industry 

in Kotzebue in 1991. The largest percentage of jobs were in services (20 percent), followed by education 

(16 percent), commercial fishing (13 percent), and retail trade (10 percent). Except for commercial 

fishing, these data reflect Kotzebue’s role as a regional center of services and trade. 

The estimated per capita income for Kotzebue in 1991 was $12,685.95 (Table X1X-5). Of this, 

$11,087.57 derived from jobs and the remainder ($1,598.38) derived from other sources such as the 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, pensions, and social security (Table XIX-S). The top source of cash 

income was jobs with the federal, state, and local governments, including jobs with the schools. 

Education jobs led all others with a per capita income of $3,480.08. Jobs with service industries were 

second with $1,806.02 per person, followed by finance, insurance, and real estate (which includes Native 

corporations), with $1,364.77 per person on average. 

The commercial fisheries’ contributions to personal income was small. Although commercial 

fishing provided 14 percent of the employment, it provided barely 1 percent of the earned income 

reported. This partly reflects the depressed nature of the salmon fishery during the study period, and 

partly the small sizes of both the salmon and the sheefish commercial fisheries. Compared with 

commercial fisheries elsewhere in Alaska, the Kotzebue commercial fisheries were minimally capitalized 

and marginally profitable. The salmon fishery was a set gill net fishery targeting chum. Fish were flown 

in the round to Anchorage for processing and sale to non-local markets. Annual catches ranged from 

100,000 to 600,000 salmon, with recent catches at the lower end of the range. Recent ex-vessel prices 

have been about 25 cents per pound. Entry to the fishery was limited in 1976 to 219 permit holders; 

approximately 70 percent were residents of Kotzebue while 20 percent resided in other communities in 

the Northwest Arctic Borough. Median values for a Kotzebue Sound salmon limited entry permits ranged 

from $7,750 to $14,500 between 1980 and 1986; recent values were at the low end of that range. In 

addition to a permit, participation in the commercial salmon fishery required at a minimum a skiff, an 

outboard motor, and a net. It was possible to participate in the Kotzebue salmon fishery with a total 

capital investment of $20,000, and to be well equipped for less than $50,000 including the permit. This 

assumed that fishing equipment was not used for other purposes, but in most cases permit holders used 

their boats for subsistence fishing, hunting, and gathering and for basic transportation, as well as for 

commercial fishing. In 1991, 142 permit holders caught 239,923 chum salmon worth $427,948, for an 

average revenue per permit holder of $3,084. From inception in 1962 through 1986, annual gross 

XIX-9 
revenue per permit holder averaged 34,376. The commercial sheefish fishery was even smaller by an 

order of magnitude. This gill net fishery occurred in the winter under the ice. The market was local and 

the product was sold in the round. Total catch was limited by a quota to 25,000 pounds, but averaged 

about 12,000 pounds annually. Entry was not limited, and an average of seven fishermen participated 

each year. Capital investment required was a few thousand dollars at most, as participation required 

only a snow machine and sled or a dog team, and a net. Recent ex-vessel prices per pound for sheefish 

in Kotzebue have been 50 to 75 cents. In 1991, five fishermen reported catching 852 sheefish worth 

$4,112, for an average revenue per permit holder of $822. In short, although the Kotzebue Sound 

commercial fisheries were managed as commercial fisheries, they resembled what elsewhere in the 

world often has been called “subsistence” fisheries. 

On average, Kotzebue households estimated that they spent $711 per month on food purchases. 

This was the second highest mean of the 16 study communities, exceeded only by Karluk ($815 per 

month). The median monthly expenditure on food in Kotzebue was $600 per household. This represents 

12.6 percent of the total household income in the community in 1991. Purchased food is approximately 

55 percent more expensive in Kotzebue than in Anchorage, according to surveys conducted by the 

University of Alaska Cooperative Extension Service. 

Households in Kotzebue were well equipped for harvesting wild foods. The sample of 100 

households reported owning 59 hunting or fishing camps, 42 skiffs with outboards, 75 snowmobiles, 243 

guns, and a variety of other harvesting equipment (Table X1X-7). Respondents estimated the 

replacement cost of their equipment to be, on average, $16,785.23 per household. However, this almost 

certainly was a gross understatement. The mean replacement value reported for fishing and hunting 

camps was to be only $203.95. The typical camp near Kotzebue is a Native allotment of 80 or 160 

acres; many families own several such allotments. Most camps were acquired through federal land 

programs rather than purchased, and few are ever sold. Respondents either misunderstood the meaning 

of “replacement value” or had no idea what their camps were worth. The true replacement value of a 

remote hunting or fishing camp in northwest Alaska was probably a minimum of $40,000 and ranged 

upwards to several hundred thousand dollars. Recent remote land sales in the region have ranged from 

$40,000 (5 acres with river access) to $90,000 (5 acres with river access and two small dwellings). A 

particularly well situated 80-acre Native allotment in the Noatak Valley was on the market in the late 

1980s for more than $1 million, and reportedly had a willing buyer for about $500,000. 

Households also spent on average $175.46 on fuel in 1991 and 3470.70 on supplies and 

maintenance of this equipment. On average, respondents estimated that about 35.04 percent of the 

value of this equipment and these supplies was for subsistence activities. 

XIX-I 0 
RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE 

In 1991, the estimated harvest of wild resources for home use in Kotzebue averaged 2,673.71 

pounds usable weight per household and 592.84 pounds per person (Table X1X-13). This was the 

highest per capita harvest of the 16 communities included in the first year of the project. The average 

household in Kotzebue used 14.99 kinds of wild resources in 1991, attempted to harvest 9.52 kinds, 

harvested 8.95 kinds, received 8.64 kinds, and gave away 6.22 kinds (Table X1X-8). Overall, 99 percent 

of the sampled households used wild resources, 97 percent attempted to harvest them, 95 percent were 

successful harvesters, 94 percent received wild resources, and 84 percent gave them away. 

Thirty five percent of the interviewed Kotzebue households estimated that between one and 25 

percent of their annual use of fish, meat, and poultry was from wild foods. Also, 25 percent placed this 

estimate at between 26 percent to 50 percent, 17 percent said 51 percent to 75 percent, and 16 percent 

said between 76 and 99 percent. There was one household that used no wild foods and three (3 percent) 

who said that all their meat, fish, and poultry derived from wild resource harvests. 

According to survey findings, a large percentage of Kotzebue’s population engages in 

subsistence activities. As shown in Table X1X-9, 74.28 percent of the people in the surveyed households 

participated in at least one subsistence harvest activity in 1991 and 69.84 percent processed wild 

resources. Also, 37.92 percent hunted, 52.33 percent fished, 2.66 percent trapped, and 61.20 percent 

gathered wild plants. 

Kotzebue households were engaged in resource exchanges with a long list of other communities 

(Table XIX-IO). The list includes at least 35 Alaska places, plus locations outside the state. Although the 

distribution and exchange of wild resources is complex, with a myriad of small transactions among many 

individuals and households involving many different resources, several patterns were evident. First, 

more households reported receiving (94 percent) than giving (85 percent) wild resources, both for all 

resources aggregated and for all but one aggregated resource category (the exception was birds and 

eggs). This is consistent with the super-household theory which predicts that 30 percent of the 

households in a community will harvest 70 percent of the wild resources (and distribute those surplus to 

their immediate needs). Second, Kotzebue respondents generally received resources from and gave 

resources to the same communities. Aside from Kotzebue itself, which was named most often for both 

receiving and giving, eight of the other top ten communities named most often as the source of wild 

resources received by Kotzebue households were also among the top ten communities named as the 

destination of wild resources given away by Kotzebue households. These eight communities included: 

Point Hope, Noatak, Nome, Noorvik, Kiana, Selawik, Barrow, and Kivalina. These are all lnupiat 

communities, likely to include relatives and friends of Kotzebue residents. Some also were sources of 

especially valued lnupiat foods (Point Hope and Barrow for bowhead whale, and Kivalina for bowhead 

whale and Dolly Varden). Note that for purely statistical reasons, larger communities are more likely to 

XIX-I 1 
appear on this list than smaller communities. Third, the two communities often named for giving 

resources to but rarely named for receiving resources from were Anchorage (given to by 28 percent) and 

Fairbanks (7 percent). The responses reflect the common practice of Kotzebue families giving wild 

resources to family and friends who have moved from Kotzebue to urban centers. Fourth, the data offer 

evidence that wild resources tend to move from smaller to larger communities somewhat more 

frequently than the reverse. When communities that received resources are ordered and grouped by 

size, larger communities were named less often as sources of received wild resources than the smaller 

communities, and more often as recipients of given wild resources than the smaller communities. In 

general, the community sharing data suggest a high level of resource exchange activity, bi-directional 

among a specific group of communities, and smaller communities were more likely to provide wild 

resources to Kotzebue while larger communities were more likely to receive goods from Kotzebue. 

The wild resources exchanged included some harvested by many Kotzebue households in 

substantial quantities, like chum salmon and caribou, as well as some harvested less often or not at all in 

Kotzebue, like bowhead whale. Chum salmon were received by 63 percent of the households, followed 

by caribou (62 percent), bowhead whale (61 percent), Dolly Varden (56 percent), berries (54 percent), 

belukha whale (52 percent) and sheefish (50 percent). Caribou were given away by 59 percent of the 

households, followed by berries (48 percent), sheefish (47 percent), saffron cod (42 percent), and chum 

salmon (40 percent). Resource exchange was not simply a mechanism to obtain resources that were 

locally scarce, because seven of the top ten resources received also were among the top ten resources 

given away: chum salmon, caribou, Dolly Varden, berries, sheefish, moose, and bearded seal. An intracommunity redistribution of major local wild resources obviously was occurring. 

Figure XIX-5 depicts the composition of Kotzebue’s harvest by resource category. Land 

mammals ranked first, at 177.46 pounds per person and 30.1 percent of the total harvest. By far, 

caribou made up the largest portion of the game harvest (140.98 pounds), with moose second (34.59 

pounds) (Table X1X-13). Fish other than salmon represented 27.1 percent of the total harvest, with a 

take of 162.57 pounds per person. Sheefish, at 116.93 pounds per person, was the fish with the largest 

harvest. An estimated 51,818.g pounds of fish other than salmon were removed from commercial 

catches for home use in Kotzebue, about 8.74 percent of the total harvest of this resource category 

(Table X1X-14). Most of these fish were harvested using subsistence nets (65.19 percent), with 22.26 

percent taken through the ice, and 3.81 percent caught with rod and reel gear in open water (Table XIX19). Overall, 83.0 percent of the sampled households harvested fish other than salmon. Of the total 

sample, 69.0 percent of the households harvested fish by ice fishing, 47.0 percent used other 

subsistence methods, 43.0 percent used rod and reel, and 3.0 percent removed fish from commercial 

catches (Table X1X-20). 

With 26.8 percent of the total harvest and 157.71 pounds per person, marine mammals were the 

third-largest Category in Kotzebue’s 1991 subsistence harvest (Table X1X-13, Figure X1X-5). Bearded 

XIX-12 
seal (adult and juvenile combined) were harvested in the largest quantities, with 126.04 pounds per 

person. Salmon ranked fourth as a resource category, at 12.7 percent of the harvest and 75.15 pounds 

per person (Table X1X-12, Table X1X-13). Almost all of this harvest was chum salmon (73.1 pounds per 

person). Most of the salmon harvest was taken with subsistence methods (70.7 percent), followed by 

removal from commercial catches (27.1 percent) and rod and reel (2.2 percent) (Table X1X-15). As 

shown in Table X1X-17, 39.0 percent of the sampled Kotzebue households harvested salmon with 

subsistence gear, 20.0 percent removed salmon from commercial catches, and 12.0 percent harvested 

salmon with rod and reel. The most common methods used for preserving salmon harvests in Kotzebue 

were freezing (73 percent of all households used this method), drying (34 percent), smoking (15 percent), 

and salting (9.0 percent). 

Other resource categories which contributed to Kotzebue’s harvest in 1991 included wild plants, 

with 16.23 pounds per person and 2.7 percent of the total harvest. Also, birds and eggs contributed 3.52 

pounds per person and about one percent (0.6 percent) of the total harvest. Finally, a small amount of 

marine invertebrates (clams, crab, shrimp, and mussels) were harvested for about 0.1 pounds per person 

and less than one percent of the total harvest. A substantial percentage (44 percent) of Kotzebue 

households used wild plants for medicinal purposes. The most widely used plant was “stinkweed” 

(Altemisia sp.), for a variety of ailments, including colds, coughs, infections, diaper rash, sore muscles, 

and indigestion. 

Ten interviewed households (10.0 percent) in Kotzebue discarded wild foods in 1991 because of 

perceived abnormalities. Nine of these cases involved game and one involved salmon. For the most 

part, respondents offered no explanation for these abnormalities, although one cited disease as the 

cause and another blamed improper handling of the game. In eight out of the ten case, respondents had 

been familiar with the observed abnormal condition prior to 1989 (the year of the Exxon Valdez oil spill). 

COMPARISON WITH EARLIER FINDINGS 

The Division of Subsistence conducted a household harvest survey in Kotzebue with 90 

randomly selected households in early 1987, pertaining to 1986, the results of which can be compared 

with the 1991 findings (Georgette and Loon 1993; Scott et al. 1993). First, both surveys found very high 

levels of participation in the use and harvest of subsistence resources in Kotzebue. Second, in both 

years, subsistence harvest levels in the community were substantial. The estimated harvest for 1986 

was 1,395 pounds per household and 398.1 pounds per person. The 1991 estimate was higher, at 2,674 

pounds per household and 592.8 pounds per person. Substantial increases in per capita harvest levels 

were documented for three resource categories (Fig. X1X-4). Harvests of land mammals increased from 

113.1 pounds per person in 1986 to 177.5 pounds in 1991. Marine mammal harvests rose from 109.3 

XIX-1 3 
pounds per person in 1986 to 157.7 pounds in 1991. The largest increase was recorded for fish other 

than salmon, which rose from 88.2 pounds in 1986 to 162.6 pounds in 1991. On the other hand, 

estimated harvests of salmon were virtually identical in both years, 73.1 pounds per person in 1986 and 

75.2 pounds in 1991. Also, harvests of marine invertebrates at Kotzebue were about the same in both 

years (0.1 pounds per person), while harvests of wild plants rose from 7.7 pounds per person in 1986 to 

16.2 pounds in 1991 and harvests of birds declined from 6.5 pounds in 1986 to 3.5 pounds in 1991. In 

terms of overall harvest composition and relative ranking of resource categories, the only notable 

difference between the two years was the larger relative contribution of fish other than salmon in 1991 

compared to 1986. In the earlier year, fish other than salmon ranked third in overall harvest after land 

mammals and marine mammals, while in 1991, these fish ranked second, with a slightly higher harvest 

than marine mammals, which ranked third. Other than this, the general composition of Kotzebue’s 

subsistence harvests in 1986 and 1991, at both the species and category levels, were similar to each 

other. 

The differences in total harvests between 1986 and 1991 are within the range of variation, and 

could be considered, statistically speaking, nearly equivalent. Because of the social indicators panel 

(see discussion in Research Methods, above), the 1991 sample included more long-term households 

than the 1986 sample. This would be expected to increase overall harvest estimates. One 1991 

household, in particular, reported extremely large harvests of a number of species, and accounted for 18 

percent of the total sample household harvest. Highly productive households have been described for 

other communities in Alaska. A random sample that included one or more highly productive households 

will necessarily produce higher estimates than one that does not. The 1986 sample included high 

harvest households, but none with harvests as large as this particular household in 1991. 

Variation in individual species’ harvests has been typical of other subsistence harvest estimates 

in northwest Alaska. In Kivalina, Burch and this project have shown that species-by-species variation in 

harvest from year to year is the norm for that subsistence economy (Burch 1985, and Chapter XX this 

volume). In the normal seasonal round, abundant harvests of one species may influence subsequent 

efforts to harvest other species. In Kivalina, a substantial fall harvest of Dolly Varden seems to presage 

a diminished harvest of early winter caribou. In other words, the differences between 1986 and 1991 

probably illustrate the normal variation from year to year in subsistence harvests, 

Interviewed Kotzebue households also provided assessments of how their uses of wild resources 

in 1991 compared to the previous year and to 1988, the year before the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The 

majority of households (58 percent) said that they believed their overall level of subsistence use had not 

changed much between 1990 and 1991; on the other hand, 24 percent said their uses had gone down 

compared to the year before and 18 percent said they had gone up. Compared to 1988, slightly fewer 

households (49 percent) reported stable levels of use, while a larger percentage (33 percent) said their 

uses had gone down and 18 said they had increased over 1988 levels. At the category level 

XIX-14 
assessments of change were quite similar across resource groups, with most households reporting stable 

levels of use in 1991 compared to the previous year. Most households also reported that their uses of 

each category were about the same as 1988; however, a larger percentage of households reported lower 

levels of use of such categories as salmon, other fish, and large game, in 1991 compared to 1988 than 

reported declines over the previous year. 

SOCIAL EFFECTS RESPONSES 

This section discusses the responses of Kotzebue residents to the social effects instrument, 

organized in six topics. These include the use of wild foods, sharing practices, community activities, 

significance of place, organizations’ responsiveness to community needs, and Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) development. 

Responses to the social effects instrument reflected a high level of use and provide additional 

detail on wild foods consumption. The harvest survey documented a high level of use (99 percent of the 

households) and harvesting (96 percent were successful harvesters). On the social effects survey, 58.6 

percent of the Kotzebue respondents reported eating wild foods on the day before survey administration, 

and 51 percent of the respondents reported that wild foods were a main (large) part of that day’s meal 

(Table X1X-21). In other words, wild foods were the main part of the meal for about 85 percent of the 

respondents who ate wild foods on the day before the survey. This finding is consistent with the harvest 

survey results. Caribou, sheefish, bearded seal, salmon, and moose -- in that order -- accounted for the 

largest resource harvests. Such wild foods were likely to be the main portion of a meal. It is also 

consistent with local researchers’ observations that wild foods usually were the “main dish” and store 

foods were “side dishes” in meals observed in the community. When asked who harvested the wild food 

eaten yesterday, the most frequent response was that the respondent harvested it himself or herself 

(19.4 percent), followed by a relative in a different household (16.3 percent), and a friend in a different 

household (10.2 percent). Relatives in the same household (7.1 percent) and relatives in a different 

community (8.2 percent) accounted for most of the remainder. 

Respondents were asked whether they thought clams or seals harvested in the Kotzebue area 

were safe for children to eat. In the case of clams, which were harvested by only 4 percent of the 

sampled households and comprised less than 400 pounds of the total community harvest, exactly half of 

the respondents thought clams were safe to eat (Table X1X-22). Most other respondents (42 percent) did 

not know, and a few (8 percent) said clams were not safe. The latter respondents believed clams were 

unsafe because clams looked bad (25 percent of the “unsafe” responses), clams had been polluted from 

a non-oil spill source (25 percent), respondents were uncertain of clams’ safety (25 percent), or no 

response (25 percent). In the case of seals, which were used by 61.9 percent of the sampled 

XIX-1 5 
households, a substantial majority (91 .I percent) thought seals were safe to eat, while 3.8 percent did not 

know, and 1.3 percent said seals were not safe. The only reason cited for seals being unsafe was 

pollution from a non-oil source. 

Respondents’ assessments of recent trends in local fish and wildlife populations available for 

harvest indicate a general perception of stable wildlife availability, with a few exceptions. More than half 

of respondents believed that caribou, bear, ringed seal, bearded seal, sea duck, whitefish, and Arctic 

char availability was about the same in 1991 as in 1988 (Table X1X-23). Less than half the respondents 

believed that common murre, salmon, and clam availability was the same as in 1988. For salmon, 29.5 

percent believed salmon were less available, while for common murre and clams 36.8 percent and 37.6 

percent reported they did not know how availability might have changed. In the case of caribou and 

bear, 8 percent and 3.4 percent respectively, believed that availability had increased since 1988. 

Respondents’ assessments of increasing caribou and decreasing salmon availability were consistent with 

Department of Fish and Game population assessments during the same period. 

Approximately three out of four Kotzebue respondents reported no change in sharing practices, 

either from the previous year or from before the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS). Sharing of wild 

resources was perceived to be the “same” as the previous year by 77.6 percent of the respondents, and 

the same as before EVOS by 82.1 percent (Table X1X-25). Sharing of hunting and fishing gear was 

perceived to be the same as the previous year by 83.0 percent, and the same as before EVOS by 81.6 

percent. Sharing of money was perceived to be the same as the previous year by 73.3 percent, and the 

same as before EVOS by 77.5 percent. Sharing of labor was perceived to be the same as the previous 

year by 76.3 percent, and the same as before EVOS by 78.7 percent. The remainder of the respondents 

were more or less evenly divided among those who perceived sharing to be “less” and those who 

perceived sharing to be “more.” This distribution of responses strongly suggested that sharing practices 

had remained constant in Kotzebue. 

A similar constant pattern was evident in responses to questions about participation in 

community activities. In Kotzebue, 61.9 percent of the respondents reported that they “sometimes” 

attended public meetings in the previous year, while 64.6 percent reported they “sometimes” attended 

public meetings before EVOS (Table X1X-26). Those who “neveT attended public meetings in the 

previous year comprised 23.2 percent of the sample, while before EVQS they comprised 26.6 percent, 

Those who “always” attended public meetings in the previous year comprised 11 .I percent, while before 

EVOS they comprised 10.3 percent. Thus participation in meetings evidenced little change. About three 

quarters of the sample (75.8 percent) reported belonging to a Native corporation. NANA Regional 

Corporation was named by 86.7 percent of the corporate members, and the Kotzebue village corporation 

was named by 73.3 percent. Several other corporations were represented in Kotzebue, most by a single 

member. Respondents reported a fairly high level of participation in elections, ranging from 64.6 percent 

in the last city election, to 71.7 percent the last state-wide election, to 75.3 percent in the last Native 

XIX-1 6 
village corporation election, to 85.3 percent in the last Native regional corporation election. In sum, 

participation in community activities appeared to be relatively high and constant during the years probed 

by the social effects questionnaire. 

Eighty percent of the respondents said their view of a good leader had not changed since EVOS. 

Of the 14.7 percent whose view had changed, 75 percent offered no reason or did not know why their 

view had changed, 18.8 percent said they had become more aware or involved themselves, 18.8 percent 

said they were looking for more decisive leadership, and 12.5 percent said that leaders’ lifestyle (e.g., 

sobriety) was more important to them than before. Respondents were asked to assess the influence of 

elders in their community during the past three years; 27.3 percent said elders’ influence had stayed the 

same, while 31.3 percent responded “decreased” and 33.3 percent responded “increased.” 

Several questions probed respondents’ attitudes about the significance of the place in which they 

lived, including reasons for moving to and remaining in Kotzebue, expectations for future residence 

there, degree of confidence in continued access to hunting, fishing, and gathering areas, and changes in 

satisfaction with the community post EVOS (Table X1X-27). Most respondents offered one of three 

reasons for moving or returning to Kotzebue; 35.4 percent said Kotzebue was where they were from, 

29.3 percent cited job opportunities, and 11.1 percent said relatives lived here. Other reasons for 

moving or returning to Kotzebue cited by more than one respondent included marriage, cultural reasons, 

quality of life, and family. A subsequent question provided a list of reasons for living in Kotzebue and 

asked respondents whether each reason was a factor in their decision to live in Kotzebue. The most 

common response, by 74.7 percent of the respondents, was job opportunities, followed by friends (70.7 

percent), hunting and fishing opportunities (70.7 percent), and personal freedom (70.7). More than half 

the respondents named seven additional reasons, including community size, recreational activities, 

relatives, educational opportunities, stores, scenery, and medical services. Thus, no single factor 

predominated. Respondents then were asked for the “most important reason why you remain” in 

Kotzebue. The responses to this question generally were consistent with the earlier responses; 23.2 

percent cited jobs, and 18.2 percent said Kotzebue was where they were from. Interestingly, although 

hunting and fishing opportunities were cited by 70.7 percent as a reason for living in Kotzebue, they were 

cited by only 9.1 percent as the “most important” reason for remaining in Kotzebue. One explanation for 

this might be that while hunting and fishing opportunities are available in Kotzebue, opportunities in 

smaller nearby communities are in many ways greater. People may remain in Kotzebue for reasons of 

jobs, friends, and family, even though they know hunting and fishing opportunities could be greater 

elsewhere in the region. More over, 55.6 percent of the respondents said they would continue living in 

Kotzebue even if wild foods were not available in the area. But a majority believed that was unlikely; 

70.1 percent were confident that they would be able to continue using places they now used for hunting, 

fishing, and gathering. Of the 23.7 percent who were not sure of continued access, the most common 

reason for possible loss of access, by far, was increased restrictions (54.2 percent), followed by 

XIX-1 7 
population pressure (20.8 percent), environmental damage (12.5 percent), increased development (8.3 

percent), and Native ownership of lands (8.3 percent, presumably non-Native respondents). Although 

42.4 percent of the respondents said they would move to another community if they could, 72.7 percent 

expected to be living in the region when they were old. Taken together, the responses suggest a 

population attracted to Kotzebue for many reasons, but especially for economic opportunities and 

interpersonal relationships. There was considerable confidence in the future, at least for wildlife 

harvesting, and an expectation of a life-long relationship with the region. 

A series of questions explored the perceived effectiveness of a variety of organizations. When 

Kotzebue respondents were asked to assess effectiveness, by far the most common response was “don’t 

know” (Table X1X-28). Because Kotzebue was far removed from the EVOS and no event of a similar 

magnitude had recently occurred in the region, Kotzebue residents have had less opportunity to observe 

organizations in action and thus had less information to measure effectiveness than residents of, for 

example, Prince William Sound communities. However, while on average 60 percent of the responses 

for each organization were “don’t know,” this was not true for Exxon. Only 29.5 percent of the 

respondents felt they did not know how effective Exxon had been. Exxon received the highest 

percentage of “not effective” responses (30.5 percent) and the highest percentage of “somewhat 

effective” responses (28.4 percent). It received an average percentage of “effective” responses (6.3 

percent). All of which indicates that Exxon had the highest profile for respondents, and it was perceived 

as not effective. Other organizations with high profiles (i.e., relatively few “don’t know” responses) 

included VECO and NANA Regional Corporation. The highest percentage of “effective” responses (28.0 

percent) and second lowest percentage of “not effective responses (6.5 percent) were accorded to NANA 

Regional Corporation. Thus NANA was perceived as the most effective organization by a wide margin. 

VECO was perceived as somewhat more effective than average (13.7 percent “effective). Like VECO, 

the U.S. Coast Guard and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation received higher than 

average “effective” responses, 12.6 percent and 11.6 percent respectively. All other organizations were 

perceived as “effective” by fewer than 10 percent of the respondents. 

A final series of questions on the social effects questionnaire dealt with the effects of OCS 

development on resource availability and on jobs, and with the ability of government and industry to 

clean up oil spills of two different magnitudes (Table X1X-30). Most Kotzebue respondents believed that 

the off-shore search for and development of oil and gas in the area would decrease the amount of 

wildlife available for harvest. Those who predicted a decrease ranged from 56.6 percent for land 

mammals, to 65.7 percent for shellfish, to 67.7 percent for birds, to 77.8 percent for fish, to 81.8 percent 

for marine mammals. Most of the remaining respondents predicted no change, although 15.3 percent 

said they did not know what the effect might be on shellfish. Only one respondent thought the availability 

of any wildlife might increase, that being shellfish. The perceived impact of oil and gas development on 

XIX-l 8 
employment opportunity was different; 62.6 percent of the respondents expected oil development to 

create more jobs for local people, while 29.3 did not expect more jobs. 

Respondents were asked whether they thought a small (less than 1,000 barrels) and a large 

(more than 100,000 barrels) oil spill could be cleaned up today. For the small spill, 19.2 percent said 

“yes,” 25.3 percent said “maybe,” and 47.5 percent said “no”. For the large spill, 8.1 percent said “yes,” 

15.2 percent said “maybe,” and 69.7 percent said “no.” 

XIX-19 
8 8 R s u-3 0 

Y 7 

uo!ielndod snsuq 

XIX-20 
Table XIX-l. Sample Participation: Kotzebue 1992 

VARIABLE 

Non-Residential Structures 

Estimated Households 

Total Panel 

interview Goal: 

Households Interviewed 

Failed to ContacWUnavailable 

Refused 

Vacant Residential Structures 

Seasonal Households” 

Non-Resident Household l ** 

Invalid Households and Vacancies 

Failed to Contact: HH Interviewed 

Refused: HH Interviewed 

SI Household Moved 

SI Respondent Deceased 

SI Panel Disposition 

Total Households Attempted: 

Refusal Rate: 

~ Non-Penn. HH Rate (Vacancy Rate”): 

Interview Goal (Percentage) 

0 NA 

28 NA 

2 NA 

72 NA 

42 148 

3.03% 34.62% 

0.0% 4.1% 

64.0% 136.0% 

Social Effects Surveys Completed 31 1 681 99 

Total Permanent Households 

Percentage Interviewed 

Percentage of Total Households 

Interview Weighting Factor 

42 767 809 

76.19% 8.87% 12.36% 

5.19% 94.81% 100.00% 

1.313 11.279 8.090 

NOTES: 

. Includes panel members who were not attempted to contact. 

l * Seasonal households are households which maintain a permanent domicile elsewhere where they sp 

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. 

XIX-21 
Table XIX-2 Demographic Characteristics of Households, 

Kotzebue; January 1992 

Characteristics 1991 

Sampled Households 

Number of Households in the Community 

Percentage of Households Sampled 

100 

809 

12.36 

Household Size 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

4.51 

1 

12 

Sample Population 

Estimated Community Population 

451 

3,648.59 

Age 

Mean 23.88 

Minimum 0.16 

Maximum 86.16 

Median 20.93 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

16.35 

0.16 

74.50 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

24.75 

0.5 

74.50 

Sex 

Males 

Number 

Percentage 

Females 

Number 

Percentage 

Unknown 

Number 

Percentage 

1,933.51 

52.99 

1,690.81 

46.34 

24.27 

0.67 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 

Percentage 

Estimated Population 

Number 

Percentage 

695.74 

86.00 

3,066.ll 

84.04 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992. 

x1x-22 
400 350 300 250 200 150 IW 50 0 60 100 150 200 250 300 

POPULATION 

I 0 MALE W FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Table X1X-3. Population Profile, Kotzebue, January 1992 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 372.14 

59 177.98 

lo-14 226.52 

15-19 105.17 

20-24 153.71 

25-29 186.07 

30-34 129.44 

35-39 129.44 

40-44 121.35 

45-49 88.99 

50-54 72.81 

55-59 32.36 

60-64 32.36 

65-69 32.38 

70-74 8.09 

75 - 79 0.00 

80 - 84 0.00 

85 - 89 0.W 

90-94 0.00 

95-99 0.00 

loo-104 0.W 

Missing 64.72 

19.25% 

9.21% 

11.72% 

5.44% 

7.95% 

9.52% 

6.69% 

6.89% 

6.28% 

4.80% 

3.77% 

1.67% 

1.67% 

1.67% 

0.42% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

3.35% 

19.25% 

28.45% 

40.17% 

45.61% 

53.56% 

63.18% 

69.87% 

76.57% 

82.85% 

87.45% 

91.21% 

92.89% 

94.56% 

96.23% 

98.65% 

96.65% 

98.65% 

96.85% 

98.65% 

96.65% 

96.65% 

lW.W% 

275.98 16.27% 16.27% 

202.25 11.98% 28.23% 

153.71 9.09% 37.32% 

145.62 8.61% 45.93% 

56.63 3.35% 49.28% 

218.43 12.92% 62.20% 

121.35 7.18% 69.30% 

105.17 6.22% 75.60% 

88.99 5.28% 80.86% 

48.54 2.87% 83.73% 

40.45 2.39% 86.12% 

32.36 1.91% 88.04% 

32.38 1.91% 89.95% 

16.18 0.98% 90.91% 

32.36 1.91% 92.82% 

0.00 0.00% 92.82% 

0.00 0.00% 92.82% 

8.09 0.48% 93.30% 

0.00 0.00% 93.30% 

0.00 0.00% 93.30% 

0.00 O.W% 93.30% 

113.26 6.73% lW.W% 

847.20 17.86% 

380.23 10.49% 

380.23 10.49% 

250.79 6.92% 

210.34 5.80% 

404.50 11.16% 

250.79 6.92% 

234.61 6.47% 

210.34 5.89% 

137.53 3.79% 

113.26 3.13% 

64.72 1.79% 

64.72 1.79% 

48.54 1.34% 

40.45 1.12% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

8.99 0.22% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 O.W% 

177.98 4.91% 

17.86% 

28.35% 

38.84% 

45.78% 

51.56% 

62.72% 

69.64% 

76.12% 

81.92% 

85.71% 

88.84% 

90.63% 

92.41% 

93.75% 

94.87% 

94.87% 

94.87% 

95.09% 

95.09% 

95.09% 

95.09% 

1 W.W% 

TOTAL 1,933.51 53.35% 1,690.81 46.65% 3,624.32 lW.W% I 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

XIX-23 
Table XIX-4 Employment Characteristics, Kotzebue, 1991 

Characteristics 1991 

ADULTS 

Total 1,982.05 

Employed 

Number 1,44&l 1 

Percentage 73.06 

Jobs 

Number 1,731.26 

Mean 1.20 

Minimum 1 

Maximum 3 

Months Employed 

Mean 8.63 

Minimum 1 

Maximum 12 

Year-Round 45.81 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Total 809.00 

Employed 

Number 760.46 

Percentage 94.00 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 2.28 

Minimum 1 

Maximum 9 

Employed Adults 

Mean 1.90 

Minimum 1 

Maximum 7 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992. 

XIX-24 
Table X1X-5. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by Employer Type, Kotzebue, 1991 

INCOME SOURCE 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $46,284,543.56 .$57,212.04 $12,685.60 

Earned Income $40,452,705&l $5o,W3.34 $11,087.22 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 540,412.w 668.00 146.12 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 540,412.w 668.W 146.12 

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Fishing 540,412.W 668.00 148.12 

Hunting/Trapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 1.313,816.00 1,624.OO 360.09 

Construction AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Manufacturing 145.620.00 180.00 39.91 

Cannery 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other Manufacturing 145620.00 180.00 39.91 

Loggingnimber 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 4.623539.01 5715.13 1.267.21 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

2,540,296.85 3,140.05 696.24 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

2,540,296.85 3,140.W 696.24 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 4.979.492.06 6,155.12 1,364.n 

Services 6,689,410.17 8,145.13 1,606.02 

Government 19,720,119.82 24,375.92 5,404.86 

Federal 1,181,14O.W 1.460.00 323.73 

State 3,417.216.W 4.224.00 936.59 

Local 15.121.763.82 18,691.92 4.144.55 

Local Government 2.424.384.23 2.996.77 664.47 

Local Education 12.697.379.59 15.695.15 3.480.08 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Ixome 

- 

S5.031 e837.62 97.208 ‘0 $1.59838 

,OURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

XIX-25 
Table X1X-6. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Kotzebue, 1991 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

JI Sources $5,831.837.62 $7,208.70 $1.598.38 

Exxon Claims 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 4.00 255,781.53 316.17 70.10 

Adult Public Assistance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Exxon Damages 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Pension/Retirement 13.00 696g41.35 860.37 190.77 

Longevity Bonus 10.00 242,700.OO 300.00 66.52 

Social Security 14.00 615.01922 760.22 168.56 

Workman’s CompJlnsurance 1 .oo 8.090.00 10.00 2.22 

Energy Assistance 7.00 3Q337.50 37.50 8.31 

Supplemental Security Income 4.00 88,148.64 108.96 24.16 

Food Stamps 12.00 27leO71.63 335.07 74.29 

Unemployment 9.00 132.409.03 163.67 36.29 

Native Corporation Dividend 83.00 326,702.61 403.84 89.54 

Dividend/Interest 4.00 65.529.00 81 .OO 17.96 

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 2,982,257.15 3.686.35 817.37 

Weatherization 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 

ASRC Elder Trust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other 4.00 117,749.95 145.55 32.27 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

XIX-26 
XIX-27 
XIX-28 
Tabta X1X-8. Charadteristks of Resource Harvest and Use, Kotzebue, 1991 

udy Year 

aan Number Of Rssourcss Used Par Housshdd 

Minimum 

Maxtmum 

95 % Conf*nde Limit (+I-) 

Median 

ean Number Of Resources Attempted To Harvest Per Houssbld 

Minimum 

Miocimum 

95 % Confm timlt (+I-) 

Median 

Iaan Number Of Rasoumas Harvested Per Household 

Minimum 

f&&mum 

95 % Confidence Ltmtt (+/-) 

Median 

lean Number Of Resdurces Received Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 

Median 

lean Number Of Resources Giin Away Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Conftienda Limit (+I-) 

Mediin 

kan Househotd Harvest, Pounds 

Minimum 

Maximum 

‘otal Pounds Harvested 

:ommunity Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 

‘ercent Using Any Resource 

‘ercent Attempting To Harvsst Any Resource 

‘erdent Harvesting Any Resource 

)ercent Receiving Any Resource 

Bercent Giving Away Any Resource 

Wmber Of Households In Sample 

Uumbsr of Resources Available 

1991 

14.99 

0 

56 

10.72 

14 

9.52 

0 

54 

15.94 

8 

8.95 

0 

50 

16.03 

7 

8.64 

0 

27 

12.89 

8 

6.22 

0 

29 

18.63 

4 

2,673.71 

0.00 

47,992.80 

2,163,032.6! 

592.84 

99.00 

97.00 

95.00 

94.00 

84.W 

loo 

89 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fii and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

XIX-29 
Table X1X-9. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources. 

Kotzebue, 1991 

Study Year 

Total Number of People 

GAME Hunt 

Process 

FISH Fish 

FURBEARERS Hunt or Trap 

Process 

PLANTS Gather 

ANY RESOURCE 

Attempt 

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 

IURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

Household Survey, 1992. 

1991 

3,648.59 

1383.39 

37.92 

165.17 

2.88 

I,67463 

45.90 

105.17 

2.88 

1909.24 

52.33 

105.17 

2.68 

2,014.41 

55.21 

105.17 

2.88 

97.08 

2.66 

165.17 

2.88 

177.98 

4.88 

145.62 

399 

2.23284 

61.20 

105.17 

2.88 

2.079.13 

56.98 

106.17 

2.66 

2.710.15 

74.28 

2548.35 

69.84 

Subsistence, 

XIX-30 
5 

$ ?8888?888s8???8888???88~8?8~88?? 

0 

~00~N000000N000r00r0~0-~--0000-~ 

E 

88888888 8888888888888g8888888g88 

XIX-31 
XIX-32 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 8 9 

0 

s z 5: z2 

8 s 

9 0

-c z - Y- -c Y 

UOSJ+J lad Spunod 

xix-33 
xix-34 
Table XIX-1 1. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight 

per Person by Resource Category, Kotzebue, 1986 and 1991 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

1986 1991 

Salmon 73.1 75.2 

Other Fish 88.3 162.6 

Land Mammals 113.1 177.5 

Marine Mammals 109.3 157.7 

Birds and Eggs 6.5 3.5 

Marine Invertebrate 0.2 

Wild Plants 7.7 16.2 

All Resources I 398.1 592.8 

Table X1X-12. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Kotzebue, 1986 and 1991 

Percentage of Total Harvest 

1986 1991 

Salmon 

Other Fish 

Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Birds and Eggs 

Marine Invertebrate 

Wild Plants 

18.4% 12.7% 

22.2% 27.4% 

28.4% 29.9% 

27.5% 26.6% 

1.6% 0.6% 

0.0% 

1.9% 2.7% 

XIX-35 
XIX-36 
XIX-37 
XIX-38 
o)- 

L 

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cq q 0.9 0.4 9 0.0.9 

XIX-39 
XIX-40 
XIX-41 
XIX-42 
XIX-43 
XIX-44 
XIX-45 
XIX-46 
. i c I N I ; 

x x 

al 

r; 

P 

XIX-47 
.C 

P 0 I 

E! E 

. 

ti 

E 

x 

Q 

ii 

L 

XIX-48 
: . . 

I is! IC 

XIX-49 
XIX-50 
+-+-+ -+ 

XIX-51 
XIX-52 
xix-53 
XIX-54 
f 

.- 

i 

x 

x 

XIX-55 
N -m 

. 

x -Pl 

. 

x s-m 

. 

x -Ia 

. 

x -l-l 

. 

x --Pl 

. 

XIX-56 
. 

E .- 

.z > .- 

z < 

.C 

z P 

XIX-57 
.+ 

, 8 

-+ 

XIX-58 
. 

3 
XIX-60 
t 

XIX-61 
o^ 

s 

C 

.- 

XIX-62 
+-+ 

I 

, 

+- 

XIX-63 
XIX-64 
E 

K 

t 

.F 

8 

.c 

0 

-z 

I 

+-; 

, 

+-t 

XIX-65 
XIX-66 
. 

% 

E 

x 

XIX-67 
. . . . 

8 2, 8 I z 

XIX-68 
XIX-69 
XIX-70 
XIX-71 
XIX-72 
CHAPTER XX: KIVALINA 

by 

James Magdanz, Susan Georgette, and Ronald T. Stanek 

COMMUNITY OVERVIEW 

Kivalina is a small liiupiat community located about 80 miles above the Arctic Circle and 80 

miles northwest of Kotzebue on the Chukchi Sea coast. The 1990 U.S. census for Kivalina reported 317 

people in 67 households. Kivalina was the most western and most northern community in the Northwest 

Arctic Borough, which included Kotzebue and nine other communities. Neighboring communities 

included Point Hope, 73 miles northwest, and Noatak, about 45 miles east. The Kotzebue chapter 

(Chapter XIX) in this volume presents a regional overview, including Prehistory, contact history, and 

twentieth century economic and political development. Those discussions apply to Kivalina as well, so 

this chapter will forgo a regional perspective and will focus on Kivalina. 

Kivalina is situated on a narrow barrier island that separates Corwin (Kivalina) Lagoon from the 

sea. Flowing into the lagoon are the Kivalina and Wulik rivers which drain from the DeLong Mountains 

about 50 miles northeast. Between Kivalina Lagoon and the mountains is an area of low gravel hills 

which form the Kivalina flats. The flats are about 120 square miles in extent and characterized by pingos 

(pressure ridges caused by permafrost) and a large number of ponds and lakes. The area is bordered on 

the southeast by the Mulgrave Hills and on the northwest by several smaller groups of hills. A layer of 

permafrost underlies the surface soils, and tundra vegetation grows over most of the surface with 

clusters of willows and other shrubs along the rivers. Climate and weather patterns of the area are 

subject to maritime influences of the Chukchi Sea and ice persists during much of the year. Daytime 

summer temperatures may reach to 50F or 6OF, while freezing conditions last into June and return again 

in August and September. Sea ice begins to form on the Chukchi Sea near Kivalina in October, begins 

to open into leads in April, and persists as a loose pack into May and June. 

Wildlife resources of the region include several big game species: caribou, moose, brown bear, 

wolves, wolverine, and Dall sheep. Small game and furbearer species include waterfowl, ptarmigan, 

hare, fox, ground squirrel, weasel, mink, land otter, and lynx. Several marine mammals inhabit the 

Chukchi Sea near Kivalina including bowhead and gray whales, belukha, four species of seals, polar 

bear, and walrus. Freshwater and saltwater fish species of the area include salmon, Dolly Varden, 

whitefish, grayling, burbot, cod, and smelt. A wide variety of wild plants grow in the area; some of those 

commonly used for human consumption include berries, roots, and a variety of greens. Although no 

trees grow along the Chukchi sea coast, wood from interior rivers to the south and east drifts ashore and 

lodges along the beach. 

xx-l 
Archeological evidence at the modern Kivalina site is scant, but occupancy of the general area 

during the past 10,000 years has been thoroughly documented. In the nineteenth century, the Kivalina 

area was occupied by the Kivalinamiut, one of eleven traditional lnupiat societies in the area now known 

as the Northwest Arctic Borough. A two-year famine in 1881-83 virtually destroyed the traditional 

society; Burch reports that 60 percent of the population died in the first year and 50 percent of the 

survivors died in the second. The few remaining people left the area. The community was reborn in 

1905, when a school was built on the island where Kivalina now exists, and a settlement grew up around 

the school. The founding Native population consisted of survivors of the aboriginal Kivalinamiuf Society, 

as well as refugees from the Shishmaref area, the upper and lower Noatak Valley, and the Kotzebue 

region. A few Point Hope people married into the community in later years. 

Kivalina has been the focus of scientific research for more than three decades, initially as a 

result -of its proximity to Cape Thompson, where the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission planned to 

demonstrate the peaceful use of nuclear explosives by digging a demonstration deep water port. The 

project was scuttled in 1964, but not before several environmental studies had been conducted in the 

area. Doris Saario, Brina Kessel, and Ernest Burch observed, participated in, and recorded subsistence 

activities by residents of Kivalina from 1959 through 1961 (Wilimovsky and Wolfe 1966). Burch refined 

data collection methods and continued to collect social and economic data from 1964 through 1966 

(Burch 1985). Additional subsistence information was collected in the early 1970s by Northwest Alaska 

Native Association (NANA) Regional Corporation for the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning 

Commission for Alaska (Patterson 1974). The development of Red Dog mine in the 1980s prompted 

more research in Kivalina, providing new information on the fall fishery there (Braund and Burnham 

1983). Under contact to the Division of Subsistence, Burch revisited Kivalina from 1982-84 to replicate 

his 1964-66 study, and produced an extensive comparative report (Burch 1985). Burch’s work laid down 

a valuable baseline for Kivalina, provided the only rigorous comparison of subsistence harvests before 

and after the technological revolution that transformed rural Alaska in the 1970s, and advanced harvest 

data collection methodologies in general. His findings will be summarized here, with social and 

economic observations in this section, and subsistence harvest observations in the harvest comparison 

section below. 

Burch (19852-l 1) describes population and economic changes in Kivalina over a 20-year 

period, from 1964 to 1984. The material status of the community changed dramatically. While the 

population increased by 58 percent, housing stock almost doubled, living space quadrupled, fuel oil 

replaced wood heat, snow machines replaced dog teams, and travel into and out of the community 

quadrupled. Combined collect on delivery (C.O.D.) and money orders totaled $11,038 in 1964, 

compared with $209,674 in 1984, an 1,800% increase. The social structure of the community, however, 

was stable during the period; all the local families that operated in 1960 were still operating in 1984. 

xx-2 
Bowhead whaling resumed in 1968 after a decades-long hiatus, and community morale, Burch reports, 

was much higher in the 1980s than in the 1960s. 

In 1984 the community had reached a stage of development where Several federal housing 

development projects had built modern homes with oil heat and electricity, but there was no running 

water or sewage system. Scattered among the more recently built homes were a number of unoccupied 

structures built during the 1950s and 1960s. Many of these were used as storage sheds. Other buildings 

in the community included a modern school for grades kindergarten-12 equipped with a library, 

gymnasium, kitchen, clinic, and shop facility; a fire hall; a post office; a village store; a city hall occupied 

by the village government; a community recreation hall; and two churches. Two large water storage 

tanks supplied the school with its water and the village with a portion of its supply. Many people still 

relied on the local river for their water supply. 

The changes from 1984 to 1992 were not as dramatic as in the earlier period, although the trend 

toward a higher standard of living continued. This study did not collect all the community-level economic 

data needed to allow detailed comparisons with Burch’s 1960s and 1980s studies, but some general 

observations can be made. During the latter period, Kivalina’s population increased from 270 to 344 (27 

percent). Housing stock increased from 47 to 72 households (53 percent), but the general quality of 

housing remained constant. Technologies for home heating, home appliances, communications, and 

transportation evolved, but in no way could the changes be compared to the revolution that had occurred 

in the previous two decades. Except for the school and clinic, there still was no centralized water and 

sewer system. Kivalina still was not connected by road to any other community; access was by small 

commuter airplanes all year round, by boat during periods of open water, and by snow machine or dog 

team during the winter. Small all-terrain vehicles (“four-wheelers”) were used within the community and 

along the beaches, but rarely for inter-community travel. 

One significant change in the quality of community life occurred in the mid-l 980s when the U.S. 

Postal Service began granting mail contracts to all scheduled air carriers. Previously the service had 

contracted with a single carrier through competitive bids, a “winner take all” system. The winning carrier 

usually was the only carrier who could afford to provide scheduled service, and did so essentially without 

competition for the period of the contract. The new system distributed mail revenues to as many air 

carriers as could economically operate. Each carrier received less total mail income, but all could 

depend on a constant revenue stream. This dependable revenue helped support an exponential 

increase in air taxi services within the region. Instead of receiving air taxi service several times a week, 

communities began receiving air service several times a day, and with much improved equipment. As a 

consequence, travel was much easier and imported groceries were much fresher in 1992 than in 1984. 

Another significant change was the opening of Red Dog Mine in 1989, which held forth promise 

of considerable local employment. This open-pit, lead-zinc mine was a joint venture between NANA 

Regional Corporation and Cominco, Inc. The mine was located about 50 miles northeast of Kivalina, and 

xx-3 
its ore was shipped from a port site about 20 miles southeast of Kivalina. The mine and the port were 

connected by a road built expressly for the purpose. For reasons beyond the scope of this report, 

however, Kivalina did not benefit as much from mine employment as residents had expected, Kivalina’s 

proximity to the mine notwithstanding. Then Kivalina, being the only community within the watershed 

occupied by Red Dog Mine, took the brunt of a widely-publicized water contamination incident shortly 

after the mine opened. Kivalina residents were keenly aware that contaminated water from Red Dog 

Creek flowed in the Wulik River, where Kivalina obtained its drinking water. Finally, following the 

opening of the mine access road, Kivalina hunters reported less success in caribou hunting. Some 

believed the new road adversely affected local patterns of caribou migration, to Kivalina’s detriment. 

These events could be expected to influence Kivalina residents’ opinions towards industrial development 

in general and mineral development in particular. 

Other environmental, societal, and economic conditions in the region before and after the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill are discussed in the Kotzebue chapter in this volume (pages XIX-3 to XIX-S). That 

discussion -- which includes Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations, material 

culture, natural resource management, and wildlife populations -- is pertinent to Kivalina as well as to 

Kotzebue, and is incorporated here by reference. 

In the 1990s Kivalina had relatively few sources of full-time cash employment. However, parttime jobs usually were available during the summer months. Some people from Kivalina traveled to 

Kotzebue for part-time employment as laborers, machinery operators, commercial fishermen, and 

clerical staff. Arts and crafts such as skin sewing, bone and ivory carving, and baleen etching also 

provided small amounts of cash to the economy. A few people have worked as equipment operators and 

laborers at the Red Dog Mine. Of primary and continuing importance to the Kivalina economy were the 

annual subsistence harvests of wild resources which are the focus of activities throughout much of the 

year. Detailed descriptions of the annual cycle of harvest along with the enumeration of major resource 

groups can be found in Burch (1985). The most important resource groups harvested by Kivalina 

residents include char, marine mammals, and caribou. 

RESEARCH METHODS 

Field work occurred in Kivalina during the second year of the project. The Kivalina “study year” 

was the period from January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992. In early January 1993, Jim Magdanz, 

Subsistence Resource Specialist II from Kotzebue, met with the Kivalina City Council to review survey 

questions and seek community approval for the project. Following approval by the city council, Magdanz 

and Stanek traveled to Kivalina on January 19 to hire and train Joe Swan Sr., Becky Norton, and 

Gretchen Booth as local assistants. After training, the group was joined by Jimmie Evak, Fish & Game 

xx-4 
Technician III from Kotzebue, and a week later by Tracy Andrews with the Minerals Management 

Service. Household interviews began on January 23, and all but two were completed by January 30. 

The last two surveys were completed by local assistants in February and March. On average, resource 

harvest interviews required nine-tenths hour to complete, and ranged from one-quarter hour to three and 

on-sixth hours in length (Table l-5). A summary of sample achievement in Kivalina is provided in Table 

XX-l, Table xX-2. 

DEMOGRAPHY 

From the total 72 households in the community, the 62 sampled households (86.11 percent) in 

this study had a mean size of 4.77 persons, and ranged from one to 12 persons (Table M-2). While the 

sample population totaled 296 persons, the expanded estimate totaled 343.7 persons. The average age 

of Kivalina residents was 25.05 years with the oldest person in the survey being 81.8 years. The 

average length of residency was 21.16 years; the longest residing person had lived in Kivalina more than 

80.9 years. The gender makeup of Kivalina residents was 53.04 percent male and 46.96 percent female. 

The ethnic composition of the community for the total estimated population was 95.27 percent Native. 

MONETARY ECONOMY 

Kivalina’s monetary economy depended primarily upon government spending for administration, 

education, health, and social services, with secondary contributions from mining and retail trade, and 

services. According to the study findings, the average total (earned and other) household income in 

Kivalina in 1992 was $32,954.48 and the average per capita income was $6,902.63 (Table xX-5). 

Earned income sources provided 60.7 percent and other sources provided 39.3 percent (Table xX-5). 

Most prominent among the earned sources was government which contributed an average $10,749.97 

per household. Other major sources of cash income included the mining industry with an average 

household amount of $3,824.32, trade with $2,806.40, and the service sector with $1,754.11. Lesser 

amounts of income originated from commercial fishing (185.47), and from finance, insurance, and real 

estate ($480.65). 

Other income sources (Table xX-6) generated a household average of $12,847.53 in 1992. 

Among the 17 different sources of other income, the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend generated largest 

amount per household ($3,922.55), while other sources contributing significant amounts included Aid to 

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) ($1 ,015.62), food stamps ($1,648.85), unemployment 

($1,688.54), and Native corporation dividends (1,076.52). A variety of sources produced lesser sums of 

money. 

xx-5 
Sources of cash employment for Kivalina residents during the study period were very limited as 

indicated by the low level of employment (56.55 percent) among the estimated 195.1 employment-age 

adults during the year (Table xX-4). Kivalina residents were highly dependent on government sources 

including the school and support facilities (local government-education) and village government for 

almost half (49 percent) of the jobs during 1992 (Fig XX-3). The other job sectors which provided 

employment were: mining, with 8 percent of the jobs involving working at the Red Dog mine located 

about 50 miles away; services, with 9 percent of the jobs in health, social, and repair services; retail 

trade, with 14 percent of the jobs primarily in two stores; and several other sources including commercial 

fishing (4 percent), transportation, communication, and utilities (T.C.U.) (4 percent), finance, insurance, 

and real estate (F.I.R.E.) (3 percent), and federal and state government (2 percent). 

Four Kivalina households participated in the Kotzebue District commercial salmon fishery. 

These households traveled to Kotzebue by boat in July, maintained seasonal camps south of the Federal 

Aviation Administration flight service station in an area known as “South Tent City,” and normally 

remained in Kotzebue through August. This commercial salmon fishery is discussed in more detail in the 

Kotzebue chapter and readers are referred to that discussion (page X1X-9). 

Overall, employed Kivalina residents worked an average of 6.07 months (Table XX-4). About 20 

percent of the jobs were year-round. The total number of households employed was 62.71 or 87.10 

percent of the 72 total households. For each employed household, there was an average of 2.07 jobs 

and 1.76 persons employed. 

SUBSISTENCE RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE 

The harvest, use, and exchange of wild foods remained a central component of Kivalina’s 

economic, social, and cultural life in 1992. Every surveyed Kivalina household was involved, as 

indicated by the following findings: 100 percent of households used with wild foods in 1992, 98.4 percent 

harvested wild foods, 98.4 percent received wild foods from others, and 90.3 percent gave away wild 

foods (Table XX-II). Because of Kivalina’s isolation and its overall healthy resource base, most 

households attempting to harvest wild foods were successful. Kivalina households harvested a mean of 

14.10 different resources during the study year and used a mean of 20.68 different resources (Table XX7). 

Kivalina residents harvested an estimated 261,744.l edible pounds of wild foods in 1992. This 

was the equivalent of 3,635.33 pounds per household or 761.46 pounds per capita (Table xX-11). 

Kivalina’s 1992 per capita subsistence harvest was approximately 25 percent greater than that reported 

for 1991 by the more populated and diverse nearby regional center of Kotzebue, but was roughly similar 

XX-6 
to the per capita harvests of several other small northern Alaska communities with a marine mammal 

orientation. 

Marine mammals, big game, and fish all figured prominently in Kivalina’s subsistence harvest, 

with none of these resource categories accounting for more that half of the total harvest. In 1992, 

marine mammals contributed the most (41.76 percent) to Kivalina’s harvest by weight, followed by fish 

(33.27 percent), and big game (21.70 percent) (Fig. xX-5). Birds and eggs, small game, marine 

invertebrates, and plants and berries together accounted for 3.26 percent of the harvest by weight. 

Three very different species -- Dolly Varden, caribou, and bearded seal -- accounted for almost 

two-thirds of Kivalina’s harvest. Dolly Varden contributed 26.7 percent to the community’s total harvest, 

bearded seal contributed 20.6 percent, and caribou contributed 18.2 percent. Other species accounting 

for more than three percent of Kivalina’s harvest by weight included: walrus (8.1 percent); bowhead 

whale (5.1 percent); belukha (3.8 percent); and moose (3.5 percent). 

Unlike many communities in other regions of Alaska, salmon played a minor role in Kivalina’s 

subsistence harvest due to their low abundance in the local area. An estimated 936.6 salmon were 

harvested by Kivalina households in 1992, accounting for 1.9 percent of the community’s total harvest. 

Most of these (72.7 percent) were chum salmon. The mean household harvest of salmon was about 13 

fish, equivalent to a per capita harvest of 14.78 pounds (Table xX-11). Salmon were predominantly 

taken with subsistence set gill nets although other gear, particularly beach seines and rods-and-reels, 

was also used (Table xX-13, Table xX-14, Table xX-15). A few Kivalina households moved seasonally 

to Kotzebue in summer to fish in the commercial salmon fishery there, and removed salmon from their 

commercial catch for home use (Table xX-12). 

As described above, Dolly Varden was by far the most significant fish resource in Kivalina, 

accounting for 80.1 percent of the community’s fish harvest in 1992. An estimated 21,149 Dolly Varden 

were harvested by Kivalina households during the study year for a mean of almost 294 fish per 

household (Table xX-11). Most of this (80.08 percent) was harvested with subsistence gear, primarily 

seines and set gill nets, but some were taken with rods-and-reels during periods of open water and with 

handlines through the ice water (Table xX-17). Cod species, particularly Arctic cod but also saffron cod 

and burbot, were also important, accounting for 7.6 percent of Kivalina’s fish harvest or an average of 

about 440 fish per household. Nearly all saffron and Arctic cod fishing took place by hook and line 

through the ice in late fall and early winter (October-December) (Table xX-17). Whitefish species, 

particularly humpback whitefish and Bering cisco, ranked third among fish species in harvest by weight, 

accounting for 5.3 percent of Kivalina’s fish harvest or an average of about 37 fish per household. 

Whitefish were predominantly harvested with subsistence gear, primarily seines and set gill nets. 

Caribou dominated Kivalina’s big game harvest in 1992, accounting for 83.7 percent of the 

community’s big game harvest by weight. An estimated 351 caribou were harvested by Kivalina 

residents for a mean of almost five caribou per household (Table XX-l 1). Moose ranked second among 

xx-7 
big game species in harvest by weight; an estimated 17 moose were taken by Kivalina residents in 1992. 

Kivalina residents also harvested three brown bears during the study year. No Dall sheep were reported 

taken in 1992, although in some years Kivalina residents harvest these in winter in the mountains to the 

northeast. 

Among the marine mammals, seals contributed the most (58.6 percent) to Kivalina’s marine 

mammal harvest by weight. Bearded seals dominated Kivalina’s marine mammal harvest, accounting 

for 49.4 percent of the marine mammal harvest by weight. An estimated 158 bearded seals were taken 

in 1992. Spotted and ribbon seals were taken in smaller numbers. Walrus ranked second after bearded 

seal in terms of pound harvested; an estimated 28 walrus were taken by Kivalina residents in 1992 

(Table XX-l 1). These contributed 19.4 percent of Kivalina’s marine mammal harvest. Whales, 

particularly belukhas and bowheads, were also prominent marine mammal resources. In 1992, Kivalina 

residents harvested 10 belukhas and one bowhead whale. These accounted for 9.1 percent and 12.1 

percent respectively of Kivalina’s marine mammal harvest. 

Kivalina residents also harvested a variety of small game, furbearers, birds, eggs, marine 

invertebrates, plants, and berries. This harvest included an estimated 23 wolverines, 9 wolves, 637 

ptarmigan, 609 ducks, 944 geese, 3,866 eggs, and 710 gallons of berries (Table xX-11). Among 

waterfowl resources, eiders accounted for the largest portion (22.8 percent) of Kivalina’s waterfowl 

harvest by weight, followed by brant (18.6 percent), white-fronted geese (16.6 percent), snow geese 

(15.3 percent), and Canada geese (15.1 percent) (Table XX-l 1). Murre eggs accounted for 82.1 percent 

of Kivalina’s egg harvest by weight. 

Nearly all Kivalina households (98.4 percent) participated in harvest activities. In each resource 

category except marine invertebrates, 70 percent or more of Kivalina households harvested a resource, 

indicating the pervasiveness of resource harvest activities in the lives of Kivalina residents (Fig. XX-1 1). 

Fishing had the highest participation rate (95.2 percent of Kivalina households) while marine mammal 

hunting had the lowest (71.0 percent of household) with the exception of marine invertebrate harvesting 

which was exceedingly minor in Kivalina’s subsistence activities (Table xX-11). Kivalina’s harvest 

participation rates were notably higher than those in the nearby regional center of Kotzebue where in 

1986 75.1 percent of households fished and 18.3 percent hunted marine mammals. The individual 

resources harvested by the greatest percentages of Kivalina households included: Dolly Varden (87.1 

percent of households), berries (83.9 percent of households), Arctic cod (77.4 percent of households), 

saffron cod (74.2 percent of households), caribou (74.2 percent of households), geese (69.4 percent of 

households), and bearded seal (62.9 percent of households) (Table xX-1 1). 

Sharing of major resources was also widespread in Kivalina in 1992. More than half of Kivalina 

households received sheefish, Dolly Varden, caribou, belukha, bowhead whale, walrus, waterfowl, and 

eggs (Table XX-l 1). Forty percent or more of Kivalina households reported giving away Arctic cod, Dolly 

Varden, caribou, belukha, bowhead whale, bearded seal, waterfowl, and berries. Although information 

XX-8 
was not collected on the origin or destination of these resource exchanges, researchers’ observations 

suggest that sheefish, Dolly Varden, belukha, and bowhead whale were common exchange items 

between Kivalina and Kotzebue. 

COMPARISON WITH OTHER YEARS 

Results of the 1992 harvest survey in Kivalina suggest that Kivalina’s subsistence harvest of wild 

foods has remained stable over the past decade. As shown in Figure xX-4, Kivalina’s per capita harvest 

in 1992 closely matched that reported by Burch (1985) for the 1982-83 seasonal round and was 

somewhat less than, but in the same order of magnitude as, that reported for the 1983-84 seasonal 

round. (Because Burch calculated per capita harvests based on live weights of resources, researchers 

used Burch’s data converted to edible weights as appears in the Division’s Community Profile Database.) 

The higher per capita harvest in 1983-84 was largely due to a particularly successful caribou hunting 

season brought about by the presence of large numbers of caribou near Kivalina in the fall and winter 

(Burch 198578). The 1983-84 harvest did not indicate a significant trend, but rather demonstrated the 

annual variations inherent in a community’s subsistence production. 

An examination of Kivalina’s harvest composition at the resource category level also showed a 

general stability but with annual variations more evident than in the total per capita harvest. For 

example, in each of the three years marine mammals contributed the most to Kivalina’s harvest by 

weight, although the exact contribution ranged from 42-50 percent (Fig. xX-5). The contribution of fish to 

Kivalina’s harvest was comparable in two of the three years but the third, in this case 1992, was notably 

higher. The same was true for big game: two of the harvest years were comparable, with the third 

(1983-84) notably higher. The per capita harvest of each resource category similarly reflected a general 

stability despite some variations, most significantly the large big game harvest in 1983-84 (Fig. xX-4). 

These variations in harvest composition were a normal and anticipated feature of subsistence production 

and did not necessarily point to longer-term trends. 

The annual variations in subsistence harvests were strikingly evident at the individual resource 

level. For almost every major resource, one of the three harvest years had an unusually high or low 

harvest compared with the other two. With caribou, 1983-84 was particularly low; with belukha, 1992 

was particularly low; with bowhead whale, 1983-84 was particularly high; and with walrus, 1992 was 

particularly high. Only Dolly Varden showed a stable per capita harvest over the three years, although 

this resource might show similar variations if harvest data were available for more years. 

In 1985 Burch found that while there was relatively little change in the general order of 

magnitude in Kivalina’s subsistence harvest from 1964 to 1984, the composition of the harvest of major 

resources fluctuated dramatically from one year to the next (1985; 109-l 18). This study further supports 

xx-9 
Burch’s findings by documenting the same pattern from the early 1980s to the early 1990s. Data on 

participation in harvest activities were not available from 1982-83 or 1983-84, and so comparisons with 

1992 could not be made. 

SOCIAL EFFECTS RESPONSES 

This section discusses the responses of Kivalina residents to the Social Effects instrument, 

organized in six topics. These include the use of wild foods, sharing practices, community activities, 

significance of place, organizations’ responsiveness to community needs, and Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) development. 

Every sampled household in Kivalina used wild resources during the study year, according to the 

harvest survey results, and 98 percent harvested wild resources (Table XX-II). The same high level of 

use was evident on the social effects survey, where 88.5 percent of the sampled households repot-led 

eating wild foods on the day before the survey, and 86.9 percent reported that wild foods were a main 

part of the meal. This was the highest level of wild food consumption reported in any of the study 

communities in any of the three years of the project, and is consistent with the high harvest levels 

reported for Kivalina throughout the past three decades.. Kivalina households reported that the wild 

foods eaten yesterday were most commonly harvested by the respondent (50.8 percent), then by a 

relative in a different household (49.2 percent), by a relative in the same household (42.6 percent), by a 

friend in a different household in Kivalina (23 percent), or by a relative in a different community (23 

percent). The question asked about “any wild foods that you ate yesterday.” Given such a high level of 

use, it is likely to most households used more than one wild food on the previous day, and also likely that 

more than one person provided wild foods. Given also that several short-term resident teachers were 

included in the survey, who would be less likely to use wild foods daily. it would appear that the 

consumption of wild foods is a daily routine for long-term residents of Kivalina. 

Confidence in wild food safety was high in Kivalina. For seals, 98.3 percent of the respondents 

thought seals from their harvest area were safe for children to eat, for whale muktuk, 96.6 percent, and 

for whitefish, 93.0 percent. Asked why these resources might be unsafe, respondents who answered 

“No” either had no response (one respondent for all three resources), or cited pollution from a non-oil spill 

source (one respondent for muktuk, two respondents for whitefish). Whitefish could have come in 

contact with the heavy metal contamination originating near the Red Dog mine several years before, 

although for an overwhelming majority of respondents this was apparently not a concern in 1993. 

Kivalina respondents were asked to assess the availability of nineteen different fish and wildlife 

species in 1993, compared with ten years ago. Kivalina responses suggest a more dynamic environment 

than nearby Kotzebue responses. The responses may reflect Kivalina’s more unpredictable sea-ice 

XX-IO 
environment, uncertainty about impacts of industrial development near Kivalina, Kivalina’s greater 

contact with and knowledge of wildlife populations, or other factors. In Kotzebue more than half the 

respondents believed, on average, that resource availability had remained the same, whereas in Kivalina 

only a third of the respondents believed availability had remained the same. Only a few respondents in 

Kotzebue believed that resource availability had increased, whereas in Kivalina about I6 percent of the 

responses indicated “more” wildlife were available. Likewise, twice as many Kivalina residents as 

Kotzebue residents believed “less” wildlife was available. Only one species, bearded seal, was thought 

to about the “same” by more than half of the respondents. For all the other I8 species, less than half of 

the respondents believed availability was the “same.” For I3 of the I9 species, the “less” responses 

exceeded the “more” responses, while for the remaining six species, “more” responses exceeded “less” 

responses. 

Immediately evident in the responses was widespread agreement that caribou and belukha 

whale were “less” available in 1993 than in 1983. For caribou, 59.3 percent of the respondents reported 

“less” availability, while for belukha whale, 45.8 percent reported “less” availability (Table xX-21). Only 

5.1 percent and 8.5 percent reported “more” availability for caribou and belukha, respectively, while 25.4 

percent and 32.2 percent reported the “same.” During the interviews, a number of respondents discussed 

the impact of the new road from Red Dog Mine to the Red Dog Port Site, and reported that caribou were 

being deflected by the road and thus were more difficult for Kivalina to harvest. Otherwise, respondents 

assessments of fish and wildlife availability were somewhat inconclusive. Moose, common murre, 

salmon, and polar bear were reported to be “more” available, although almost as many respondents 

believed polar bear were “less” available. Bearded seal, Dolly Varden, ringed seal, and whitefish were 

reported to be about the “same” by approximately half the respondents. 

Increases or decreases in abundance are not necessarily related to increases or decreases in 

harvest, because abundance is only one of many factors influencing harvests. Others include weather, 

ice, and snow conditions, timing and route of seasonal wildlife migrations, availability of alternative 

resources, personal considerations, etc. Because of Burch’s work in Kivalina in 1982 and 1983, harvest 

data do exist for the period “ten years ago.” It is interesting to compare abundance evaluations with 

harvest estimates. Researchers compared the average of the 1982 and 1983 harvests with the reported 

1992 harvest for selected species. Reported harvests of caribou and belukha, believed to be “less” 

available, were 23 percent and 64 percent less, respectively, in 1992. Reported harvests of moose and 

salmon, believed to be “more” available, were 183 percent and 4 percent more, respectively, in 1992. 

And reported harvests of bearded seal and Dolly Varden, believed to be the “same” in availability, were 

60 percent more and 56 percent less, respectively, in 1992. So in evaluating abundance respondents 

obviously considered non-harvest factors, especially for bearded seal and Dolly Varden. 

A majority of respondents perceived no change in sharing practices from the previous year 

(Table xX-23). For wild resources, sharing was reported the “same” by 61 percent, “less” by 18.6 

XX-11 
percent, and “more” by 15.3 percent. For hunting and fishing gear, sharing was repotted the “same” by 

71.4 percent, “less” by 14.3 percent, and “more” by 8.9 percent. For money, sharing was reported the 

“same” by 58.9 percent, “less” by 23.2 percent, and “more” by 14.3 percent. And for labor, sharing was 

reported the “same” by 66.7 percent, “less” by 16.7 percent, and “more” by 13.3 percent. 

About a third of the respondents (35.0 percent) believed that elders’ influence in politics and 

guidance in Kivalina had “stayed the same,” while 33.3 percent believed elders’ influence had 

“increased,” and 25 percent believed elders’ influence had “decreased.” About half the respondents 

(47.1 percent) reported attending from I to 5 public meetings in the last year, while 9.8 percent repotted 

attending 6 to IO meetings, 14.8 percent reported attending 11 to 20 meetings, 4.9 percent reported 

attending more than 20 public meetings, and 9.8 percent reported “never” attending public meetings. But 

at least some of those who never went to meetings did vote, because 93.4 percent of the respondents 

reported voting in the last state-wide election. 

For the sampled households, 88.5 percent of respondents were Native corporation shareholders. 

NANA Regional Corporation was the only regional corporation represented in Kivalina, and 92.6 percent 

of the member respondents voted in the last NANA election. Kivalina’s village corporation merged with 

NANA Regional Corporation shortly after the passage of ANCSA in 1971. Only three Kivalina 

respondents held Native village corporation shares, all in Kotzebue’s village corporation (KIC), and all 

three (100 percent) reported voting in the last KIC election. 

Several social effects questions explored respondent’ reasons for living in and remaining in 

Kivalina, respondents’ expectations for future residence in the region, and respondents’ confidence in 

continued access to hunting, fishing, and gathering areas (Table xX-25). Respondents offered a wide 

variety of reasons for living in Kivalina. Hunting and fishing opportunities were most often cited (by 93.4 

percent of respondents), followed by personal freedom (86.9 percent), relatives in Kivalina (83.6 

percent), friends in Kivalina (83.6 percent), the beauty of the area (78.7 percent), and the community 

size (77.0 percent). Except for the hunting and fishing response, most of the frequently cited reasons 

were “quality of life” rather than economic reasons. Job opportunities (cited by 21.3 percent), available 

housing (32.8 percent), and cost of living (34.4 percent) were three of the four least cited reasons for 

living in Kivalina, while personal freedom, relatives, and friends were three of the four most cited reasons 

for living in Kivalina. When asked why they remained in Kivalina, respondents most commonly indicated 

that Kivalina was “where you’re from” (21.3 percent). Otherwise, reasons for remaining were much like 

the reasons for living in Kivalina, hunting and fishing (I 8.0 percent), relatives (14.8 percent), and “family 

has always lived here” (13.1 percent). The responses suggest that the social stability Burch described 

for the 1964-1983 period has continued into the 1990s. When asked whether they liked living in Kivalina 

less, same, or more compared with IO years ago, 57.6 percent of the respondents said “same,” 27.1 

percent said “more,” and only 13.6 percent said “less.” Asked why they responded “less” or “more,” 

about half the respondents either had no response (41.7 percent) or non-specific responses (8.3 percent). 

xx-12 
The remainder gave a wide variety of response, none of which were cited by more than two, including 

improved community cohesiveness, worsened financial situation, and two many people. 

Most Kivalina residents, given the opportunity to move, would chose not to leave Kivalina (63.9 

percent), while 29.5 percent would chose to move. More than three of four respondents (78.7 percent) 

expected to be living in the region when old. And an equal percentage (78.7 percent) expected to be 

able to continue to use the places they used in 1993 for hunting, fishing, and gathering. The 6.6 percent 

who expected problems accessing harvesting areas cited increased development, animal rights or antigun interests, environmental damage, and miscellaneous reasons. More than half (54.1 percent) said 

they would continue living in Kivalina if wild foods were no longer available, while 27.9 percent said they 

would not, and 18.0 percent did not know what they would do. The responses, again, indicate a stable 

community with an expectation of continued stability, and a recognition of the reliance of the community 

on access for hunting, fishing, and gathering. 

In communities affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, respondents were asked to assess the 

effectiveness of various organizations in responding to the spill. Kivalina was not directly affected by the 

oil spill, and the question in Kivalina was reworded to ask how effective organizations were “in 

responding to the needs of the community” (Table xX-26). Community health aides received the highest 

effectiveness rating (55.7 percent of the respondents through they were “effective”), followed by Kivalina 

businesses (45.9 percent), and the Kivalina city council (41 .O percent). At the other end of the spectrum 

were the National Park Service (judged “effective” by only II .5 percent), and the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation (13.1 percent). To be fair, the National Park Service plays a minor role in 

Kivalina and had the highest percentage (50.8 percent) of “do not know” responses. Local law 

enforcement was judged “effective” by 21.3 percent, an average score. But significantly, local law 

enforcement was judged “not effective” by 19.7 percent, the highest “not effective” score of any 

organization. 

The final series of social effects questions asked about off-shore exploration and development 

for oil and gas. Respondents were in widespread agreement that the search for and development of offshore oil and gas deposits would decrease the amount of fish and wildlife available for harvest (Table 

xX-28). For marine mammals, 85.2 percent predicted a decrease; for fish 72.1 percent; for birds, 54.1 

percent; for land mammals, 47.5 percent, and for shellfish, 41 .O percent. Only for land mammals did the 

number of respondents predicting no change equal more than half the number predicting a decrease. 

Only one respondent predicted an increase, and that for only one category, land mammals. 

Respondents were somewhat more optimistic about job opportunities following oil and gas exploration 

and development, though a slim majority believed no more local jobs would result (41 .O percent). An 

increase in local jobs was predicted by 36.1 percent. 

A majority of respondents doubted the ability to clean up even a small oil spill: 52.5 percent said 

“no,” compared with 23.0 percent “maybe” when asked if they thought less than 1,000 barrels of oil 

xx-13 
“could be effectively contained and cleaned up today.” For a large oil spill (more than 100,000 barrels), 

only II .5 percent responded “maybe,” compared with 72.1 percent “no.” 

xx-14 
- .- 

I I 

, 

, 

I 

XX-I 5 
Table xX-1. Sample Participation: Kivalina 1993 

VARIABLE 

Estimated Household Structures 

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 

HOUSEHOLDS 

72 

0 

72 

72 

62 

9 

1 

0 

0 

cl 

0 

1.59% 

0.0% 

66.1% 

NOTES: 

l Seasonal households are households which maintain a 

permanent domicile elsewhere where they spend the 

majority of their time. 

** Nan-resident households are households which were not 

present during the study year or which were resident 

less than the required number of months. 

XX-16 
Table xX-2 . Demographic Characteristics of Households, 

Kjvalina. January 1993 

Characteristics 1992 

Sampled Households 62 

Vumber of Households in the Community 72 

Percentage of Households Sampled 88.11 

Household Siie 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

4.77 

1 

12 

Sample Population 296 

Estimated Community Population 343.74 

k3e 

Mean 25.05 

Minimum 0.21 

Maximum 81.81 

Median 20.267 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

21.16 

0.21081: 

80.95 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

34.54 

0.5 

76.657ot 

Sex 

Males 

Number 

Percentage 

Females 

Number 

Percentage 

182.32 

53.04 

161.42 

46.96 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 

Percentage 

Estimated Population 

Number 

Percentage 

66.19 

91.94 

327.48 

95.27 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1993. 

xx-17 
80-64 L 

70 - 74 LL 

w 60-64 

8 

m 

50-54 

g 

2 40-44 

4 30-34 

> 

20 - 24 r p+=&l!- 

I 

10-14 I 

I I 

o-4 I 1 / 

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

POPULATION 

•I MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

Table xX-3. Population Profile, Kivalina, January 1993 

o-4 27.87 15.29% 15.29% 

5-9 15.10 8.28% 23.57% 

lo-14 19.74 10.83% 34.39% 

15-19 16.26 8.92# 43.31% 

20-24 19.74 10.83K 54.14% 

25-29 13.94 7.64U 61.78% 

30-34 9.29 5.10% 66.69% 

35-39 12.77 7.01 X 73.89% 

40-44 9.29 5.10% 78.98% 

45-49 8.13 4.46% 83.44% 

50-54 8.13 4.46% 87.901 

55-59 4.65 2.55% 90.45% 

W-64 8.13 4.46% 94.9CEb 

65-69 2.32 1.27% 96.18% 

70-74 0.00 0.00% 96.18% 

75 - 79 0.00 0.00% 96.18% 

80-84 2.32 1.27% 97.45% 

65-89 0.00 0.00% 97.45% 

90-94 0.00 0.00% 97.45X 

S-99 0.00 0.00% 97.45% 

loo-104 0.00 0.00% 97.45% 

Missing 4.65 2.55% lW.oo% 

19.74 12.23% 12.23% 

30.19 18.71% 30.94% 

17.42 10.79% 41.73% 

18.58 11.51X 53.24% 

6.97 4.32% 57.55% 

10.45 6.47% 64.03% 

12.77 7.91X 71.94X 

10.45 6.47% 78.42% 

6.97 4.32k 82.73% 

3.48 2.16% 84.89% 

5.81 3.60% 88.49% 

3.48 2.16% 90.65% 

2.32 1.44% 92.09% 

5.81 3.601 95.68% 

0.00 0.00% 95.68% 

1.16 0.72% 96.40% 

1.16 0.72% 97.12% 

0.00 0.00% 97.12% 

0.00 0.00% 97.12% 

0.00 O.WK 97.12% 

0.00 0.00% 97.12% 

4.65 2.88X lW.W% 

TOTAL 182.32 53.04% 161.42 46.96% 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

47.61 13.85% 13.85% 

45.29 13.18% 27.03% 

37.16 10.81% 37.84% 

34.84 10.14% 47.97% 

26.71 7.77% 55.74% 

24.39 7.09Ob 62.64% 

22.66 6.42K 69.26% 

23.23 6.76% 76.01% 

16.26 4.73% 86.74% 

11.61 3.38% 84.12% 

13.94 4.06% 88.18% 

8.13 2.36% 90.54% 

10.45 3.04% 93.58% 

8.13 2.361 95.95% 

0.00 0.00% 95.95% 

1.16 0.34% 96.28% 

3.48 1.01% 97.30% 

0.00 0.00% 97.30% 

0.00 0.00% 97.30X 

0.00 0.00% 97.30% 

0.00 0.00% 97.30% 

9.29 2.70% lW.W% 

343.74 1 00.00% I 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

XX-18 
Table XX-4 Employment Characteristics, ffivalina, 1992 

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 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Employed Adults 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

1992 

195.10 

110.32 

56.55 

124.26 

1.13 

1 

4 

6.07 

1 

12 

20.00 

72.00 

62.71 

87.10 

1.98 

1 

5 

1.76 

1 

5 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1993. 

xx-19 
rable xX-5. Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer Type, Kivalina, 1992 

INCOME SOURCE 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $2,371,833.86 S32942.14 $6900.04 

Earned Income W/446,81 1.74 $20.094.61 $4.209.01 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 13,353.66 185.47 36.85 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 13.353.68 165.47 38.85 

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Fishing 13,353.66 185.47 38.85 

Hunting/Trapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 2759351.23 3.824.32 801.04 

Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Manufacturing 

Cannery 

Other Manufacturing 

Logging/Timber 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 21 .145.94 293.69 61.52 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

202,060.65 2,806.40 587.83 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

202.060.65 2,806.40 587.83 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 34606.45 480.65 100.68 

Services 126,296.13 1.754.11 367.42 

Government 773997.67 10.749.97 2,251.68 

Federal 0.00 0.00 0.00 

State 33.44516 464.52 97.30 

Local 74Q552.51 10.285.45 2.154.39 

Local Government 294.862.19 4.09531 857.80 

Local Education 445.690.32 6,190.14 1,296.58 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Income f925.022.12 312.847.53 $2.691.04 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

xx-20 
Table xX-6. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Kivalina, 1992 

Source 

OTHER INCCQE 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

rll Sources $925.022.12 812,847.53 

Exxon Claims 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 14.52 73.124.71 1 ,015.62 

Adult Public Assistance 4.84 16,940.90 235.29 

Exxon Damages 0.00 0.00 0.w 

Pension/Retirement 22.58 63,046.45 875.65 

Longevity Bonus 8.06 27.870.97 387.10 

Social Security 17.74 61.873.55 859.35 

Workman’s CompJlnsurance 1.61 22.296.77 309.68 

Energy Assistance 30.65 11 n428.26 158.73 

Supplemental Security Income 8.06 17.52852 243.45 

Food Stamps 35.48 1183717.27 1,648.85 

Unemployment 41.94 121,574.98 1.688.54 

Native Corporation Dividend 85.48 77,509.16 1,076.52 

Dividend/Interest 24.19 2.725.55 37.85 

Child Support 1.61 2.327.23 32.32 

Rental Income 3.23 3,309.68 45.97 

Veteran Disability 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Equipment Leasing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Rental Assistance 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing Permit Leasing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Per Diem 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Disability 1.61 20,931 .lO 290.71 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 95.16 2820423.48 3,922.55 

Weatherization 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Veteran’s Assistance 1.61 1,393.55 19.35 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Women, Infants, and Children Program 0.00 0.00 0.00 

General Assistance Grant 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Foster Care 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Inheritance 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Contest Winnings 0.00 0.w 0.00 

Capital Gains 0.00 0.00 0.00 

ASRC Elder Trust 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

$2,691.04 

0.00 

212.73 

49.28 

0.00 

183.41 

81.08 

180.00 

64.86 

33.25 

so.99 

345.37 

353.68 

225.49 

7.93 

6.77 

9.63 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

60.89 

821.61 

0.00 

4.05 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

xx-21 
xx-22 
Table XX-7. Charactenstics of Resource Harvest and Use, KNafii, 1992 

,tudy Year 1992 

lean Number Of Resources Used Per HousehoW 20.68 

Minimum 3 

Maximum 44 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 4.04 

Median 20 

lean Number Of Rasowces Attempted To Harvest Per Howshold 17.15 

Minimum 0 

Maximum 46 

95 % Conffdance Limit (+I-) 6.15 

Median 15.5 

lean Number Of Resources Harvested Per Household 14.10 

Minimum 0 

Maximum 33 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 5.56 

Median 14 

lean Number Of Resources Received Per Household 11.02 

Minimum 0 

Maximum 43 

93 96 Confidence Limit (+/-) 7.33 

Median 8 

lean Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 10.10 

Minimum 0 

Maximum 38 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 8.68 

Median 7.5 

lean Household Harvest, Pounds 3635.33 

Minimum 0.00 

Maximum 21.09748 

otaf Pounds Harvested 261,744.10 

community Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 761.46 

‘ercent Using Any Resource lw.w 

‘ercent Attempting To Harvest Any Resource 98.39 

‘ercent Harvesting Any Resource 98.39 

‘ercent Receiving Any Resource 98.39 

‘ercent Giving Away Any Resource 90.32 

lumber Of Households In Sample 62 

lumber of Resources Available 83 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

XX-23 
Table xX-8. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Kivalina, 1992 

Study Year 

Total Number of People 

GAME 

FISH 

FURBEARERS 

PLANTS 

ANY RESOURCE 

Fish 

Process 

Process 

Hunt Number 118.45 

Percentage 34.46 

Missing 12.77 

Missing % 3.72 

Process Number 156.77 

Percentage 45.61 

Missing 15.10 

Missing % 4.39 

Number 183.48 

Percentage 53.38 

Missing 12.77 

Missing % 3.72 

Number 181.16 

Percentage 52.70 

Missing 12.77 

Missing % 3.72 

Hunt or Trap Number 39.48 

Percentage 11.49 

Missing 12.77 

Missing % 3.72 

Process Number 61.55 

Percentage 17.91 

Missing 12.77 

Missing % 3.72 

Gather Number 185.81 

Percentage 54.05 

Missing 12.77 

Missing % 3.72 

Number 166.06 

Percentage 48.31 

Missing 12.77 

Missing % 3.72 

Attempt 

Process 

Number 240.39 

Percent 69.93 

Number 231.10 

Percent 

IURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of : 

Household Survey, 1993. 

1992 

343.74 

67.23 

xiistence, 

xx-24 
Table xX-9. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource 

Category, Kivalina, 1964165, 1965166, 1982/83, 1983184, and 1992 

Fish 393.9 141.9 181.3 200.9 253.3 

Land Mammals 209.9 832.7 190.9 297.0 165.3 

Marine Mammals 727.8 569.1 392.3 433.0 318.0 

Birds and Eggs 2.9 0.1 3.4 5.2 10.8 

Wild Plants 6.8 3.9 10.2 4.1 14.0 

All Resources 1341.2 1548.8 778.1 940.2 761.5 

1964/65 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

1965166 1982t83 1983184 1992 

Note: for 1992, the ” fish” category includes .07 pounds per person of marine 

invertebrates. 

Table XX-1 0. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Kivalina, 

1964165, 1965166, 1982/83, 1983184, and 1992 

1964165 

Percentage of Total Harvest 

1965166 1982l83 1983184 1992 

Fish 

Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Birds and Eggs 

Wild Plants 

29.4% 9.2% 23.3% 21.4% 33.3% 

15.6% 53.8% 24.5% 31.6% 21.7% 

54.3% 36.7% 50.4% 46.1% 41.8% 

0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.6% 1.4% 

I 0.5% 0.3% 1.3% 0.4% 1.8% 

xx-25 
tn 
XX-27 
- 

XX-28 
f ii 

‘ii 

E m 
xx-30 
u c 

xx-31 
XX-32 
xx-33 
xx-34 
xx-35 
388888888888G 

cidddddddddddci 

Z888Fi88888886 

dddd~ddddddd~ 

? w 

XX-36 
xx-37 
XX-38 
paawue~ spunod alqesn leaol40 a6ElUa3Jad 

xx-39 
! I I I I I I 

C’V 

L’OC 

9-E 

8’9 

8’OC 

z-9 

P’E 

c-a 

6-Z 
.;.. 

. 

.- 

l.L 

8 8 

0 

(v 

kXlNi7Od) lS3AWH VlldV3 Md 

xx-41 
3 

J 

C .L 

t; 

8 ” 

XX-42 
xx-43 
xx-44 

g . . 

d 

XX-46 

. . 

8 

u 

XX-48 
xx-49 
2 .r 

xx-50 
xx-51 
. 

L .C 

XX-52 
xx-53 
b 

2 .C 

f .- Y 

llr 

0 

0 

% 

3 f 2 

z!c 

C 

2 

u) 

xx-54 
2 .C 

xx-55 
i2 

al 

ii 

L 

XX-56 
xx-57 
XX-58 
2 

.r 

f 

.- 

Y 

b . . 

6 

ri 
2 .w 

P .r Y 

i 

Y 

XX-60 
2 

.- 

9 .C 

Y 

E 

0 .C 

r 

2 .C 

s 

P 

0 

XX-61 
I 

+-+ 

E 

0 

k 

t 

.C 

f 

.r 

Y I 

I I 

I 

I 

I 

XX-62 
I 

+-; 

XX-63 
XX-64 
+-+ 

XX-65 
xx-66 
CHAPTER XXI: KAKTOVIK 

by 

Sverre Pedersen 

COMMUNITY OVERVIEW 

The community of Kaktovik is located on Barter Island, one of the larger barrier islands along the 

Beaufort Sea coast, about 120 miles east of Prudhoe Bay and 70 miles west of the Canadian border (Fig. Ii). The island lies close to the mainland, separated from the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge (ANWR) by a shallow channel connecting Arey Lagoon on the island’s west side with Kaktovik 

Lagoon on its east side. 

Kaktovik is the easternmost of the eight North Slope Borough communities administered from 

Barrow 310 miles to the west. The modern village had its beginning in 1923 when Tom Gordon moved his 

fur-trading post from Demarcation Point to Barter Island in order to become more accessible to area fur 

trappers (Jacobson and Wentworth 1982). The trading post was established near an abandoned 

precontact settlement, and local lnupiat families began settling in its vicinity. Initially the community was 

located on a sand spit at the northeast end of Barter Island, but was moved twice in order to accommodate 

a nearby military radar facility (more in-depth information on the social history of this community can be 

found in Libbey 1981, Jacobson and Wentworth 1982, Nielson 1977, and Chance 1990). The present 

community site is on gently sloping tundra facing northeast to Pipsuk Lagoon. Kaktovik has been a 

second class city since 1971 (Patterson 1977) and the population has remained predominantly lnupiat, 

with 84.8 percent of its 1990 population Alaska Native according to the 1990 U.S. Census. 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1992 

Communitv Approval, Dates and Staffing 

The proposed Minerals Management Service (MMS) survey activity in Kaktovik was first presented 

for review to members of the North Slope Borough Fish and Game Management Committee (a formal 

group of community appointed representatives from each North Slope Borough (NSB) community, existing 

as an advisory body to the borough’s Department of Wildlife Management) at a meeting in Barrow in 

November 1992. This committee includes one member from Kaktovik, Mr. Nolan Solomon, who was 

present at the meeting. A basic project description, an overview of the two Kaktovik project components 

(harvest and social effects surveys) and the basic time-frame for the survey, were presented to the 

committee. Copies of the project description and sample surveys were made available to committee 

members at the time of the meeting. Though no formal committee action was taken on the proposed 

XXI-1 
project, none was requested, the committee chairman, Mr. Nolan Solomon (from Kaktovik) stated that he 

supported the proposed work as did several other committee members. 

A formal presentation on the project was made to the Kaktovik City Council on May 20, 1993. 

Materials presented by the division at the meeting included a project description, copies of draft survey 

instruments, and a summary of comprehensive harvest and socioeconomic data for Kaktovik collected by 

the division in 1985 through 1987. Again, no formal record of approval was sought, but council members 

generally expressed support for the proposed effort. The mayor and one council member did voice 

concern about the length and content of the surveys, and conveyed uneasiness about participating in the 

social effects portion of the survey. Two main reasons for this uneasiness were explained. First they noted 

that the questions posed were outside the “normal” line of inquiry for what they were used to from the 

division and, second, that much of the data collected would in fact not be analyzed by division researchers. 

Though the two council members reserved judgment they did not argue that the effort be stopped or 

modified. The general, but again, informal sentiment expressed by the council, was that they did not object 

to the proposed community-wide surveys as they believed information of value to the community would be 

gained from the work. During final discussion of this agenda item several council members offered to be 

among the first households surveyed in order to more fully understand the scope and intensity of the 

survey effort. 

The study team assembled in Kaktovik on June 7, 1993, and included division staff (Sverre 

Pedersen, Ron Stanek, and Clarence Alexander), Minerals Management Service staff (Tracy Andrews), staff 

from NSB Department of Wildlife Management (Raynita Opie), and two local hire assistants (Jane 

Thompson and Ida Angasan). Survey training of all staff began immediately, and by June 10 several 

successful test surveys had been carried out. These interviews were completed as a way of evaluating 

preparedness of all project participants, and to determine if there were any problems in the survey 

instruments. 

Intensive surveys began on June 11, and lasted through June 17, 1993. As the survey effort got 

underway public announcements were made on the local cable n/ channel and over KBRW, the public 

radio station serving Kaktovik. 

On June 11 Kaktovik Mayor Sims called the field survey supervisor (S. Pedersen) and requested 

that we cease administering the social effects portion of the survey. The mayor stated that he had received 

calls from some council members questioning the value of the social effects questionnaire. He had again 

studied the instrument carefully and then polled fellow council members on their feelings regarding the 

intimacy and line of questioning in the social effects questionnaire. Based on comments received he 

concluded that the council no longer supported this survey effort. After meeting with Mayor Sims in the 

early morning of June 12, and agreeing to halt further social effects survey effort until the council met on 

the issue, the field survey supervisor notified team members to cease administering social effects surveys 

until further notice. (See Fall and Utermohle 1993 for more on this issue.) 

XXI-2 
Survey staffing varied from seven at the beginning of the survey and trailed down to a crew of three 

for the last day of the formal survey period. The number of staff available made it possible to carry out this 

survey in a relatively short period of time, and thus reduce community disturbance from this activity. 

Sample Selection and Achievement 

The Kaktovik survey called for a census approach to data collection rather than a sampling 

scheme. On the basis of community household information, prepared by a local assistant, there were 69 

identifiable households in the community during the study period. Of the total number of households six 

were eliminated because of not having been in the community long enough to qualify for inclusion. The 

total number of households for the survey was thus 63. The study year was defined as July 1992 through 

June 1993, in conformance with previous harvest surveys in the community. 

In total, 75 percent (47 of 63) of Kaktovik households were interviewed for the harvest portion of 

the survey (Table XXI-l). Two households were indisposed due to the flu, five were out of town and nine 

refused to participate. On average, the harvest surveys required 0.51 hours (31 minutes) to complete 

(Table l-7). Seven households had completed the social effects survey before the council requested that 

effort discontinued, but these have not been included in any data summaries for this report. 

DEMOGRAPHY 

In 1990 Kaktovik had a population of 224 people in 70 households according to the federal census 

(Fig. xX1-1). The estimated community population during the 1992 survey was 193 people in 63 households 

(Table xX1-2). Household size ranged from 1 to 8 persons per household, with a mean of 3.06 persons per 

household. Of the total population, males constituted 55.6 percent and 44.4 percent were identified as 

female (Table xX1-2). Survey results indicate that Alaska Natives made up 91.7 percent of the population. 

Median age in the survey was 31.4 years and mean length of residency, for total population, was 21.9 years 

(Table xX1-2). The population profile ( Figure XXI-2 and Table xX1-3) is relatively balanced, but appears to 

have an under-representation of males in the 1 O-24 years of age bracket. 

ECONOMY 

The recent village economy can be characterized as mixed cash and subsistence. Subsistence 

resources are of paramount importance, and constitute the main source of meat, fish and fowl in the local 

diet. Recent studies of subsistence harvests have found caribou to be the main terrestrial big game 

species harvested, and bowhead whales and fish to be the two most significant marine resources at this 

time. Employment figures from the 1992 survey (Table xX1-4) show that 78.6 percent of Kaktovik adults 

had some form of employment in the study year, the average number of jobs held was 1.4 per person, the 

XXI-3 
average length of employment was 7.9 months per adult, but that only 44.2 percent of all adults had yearround work. Household-level survey results show that 85.1 percent of Kaktovik households had someone 

working for at least part of the study year, that in each household an average of 1.9 adults was employed, 

and that in each household there was an average of 2.8 jobs held (Table xX1-4). Figure XXI-3 illustrates 

employment by industry in Kaktovik in 1992. The leading source of jobs was in local government (noneducation) (53 percent), followed by finance, insurance, and real estate (F.I.R.E.) (18 percent), and local 

government-education (6 percent). Services and retail trade represented only 1 percent and 4 percent, 

respectively, of all community employment during the survey year (1992-93). 

Income sources for the survey period are shown in Table XXI-5 In 1992, the estimated per capita 

income in Kaktovik was $18,176 from all sources, and the resultant average household income was 

$55,688. Earned income contributed $15,386 per capita and unearned income (such as the Alaska 

Permanent Fund dividend, regional/village corporation dividends and social security) (Table xX1-6) added 

an estimated $2,789.65 per capita. The main source of employment income was from the local 

government sector, followed by finance, insurance, and real estate (in this case Native corporation 

employment), and third by retail trade (Table xX1-5). Local government jobs produced the highest per 

capita incomes ($10,925) followed by finance, insurance, and real estate ($2,187.50) and local education 

jobs which paid $1,245.83 per capita in Kaktovik during the study year. Permanent Fund dividend, 

retirement and social security incomes produced the highest non-employment per capita income in 

Kaktovik, but Native Corporation dividends and longevity bonus payments were also significant sources of 

income in the community (Table xX1-6). 

RESOURCE HARVEST AND USE 

The estimated harvest of wild resources for local use in Kaktovik during 1992/93 was 2,713.3 

pounds of usable weight per household and 885.6 pounds per capita (Table xX1-7, Fig. xX1-4). This high 

estimate is due to an unusually successful whaling season in 1992 when the community harvested three 

large bowhead whales as part of its Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission fall harvest quota. Bowhead 

whale harvests contributed an estimated 1,716.82 pounds per household and 560.35 pounds per person 

during the 1992/93 survey period. Overall bowhead harvests contributed 63 percent (108,159.70 pounds) 

of the total estimated harvest for the community, with non-salmon fish (mainly whitefish) and caribou 

distant second and third contributors at 13 percent (22,847 pounds) and 11 percent (19,135.91 pounds), 

respectively (Table XXI-l 1). 

Composition of Kaktovik’s resource harvest by category in 1992/93 is depicted in Figures XXI-5 

and xX1-6. Marine mammals ranked highest, at 599.11 pounds per person and accounted for 68 percent of 

the community harvest of wild resources in 1992. Land mammal harvest contributed an estimated 149.6 

pounds per person or 17 percent of the total community catch, and fishing produced an estimated 118.91 

XXI-4 
pounds per person or 13 percent of the total harvest. Birds and eggs, and plants and berries also 

contributed to the community’s wild resource harvest in 1992. They produced 16.83 and 1.17 pounds per 

person, respectively, or 2 and less than 1 percent, and served to supplement and bring additional variety to 

the locally resource-based dietary regime. Wood, used primarily for heat production but also as a source 

of construction material at camps, was also found to contribute to the local resource harvest in 1992. The 

average household harvest of wood was estimated at 0.64 cords for the survey period. 

Tables XXI-12 and XXI-13 reports the salmon harvest in Kaktovik by gear type, and Table XXI-14 

reports household participation in salmon fishing. Corresponding data for fish other than salmon are 

provided in Table XXI-1 5, xX1-16, and XXI-1 7. 

Overall, 96 percent of sampled households in Kaktovik used locally harvested wild resources. 

Additionally, 89 percent of the surveyed households attempted to harvest wild resources, 89 percent were 

successful harvesters, 92 percent received shares of wild resources from other households, and 83 percent 

gave wild resources away to other community households in 1992 (Table xX1-7). 

The average household in Kaktovik used 16.0 different kinds of locally harvested resources during 

the study year, harvested 8.6 different kinds and gave away 7.7 kinds. Also, the average household 

received 10.5 different kinds of resources from other households in the community (Table xX1-7). 

Participation in subsistence harvesting and processing is high among Kaktovik residents. As reported in 

Table xX1-8, 75.7 percent of the people in surveyed households participated in the harvest of one or more 

wild resources in 1992 and 75.7 percent processed wild resources. Among the major resource categories 

the highest level of participation occurred in fishing where 68.6 percent of the people in surveyed 

households participated and also processed fish. Furthermore, 45.8 percent hunted, 13.2 percent trapped 

or hunted furbearers and 46.5 percent gathered plants (Table xX1-8). 

COMPARISON WITH EARLIER FINDINGS 

The Division of Subsistence has carried out two household harvest surveys in Kaktovik (Pedersen 

in prep. b; Scott et al. 1993) which can serve as bases for comparisons. The two earlier years were quite 

different in terms of harvests in that the first survey, carried out in 1985/86, recorded no bowhead whales 

having been landed, whereas in the next survey year, 1986/87, Kaktovik whalers were successful. 

Community resource harvest participation and use remained high throughout the three study years and per 

capita harvests, particularly of marine mammals, were high in 1985/86 and in 1992/93 (Table xX1-9). 

Community harvest levels have been substantial and resultant per capita harvest levels have been 

moderate to high in comparison to other rural Alaskan communities (Scott et al. 1993). In harvest year 

1992/93, Kaktovik hunters/fishers produced the highest community catch to date, with the take of three 

large bowhead whales by far making the greatest contribution (Tables XXI-9 and xX1-10). Marine mammal 

harvests more than doubled in 1992/93 as compared to 1986/87 when Kaktovik whalers also were 

XXI-5 
successful but caught smaller whales and was ten-fold higher than in 1965/86 when no whales were 

harvested (Table xX1-10). The resultant per capita harvest estimates for the three years are not as 

dramatically different between the three survey years (328.0, 432.8, and 665.6 pounds, respectively), but 

the 1992/93 harvest year still is over twice as high as the previous high, 1986/87, estimate (Fig. xX1-4). 

Comparing major resource category harvest estimates over the three years (Table xX1-9, Fig. XXI6), two categories distinguish themselves as widely fluctuating in their contribution to the overall estimated 

community catch. Plainly marine mammal harvest estimates stand out as being the most variable. In 1985 

this category was estimated at 10,762 pounds for the community harvest estimate. The major component 

of this harvest was seals (bearded and ringed seals) with a small contribution of polar bear. In the 1992 

survey the marine mammal category was estimated at 115645.3 pounds for the entire community, more 

than ten times the 1985 marine mammal harvest, and in this case bowhead whales made up the bulk of the 

harvest. Fish harvests have also varied widely in the three years, ranging from a low of 6,951 pounds in 

1985 to an estimated 22,952 pounds in 1992. Harvest estimates for the fish resource category has thus 

varied up to three-fold according to these estimates. 

Other resource categories when compared across the three survey years have also varied, but not 

as widely as the two resource groups mentioned, leading to the conclusion that there is likely no such 

condition as a “normal” harvest year in Kaktovik. Wide fluctuations in the contribution of each resource 

category and total community harvest is likely the norm, with weather, resource availability, accessibility, 

and “luck ” being the main variables driving the success of the harvesting system. 

There are now more active whaling crews than ten years ago, additional effort appears to be 

directed towards whaling, the allowable catch limit (set by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission) for 

bowhead whales has increased, improved preparedness, and better organization of the hunt are all 

contributing factors to the dramatic increase seen in whaling success since 1985/86 (Fig.XXl-6). It is 

important to note however, that fishing and hunting of land mammals (caribou in particular) remain as 

significant sources of local subsistence harvests. Whaling is an activity which takes place in a relatively 

short period of time (Sept.-Oct.), whereas fishing and land mammal hunting take place on a near yearround basis and which appear to have reliably produced (and still are considered)staple foods in Kaktovik 

household diets. 

There is also ample local recognition of how easily whaling can be unsuccessful due to factors 

completely outside local control (early appearance of arctic ice-pack, stormy weather, fog, etc.) because 

the activity can only take place in a short period of time in fall each year. Maintenance of other harvesting 

activities which can be carried out nearly year-round, and which have successfully maintained the 

community in the past, is therefore pursued with vigor. At no time during this study did any household 

member make mention of any intent to depart from the diversified local resource economy to a focus on 

marine mammals (bowhead whales) as the main source of locally harvested food resource. Kaktovik 

hunters/fishers seem to fully understand the importance of taking a diversified subsistence harvest 

XXI-6 
approach (and seem to really enjoy this condition) and do not appear tempted to shift away from 

successful fishing and land mammal hunting even though they have had recent success in whaling. 

Though the total community subsistence harvest in Kaktovik is not as high as in other study 

communities, the per person useable harvests is the highest (but fully in line with other nearby whaling 

communities; Figure XXIII-14 and Braund 1993). Kaktovik has now reached about as high as it can in 

terms of landed salvaged bowhead harvest (unless the community quota increases again) and it will be 

interesting to see if this community harvest level can be sustained for any period of time. Chances are 

good that the weather will not be as cooperative as it was during whaling in the fall of 1993, and that there 

will be future swings in the community harvest level at least as great as observed to date. Still, this brief 

comparison has shown that harvest of local subsistence resources to meet dietary and cultural needs in 

Kaktovik remains high in 1993. In fact, subsistence harvests of some resources (notably marine mammals) 

increased substantially since 1985/86 and 1986/87. Though mean household income also increased in 

the same period, it is still probably on par with income in the 1985/87 period figures considering inflation. 

Thus per person subsistence harvest is increasing over time in Kaktovik. This is important to note as major 

industrial development interest in lands near Kaktovik exist. Recent oil and gas industry plans to develop a 

substantial oil deposit (British Petroleum’s Bidami Field) 70 miles to the east of the community, but well 

within the community harvest area, is causing some local concern among Kaktovik residents. How this 

development will shape long-term access to, and sustainability of, locally harvested resources is unclear. 

However, by continuing to work with local, state, federal, and industry representatives the local government 

in Kaktovik can help shape nearby development to safeguard local subsistence land and resource 

interests. 

xxi-7 
8 

N 

SI tz c- 7 

uo!gepdod snsuaa 

XXI-8 

. ..I_ . . . . ,,I--Y---.---_- _... 
Table XXI-l. Sample Participation: Kaktovik, 1993 

Non-Residential Structures 

Households interviewed 

Failed to Contact/Unavailable 

Vacant Residential Structures 

Seasonal Househotds’ 

Non-Resident Household l ‘ 

Invalid Households and Vacancies 

Total Households Attempted: 

Non-Perm. HH Rate (Yacancy Rate”): 

Interview Goal (Percentage) 

Total Permanent Households 

Percentage Interviewed 

Percentage of Total Households 

interview Weighting Factor 

NOTES: 

l Seasonal households are households which maintain a permanent 

domicile elsewhere where they spend the majority of their time. 

l * Non-resident households are househokls which were not present 

during the study year or which were resident less than the required 

number of months. 

XXI-9 
Table XXI-2 . Demographic Characteristics of Households, 

Kaktovik, June 1993 

Characteristics 1992l93 

Sampled Households 

Number of Households in the Community 

Percentage of Households Sampled 

Household Siie 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Sample Population 

Estimated Community Population 

47 

63 

74.60 

3.06 

1 

8 

144 

193.02 

Age 

Mean 31.18 

Minimum 0.00 

Maximum 78.97 

Median 31.436 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

21.88 

0 

79.25 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Sex 

Males 

Number 

Percentage 

Females 

Number 

Percentage 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 

Percentage 

Estimated Population 

Number 

Percentage 

31.10 

0.75 

79.25 

107.23 

55.56 

85.79 

44.44 

56.30 

89.36 

176.94 

91.67 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey. 1993. 

XXI-1 0 

..-.. . . . . . . .._... . 
I 

70-74 I 

I 

W-64 I 

Ill L 

z Xl-54 I 

$ 40-44 I 

t 

s I 

4 30-34 I 

)- 

I 

20-24 I 

I 

1614 I 

I 

o-4 I I 

15 10 .5 0 5 10 15 

POPULATION 

0 MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

Table xX1-3. Population Profile, Kaktovik. June 1993 

AGE MALE FEMALE 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCEN 

o-4 

5-s 

IO-14 

15-1s 

20-24 

25-29 

30-34 

35-39 

40-44 

45-4s 

W-54 

55-5s 

W-64 

65-69 

70 - 74 

10.72 10.00% 10.00% 

9.38 8.75% 18.75% 

6.70 6.25% 25.00% 

2.68 2.50% 27.50% 

5.36 5.00% 32.50% 

9.38 8.75% 41.25% 

13.40 12.50% 53.75% 

9.38 8.75% 62.50% 

10.72 10.00% 72.50% 

8.04 7.50% 80.00% 

4.02 3.75% 83.75% 

4.02 3.75% 87.50% 

4.02 3.75% 91.25% 

4.02 3.75% 95.00% 

2.68 2.50% 97.50% 

13.40 15.63% 

13.40 15.63% 

6.70 7.81% 

5.36 8.25% 

2.68 3.13% 

8.04 9.38% 

6.70 7.81% 

5.36 8.25% 

4.02 4.69% 

2.68 3.13% 

4.02 4.69% 

2.68 3.13% 

5.36 6.25% 

0.00 0.00% 

4.02 4.89% 

15.63% 

31.25% 

39.06% 

45.31% 

48.44% 

57.81% 

65.63% 

71.68% 

76.56% 

79.69% 

84.38% 

87.50% 

93.75% 

93.75% 

98.44% 

24.13 12.50% 

22.79 11.81% 

13.40 6.94% 

8.04 4.17% 

8.04 4.17% 

17.43 9.03% 

20.11 10.42% 

14.74 7.94% 

14.74 7.64% 

10.72 5.56% 

8.04 4.17% 

6.70 3.47% 

9.38 4.86% 

4.02 2.08% 

6.70 3.47% 

12.50% 

24.31% 

31.25% 

35.42% 

39.58% 

48.61% 

59.03% 

66.87% 

74.31% 

79.86% 

84.03% 

87.50% 

92.38% 

94.44% 

97.92% 

75-79 2.68 2.50% 100.00% 1.34 1.56% 100.00% 4.02 2.08% 100.00% 

W-84 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

85-89 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

SO-94 0.00 0.00% lW.OO% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

95-99 0.00 0.00% lW.OO% 0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

loo-104 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

Missing 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

TOTAL 107.23 55.56% 85.79 44.44% 193.02 1 00.00% 1 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

XXI-1 1 
Table xX1-4. Employment Characteristics, Kaktovik, 1992/93 

Characteristics 

iDULTS 

Total 

Employed 

Number 

Percentage 

Jobs 

Number 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Months Employed 

Mean 

f?inimum 

Maximum 

Year-Round 

-lOUSEHOLDS 

Total 

Employed 

Number 

Percentage 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Employed Adults 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

1992tQ3 

131.36 

103.21 

78.57 

147.45 

1.43 

1 

5 

7.94 

1 

12 

44.16 

63.00 

53.62 

85.11 

2.75 

1 

10 

1.93 

1 

5 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1993. 

XXI-12 
Table XXI-S. Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer Type, Kaktovik, lQQ2/93 

INCOME SOURCE 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $3,508.356.75 $55688.20 

Earned Income f2,969,894.41 $47,141.18 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 0.00 0.00 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 0.00 0.00 

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Fishing 0.00 0.00 

Hunting/Trapping 0.00 0.00 

Mining AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Construction 0.00 0.00 

Manufacturing 3485.11 55.32 

Cannery 0.00 0.00 

Other Manufacturing 3.485.11 55.32 

Loggingflimber 0.00 0.00 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 0.00 0.00 

Trade 142.621.28 2.263.83 

Wholesale 0.00 0.00 

Retail 142,621.28 2.263.83 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 422234.04 6.702.13 

Services AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Government 2.401.553.99 38.119.90 

Federal 18.765% 297.87 

State 33.510.64 531 .Ql 

Local 2349.277.3s 37.290.12 

Local Governrnent 2.108.805.05 33.473.10 

Local Education 240.47234 3,817.02 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Income 

$18.176.01 

$15.386.36 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

AMT UNK 

0.00 

18.06 

0.00 

18.06 

0.00 

0.00 

738.89 

0.00 

738.89 

2,187.50 

AMT UNK 

12,441.91 

97.22 

173.61 

12.171.08 

1 OQ25.25 

1.245.83 

AMT UNK 

S538.462.34 158547.02 152.789.65 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

XXI-1 3 
Table xX1-6. Community. Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Kaktovik. 1 QQ2/Q3 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

hII Sources S38J62.34 $8,547.02 $2,789.65 

Exxon Claims 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 0.00 0.00 0.W 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 17.02 112,257.96 1,781.87 581.58 

Longevity Bonus 14.89 40.212.77 638.30 208.33 

Social Security 12.77 Q6,719.74 1,535.23 501.08 

Workman’s CompJlnsurance 2.13 6,98094 110.81 36.17 

Energy Assistance 4.26 3.334.98 52% 17.28 

Supplemental Security Income 4.26 15,216.51 241.53 78.83 

Food Stamps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Unemployment 2.13 6,031 .Ql 95.74 31.25 

Native Corporation Dividend 85.11 74.33464 1,179.91 385.11 

Dividend/Interest 0.W 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Child Support 2.13 5.919.32 93.96 30.67 

Rental Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Veteran Disability 0.00 0.W 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.W 

Disability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 93.62 163.29868 2.592.04 846.01 

Weatherization 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 

ASRC Elder Trust 10.64 14.164.89 224.68 73.33 

Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

XXI-14 
XXI-1 5 
Tabla xX1-7. ChamcMri&s 01 Resource Harvest and Use, Ksldtik, 1992193 

Study Year lQQ2lQ3 

kan Number Of Resources Usad Par Howahold 16.04 

Minimum 0 

Wmum 33 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 7.26 

Madiin 17 

kan Number Of Resources Atkmpted To Harvest Par Hwsehdd 12.00 

Minimum 0 

Maximum 31 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 10.71 

Median 12 

kan Number Of Rescurcas Harvested Par Housahold 8.62 

Minimum 0 

Maximum 27 

Q5 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 11.09 

Median 8 

Aean Number Of Resources Racaivad Per Household 10.49 

Minimum 0 

Maximum 26 

95 96 Confidence Limit (+I-) 10.12 

Median 11 

dean Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 7.74 

Minimum 0 

Maximum 29 

95 96 Conf&nce Limit (+/-) 13.35 

Median 6 

&an Household Harvest, Pounds 2,713.33 

Minimum 0.00 

Maximum 36,751s 

rotal Pounds Harvastad 170,939.50 

Community Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 885.60 

~ercant Using Any Resource 95.74 

‘ercent Attempting To Harvest Any Resource 89.36 

‘ercent Harvesting Any Resource 89.36 

>ercent Raceking Any Resource 91.49 

3ercent Giving Away Any Resource 82.98 

Number Of Households In Sample 47 

Number of Resources Available 63 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

XXI-16 
Table xX1-8. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Kaktovik, 1992/93 

Study Year 1992l93 

Total Number of People 193.02 

GAME Hunt Number 88.47 

Percentage 45.83 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Process Number 111.26 

Percentage 57.64 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

FISH Fish Number 131.36 

Percentage 68.06 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Process Number 134.64 

Percentage 69.44 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

FURBEARERS Hunt or Trap Number 25.47 

Percentage 13.19 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Process Number 21.45 

Percentage 11.11 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

PLANTS Gather Number 89.81 

Percentage 46.53 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Process Number 76.48 

Percentage 39.58 

Missing 0.w 

Missing % 0.00 

ANY RESOURCE 

Attempt Number 146.11 

Percent 75.69 

Process Number 146.11 

Percent 75.69 

3URCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1993. 

XXI-1 7 

, -.. . . . . . <, _ 
Table xX1-9. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight 

per Person by Resource Category, Kaktovik, 1985/86, 1986/87, 

and 1992193 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

I 1 1985186 1986187 1992193 

I 

Fish 60.7 35.8 118.9 

Land Mammals 188.8 128.5 149.6 

Marine Mammals 57.2 256.0 599.1 

Birds and Eggs 21.3 12.3 16.8 

Wild Plants 0.1 0.3 1.2 

All Resources 328.0 432.8 885.6 

Table XXI-1 0. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Kaktovik, 1985186, 1986187, and 1992193 

Percentage of Total Harvest 

1985186 1986187 1992193 

Other Fish 

Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Birds and Eggs 

Wild Plants 

18.5% 8.3% 13.4% 

57.6% 29.7% 16.9% 

17.5% 59.2% 67.7% 

6.5% 2.8% 1.9% 

0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 

XXI-1 8 
I , 

aqda3 lad $qG!a~ alqesn spunod 

XXI-I 9 
XXI-20 

.,. . ..__- _..-.-_ . . . . . . . .._....__ 
0 0 9 0 9 9 9 

8 8 s: 

?i 

0 

(D Ln 

8 

N 7 

UOSJ&j Jad SpUnOd 

XXI-21 
- 

XXI-22 
a 

XXI-23 
XXI-24 
ztiz S?? 000 888 000S?? 000 888 000888 000

P ofi 

g El 

09 Et 

K g .8 888 888 888 888 888 

gee d d d ddd ddd d 6 d ddd 

v 

. . . 

XXI-25 
5 88 

E II-2 c ci ci $!$ $5 ss 00 S? 00 S? 00 

8 

g gz =iz 

Et $ 

L 

E 8 g88 

l-O0 

35 00 S? S? 00 00 S? 00 88

XXI-26 
XXI-27 
XXI-28 
XXI-29 
XXI-30 
CHAPTER XXII: NUIQSUT 

by 

Sverre Pedersen 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 

Nuiqsut is located on the west bank of the upper reaches of the Nechelik Channel in the Colville 

River delta, about 150 miles southeast of Barrow and 60 miles west of the initial Prudhoe Bay oil 

discoveries. Although located about 25 miles inland (upriver) from the Arctic Ocean, the climate is 

predominantly coastal and similar in many ways to that of Barrow in the west and Kaktovik in the east. 

The community, incorporated as a second class city in 1975, is one of eight communities within the 

municipality of the North Slope Borough (NSB). 

Nuiqsut, listed in the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act as one of three abandoned 

North Slope region lnupiat villages, was re-established in April of 1973. A group of 27 lnupiat families 

from Barrow traveled overland to the Colville River and established a permanent presence on the west 

bank of the upper Nechelik Channel. Initially the community was tent-based, and gradually permanent 

housing was constructed nearby (for a complete discussion of motives for re-establishment and 

community history see Libbey 1979 and Deakin 1985). 

Many of the families making the move to Nuiqsut had roots in the Colville River and other 

nearby inland areas. The selected settlement location was at the permanent camp of Neil and Annie 

Allen, long-time residents of the Colville River delta (Libbey 1979). 

Initially the community population numbered about 145 (Libbey 1979), but increased quickly due 

to further out-migration from Barrow. In the winter of 1982-83 the population numbered approximately 

270 (Deakin 1985) and the 1990 U.S. Census estimated the population at 354 (Fig. XXII-l). 

Access to the community is by air, as there are no permanent year-round roads to Nuiqsut, and 

ocean access is only available for a limited time in summer when the ice-pack in the Arctic Ocean 

moves away from the coast. There is now regular scheduled daily air service from Barrow and 

Deadhorse airport in Prudhoe Bay. 

RESEARCH METHODS 

The proposed Minerals Management Service (MMS) survey activity in Nuiqsut was first 

presented for comment to members of the North Slope Borough Fish and Game Management 

Committee (NSBF&GMC) at a meeting in Barrow in November 1992, and for project review on 

December 12, 1993. The NSBF&GMC is a formal group of community-appointed representatives from 

each North Slope Borough community and exists as an advisory body to the borough’s Department of 

XXII-1 
Wildlife Management. The committee representatives from Nuiqsut, Mr. Philip Masuleak in 1992, and 

Mr. Lennard Tukle in 1993, were each present at the respective NSBF&GMC meetings. 

A formal presentation on the project was made to the Nuiqsut City Council on December 6, 1993. 

Materials presented at the meeting by Mr. Sverre Pedersen of the Division of Subsistence included a 

project description, copies of draft survey instruments, and a summary of comprehensive harvest and 

socioeconomic data on Nuiqsut collected by the division in 1984-86. No formal record of approval was 

sought, but council members generally expressed support for the proposed effort. Mayor Lennard 

Lampe was concerned about a few questions on the social effects survey, and wanted some extra time 

to review these. Mr. Pedersen and Mayor Lampe decided to meet again in early January to review the 

question areas. The general, but informal, sentiment expressed by the council was that they did not 

object to the proposed community-wide surveys, as they believed information of value to the community 

would be gained from the work. Several council members offered to be among the first households 

surveyed in order to more fully understand the scope and intensity of the survey effort. 

At the December 12, 1993, NSBF&GMC meeting, Mr. Sverre Pedersen presented a basic 

project description, an overview of the two Nuiqsut project components (harvest and social effects 

surveys), and the basic time-frame for the survey. Copies of the project description and draft surveys 

were made available to committee members at the time of the meeting. Though no formal committee 

action was taken on the proposed project (none was requested), the committee chairman, Mr. Nolan 

Solomon (from Kaktovik) suggested that Nuiqsut residents and the NSB Planning and Wildlife 

Departments would benefit from having this information available. Mr. Tukle from Nuiqsut stated that he 

supported the proposed work as did several other committee members. No committee members 

opposed the proposed project. 

Mr. Sverre Pedersen traveled to Nuiqsut on January 3, 1994, to answer questions regarding the 

upcoming survey and to meet with Mayor Lampe to respond to questions he still felt were outstanding 

since the last (November 1993) council meeting. Other tasks performed during the visit included 

arranging survey staff housing, contacting two potential local assistants, initial mapping of the community 

lay-out, as well as determining household names and their community locations. The council meeting 

was canceled indefinitely due to a local flu epidemic that had incapacitated the community for better than 

a week. Mr. Pedersen and Mayor Lampe did meet, however, and final questions were cleared up. As of 

January 4, 1994, the project had the local support the Division had set as a criteria for proceeding with 

final field work planning and survey document preparation. 

The core survey team (Sverre Pedersen and Clarence Alexander) and Ms. Raynita Opie (NSB 

Wildlife Department) arrived in Nuiqsut on February 3 and 5, 1994, respectively. The two local residents 

who had previously expressed an interest in participating were contacted, and after updating the 

community household location map and composition list, a survey training workshop was held on 

February 6. Only one of the local assistants (Ms. Bertha Sielak) participated in the training session. 

Several test surveys were carried out on February 6 as part of the training. The sunfey team reviewed 

XXII-2 
these surveys and found the instruments and coding instructions to perform well. An intensive survey 

effort began on February 7, unfortunately without the local assistant (who had fallen ill). Attempts to find 

a replacement for the local assistant (who became entirely unable to participate) were ultimately 

unsuccessful, but a local translator, Ms. Doreen Nukapigak, was assisting the team by February 10. 

The survey team was joined on February 7 by Dr. Tracy Andrews of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior’s Minerals Management Service. After a short refresher course in administering the surveys and 

some village familiarity, she began participating in survey work on February 8, and assisted in this effort 

through February 12. 

As survey efforts got underway, public announcements were made on the local cable TV channel 

and over the local CB radio. The public was also made aware of the project through contacts with staff 

arranging survey appointments with community households. 

Survey staffing varied from four in the beginning of the survey (February 8-12) and gradually 

dwindled to one person at the end of the first survey period on February 21. Surveying resumed on 

March 18 with one surveyor and a local translator. The Nuiqsut survey effort concluded on March 29, 

having reached the desired household sample level. 

The lack of a consistent number of staff available, a larger household sample, inclement weather 

conditions, and lack of consistent local assistant support, contributed to a longer survey presence in 

Nuiqsut as compared to Kaktovik in 1993. 

The Nuiqsut survey initially called for a census approach to data collection, but due to a higher 

number than expected of actual households (closer to 100 instead of the expected 6570), a sampling 

scheme was invoked. The goal for this survey was set at 60 randomly selected households. On the 

basis of additional community household information, prepared with the assistance of the mayor, the city 

clerk, and one knowledgeable local resident, we identified 91 households in the community during the 

study period. 

Over 70 Nuiqsut households were contacted during the survey process. Six households declined 

the offer to participate, and members of four households could never be found at the prearranged time 

for an interview (three separate attempts were made) (Table XXII-l). 

A total of 62 Nuiqsut households were interviewed in the course of the project. However, two 

households which participated in the harvest portion of the survey declined to participate in the social 

effects questions, yielding a total of 62 harvest and 60 social effects surveys, fully meeting the desired 

sampling level for the community. 

We selected February and March as the best time of the year for the Nuiqsut survey, and this 

worked well. Inclement weather and little sunlight in February kept subsistence activities at a very low 

level. A few households took short trips out of town to supplement their caribou stores, which were quite 

low due to a particularly early migration out of their resource area. Caribou left the Nuiqsut area already 

by late September, and very few were seen until late March. Inclement weather conditions continued 

through early April, keeping all households readily available for sample selection. 

XXII-3 
Though harvesting activities were low during the fieldwork periods, it seemed that many hunters, 

more than usual for this time of the year we were told, sought temporary work in the community 

(probably due to the recurring bad weather hampering subsistence activities, making temporary work a 

better alternative that just sitting idle, and concomitant increased household costs such as having to buy 

more food and increased home heating costs). Most selected households, therefore, were not readily 

available for interview on short notice--especially not during the day. For this reason, the majority of 

households had to be interviewed in the evening after work and sometimes quite late at night, after the 

interviewee had had an opportunity to work on subsistence hunting equipment that would be needed at 

any moment the weather conditions improved. 

Household interviews took from one hour to several hours, depending on how much harvesting 

had taken place, how they expressed their opinions, and how curious they were in what we were doing 

and why. We often spent considerable time explaining the purpose of the project and how the surveys 

would be used. Most questions, and usually most time, was spent on the social effects questionnaire. 

Some surveys in particularly interested households took three to four hours and many, many cups of 

coffee to complete. The average length for harvest surveys was 0.82 hr. and the social effects survey 

took an average of 0.67 hr. to complete (Tables l-7 and l-8). 

All-in-all, the survey process went smoothly in Nuiqsut. The vast majority of interviews went 

well, and many household members commented that they were glad we were there to document the 

sociocultural conditions of their community. This response was quite common, as community residents 

were experiencing a great deal of exploratory oil and gas drilling near the community, and the anxiety 

level of hunters and fishers was fairly high as a result (but not as high as among Kaktovik whalers when 

we carried out surveys there in the summer of 1993). 

DEMOGRAPHY 

In 1990 Nuiqsut had a population of 354 people in 90 households according to the federal 

census. The estimated community population during the 1993 survey was 361 people in 91 households 

(Table xX11-2). Household size ranged from 1 to 8 persons per household, with a mean of 3.97 persons 

per household. Of the total population, males constituted 56.9 percent and 43.1 were identified as 

female (Table xX11-2). Survey results indicate that Alaska Natives made up 89.0 percent of the 

population. Median age in the survey was 17.8 years and mean length of residency, for the total 

population, was 12.4 years (Table xX11-2). The population profile (Figure XXII-2 and Table xX11-3) is 

slightly skewed to the under lo-14 age-group, has an under-represented 20-24 age-group, but appears 

relatively balanced overall. 

XXII-4 
CASH ECONOMY 

The economy of Nuiqsut is best described as mixed cash and subsistence. Though subsistence 

resources provide the mainstay of meat, dish, and fowl in the diet of most community residents, cash 

earned through employment is needed to provide housing, heat, and other basic living expenses 

including support of subsistence activities. 

Employment figures from the 1993 survey (Table xX11-4) indicate that 81.4 percent of Nuiqsut 

adults had some form of employment during the study period. The average number of jobs held per 

employed person in the community was 1.6, and the average length of employment was 8.8 months. 

Only 41.7 percent of those employed had year-round work. 

Of the 91 households in Nuiqsut 82, or 90.3 percent, had a household member working at least 

part of the year, that in each household and average of 1.7 adults were employed, and that there was an 

average of 2.7 jobs held in each household (Table xX11-4). Figure XXII-3 illustrates employment by 

industry in Nuiqsut during the 1993 study period. The major employment sector in Nuiqsut was local 

government (non-education) which accounted for 39 percent, followed by local education and 

construction with 16 percent share each, and finance, insurance, and real estate accounting for 8 

percent. Retail trade provided 7 percent of 1993 jobs in the community and transportation, 

communication and utilities, trapping, fishing, and services made up the remaining 17 percent of all 1993 

employment. 

Income sources for the survey period are shown in Table xX11-5. For the study year 1993, the 

estimated per capita income from all sources in Nuiqsut was $14,301, and the resultant average 

household income was $56,743. Earned income accounted for $11,952 per capita, and other income 

such as the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, regional/village corporation dividends and social security 

added $2,348 per capita for the study year. The main sources of income were local government and 

local education which added $5,013 and $2,739 respectively to the per capita income. Other sources 

included finance, insurance, and real estate and construction, with services, trade, transportation, 

agriculture and mining. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, Native Corporation Dividend, Social 

Security, and retirement incomes were the highest sources of non-employment income in Nuiqsut, but 

income from the Alaska Longevity Bonus and inheritances also contributed in a significant way (Table 

xX11-6). Interestingly, food stamps and unemployment contributed relatively small amounts to the 

unearned source of per capita income during the study period (Table xX11-6). 

RESOURCE HARVEST AND USES 

In all, Nuiqsut subsistence harvesters brought in 267,817 pounds of locally obtained fish, game, 

birds and plants for local use in 1993 (Table xX11-7). The mean household harvest was 2,943 pounds of 

useable (dressed) food, or 742 pounds per capita. 

XXII-5 
All households in the community used one or more locally harvested resource(s) in the study 

period, 94 percent attempted to harvest resources and 90 percent of households harvested one or more 

local resources (Table xX11-7). The mean number of resources used per household was 20 and the 

mean number of resources harvested per household was 11. Nuiqsut households gave away an average 

of 11 resources to other households, and received an average of 12 resources from other households 

during the study. 

Ninety-one percent of Nuiqsut household reported sharing at least one resource with another 

household, and 98 percent reported receiving at least one resource from another household (Table XXII9). Non-salmon fish was the most commonly shared resource category (87 percent), followed by game 

(80 percent) and marine mammals (79 percent). In terms of receiving, most households reported being 

given marine mammals products (96.8) percent, followed closely by game and fish (90 percent), and 

birds (69 percent). The resource category most commonly shared with households, and the resource 

most commonly reported as shared with Nuiqsut households was marine mammals from Barrow (54.8 

percent) (Table xX11-9). 

Composition of Nuiqsut’s resource harvests by category is depicted in Figure XXII-4 and Table 

XXII-IO. Fish rank highest with an estimated community harvest of 90,490 pounds, followed closely by 

Terrestrial Mammals and Marine Mammals at 87,390 pounds and 85,216 pounds. These harvests 

produced mean percapita harvests of 251, 242, and 236 pounds respectively (Table xX11-12). Together 

these three resource categories account for 98 percent of the community/percapita harvests, and 

birds/eggs and plants make up the remaining two percent of the community’s harvest for 1993. 

Among the fish harvested , non-salmon fish rank as the highest category with a percapita harvest 

of 248 pounds, or 99 percent of the catch (Table xX11-12). Salmon are sporadically available, but do 

never contribute in any major way in Nuiqsut fish harvests. It is the whitefish, burbot and grayling that 

Nuiqsut fishermen are so successful in harvesting. These three resources contributed 215, 16, and 11 

pounds percapita to the household fish harvest in 1993. Among the whitefish, Broad Whitefish and 

Arctic Cisco, are the targeted fish in the summer and fall net-fishery on the Colville River. All 

households in Nuiqsut (100 percent) used and 80 percent of the households harvested fish during the 

study period (Table xX11-12). 

Land mammals, the second largest source of Nuiqsut subsistence harvests in 1993, was mainly 

composed of caribou, moose and bear harvests. Caribou contributed 228 pounds (94 percent), moose 

12 pounds (5 percent), and grizzly bear 2 pounds (0.8 percent) to the percapita harvest (Table xX11-12). 

Ninety-eight percent of Nuiqsut households used and 76 percent of the households harvested terrestrial 

mammals during the study period. 

The marine mammal harvest is mainly composed of bowhead whale for Nuiqsut in 1993. The 

successful fall whaling season in the mid-Beaufort Sea added 213 pounds of meat and muktuk to each 

person in Nuiqsut during the study (Table XXII-12). The second largest source of marine mammal 

harvest was from ringed seals, 20 pounds percapita, taken mainly in the Harrison Bay area. Nearly 97 

XXII-6 
percent of Nuiqsut households used marine mammals during the study period, and the same number 

received marine mammal shares from other households, but only 37 percent of Nuiqsut households are 

responsible for this large, and widely shared, harvest. 

Participation in the harvest and processing of wild resources in Nuiqsut during 1993 is reported in 

Table xX11-8. Seventy-three percent of Nuiqsut residents attempted to harvest one or more local 

resources in the study year, and 70 percent reported processing one or more locally harvested resources. 

The highest participation rate was in fishing where 61 percent of residents reportedly participated and 61 

percent processed fish. The lowest participation rate was in furbearer hunting or trapping where only 15 

percent of Nuiqsut residents reported pursuing foxes, wolves and wolverines, and a slightly higher 

number (19 percent) reported processing skins during the study period. 

The mean household harvest of fish, other than salmon, was 983 pounds percapita in Nuiqsut for 

1993. Of this catch the majority (89 percent) were taken with subsistence gear, 10 percent with hookand-line through the ice (ice fishing) and the remaining 1 percent with rod-and-reel equipment (Table 

xX11-17). Whitefish and cisco, making up 82 percent of the fish harvest in Nuiqsut for 1993, were nearly 

exclusively caught in subsistence gill-nets (99 percent of the catch), whereas grayling are mostly taken 

on a lure either by rod and reel or hook and line through the ice (Table XXII-17). Lake trout was the only 

fish species exclusively caught in ice fishing, and rainbow smelt and broad whitefish were exclusively 

caught in subsistence gear (gill-nets). Salmon and other fish species harvested by Nuiqsut fishers were 

either taken by subsistence gear or ice fishing (Table XXII-13 and xX11-17). 

Several species of salmon are harvested In low numbers by Nuiqsut fishermen. The most 

common, pink salmon, seem to be cyclic in the Colville River. Local fishermen state that they, in their 

experience, pink salmon are abundant every three years, and in years one and two they are available in 

modest numbers. Pink salmon harvests were considered low for the 1993 season. The community 

catch was estimated at 342 pounds. Virtually all pink salmon caught came from subsistence gill-nets, 

with only a small proportion from rod-and-reel (Table xX11-14). Other salmon species reportedly caught 

include chinook, chum, cohoe, and sockeye. In 1993 Nuiqsut fisher harvested more chum salmon than 

any other species (because it was a low pink year), but only about 90 pounds more than pinks. 

Relatively few chinook and cohoes were caught, but no sockeye salmon catches were reported (Table 

xX11-14). 

Households that fished for salmon and non-salmon species in Nuiqsut during 1993 relied on 

subsistence gear for the bulk of their harvest. Seventy-three percent of Nuiqsut households harvested 

non-salmon species by subsistence gear, whereas 66 percent ice fished and 26 percent used rod-andreel gear (Table XXII-18). Thirty-five percent of Nuiqsut households harvested salmon by net and five 

percent utilized rod-and-reel (Table xX11-15). In the Nuiqsut domestic fishery there is not a commercial 

catch, so in no instance is there removal of fish from commercial catches. 

XXII-7 
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT 

Resource harvests, and reliance on local resources, for food is high in Nuiqsut compared to other 

study communities (Table XXIII-14). Availability of store-bought food from the small local stores is 

limited and, according to residents, not reliable. When imported foods are available they are in short 

supply and cost about twice as much in Nuiqsut as compared to Anchorage, according to recent 

Cooperative Extension Service market basket surveys (CES 1993). Thus relying on local commercial 

options for sustenance is not really viable. According to our survey information the average Nuiqsut 

household spent close to $800 per month for food (Table l-102) during 1993, yet 63 percent of Nuiqsut 

households report that over half of the meat, fish, and birds consumed came from wild foods in 1993 

(Table l-105). No households reported that wild resources were not part of their diet in 1993, and 37 

percent stated that between one percent and half of their meat, fish, and birds consumed came from 

local harvests. 

Individual household members asked whether or not they used/consumed locally harvested wild 

foods turned up one person (1.7 percent) who did not, whereas the remaining 59 (98.3 percent) 

responded that they certainly did (Table xX11-19). Nearly two-thirds of respondents mentioned that one 

reason they eat locally harvested resources is because they cannot afford to buy store food. Locally 

harvested food was considered healthier by 93.3 percent of respondents, and the consumption was 

considered part of the cultural heritage (tradition) by 85 percent. Wild resources are clearly an important 

part of the dietary regime in Nuiqsut households, and 63.3 percent of individuals responded yes to the 

question regarding having eaten any wild food the day before being interviewed (Table XXII-1 7). 

In response to a line of questions concerning the safety of consuming locally harvested 

resources interviewed household representatives stated uniformly that locally harvested seals and 

whales do not present any human health hazards at this time (Table xX11-20. One individual did not know 

enough about local whitefish to answer the question but the remaining 57 individual responses (98.3 

percent) indicate that they believe whitefish from local harvest areas are safe to eat. 

When asked regarding the population status of certain resources as compared to ten years ago 

Nuiqsut respondents stated that caribou seemed to be about as abundant, bowhead whales had 

increased, and that seals, whitefish and geese were about the same (Table xX11-21). Wolves on the 

other hand seemed to be more abundant now according to 18 interviewees (35.3 percent). 

Processing and sharing of wild resources are important social mechanisms in all North Slope 

lnupiat communities. Nearly all Nuiqsut households (88.3 percent) process wild resources, and in 70 

percent of households children assist in this important task (Table xX11-22. Survey results indicate that 

91.7 percent of households sampled in Nuiqsut share resources regularly (Table xX11-23) and that during 

the survey year, 1993, sharing of wild resources, subsistence gear, money and labor was about the same 

as for the previous year. 

XXII-8 
In response to the question regarding the influence of elders in local politics over the last five 

years most residents (45.6 percent) stated that there had been no change, and roughly equal numbers of 

responses said that their influence had either increased or decreased (Table xX11-20). As far as reasons 

why there might have been a change 20 percent stated there had been no change, 16.7 percent said that 

the reason elders influence had decreased was simply due to elders gradually passing away and fewer 

and fewer are left, 10.0 percent said younger individuals are taking the authority away from the elders, 

and 20.0 percent said they thought elders were more effective now as their knowledge is more 

appreciated or recognized. 

Concerning public meeting attendance in 1993 respondents gave responses varying from no 

attendance (13.3 percent) to having attended over 99 meetings (1.7 percent) (Table xX11-24). Fifty 

percent reported having attended from one to seven meetings and the remaining 35 percent reported 

having attended between eight and 48 community meetings during 1993. When asked about their voting 

record for 1993 88.3 percent responded they had cast a vote in the last State-wide election, 89.4 percent 

had voted in their last Regional Corporation election, and 97.9 percent said they had voted in the last 

Village Corporation election (Table xX11-24). In the sample 80 percent of respondents (48) stated they 

belonged to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and 20 percent did not have a native corporation 

membership. Only two Village Corporations were represented in the sample. Twenty-one percent said 

they belonged to the Barrow corporation, Utgeagvik lnupiat Corporation, 77 percent said they belonged 

to the Nuiqsut corporation, Kuukpik Corporation, and two percent gave no response to this question 

(Table xX11-24). 

When asked about the main reason they moved to Nuiqsut over half of the household 

respondents (65 percent) replied that they were either born or raised there, or that they had family there 

(Table xX11-25). One other common response to this question was that availability of work in the 

community had caused them to move there (11.7 percent). Over 80 percent stated that they lived in 

Nuiqsut because of the local hunting and fishing opportunities, and 73.3 percent said they stayed 

because of local job opportunities. The beauty of the Nuiqsut area was mentioned by 85.0 percent of the 

respondents as an additional reason for why they lived in the area. Necessary personal freedoms (83.3 

percent), size of the community (81.7 percent), and recreational opportunities (70.0 percent) were also 

commonly expressed reasons for why sampled individuals lived in Nuiqsut (Table xX11-25). When asked 

why they remained in the community the most common response was because of subsistence 

opportunities (28.3 percent) and quality of life (16.7 percent). This feeling was further expressed in 

response to the next set of question which inquired about how conditions were in the community now 

(1993) as compared to ten years ago and if the person thought he, or she, would live in the region when 

they were old. Over 90 percent responded they liked the community as much or better than ten years 

ago and 75 percent expected they would be in the region in their old age (Table xX11-25). 

Confidence that the area would be available for continued hunting and fishing into the future 

drew a mixed response. Of the 50 percent who either were unsure or who felt that there may be a 

XXII-9 
reason to be concerned over 92 percent expressed concern that increased oil and gas development in 

their area would somehow result in various types of local subsistence land-use and harvesting 

restrictions (Table xX11-25). Respondents were evenly divided as to whether or not they would move 

away if a situation arose which caused local wild foods to become unavailable. 

Effectiveness of local institutions and businesses, as well as regional, state and federal agencies, 

in meeting community needs was evaluated by sampled household representatives. The results are 

summarized in Table xX11-26. Respondents felt that the local health clinic was effective (72.9 percent), 

that the City Council was somewhere between somewhat effective (39.0 percent) and effective (44.1 

percent), the village corporations (Nuiqsut and Barrow) were fairly effective (between somewhat effective 

and effective), the North Slope Borough government was effective (73.3 percent), and the regional 

corporation (ASRC) was judged fairly effective (between the two effectiveness measures, but closer to 

effective). The effectiveness of two resource management agencies, the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was also evaluated. Nuiqsut residents sampled indicate 

that 43.3 percent believe the department is effective, whereas only 16.9 percent feel that the FWS is 

effective in meeting community needs . The lowest effectiveness rating was assigned to Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation which earned a 45.0 percent not effective rating (Table XXII26). 

The final set of questions asked of sampled household representatives in Nuiqsut pertained to 

possible effects of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas exploration and development within the 

Nuiqsut area of interest in the Beaufort Sea. Insofar as there would be effects on subsistence resources 

80 percent believed there would be lower populations of fish and 86.7 percent believed marine mammal 

populations would decrease (Table xX11-27). Respondents were not quite as certain about negative 

effects on terrestrial mammals or birds, but 55 percent believed that bird populations would decrease and 

43.3 percent thought land mammal populations would decrease. 

In response to the question regarding OCS development resulting in more local jobs respondents 

were divided (Table xX11-27). Nearly half of all respondents (48.3 percent) predicted more jobs would 

become available to community residents as a result of OCS development, 43.3 percent did not think so, 

and 8.3 percent were uncertain. 

The threat of offshore oil spills is always on the mind of Nuiqsut hunters, and responses to two 

questions regarding their thoughts on industry’s ability to clean up spills associated with OCS exploration 

and development reflects this concern. Asked if industry could effectively contain and clean up a small 

oil spill 60.0 percent of Nuiqsut respondents said no, 36.7 percent thought that it could be possible under 

some circumstances and 3.3 percent did not know how to answer this question (Table xX11-27). When 

asked the same question but this time concerning a large oil spill 80.0 percent said they did not think 

industry could effectively contain and clean it up, 11.7 percent said it might be possible, and 8.3 percent 

said they did not know. 

XXII-10 
In regards to the respondents opinion on the search for and development of oil in the OCS areas 

the opinions were nearly identical (Table xX11-27). Two-thirds of respondents were not in favor of either 

proposition, and less than one third of the respondents said they were in support. The major reasons 

stated for the opposition to OCS exploration or development rested in the concern for adverse impacts 

on local harvesting activities (41.7 and 51.7 percent respectively) and disruption of resource migration 

patterns (20.0 and 21.7 percent respectively). In both cases 10 percent of the respondents said that they 

would however be in favor of this activity if it was done in a careful manner (i.e., would not have any of 

the adverse effects respondents expressed concern about) (Table xX11-27). 

COMPARISON WITH 1985 SURVEY 

There have been few comprehensive quantitative harvest studies undertaken in Nuiqsut. The 

Division of Subsistence carried out a community baseline study of Nuiqsut in 1985 (Pedersen in prep.), 

and the North Slope Borough’s Planning Department, as part of a borough-wide economic survey in 

1992-93, collected some systematic harvest information from the community (Harcharek in prep.). Only 

data from the division’s 1985 study are currently available for comparison with the 1993 data presented 

in this report. Sample selection for the division surveys in 1985 and 1993 were identical, and the 

percentage of households sampled was adequate in each survey to confidently assess community 

harvest and socio-economic conditions. 

In 1985 the community population was 350 persons in 76 households and the mean household 

size was 4.61 (Pedersen in prep.). The division carried out a random survey of 40 households, 

representing a 53 percent sampling fraction, and covering some 211 persons. Households were 97.5 

percent lnupiat and 2.5 percent Non-Native and mean length of residency for heads of households was 

10.3 years. The age-sex ratio was 46 and 54 for females and males, respectively, and the community 

age-sex pyramid was skewed with the 20-29 year-old age-group being largest, but the age-groups from 

O-19 were also well represented. Average household income was estimated to be $32,125 in 1985. 

Local government, trade and mining were the three top job categories in terms of income production, 

providing 52,28, and 15 percent of the total income, respectively. 

The Nuiqsut residential base appears to not have changed much since the 1985 survey, only the 

number of households increased. Average household earned income increased by 32 percent since 

1985, though when adjusted for inflation this figure would be lower, and the main income sources have 

changed some between 1985 and 1993. In 1993 local government still provides the greatest single 

source of income, but trade and mining which were the second and third largest income sources in 1985 

have been replaced by construction and trade, respectively. The contribution from mining, actually oil 

industry-related jobs, have all but disappeared in Nuiqsut since 1985. This is significant since there has 

been a tremendous amount of work available in the Prudhoe Bay/Kuparuk development areas, but few if 

any were taken by, or are available to, Nuiqsut residents in 1993 it appears. Perhaps development of 

XXII-1 1 
more local employment options since 1985 accounts for most of this change, but recent cost-cutting 

(resulting in labor force cut-backs) in the Prudhoe/Kuparuk oil-fields may also have played a role. 

In 1985 the total community harvest was estimated at 160,035 pounds. The percapita harvest Of 

local resources was 399.19 pounds and consisted of fish (44 percent of harvest) , terrestrial mammals 

(42 percent; mainly caribou), with marine mammals and birds as distant third and fourth resource 

categories (8 and 5 percent contribution respectively) (Table xX11-10). In survey year 1993 the percapita 

harvest was up to 742 pounds, and the relative contribution of resource categories had changed 

somewhat. Fish still was the premiere resource category, but terrestrial mammals and marine mammals 

were close behind. Birds seemed to have fallen quite behind in 1993, both in terms of overall 

contribution to the community subsistence harvest and in numbers harvested. This may be due to the 

fact that in 1993 spring was late and cold, and when the birds finally arrived in the Nuiqsut area access 

was quite limited because of rapid melt-off of the snow-cover needed in the snowmachine transport of 

hunters to productive hunting areas (Table XXII-1 0, Table XXII-1 1, Figure xX11-5). 

In addition, fall whaling for bowhead whales in the mid-Beaufort Sea has greatly increased in 

both time committed to, as well as number of people involved in, since 1985. One major reason may be 

that the quota set by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission for Nuiqsut has gone from one to three 

landed whales since 1985. In 1985 Nuiqsut whalers harvested no whales, whereas in the 1993 study 

year three were landed. In addition to being more successful at fall whaling, Nuiqsut hunters have also 

increased their effort to take seals in the fall. With the added time and number of boats now out in the 

ocean, and a continuing interest in seals, it is not surprising that more seals are now being taken than 

back in 1985. 

This brief comparison has shown that harvest of local resources to meet dietary and cultural 

needs in 1993 increased substantially since 1985. Though mean household income also increased in the 

same period, it is probably on-par with the 1985 figure considering inflation. As a resource category 

marine mammals changed the most in terms of percapita harvest between the two study years. In 1985 

the percapita harvest was 33 pounds whereas in 1993 marine mammals had risen to 236 pounds. 

Harvests of terrestrial mammals, notably caribou, increased from 169 pounds percapita in 1985 to 242 

pounds in 1993. 

It is possible that Nuiqsut was in a phase of community re-establishment and hunters were still 

becoming re-acquainted with resources and the local geography when the 1985 survey was undertaken. 

Perhaps now that the community has become successful in harvesting marine mammals, it is at the 

point where percapita harvests level off. Recent percapita harvest figures from nearby whaling 

communities, Wainwright (Braund 1993) and Kaktovik (see Chapter XXI), are similar to those seen for 

Nuiqsut in 1993. The increased reliance on locally harvested resources is significant in the context of 

on-going expansion of near-by oil and gas development, and gradual loss of terrestrial harvest areas due 

to additional construction of pipelines, pump stations, roads and large oil/gas processing centers now 

taking place within 20 miles of Nuiqsut. Recent industry success with oil and gas exploration in the 

XXII-12 
Colville River delta is causing considerable concern among Nuiqsut residents, and is quite apparent in 

results from the social effects survey. How this cumulative development will shape the long-term 

sustainability of and access to locally harvested resources is unclear. Nuiqsut residents are acutely 

aware of this situation, and have an opportunity, through their village corporation in particular, to help 

shape any further oil and gas development nearby in a manner compatible with local resources and their 

use. 

XXII-13 
2 8 5: 8 5: 0 

cv Y- r 

uo!yqndod snsua3 

XXII-14 
Table XXII-l. Sample Participation: Nuiqsut 1994 

VARIABLE 

Estimated Household Structures 

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-Pemx HH Rate (“Vacancy Rate”): 

Interview Goal (Percentage) 

TOTAL 

HOUSEHOLDS 

91 

0 

91 

60 

62 

4 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

72 

8.82% 

0.0% 

103.3% 

Social Effects Surveys Completed 

NOTES: 

* Seasonal households are households which maintain a permanent domicile 

elsewhere where they spend the majority of their time. 

l * Non-resident households are households which were not present during the 

study year or which were resident less than the required number of months. 

XXII-15 
Table XXII-2 Demographic Characteristics of Households, 

Nuiqsut. January 1994 

Characteristics 1993 

Sampled Households 

Number of Households in the Community 

Percentage of Households Sampled 

62 

91 

68.13 

Household Size 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

3.97 

1 

8 

Sample Population 

Estimated Community Population 

246 

361.06 

Age 

Mean 23.30 

Minimum 0.36 

Maximum 83.06 

Median 17.802 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

12.39 

0.36 

94.00 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

17.57 

0.5 

94.00 

Sex 

Males 

Number 

Percentage 

Females 

Number 

Percentage 

205.48 

56.91 

155.56 

43.09 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 

Percentage 

Estimated Population 

Number 

Percentage 

76.32 

83.87 

321.44 

89.02 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1994. 

XXII-16 
r.- -~ ““ll m ~--__I_.:-_ n--c,- .,..:--..A I --..--. .nn. 

80 - 84 r 

70 - 74 s 

tlJJ 60-64 I 

2 50-54 & 

g 

2 40-44 

m 

2 

- 

30-34 I 

> I 

20-24 I 

- 

lo-14 

1 

o-4 r I 

40 35 30 25 20 15 .lO 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

POPULATION 

Cl MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

Table xX11-3. Population Profile, Nuiqsut. January 1994 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 

5-9 

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 

85-8s 

so-94 

95-99 

loo - 104 

TOTAL 205.48 56.91% 

39.63 19.29% 19.29% 

27.89 13.57% 32.86% 

19.08 9.29% 42.14% 

14.68 7.14% 49.29% 

5.87 2.86% 52.14% 

14.68 7.14% 59.29% 

16.15 7.86% 67.14% 

11.74 5.71% 72.86% 

11.74 5.71% 76.57% 

10.27 5.00% 83.57% 

8.81 4.29% 87.86% 

1.47 0.71% 88.57% 

4.40 2.14% 90.71% 

1.47 0.71% 91.43% 

1.47 0.71% 92.14% 

1.47 0.71% 92.86% 

0.00 0.00% 92.86% 

0.00 O.W% 92.86% 

0.00 0.00% 92.86% 

0.00 O.W% 92.86% 

0.00 O.W% 92.86% 

14.68 7.14% lW.W% 

30.82 19.81% 19.81% 

24.95 16.04% 35.85% 

10.27 6.60% 42.45% 

8.81 5.66% 48.11% 

2.Q4 1.89% so.W% 

17.61 11.32% 61.32% 

11.74 7.55% 68.87% 

8.81 5.66% 74.53% 

8.81 5.66% 80.19% 

4.40 283% 83.02% 

5.87 3.77% 86.79% 

1.47 0.94% 87.74% 

0.00 0.00% 87.74% 

2.94 1.89% 89.62% 

1.47 0.94% 90.57% 

1.47 0.94% 91.51% 

1.47 0.94% 92.45% 

0.00 0.00% 92.45% 

0.00 O.W% 92.45% 

0.00 0.00% 92.45% 

0.00 0.00% 92.45% 

11.74 7.55% 1 00.00% 

155.58 43.09% 

70.45 19.51% 

52.84 14.63% 

29.35 8.13% 

23.48 6.59% 

8.81 2.44% 

32.29 8.94% 

27.89 7.72% 

20.55 5.69% 

20.55 5.69% 

14.68 4.07% 

14.68 4.07% 

2.94 0.81% 

4.40 1.22% 

4.40 1.22% 

2.94 0.81% 

2.94 0.81% 

1.47 0.41% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

26.42 7.32% 

361 .a6 1 00.00% 

19.51% 

34.15% 

42.28% 

48.78% 

51.22% 

60.16% 

67.89% 

73.58% 

79.27% 

83.33% 

87.40% 

88.21% 

89.43% 

90.65% 

91.46% 

92.28% 

92.68% 

92.88% 

92.68% 

92.68% 

92.68% 

lOO.W% 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

XXII-1 7 
Table Xx11-4. Employment Characteristics, Nuiqsut, 1993 

Characteristics 1993 

ADULTS 

Total 173.19 

Employed 

Number 140.90 

Percentage 81.36 

Jobs 

Number 221.63 

Mean 1.57 

Minimum 1 

Maximum 5 

Months Employed 

Mean 8.83 

Minimum 1 

Maximum 12 

Year-Round 41.67 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Total 91 .oo 

Employed 

Number 82.19 

Percentage 90.32 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 2.70 

Minimum 1 

Maximum 9 

Employed Adults 

Mean 1.71 

Minimum 1 

Maximum 3 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1994. 

XXII-18 
XXII-19 
Table xX11-5. Community, Household, and Per Capita income, All Sources and by Employer Type, Nuiqsut. 1993 

INCOME SOURCE 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $5,163.620.03 $56.74308 $14.301.10 

Earned Income $4.315539.07 547.423.51 $11.952.27 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 23p777.42 261.29 65.85 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 23,777.42 261.29 65.85 

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Fishing 22.016.13 241.94 60.98 

Hunting/Trapping 1.761.29 19.35 4.88 

Mining 15411.29 169.35 42.68 

Construction 498,621.29 5.479.35 1,380.98 

Manufacturing 

Cannery 

Other Manufacturing 

Logging/Timber 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 24.804.84 272.58 68.70 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

323.194.57 3.551.59 895.12 

66,048.39 725.81 182.93 

257.146.19 2.82578 712.19 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 515,030.65 59659.68 1 s426.42 

Services 66.048.39 725.81 182.93 

Government 2,848,650X3 31303.85 7.889.59 

Federal 49,316.13 541.94 136.59 

State 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Local 2.799,334.50 30,761.92 7,753.oo 

Local Government 1.810.193.85 19.892.24 5,013.49 

Local Education 989,140.65 1 OB869.68 2.739.51 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Income 5848.080.96 $9.319.57 82.34683 

I SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

XXI l-20 
Table xX11-6. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Nuiqsut. 1993 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

411 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 

Supplemental Union Benefits 

Gifts 

Medicare/Medicaid 

0.00 

1.61 

0.00 

0.00 

8.06 

14.52 

19.35 

3.23 

14.52 

4.84 

4.84 

6.45 

83.87 

1.61 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

90.32 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.61 

1.61 

1.61 

1.61 

0.00 

0.00 

8.06 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

Other 

5848.080.96 

0.00 

169732.26 

0.00 

0.00 

66,422.66 

45652.65 

124,614.81 

810.19 

19.029.27 

26,718.77 

6384.68 

6.458.06 

132.939.25 

5.870.97 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

319.18544 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

AMT UNK 

2.641.94 

12,329.03 

51,370.97 

0.00 

0.00 

10.920.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

59.319.57 

0.00 

183.87 

0.00 

0.00 

729.92 

501.68 

1.369.39 

8.96 

209.11 

293.61 

70.16 

70.97 

1.460.87 

6~52 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

3.507.53 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

AMT UNK 

29.03 

135.48 

564.52 

0.00 

0.00 

120.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

$2.348.83 

0.00 

46.34 

0.00 

0.00 

183.96 

126.44 

345.13 

2.24 

52.70 

74.00 

17.68 

17.89 

368.19 

16.26 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

884.01 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

AMT UNK 

7.32 

34.15 

142.28 

0.00 

0.00 

30.24 

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 

XXII-21 
Table xX11-7. Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Nuiqsut. 1993 

Study Year 

nean Number Of Resources Used Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

dean Number Of Resources Attempted To Harvest Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

dean Number Of Resources Harvested Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 

Median 

nean Number Of Resources Received Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

Aean Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 

Median 

Jean Household Harvest, Pounds 

Minimum 

Maximum 

rotal Pounds Harvested 

Zommunity Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 

Jercent Using Any Resource 

‘ercent Attempting To Harvest Any Resource 

Jercent Harvesting Any Resource 

aercent Receiving Any Resource 

Jercent Giving Away Any Resource 

Uumber Of Households In Sample 

Uumber of Resources Available 

1993 

29.26 

2 

36 

6.27 

21 

14.24 

0 

32 

9.60 

15 

11.08 

0 

26 

10.05 

11 

12.21 

0 

34 

8.23 

11 

10.60 

0 

31 

9.82 

9.5 

2.94305 

0.00 

37,260.96 

267.817.81 

741.75 

100.00 

93.55 

99.32 

98.39 

91.94 

62 

62 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

XXI l-22 
XXI l-23 
Table xX11-8. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, 

Nuiqsut. 1993 

Study Year 1993 

Total Number of People 361.06 

GAME Hunt 

Process 

FISH Fish 

Process 

FURBEARERS Hunt or Trap 

PLANTS Gather 

Process 

ANY RESOURCE 

Attempt 

Process 

Number 215.76 

Percentage 59.76 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 223.10 

Percentage 61.79 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 221.63 

Percentage 61.38 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 218.69 

Percentage 60.57 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

54.31 

15.04 

0.00 

0.00 

Number 68.98 

Percentage 19.11 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 183.47 

Percentage 50.81 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 152.65 

Percentage 42.28 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 262.73 

Percent 72.76 

Number 250.98 

Percent 

XJRCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisior 

Household Survey. 1994. 

69.51 

Subsistence, 

XXI l-24 
m 9 ~88~~~~~~~~~8?X???SX~~~~??~?~ 

E o 

gtici m -00000000~00000r0- 3 

8 5 

B 

~?~?S?~??8?S?S?S8???~?~?????? F ~0~000t0000w00000000c&boooooooo 5- z 

d 0) m .E z 2 8888888888888888888!388888888ts 

k al 8 d d d d d d d d d d d d 6 d d d d d d d ci d d d 6 d d d d 

2% 

E 5 888Ei88i3Ei888g8 8888888888888888 

2 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 

XXII-25 
Table xX11-10. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight 

per Person by Resource Category, Nuiqsut, 1985186 and 1993 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

1985186 1993 

Fish 176.1 250.6 

Land Mammals 169.3 242.0 

Marine Mammals 33.3 236.0 

‘Birds and Eggs 20.0 12.0 

Wild Plants 0.4 1.1 

fall Resources 399.2 741.8 

Table 11. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource 

Category, Nuiqsut, 1985/86 and 1993 

Fish 

Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Birds and Eggs 

Wild Plants 

I Percentaae of Total Harvest I 

I 1985186 1993 I 

44.1% 33.8% 

42.4% 32.6% 

8.3% 31.8% 

5.0% 1.6% 

0.1% 0.1% 

XXI l-26 
0 0 0 0 0 

g 5: Ei 5: d 

c-u F F 

UOSJ+j lad SpUtlOd 

XXII-27 
XXII-28 
XXII-29 
XXII-30 
8 8 d rc’ I 

XXII-31 
XXII-32 
XXI l-33 
XXII-34 
XXII-35 
XXII-36 
I 

fa 

v)C 

XXII-37 
XXI l-38 
XXII-39 
N 

. . 

2 

P 

XXI l-40 

XXI l-42 
+- + 

XXII-43 
XXI l-44 
b b 

. . . . -. 

XXII-45 
XJ 

5 II 

+-+-+ 

+-+ 

XXI l-46 
XXII-47 
+ 

XXII-48 
+-+-+ + 

XXII-49 
. . . . 

XXI I-50 
6 

E 

!i 

XXII-51 
o^ 

f 

.- 

z 

8 

+-+-+ + 

XXII-52 
+-+ 

XXII-53 
XXII-54 
u 

t 

.- 

XXII-55 
XXII-56 
44 

P 

w 

XXII-57 
XXII-58 
XXII-59 
-+ 

XXI l-60 
+-+-+ 4. 

XXII-61 
XXI l-62 

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 cultural 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: (1) 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 all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.