a 

OCS Study 

MMS 95-012 

An Investigation of the Sociocultural 

Consequences of Outer Continental Shelf 

Development in Alaska 

III. Lower Cook Inlet 

U.S. Department ofthe Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region 

OCS Study 

MMS 95012 

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

An Investigation of the Sociocultural 

Consequences of Outer Continental Shelf 

Development in Alaska 

Ill. Lower Cook inlet 

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 VI: KENAI 

by 

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

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 

On the eastern shore of Cook Inlet, at the mouth of the Kenai River lies the city of Kenai, the largest 

community on the Kenai Peninsula. This city of 6,327 persons in 1990 (Alaska Department of Labor 1991) 

occupies some of the broad glaciated lowland that borders the Kenai Mountain Range, 40 miles inland. 

Typical summer temperatures range between 42 degrees F. and 62 degrees F. while winter temperatures 

range between 4 degrees F. and 43 degrees F. Average annual rainfall is 20 inches and snowfall is 69 

inches (Selkregg 1974). 

Eskimos inhabited the Kenai area 200 to 300 years ago followed by the Tanaina Athabaskans who 

had many settlements along the Kenai River in the lgth century (Georgette 1983). The Russian period in 

Kenai’s history began with the establishment of Fort St. Nicholas in 1791. Just shortly after the United 

States purchased Russian America in 1867, the fort was abandoned. Commercial fishing became Kenai’s 

main industry with the opening of the first of several canneries in the 1880’s along the Kenai River. During 

World War II, the airport was built and in 1951 Kenai was connected by road to Anchorage by the Sterling 

Highway. The Swanson River oil field was discovered in 1957, which marked the addition of oil and gas 

development as another major industry in Kenai. Many onshore and offshore oil wells were developed 

during this time. In 1960, Kenai became a first class city and in 1963, a home rule charter was adopted. 

Since the discovery of oil in the area, the population of the city has increased markedly, from 778 

people in 1960 to 3,533 people in 1970 (Fig. VI-l). By 1980 it had reached 4,324 people (Reed 1985). In 

1990, of the 6,327 persons living in Kenai, 89 percent were white, 8 percent were Alaska Native, and the 

remaining 3 percent were Black/Asian/Pacific Islander or of another race not listed (Alaska Department of 

Labor 1991). 

Kenai is connected by road to most of the peninsula communities and Anchorage (140 miles 

overland). The largest airport on the peninsula is located in Kenai and offers many daily flights to other 

Alaskan communities. Kenai is home to a variety of services and facilities including a local police station, 

two elementary schools, a junior high, a high school, court system, a library, a post office, a senior citizens’ 

center, a recreational facility, and a city dock. There are a number of health centers in Kenai in addition to 

the hospital located 12 miles away in Soldotna. Many large retail and restaurant chains also have outlets in 

Kenai which has made Kenai a popular shopping spot for people living in other peninsula communities. 

Many of the respondents in Seldovia indicated that they traveled to Kenai to do their grocery shopping, for 

example. 

VI-I 
Today, the oil and gas industry and commercial fishing still remain important industries to the 

economy of Kenai and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Government is also a large employer of the Kenai 

labor force accounting for 19 percent of the employed labor in 1989 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992a,b). 

Along with those industries, the visitor industry is growing in its importance (DeVito 1992). The Kenai 

Peninsula Borough Economic Development District, Inc. (1992a,b,c), estimates that around 40 percent of 

the total employment of the borough is in the oil and gas industry. Commercial fishing accounts for about 

20 percent of the total employment during the peak season (July) and the visitor industry accounts for 14 

percent. Although this is a projection for the entire borough, it is a fair indication of the economic situation 

in its largest community. Household incomes in Kenai in 1989 ranged from less than $5,000 to over 

$150,000. (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992a). The median household income was found to be $42,889, 

very close to the average for Alaska overall at $41,408. 

RESEARCH METHODS 

Fieldwork occurred in Kenai in all three study years.’ The “study year” for which data were 

collected ran for the calendar year (January through December). Hence, the first year covered 1991, the 

second year was for 1992, and the third year included 1993 household harvest and other information. In 

year one of this project, the goal was to interview 100 households within the city limits of Kenai including 

random households and a panel of households previously interviewed as part of the MMS-sponsored 

social indicators project. In year two, the social indicators panel was retired and the first year random 

households became the social effects panel. There were 45 households in this panel, and the researchers 

attempted to contact and interview only these households in year two. In 1993, the goal was to complete 

100 household interviews, by re-interviewing as many of the 45 social effects panel members, and then 

randomly selecting the remaining households from the updated list of Kenai housing stock. 

The 1991 Studv Year 

In 1991, the goal as mentioned above for Kenai was achieved, representing 4.7 percent of the 

estimated year-round households in the community (Table l-4). To complete the goal of 100 households, 

186 households were contacted. Of the 86 additional households contacted, 32 declined to be 

interviewed, 43 were unavailable, six were vacant, and five were non-Alaska resident households. 

Interviewing began on March 24 and ended on April 16, 1992. Fish and Game researchers conducting the 

interviews were Brad Palach, Susan McNeil, Lisa Tomrdle, Neil Shishido, and Ronald Stanek. The average 

harvest interview took 0.53 hours (32 minutes) to complete, with the longest taking three hours (Table l-7). 

‘For more detail on sampling methods and the conduct of fieldwork, see the series of interim reports prepared at the close of each 

field season (Fall and Utermohle 1992, 1993 and. 1994). 

VI-2 
The social effects questionnaire took about the same amount of time per household at an average of 36 

minutes (Table l-8). These were the shortest averages for any of the 16 study communities. 

The 1992 Studv Year 

Field work for the second year in Kenai began March 2, 1993, and was completed March 12, 1993. 

Three researchers for the Division of Subsistence conducted the surveys, Susan McNeil, Brad Palach, and 

Lisa Tomrdle. As stated above, for year two the social indicators panel was retired and the first year 

random households became the social effects panel. There were 45 households in this panel and the 

researchers attempted to contact and interview only these households in year two. Of the 45 potential 

respondents, 37 were interviewed, one refused, six were unavailable (or could not be contacted), and one 

household had moved to an unknown location (probably out of the Kenai area from what neighbors told 

the interviewers) (Table l-5, Table VI-l). The one refusal was due to the respondent just being too busy 

with work-related things; he seemed willing to be approached the next year. The harvest survey for the 

1992 study year took an average of 0.22 hours (13.2 minutes) per household to complete (Table l-7), while 

the social effects survey took 0.49 hours (29.4 minutes) on average (Table l-8). 

The 1993 Studv Year 

Year three of the study for the city of Kenai took place from February 25 through March 22, 1994. 

All of Kenai’s surveys for the 1993 study year were conducted by division researchers Dave Andersen, 

Susan McNeil, Brad Palach. and Lisa Scarbrough. The goal of 100 household surveys (both harvest 

surveys and social effects questionnaire) was achieved. The community was divided into two strata: up to 

45 social effects panel members and a balance of randomly selected households. Since the field crew was 

only able to locate and interview 30 of the 45 panel members, the newly drawn second stratum included a 

goal of 70 households in order to reach the goal of 100 interviews. 

A summary of sample achievement in Kenai is provided in Table VI-l. A total of 101 surveys were 

completed, with 30 being social effects panel members and the remaining 71 randomly selected 

households. Of the 15 panel members not surveyed, 3 refused, 4 were unavailable, and 8 had moved away 

from the Kenai region. In order to complete the remaining 71 household surveys, it was necessary to 

contact 194 households. Of those not participating, 42 households were unavailable after three attempts, 

32 households refused, 3 households were not living in Kenai during 1993, and 16 households were 

unoccupied (Table l-6). Average length of the household surveys for the 1993 study year in Kenai was 22.2 

minutes (Table l-7) and the social effects survey took an average of 31.2 minutes (Table l-8). 

VI-3 
DEMOGRAPHY 

The 1991 Studv Year 

The estimated population of Kenai as derived from the 1991 survey was slightly higher at 6,796 

people (2,137 households) than that of the 1990 U.S. Census figure of 6,327 people. This population figure 

was reached by computing the mean number of residents in the 100 surveyed households (3.2 persons) 

and expanding this mean to the estimated total number of households (Table VI-2). The 1991 estimated 

population was 28 percent higher than the 1982 population of 5,231 persons, when the last harvest survey 

was conducted in Kenai by the division (Reed 1985:8). Hill (1992:26) reported that during the early 1980s 

the Kenai Peninsula Borough was the second-fasted growing borough in the nation. The population 

increased from 25,282 to almost 41,000 between 1980 and 1990. Reed (1985:19) described the increase in 

the population in the first half of the 1980s as mainly occurring on the road-connected communities of the 

western Kenai lowlands. During this time, the general population of Alaska was growing with increasing 

employment and housing opportunities on the Kenai Peninsula. Reed also points to the oil production on 

the North Slope since it is not uncommon for Prudhoe Bay workers to reside in the Kenai Peninsula area 

(at least eight jobs out of 257 reported by the 1991 sample were on the North Slope). 

Figure VI-2 and Tables VI-1 through VI-3 show a profile of Kenai’s population during the 1991 study 

year. The population was 52.2 percent male and 47.8 percent female. Kenai was found to have a fairly 

young population with an average age of 30.3 years. The average length of residency for Kenai household 

heads was 14.8 years. An estimated six percent of the population was found to be Alaska Native. 

The 1992 Studv Year 

Basically, there were no major changes in the demographic profile of Kenai in 1992 (Fig. VI-3, 

Table VI-l, Table VI-2, Table VI-4). Any minor deviations from the previous year’s levels are probably due 

to the smaller size of the 1993 sample. The population of Kenai in 1992 was estimated at 6,642 with 55.7 

percent male and 44.4 percent female, with an average age of 27.6 years. The average length of residency 

for Kenai household heads was 12.3 years. The Alaska Native population represented 8.7 percent of the 

population. 

The 1993 Studv Year 

Again, little change occurred from the 1992 to 1993 study years in regards to the demographic 

profile of Kenai (Fig. VI-4, Table VI-l, Table VI-2, Table VI-5). A list of new residential housing units built 

since the 1991 study was obtained from the city of Kenai planning department in March 1993. These were 

added to the list bringing the estimated total permanent households in Kenai to 2,274. The estimated 

population of Kenai, however, showed a slight decrease to 6,372 persons, since the 1991 and 1992 studies 

VI-4 
were conducted. The estimated percentage of Alaska Native households also declined, representing only 

5.0 percent of Kenai’s total households, or 4.2 percent of the population. In 1993, Kenai continued to have 

slightly more males representing 52.3 percent than females at 47.7 percent. 

CASH ECONOMY 

The 1992 Studv Year 

Similar to 1982, most Kenai surveyed adults (60.4 percent) worked year-round in 1991 (Table VI-6). 

Among all adults, 71.6 percent were employed in 1991. The average number of months employed for all 

jobs was 9.8 months. On the average, households held 2.3 jobs and had at least one adult who was 

employed for cash during some part of the study year. Household heads were found to be employed 

almost 10 months (9.8 percent) on the average. 

Employment by industry for Kenai (Fig. VI-5) showed the largest job category lo be services (such 

as hospitals) (19.0 percent). Retail trade with 11.0 percent was the second largest, while commercial 

fishing at 10.0 percent and mining (which includes mostly the oil and gas industry) with 10.0 percent tied 

for third for number of 1991 Kenai jobs. The industries that drive the economy of Kenai are similar to those 

found in 1982: the oil industry, commercial fishing, tourism, and government (Reed 1985:18; Hill 1992:14). 

Although there has been a decline in oil prices and the exploration for new fields in the last few years, 

ARC0 and Phillips Petroleum discovered oil in Cook Inlet 30 miles northwest of Kenai in October 1991, the 

first reported oil strike in the area since 1965 (Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development District, 

Inc. 1992b). 

Tables VI-7 and VI-8 summarize community, household, and per capita incomes for Kenai in 1991. 

The average total (earned and other) household income was $49.815 81 for the study year as compared to 

an estimated average range of $35,000 - $39,000 for 1982 (Reed 1985:21). Per capita total income in 1991 

was $15,665.35. Even though mining did not provide the largest percentage of Kenai’s jobs, it contributed 

the largest share ($9,573.29) to the average household income. The second highest contributor was the 

government (schools, local, state, federal) adding $7,522.00 to each average household income. The 

majority of government income came from local education ($3,737.00). Manufacturing (which includes 

logging and canneries) contributed $7,294.18 to Kenai’s average household incomes in 1991. 

Average community, household, and per capita other income is summarized in Table VI-8. 

Average other income was $7.634.42 per household and $2,400.76 per capita. Most of the other income 

came from Alaska Permanent Fund Dividends ($2,598.42 per household), retirement pensions ($2,105.80 

per household), and social security ($876.26 per household). 

VI-5 
The estimated average expenditure on food for the sampled Kenai households in 1991 was $441 

per month. The household median monthly food expense was $400. The latter represents 9.5 percent of 

the estimated total average household income in Kenai in 1991 (Table I-101). 

Almost half the sampled Kenai households (49 households; 49.0 percent) said that their financial 

situation in 1991 was about the same as before the Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 1989. On the other 

hand, 21 percent said their financial situation had improved and 27 percent said it had gotten worse. Nine 

households (9.0 percent) provided no assessment (Table l-103). 

The 1992 Studv Year 

In 1992, there were slightly more adults employed (4.1 percent) than in 1991 (Table VI-6), and 34 

more jobs overall. The number of jobs held per individual did not change, but the mean number of months 

employed rose a fraction (0.7 month). A modest (6.9 percent) rise in the number of households employed 

was accompanied by a slight drop in the mean number of jobs per household and per person. 

There were only slight changes in proportions of jobs held by the various employment sectors. 

There was a 2.0 percent decline in the number of jobs in the mining sector. The appearance of two new 

job sectors, agriculture, forestry, fishing and wholesale trade may have influenced the proportions of each 

sector. The manufacturing sector, showed 6.0 percent gain in jobs which may be due to an increase in 

jobs at local canneries resulting from an exceptionally large commercial harvest of salmon during the 1992 

season (Fig. W-5, Fig. VI-6, Fig. W-7, Fig. VI-lo). 

The average amount of earned and unearned household income ($60,737.98) to the community of 

Kenai during 1992 (Table VI-lo, Table VI-1 1) increased by 21.8 percent ($10,877.17) from 1991. This was a 

substantial gain with the majority of the increase occurring in the manufacturing, trade (stores), and 

unearned income sources. The agriculture sector increased by 100 percent, only because it was not 

reported the previous year. Several earned income sources lost substantially compared to 1991. For 

example, household incomes from services lost nearly 44 percent, commercial fish decreased 20 percent, 

which is surprising considering the large harvest. Construction jobs did not contribute much toward total 

community income in 1991 and provided even less, with a 73 percent decline from 1991 to 1992. 

The 1993 Study Year 

Kenai showed very little change over the three study years in regards to employment. In 1993, 

71 .l percent of all adults were employed at least one month and 65.7 percent worked jobs year-round. The 

average number of months adults were employed was 10.3 months. Of all households, 86.2 percent had at 

least one person employed during at least part of 1993. On the average, households held 2.2 jobs with 1.6 

employed adults per household (Table VI-6). 

VI-6 
Employment by industry for Kenai in 1993 (Fig. W-7) showed the largest job categories to be retail 

trade and services (17 percent each). Retail trade employment for Kenai residents has risen over the three 

years. This is likely due to the opening of a new K-Mart store and a Carrs “super” grocery store in Kenai as 

well as a large Fred Meyer store in nearby Soldotna. Mining (oil and gas) and manufacturing provided 10 

percent and eight percent of the jobs respectively. The fishing industry only provided 5 percent of Kenai’s 

jobs which was down from the other two study years. 

Tables VI-12 and VI-13 summarize community, household, and per capita incomes for Kenai in 

1993. The average total (earned and other) household income was $55035.23 for the study year; a decline 

from 1992 by 9.4 percent. But, the per capita total income in 1993 was $19,641.55, which was nearly 

equivalent to 1992’s per capita income. Contributing the largest share to the household income was once 

again the category of mining (oil and gas), providing on average per household, $11,458.75 (20.8 percent) 

with a community total of $26,057,188.12. Commercial fishing contributed $441,291.09 to Kenai’s total 

estimated income in 1993, just 0.4 percent of all income. This was a notable drop from 5.2 percent in 1991 

and 2.0 percent in 1992. 

Kenai’s 1993 average community, household, and per capita other income is summarized in Table 

VI-13. As with earned income, money earned from other income was almost the same as in the other two 

study years with average other incomes of $7,643.36 per household and $2,727.84 per capita. As in the 

other two study years, most of the other income came from Alaska Permanent Fund Dividends, adding on 

average $2,453.47 to every household’s income in 1993. 

The estimated average expenditure on food in 1993 for the sampled Kenai households was $428 

per month, just slightly less than 1991’s average. The household median monthly food expense was $400, 

the same as in 1991. The latter represents 8.7 percent of the estimated total average household income in 

Kenai in 1993 (Table l-102). 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1991 

Particioation in Huntinu. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities: 1991 

Kenai households used 64 types of resources, including three groups of edible plants plus wood, 

during the 1991 study year (Table VI-19). Used were 27 kinds of fish, 10 species of land mammals, 1 

species of marine mammal, 10 species of birds, and 12 species of marine invertebrates. Households used 

an average of 6.2 different kinds of resources and harvested 4.2 different kinds of resources (Table VI-14). 

An average of 2.7 resources were received and 1.8 resources given away by any one household. The 

number of resources used is very similar to Reed’s (1985:35) 1982 survey of Kenai which showed an 

average of 5.1 resources used and 3.2 harvested. The small differences, may be due to the less detailed 

list of resources used in the earlier survey instrument. 

VI-7 
Of all Kenai households surveyed, 98.0 percent reported using at least one wild resource (Table VI14). A smaller percentage of 87.0 percent attempted to harvest resources and 81 .O percent were 

successful. While only 66.0 percent of the households gave away wild resources, 84.0 percent reported 

receiving wild resources, indicating sharing in the community. Overall, 73.3 percent of the sampled 

population engaged in resource harvest activities, with 20.1 percent hunting, 65.7 percent fishing and/or 

gathering marine invertebrates, 1.3 percent trapping, and 39.3 percent gathering plants (Table VI-15). Also, 

63.8 percent of the total sampled population processed wild resources during the 1991 study year. 

Kenai households were involved in resource exchanges with residents of at least 19 other Alaska 

communities in 1991 (Table VI-16). They most frequently gave resources to fellow Kenai residents (48 

percent of all households) followed by people living outside of Alaska in other states (29.0 percent). It was 

most common for Kenai households to receive resources from people living in Kenai (71 .O), Soldotna (15.0 

percent), Homer (8.0 percent), and Anchorage (7.0 percent). 

Resource Harvest Quantities: 1991 

Of the sixteen study communities in 1991, Kenai had the lowest mean per capita harvest at 74.5 

pounds edible weight (Fig. VI-8, Table VI-17), which was similar to the community of Valdez at 88.1 pounds 

per capita (see Chapter Ill). The mean household harvest for Kenai was 237.0 pounds (Table VI-19). This 

1991 amount of wild resource harvest for home use is almost a 97 percent increase from the estimated 

1982 harvest (Fig. VI-8). Kenai households harvested an average of 90.4 pounds of salmon (38.1 percent 

of total harvest), 79.1 pounds of other fish (33.4 percent), 17.8 pounds of marine invertebrates (7.5 

percent), 42.7 pounds of land mammals (18.0 percent), 2.3 pounds of birds (1.0 percent), and 4.8 pounds 

of plants and berries (2.0 percent) (Fig. VI-lo, Fig. M-14, Table VI-19). The household harvest composition 

is similar to the 1982 estimates of salmon at 40.9 percent, other fish at 30.8 percent, marine invertebrates at 

9.1 percent, game, including birds, at 17.5 percent, and plants at 1.7 percent (Reed 1985:39; Table VI-18). 

A large majority of the sampled Kenai households (74.0 percent) estimated that between 1 percent 

to 25 percent of their annual supply of meat, fish, and poultry came from wild foods (Table l-104). Eleven 

percent provided an estimate of 26 to 50 percent, four percent estimated 51 to 75 percent, and seven 

percent said that 76 to 99 percent of their meat, fish, and poultry was from wild resource harvests. 

Additionally, three households used no wild foods and one household said that all its meat, fish, and 

poultry supply was from wild harvests, 

Of the sampled Kenai households, 51.0 percent reported that their 1991 use and harvest of wild 

resources was about the same as the previous year, 1990 (Table l-57). Another 15.3 percent reported an 

increase in harvest and use and 33.7 percent reported a decrease. When asked to compare 1991 with the 

year before the Exxon Valdez oil spill (1988), 51.1 percent said their 1991 harvest and use was about the 

same, 11.4 percent said it was higher and 37.5 percent said it was lower. The assessment of change 

VI-8 
question for 1988 was only asked for all the resources as a whole and not asked of each specific group of 

resources as was done in Seldovia for the same year (Table l-58). 

A significant portion of the Kenai household harvest in 1991 was made up of salmon and other fish 

at 71.5 percent (Fig. W-10). Per capita, each resident harvested an average of 28.4 pounds of salmon in 

1991, a 13 pound per person increase over the 1982 harvest (Figure W-9). Over half of this harvest by 

weight (55.2 percent) was sockeyes and another 33.8 percent was cohos. Chinooks made up 8.9 percent; 

chums and pinks were taken in very small quantities (0.7 percent) (Table VI-21). By gear type, 4.7 pounds 

of salmon per household (5.2 percent) were removed from commercial catches; 15.3 pounds (16.9 

percent) were taken with subsistence set gillnets; 11.8 pounds (13.1 percent) were taken with dip nets; and 

58.5 pounds (64.8 percent) were taken by rod and reel (Table VI-20, Table W-21, Table VI-22). This 

represents a notable change from the 1982 data which indicated that 7.0 percent of the salmon harvest was 

taken with commercial gear, 3.0 was taken with subsistence gillnets, 1.0 percent was taken with dip nets, 

and a full 89.0 percent was taken with rod and reel (Reed 1985:186). The most significant changes were in 

the increased use of subsistence nets and dip nets in 1991 (Table VI-23). These changes will be discussed 

under the regulations portion of this chapter. 

About half of the sampled households (53.1 percent) reported that their 1991 harvest and use of 

salmon was comparable to 1990; 15.6 percent said it was higher and 31.3 percent said it was lower (Table 

l-9) 

On average, Kenai households used 1.7 methods to preserve their salmon harvests (Table l-106). 

The most households (67.0 percent) froze portions of their salmon catch, followed by canning (43.0 

percent of all households), smoking (41.0 percent), pickling (8.0 percent), salting (5.0 percent), and 

kippering (2.0 percent). 

Halibut, at 21.7 pounds per capita, represented 87.1 percent of the 24.9 pounds of other fish 

harvested per capita (Table Vi-19). Trout and char (rainbow trout, Steelhead, Dolly Varden, Arctic char, and 

lake trout) accounted for 7.2 percent of the per capita harvest. Cod, grayling, flounder, rockfish, eulachon, 

shark, skates, and black rockfish were also harvested in small quantities. By gear type, 0.3 pounds of other 

fish per household (0.4 percent of the total non-salmon finfish harvest) were removed from commercial 

catches, 0.9 pounds (1.2 percent) were taken with subsistence gear, 0.4 pounds (0.5 percent) were taken 

by ice fishing, and 77.4 pounds (97.9 percent) were caught by rod and reel (Table VI-24, Table VI-25). As 

shown in Table VI-26. most Kenai households (53.0 percent) harvested fish other than salmon with rod and 

reel gear. Also, 4.0 percent harvested these fish through the ice with hook and line, 7.0 percent used 

subsistence methods, and 1 .O percent removed non-salmon fish from commercial catches. 

A majority of Kenai households interviewed, 59.8 percent, reported that in 1991, their fish other 

than salmon harvest and use the same as that in 1990. Higher use and harvest was reported by 14.4 

percent of the households and lower use and harvest was reported by 25.8 percent (Table l-15). 

VI-9 
In 1991, marine invertebrates accounted for 5.6 pounds of the per capita harvest. As shown in 

Table VI-19, 4.4 pounds (78.6 percent of the marine invertebrate harvest) were razor clams, reflecting the 

easy access to clamming beds at Clam Gulch and Ninilchik, both just a few miles south of Kenai. Reed 

(1985:51) found almost one-fourth of Kenai households participated in clam digging in 1983, slightly lower 

than the 40.0 percent of households that attempted to harvest clams in 1991. Other marine invertebrates 

harvested in lesser quantities included butter, steamer, and littleneck clams; Dungeness and Tanner crab; 

mussels; and shrimp. 

Most Kenai households, 73.2 percent, interviewed in 1991 said that their 1990 harvest and use of 

marine invertebrates was the same (Table l-45). More households reported decreased harvests and uses 

(21.6 percent of the households) than higher harvests and uses (5.2 percent). 

The per capita big game harvest was 13.4 pounds divided among black bear, caribou, deer, 

moose, and sheep (Table W-19). Moose, at 8.5 pounds, was the largest contributor to the big game 

harvest (63.3 percent). Reed (1985:51) found that moose hunting in 1982 among Kenai households 

generated a high participation rate with one-third of the households attempting to harvest moose. A similar 

situation was found in 1991: almost one third (34.0 percent) of the Kenai households attempted to harvest 

moose. 

Almost three-quarters of the sampled households (74.0 percent) found no difference in their 1991 

and 1990 use and harvest of large game; 8.3 percent felt their use and harvest was higher in 1991 and 17.7 

percent felt it was lower (Table l-21). 

Small land mammals were of little significance in the harvests of Kenai residents, with less than one 

pound harvested per capita (Table VI-19). Hares, martens, coyotes, and squirrels made up the entire 

harvest with only one household actually using each resource. The martens were taken by one household 

for their fur only. 

Since most sampled households have no consistent use or harvest of small land mammals, it is not 

unusual that 94.8 percent reported their 1991 use and harvest as the same as the previous year (Table I27). Only 2.1 percent reported an increase and 3.1 percent reported a decrease. 

Marine mammals played the smallest role in Kenai’s per capita harvest with none harvested and 

only one household using harbor seal (Table VI-1 8, Table VI-19). This finding is almost the same as in the 

1982 survey when one household reported using marine mammals other than seal (other specific species 

were not asked about) (Reed 1985:37). 

Every sampled household (100.0 percent) reported their 1991 use and harvest of marine mammals 

the same as 1990 (Table l-33). Most of the interviewed households have never used or tried to harvest 

marine mammals except maybe to try a piece of seal meat, for example, 

There was some interest in the use and harvesting of birds by some Kenai households with 28.0 

percent using birds and 23.0 percent harvesting, although the per capita harvest of birds was fairly low at 

0.7 pounds, or less than one percent of the total per capita harvest (Fig. VI-g, Table VI-17, Table VI-19). 

VI-1 0 
Grouse, at 0.5 pounds per capita (65.3 percent of the bird harvest), were the most sought after birds in 

1991. Also contributing to the bird harvest at 0.2 pounds (26.4 percent) were ducks, including mergansers, 

mallards, pintails, widgeons, and teals. A few ptarmigan and sandhill cranes were also harvested. 

Bird and egg use in 1991 was the same as 1990 for 86.3 percent of the sampled households (Table 

l-39). Higher use and harvest were reported by 5.3 percent of the sampled households and lower use and 

harvest by 8.4 percent. 

Although plants and berries only account for 1.5 pounds of the 1991 per capita harvest (2.0 

percent of the total harvest) (Fig. VI-lo), 61.0 percent of surveyed Kenai households reported using them 

and 45.0 percent harvested them (Table VI-19). Berries were the main plant harvested at 1.4 pounds per 

capita (93.0 percent of the plant harvest). There are many species of wild berries available in the Kenai 

area, including highbush cranberry, red raspberry, currants, and lowbush cranberry. Only two of the 

sampled households (2.0 percent) used plants for medicinal purposes. These included fireweed and 

rosehips for unspecified treatments (Table I-108, Table l-109). 

Most interviewed households (82.5 percent) said that their 1991 use and harvest of plants and 

berries was virtually the same as in 1990 (Table l-51). A small number of 4.1 percent said it was higher and 

13.4 percent said it was lower. 

Three Kenai households (3.0 percent) discarded portions of wild resource harvests because of 

perceived abnormalities (Table l-107). These cases involved salmon (one household), other fish (one 

household), and an unspecified resource (one household). The respondents offered no explanations for 

the causes of these abnormalities one said he had observed such conditions before the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill (during the Glacier Bay oil spill in 1987 he observed the same thing), the other two said they had not. 

As summarized in Table U-9, on average, Kenai households owned equipment that was used at 

least in part for subsistence activities valued at $29,073. On average, households spent $469 per year on 

fuel for this equipment and spent an additional $827 on maintenance, repairs, and supplies. Households 

estimated that overall about 51.9 percent of the value of these equipment, supplies, and fuel were used for 

subsistence purposes. 

VI-I 1 
RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1992 

Participation in Huntina. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities: 1992 

From 1991 to 1992 the percentage of people participating in hunting and processing activities 

remained almost exactly the same (Table VI-1 5). Participation in activities within individual resources 

categories also changed only slightly for some resources. For example, people attempting game harvests 

declined by 18.0 percent, and those gathering berries and plants declined by 13.2 percent from 1991 to 

1992. These were the largest changes in all of the categories between the two years. 

Resource Harvest Quantities 1992 

In 1992, Kenai households on average, harvested 73.9 pounds per person of total wild resources 

for home use. As shown in Figure VI-8, this is only a 0.6 pound decrease from their 1991 estimated 

harvests. 

Estimated harvests for individual resource categories changed substantially for some resources 

and remained largely the same for others in 1992. Compared to 1991, salmon increased by 6.8 pounds per 

capita and became 47.7 percent of the total harvest, up 9.6 percent in 1992 (Fig. VI-g, Fig. VI-lo, Fig. VI-12, 

Table VI-17, Table VI-18). Quantities of all species of salmon harvested, except pinks, increased. Nonsalmon fish, on the other hand, declined by 5.2 percent, with the greatest share of the decline occurring in 

the halibut harvest (Table VI-19, Table VI-27). Evidently, owing to the very large run of red salmon into the 

Kenai River, a high success rate among rod and reel fishermen, and a popular setnet fishery on Kenai 

Peninsula beaches and dipnet fisheries at mouth of Kenai and Kasilof Rivers, fishermen focused more 

attention on salmon than non-salmon species. This change was also reflected by increases in percentages 

of households harvesting salmon with rods and reels, subsistence setnets, and removal from commercial 

catches (Table VI-28 through Table VI-31). Per capita game harvests decreased by 41 .O percent from 1991 

with moose and caribou 100 percent and 66.2 percent respectively, and the deer harvest was up by 80.2 

percent. Other resources categories including plants, marine invertebrates, and birds and eggs remained 

unchanged in 1992 (Fig. VI-I 0, Fig. VI-1 2. Table VI-1 7, Table VI-1 8, Table VI-19, Table VI-27). 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1993 

Particioation in Huntina. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities: 1993 

Wild resource use and harvest patterns in Kenai did not vary much over the three-year study 

period (Table VI-14). In 1993, households used an average of 7.1 different kinds of resources and 

harvested 4.5 different kinds of resources. An average of 3.2 resources were received and 2.3 resources 

given away per household. Of all households surveyed, 98.0 percent reported using at least one wild 

VI-12 
resource, 89.1 percent attempted to harvest resources, and 86.1 percent were successful. Sharing Of 

subsistence foods by Kenai residents was demonstrated in all three years of the study. An estimated 81.2 

percent of Kenai’s 1993 households received wild resources from another household while a smaller 

percentage (62.4 percent) gave away some of their resources. 

Overall, 77.0 percent of the sampled population engaged in noncommercial harvest activities in 

1993. which was just a slight increase than the previous two years. Of the total population, it is estimated 

that in 1993, 77.0 percent at least attempted to harvest at least one wild resource (Table VI-15). An average 

of 21.9 percent of Kenai’s 1993 population hunted game, birds, or marine mammals, 67.5 percent fished, 

3.5 percent trapped or hunted furbearers, and 40.6 percent gathered plants and berries. 

Resource Harvest Quantities: 1993 

The majority of Kenai households (60.0 percent) estimated between 1 percent to 25 percent of 

their annual supply of meat, fish, and poultry came from wild foods (Table l-105). Eleven percent provided 

an estimate of 26 to 50 percent, 10 percent estimated 51 to 75 percent, and 10 percent of households said 

that 76 to 99 percent, and nine percent said none of their meat, fish, and poultry was from wild resource 

harvests. 

Kenai’s per capita harvest of all wild resources in 1993 totaled 83.8 pounds of edible weight, which 

had increased by 10 pounds per person since the two previous study years (Fig. VI-8). The mean 

household harvest for Kenai was 234.7 pounds. The increase in per capita harvests was due in part to 

more salmon (3.5 pounds), land mammals (9.0 pounds), wild plants and berries (3.9 pounds), and marine 

mammals (0.6 pounds) harvested in 1993 (Fig. VI-g, Fig. VI-14, Table VI-1 7, Table W-35). Other fish such as 

halibut was down in 1993 at 4.9 pounds per person, as well as marine invertebrates (2.8 pounds). Bird and 

egg use was essentially the same as in 1992 at 0.9 pounds per person harvested. Just as the previous 

years, salmon made up the largest percentage (46.2 percent) of the total edible pounds of wild resources 

harvested (Fig. VI-g, Fig.VI-10, Fig. VI-12, Fig VI-13, Fig. VI-14, Table M-18). However, game harvests in 

1993 represented the second highest portion (20.2 percent) exceeding that of non-salmon fish (19.4 

percent) which in the prior two years was the second highest harvest category. 

The interviewed households were asked to assess if their levels of uses of wild resources was less, 

more, or the same than in 1988, the year before the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Fig. VI-1 1). In 1991, 37.5 percent 

thought that overall resource was less than in 1988, and nearly the same percentage felt their 1993 uses 

were less (35.9 percent). In 1993, half of the respondents felt small game harvests (50.0 percent) were less, 

while approximately one third of the respondents felt the other resource categories were less with the 

exception of marine mammals, 

As with the other study years, a significant portion of the Kenai household harvest in 1993 was 

made up of salmon and other fish at 65.6 percent (Fig. VI-14, Table VI-17, Table VI-18). Per capita, each 

resident harvested an average of 38.7 pounds of salmon in 1993, a 23.2 pound per person increase over 

VI-1 3 
the 1982 harvest. Of all households, 89.1 percent said they used salmon during the 1993 study year (Table 

VI-35). Sockeye salmon were the most popular salmon harvested providing 20.8 pounds per person. By 

gear type, in 1993, salmon were taken with set nets, floating nets, dip nets, removed from commercial 

catches, taken with rods and reels, harvested by ice fishing, and even with pots (Table VI-37). Sockeye 

salmon were most commonly harvested with rods and reels (16,819.59 individual), however 10,491.92 

sockeyes were harvested with various subsistence gear types including set nets and dip nets (Table VI-38). 

Rod and reel fishing was again the most common harvest method overall (Table VI-39). 

Kenai households were asked to compare their harvest and use of salmon to that of the previous 

year and to 1988, the year before the oil spill. The majority felt their harvests were less (42.6 percent) in 

1993 than in 1992, and 42.9 percent thought their harvests were less than in 1988. Only 18.2 percent 

thought their harvests and uses of salmon had increased since 1988 (Table l-63), despite a subsistence 

fishery open in 1992 and not 1988. Their feelings about decrease in harvest do not match the four years of 

harvest data showing Kenai’s harvest has increased since 1982 (Table VI-17). Harvest surveys, however, 

were not conducted in Kenai in 1988. 

When asked why they felt their harvests had decreased since the oil spill, 30.3 percent said they 

did not have as much time to get out and harvest the salmon as they did in 1988. Other reasons provided 

by 21.2 percent were fewer salmon available for harvest in 1993, 21.2 percent gave economic reasons 

(such as they had less money available to get out and harvest salmon than in 1988), 21.2 percent said they 

did not try as hard or had less interest to harvest salmon in 1993 than in 1988, and 15.2 percent said there 

salmon harvest areas were harder to get to than in 1988 (Table l-65). 

Of those feeling their salmon harvests had decreased since 1988, only 7 of 101 respondents 

thought the oil spill played a factor in their decrease in harvest in 1993 (Table l-66). Of these, 57.1 percent 

blamed the spill for fewer fish available. The others (28.6 percent) thought the spilt damaged them 

economically and therefore they could not pay the cost of getting the fish (boats, gas, fishing line). One 

person said because of the spill, they have less interest in harvesting salmon, and another said the spill 

caused limitations on access to salmon harvest areas. 

Non-salmon fish harvested in 1993 by Kenai households provided an average of 45.6 pounds per 

household (Table VI-40). Halibut was harvested the most of all non-salmon fish providing 13.2 pounds per 

person in 1993; which was less than in the 1991 (21.7 pounds) and 1992 (18.2 pounds) (Table VI-19, Table 

VI-27, Table VI 35). Per capita pounds of trout and char totaled 2.6 pounds, which had increased from 

1991 and 1992. Rockfish in 1993 provided 0.3 pounds per capita. Trout and char levels are generally high 

in Kenai due to area lakes that are stocked for sport fisheries. One of the randomly selected households in 

1993 reported a large harvest of trout. They said that they provide food to many families in need, and trout 

fishing in the nearby lakes is a fun and easy way to get food for others. 

Households took most of their non-salmon fish using rods and reels, however, subsistence gear 

(dipnets) were used for eulachon fishing, lake trout were caught by ice fishing, and halibut was in part 

VI-14 
removed from commercial catches (Table VI-40). Rod and reel fishing also produced the most in terms of 

pounds (96.6) of non-salmon fish harvested (Table VI-41). Of all households, 1.0 percent harvested nonsalmon fish using subsistence gear, 2.0 percent removed them from commercial fish catches, 60.4 percent 

used rods and reels to get their fish, and 1 .O percent got them by ice fishing (Table VI-42). 

Almost half (46.5 percent) of Kenai households interviewed reported that in 1991 their other fish 

harvest and use was the same as that in 1988. Slightly fewer (35.2 percent) thought their uses were IeSS 

and 18.3 percent thought more than in 1988 (Table l-67). Of those saying their harvest had declined, 16 

percent blamed the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Of these, 75 percent thought the 1989 oil spill depleted the fish 

(Table I-70). 

Marine invertebrates accounted for 5.1 pounds of the per capita harvest, which was down slightly 

from the 1991 and 1992 harvest estimates (Table VI-17). Just as the other study years, razor clams were 

the most popular clam harvested by 1993 Kenai households. They provided per capita harvests of 4.2 

pounds. Other marine invertebrates harvested in lesser quantities included butter, and steamer clams, 

Dungeness and Tanner crab, mussels, shrimp, and scallops (Table VI-35). 

Table l-87 shows that the majority (47.1 percent) of Kenai households in 1993, said that their 1988 

harvest and use of marine invertebrates was the same. More households reported decreased harvests and 

uses (35.3 percent of the households) than higher harvests and uses (17.6 percent). The harvest data 

show a slight increase since 1982, however shellfish harvest levels have declined since 1991 and 1992 (Fig. 

VI-14, Table VI-1 7). Of those reporting less, the majority (75.0 percent) thought the oil spill was responsible 

for fewer clams in Kenai’s harvest areas (Table I-90). 

As mentioned above, the per capita big game harvest in 1993 increased from the previous year’s 

with 16.7 pounds divided among black bear (0.2 pounds), caribou (2.1 pounds), deer (0.8 pounds), moose 

(13.4 pounds), and goat (0.3 pounds) (Table VI-17. Table VI-35). Moose has provided the most poundage 

of meat for Kenai residents throughout the study years. In 1993, 51.5 percent of all households used 

moose meat. 

Despite the increase in harvest levels of big game since 1992, only 25.4 percent of Kenai’s 1993 

households thought their harvest and use had increased since the previous year (Table l-71). Compared to 

1988, only 19.3 percent thought their harvest had increased, with the majority, 49.1 percent, feeling little 

change, and 31.6 percent seeing a decrease in harvest. Only two households blamed the oil spill on their 

decrease in harvest of large mammals since 1988. Reasons they provided were access, economic, and 

luck (Table l-74). 

Small land mammals such as fox, beaver and hare were once again insignificant for Kenai 

residents in 1993. Only 3.0 percent of Kenai’s households reported using furbearers during the study year 

(Table VI-17, Table VI-18. Table VI-35). 

Just as in 1991, most of Kenai’s households (75.0 percent) saw little change from the previous 

Year’s harvest and use of small land mammals (Table l-75). However, when asked to compare their use 

VI-1 5 
and harvest of 1993 with 1988, half (50.0 percent) thought their harvests were less. Of those, only one 

person thought the oil spill played a factor, but did not give a reason (Table l-78). 

Marine mammal harvests in 1993 had increased since the previous two years. While only one 

percent of Kenai’s households reported using marine mammals (harbor seal), when expanded to represent 

the population, an average of 0.6 pounds per household of meat was harvested or 135.1 seals (Table VI-17, 

Table VI-18, Table VI-35). This estimate is believed to be high for Kenai, because during a separate study in 

1992 and 1993 by the Division of Subsistence specifically for harbor seals and sea lions, Alaska Native 

marine mammal hunters were identified and interviewed (Mishler and Wolfe 1992; Mishler and Wolfe 1993). 

From the 1992 study, of eight identified hunting households in Kenai, approximately 33.3 harbor seals were 

harvested. No sea lions were taken, however, some sea lion meat was received from other communities. 

In 1993, only two of these households were interviewed with 20.0 seals harvested and no sea lions. 

The only household in Kenai in 1993 reporting use and harvest of marine mammals said their use 

and harvest did not change from the previous year, but had increased since 1988 (Table l-79). The reason 

given for the increase was they had more interest and put in more effort in 1993 than in 1988 (Table I-80). 

Bird harvests remained virtually the same throughout the study years (Table VI-17, Table VI-18, 

Table VI-35). Of all Kenai households in 1993, 25.7 percent used birds and 23.8 percent harvested them. 

The per capita harvest of birds remained fairly low at 0.94 pounds, or 1.1 percent of the total per capita 

harvest. Grouse, at 0.56 pounds per capita, were the most sought after birds in 1993, just as was in 1991 

and 1992. A variety of ducks was harvested totaling 0.2 pounds per capita. 

Bird harvests in 1993 were reported by a slight majority to be less (38.2 percent) than the previous 

year, with 35.3 percent feeling there was little change. Compared to 1988, 42.9 percent thought there was 

little change, 32.1 percent saw a decrease, and 25.0 percent used and harvested more birds than in 1988 

(Table l-83). No one thought the oil spill was a reason for their decrease in harvests of birds since 1988 

(Table t-86); however, less time and money were the main explanations provided for the decrease (Table I85). 

Wild plants and berry harvests in 1993 were higher than the other study years at 5.2 pounds per 

person, or 6.2 percent of the total subsistence harvest (Table VI-17, Table VI-18). An estimated 51.5 

percent of Kenai’s 1993 households reported using wild berries and plants with 41.6 percent harvesting 

them (Table VI-as), Some households reported that 1993 was a good berry year, which might explain the 

increase in harvest over the other years. In addition, one household said they harvested a very large 

supply of berries because they donate much of their wild food to families in need. 

Despite the increase in wild berry and plant use for Kenai households in 1993, only 16.4 percent felt 

there harvests and uses of this resource had increased since the previous year (Table l-91), and even fewer 

(10.2 percent) thought there was an increase since 1988. The majority (52.1 percent) saw little change 

from 1993 compared to 1992 and also from 1988 (55.9 percent). Of households feeling there was an 

VI-16 
increase, most said they put out more effort to gather berries and plants from the previous year and in 1988 

(Table l-92). 

DISCUSSION 

Subsistence Salmon Reaulations and Chanaes in Harvest Levels: 1991, 1992 and 1993 

This section will discuss regulatory changes that influenced salmon harvesting patterns in Kenai 

during 1991, 1992, and 1993 compared with 1982, the last year of a division study. Sport fishing 

regulations in 1991, 1992, and 1993 for rod and reel fishing in the Kenai and Russian rivers were very Similar 

to those in 1982 with the exception of emergency orders that increased since the 1980’s causing 

considerable variations in where and when anglers could fish and what they could keep (ADF&G 

1982,1991,1992,1993). More substantial differences between the two years occurred when examining the 

subsistence and personal use fishing regulations. 

The 1991 subsistence and personal use regulations for the Kenai area contrasted sharply with the 

1982 regulations (the year of the earlier division survey), when no subsistence fisheries were available to 

central Kenai Peninsula residents (Reed 1985:23). Concern over uncontrolled growth of the subsistence 

fishery led the Board of Fisheries in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s to reduce the open season, allowable 

gear length, available beach space, bag limits, and permit qualifications. For most of the 1980’s the 

majority of the Kenai Peninsula was classified as a non-rural area by the Joint Board of Fisheries and 

Game. Subsistence fisheries were not allowed in non-rural areas. 

The Board of Fisheries created a “personal use” fishery beginning in 1982, which opened river 

mouths to dipnet and selected beaches to setnet salmon fishing by emergency order, when certain 

escapement goals had been met and following uses by commercial and recreational fisheries (except the 

Kasilof River setnet fishery which opened in June). Reed (1985:23) concluded that many Kenai Peninsula 

residents found these regulations inconvenient and uneconomical for obtaining fish for home use. In 1989, 

an Alaska Supreme Court decision in the McDowell Case invalidated the rural subsistence preference to 

state law, opening areas such as the Kenai Peninsula for consideration for subsistence fisheries, 

In November 1990, the Alaska Board of Fisheries passed regulations for subsistence fisheries for 

Upper Cook Inlet for 1991. Under these regulations, subsistence fishing was allowed with lo-fathom set 

gillnets in most marine water areas of Upper Cook Inlet normally open to commercial set gillnet fishing. In 

addition, subsistence setnet fisheries were created in the Knik Arm as well as dipnet fisheries in the mouths 

of the Kenai and Kasilof rivers. Subsistence periods were scheduled on certain Wednesdays and 

Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. by regulation. On August 9, a Kenai Superior Court judge 

invalidated the Upper Cook inlet Subsistence Salmon Management Plan, eliminating any further 

subsistence fisheries in Upper Cook Inlet in 1991. A total of five days of subsistence fishing were 

conducted under the plan in 1991, although not ail areas were open each of these periods. In total, the 

VI-1 7 
7,065 holders of Upper Cook Inlet subsistence permits issued under the newly-adopted regulation, 

reported harvesting 550 chinook, 32,230 sockeye, 3,520 coho, 537 pink, and 1,598 chum salmon (Ruesch 

and Fox 1992:15-16,46). 

Tables VI-53 and VI-54 illustrate the differences in permits issued and salmon taken in the 

subsistence and personal use fisheries for the study years of 1982, 1991, 1992 and 1993. These regulatory 

changes account in part for the increase in home use salmon harvests by Kenai residents in the 1990’s 

over 1982, and the wider participation in subsistence salmon fisheries. 

In 1991, the harvest survey found 16.9 percent of the average Kenai household salmon harvest in 

pounds was taken by subsistence set gillnets, and 13.1 percent were taken by dipnets, an increase from 

the 5.7 percent harvested with subsistence methods in 1982 (Table VI-21, Table VI-53). As shown in Tables 

VI-23 and VI-53, 25.0 percent of the sampled Kenai households used subsistence methods to harvest 

salmon in 1991; 12.0 percent used setnets and 14.0 percent used dipnets. This compares with 58.0 

percent of the households that used rod and reel, and 4.0 percent that removed salmon from commercial 

catches in the same year. 

A similar plan for Cook Inlet subsistence fishing was in place for 1992, and there was no courtordered closure. A total of 9,500 permits were issued. All thirty-five scheduled fishing periods remained 

open, and as a result more subsistence fish were caught. The 1992 reported subsistence harvests for 

Upper Cook Inlet (not including Tyonek or the personal use fisheries) was almost twice that of 1991 with a 

total of 1,139 chinook, 46,419 sockeye, 10,320 coho, 1,818 pinks and 1,827 chums (Ruesch and Fox 

1993:16-18,45) (Table W-54). 

In 1992, the harvest survey found that 24.1 percent of salmon harvested by Kenai households in 

pounds was taken with subsistence set gillnets, and 13.4 percent were taken by dipnets (Table VI-29). Also 

in 1992, 27.0 percent of the sampled Kenai households harvested salmon using subsistence methods. Of 

these households, 13.5 percent used gill nets and an equal number (13.5 percent) used dip nets to get their 

salmon. This compares to 70.3 percent that used rod and reel, and 2.7 percent removing salmon from 

commercial fish catches (Table VI-31) Table VI-53). 

The Upper Cook Inlet subsistence fishery was eliminated for the 1993 season when the Joint Board 

of Fisheries and Game established that most of Upper Cook Inlet was a non-subsistence area. The 

personal use setnet fisheries on the Kasilof River were reinstated as well as dipnet fisheries at the mouths of 

the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers (Ruesch and Fox 1994:15-18). In addition, the Kenaitze tribal and Tyonek 

subsistence fisheries were open in 1993. 

In 1993, the division subsistence survey found that 23.5 percent of the salmon harvest in pounds 

by Kenai households were taken using subsistence/ personal use methods (Table VI-37). Of salmon taken 

with subsistence gear in pounds, 1.1 percent came from setnets. 0.7 were harvested with floating nets, 17.0 

percent from dipnets. and 0.1 percent from pots. As shown in Tables VI-39 and VI-53, 16.8 percent of 

Kenai households used subsistence gear to harvest their 1993 salmon, while 59.4 percent used rod and 

VI-l 8 
reel, 4.0 percent removed them from commercial fish catches, and 1 .O percent got them by ice fishing. 

The Exxon Valdez Oil Soill and Kenai: the Social Effects Questionnaire 

The following will discuss some of the study findings from the social effects survey that was 

administered in Kenai along with the harvest survey discussed above. This questionnaire was designed to 

try to determine some of the possible long-term effects of the &ton Valdez oil spill (EVOS) on Kenai, 

focusing primarily on patterns of wild resource use. Selected findings from all three study years for Kenai 

are summarized in Tables VI-43 through VI-52. For a review of the oil spill-related events in Kenai in 1989, 

see the “oiled mayors” study by Impact Assessment Inc. (IAI) (199Oc:124-134). In addition, for further 

discussion of the effects of the EVOS on Kenai, see Robbins’ (1993:445-511) summary of key respondent 

interviews conducted as part of the MMS-sponsored social indicators study. 

As found in both of the above studies as well as this study, the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill 

on Kenai were more subtle than in small Alaska Native villages with subsistence economies, such as 

Chenega Bay or Nanwalek. Kenai residents did not experience oil on their beaches like most of the other 

communities in the study, yet there were economic effects, Numerous businesses lost employees who left 

their jobs for higher paying clean-up jobs. The commercial driftnet fishery was closed which affected the 

incomes of fisherman and canneries, and the municipality lost revenue generally brought in by the 

fishermen to support the dock. The municipality and visitor bureau were flooded with an influx of 

paperwork, phone calls, faxes, and visitors. Exxon compensated some of the fishermen and city for lost 

revenue; however, anxiety levels grew for some people as well as reported cases of violence. 

Of total earned income for Kenai during the study years, approximately 25 percent came from oil 

industry jobs. It is perhaps not surprising therefore that the majority of those responding to the study 

questions felt the oil spill did not have much effect on natural resources, or on other social functions in the 

community. 

Summarv of Findinas of the Social Effects Questionnaire: Kenai 1991, 1992 and 1993 

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 VI-49). The most popular 

reasons given by Kenai respondents throughout the three study years were: hunting and fishing 

opportunities, the beauty of the area, the size of the community, necessary personal freedoms, 

recreational opportunities, and job opportunities. 

When asked why or how they came to Kenai, the majority of responses in all three study years 

said they came because of employment or job opportunities (47.0 percent in 1991, 35.1 percent in 1992, 

and 46.5 percent in 1993) (Table U-49). Respondents that were born or reared in Kenai represented a 

small percentage of responses (4.0 percent in 1991, 10.8 percent in 1992, and 11.9 percent in 1993). 

VI-I 9 
The majority of households over the three year study also said that employment was the main reason 

they choose to stay in Kenai (29.0 percent in 1991, 29.7 percent in 1992 and 27.7 percent in 1993). 

When asked if they like living in Kenai more, the same, or less since the EVOS, in all three study 

years, the majority said the same (84.8 percent in 1991, 87.5 percent in 1992 and 76.2 percent in 1993) 

(Fig. l-8, Table U-49). One reason given by respondents as to why they like Kenai more since the spill 

was that the spill increased their appreciation of their area. On the other hand, others said because of 

the oil spill, they are now uncertain about the future of the environment surrounding their own 

community. Respondents appeared divided whether they were confident that they would be able to 

continue to hunt, fish, and gather in the places they currently do. Most, however, said they would 

continue to live in Kenai if wild foods were not available (75.0 percent in 1991, 73.0 percent in 1992, and 

65.0 percent in 1993). Those content with life in Kenai outnumbered those who were not, with 67.0 

percent in 1991, 70.3 percent in 1992, and 77.2 percent in 1993. Additional evidence of satisfaction with 

the community was the finding that in all three study years approximately 60 percent of the respondents 

expected to be living in the region when they were old, while under 30 percent said probably not. 

The social effects questionnaire also tried to determine the significance of wild foods to Kenai 

residents (Table VI-43). Responses did not vary much from year to year. The majority of Kenai 

respondents in all three study years said they did not eat any wild foods the day before the interview 

(1991, 80.0 percent: 1992, 81.1 percent, 1993, 77.2 percent). Of those eating wild foods, only 16.0 

percent in 1991, 16.2 percent in 1992, and 20.8 percent in 1993 said these wild foods were a major part 

of one of their meals the day before the interview. This information is not surprising considering at least 

60 percent of all households in Kenai work year-round jobs that provide them with money to buy food 

from the city’s stores. Full time employment also cuts down on the amount of time a person has to look 

for, harvest, and process their own foods. This contrasts with the community of Chignik Lake (for 

example), one of the study communities which is isolated, with no grocery stores, and seasonal 

employment opportunities. In 1991 of their total households, 72.7 percent said they had eaten wild foods 

the day before their survey was conducted and 59.1 percent had this wild food as a major meal the day 

prior to their interview (Fig. l-3). 

Most of Kenai’s respondents in 1992 (86.5 percent), and in 1993 (71.3 percent), said they eat 

clams. Also, in all three study years, over 82 percent of the respondents thought clams taken from their 

harvest areas were safe for children to eat (Table VI-44). There were only one household in 1991 and 

1992 that thought clams were unsafe because of oil pollution. Comparing Kenai to the other study 

communities, Figure l-4 demonstrates that Kenai households showed some concern about the safety of 

clams in their area, but were not as fearful as many of the other communities situated closer to the path 

of the oil from the EVOS. Seals and chitons were found to be unimportant to Kenai residents each year 

of the study (Fig. l-5). 

The respondents were asked to compare their observations of the availability of various 

resources in their region with the year before the spill (Table VI-45). Those answering “do not know” or 

VI-20 
“the same” were the majority of Kenai responses in all three study years for m0S.t of the resource 

categories. Resources where 25 to 55 percent of the respondents felt the resources had increased or 

declined included: moose (decline 1992); harbor seal (decline 1992) sea ducks (decline 1992 and 1993); 

salmon (decline 1991, 1992, and 1993); and halibut (decline 1991 and 1993). 

In 1992 (89.2 percent), and 1993 (84.2 percent), the majority of Kenai households said they 

processed wild foods (Table VI-46) (this question was not asked in 1991). Eighteen percent to 27.0 

percent of Kenai’s households that processed wild foods during the three study years said children 

helped. As displayed in Figure l-6, the oil spill had little effect for Kenai households regarding the 

participation of children with subsistence activities. These effects as shown, were much greater for 

Prince William Sound communities. 

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 VI-47). Of all Kenai 

respondents, most interviewed in 1991, (66.7 percent); 1992 (86.5 percent), and in 1993 (74.3 percent), 

said they share subsistence foods, labor, and equipment with others. When asked to compare sharing of 

wild resources with the year before the spill in 1988, at least half of the respondents in all three study 

years saw little change in their sharing patterns. As demonstrated in Figure l-7, the spill, however, may 

have had some impact on the sharing of wild resources with Kenai residents during the first two years of 

the study. By 1993, the data suggest that sharing patterns had returned to more normal levels. 

In 1991, 57.1 percent, in 1992, 43.2 percent, and 1993, 31.7 percent of all Kenai respondents felt 

the influence of elders in politics and guidance in Kenai had increased since the spill (Table VI-48). 

Reasons provided for this increase by 1993 respondents included: elders are more aware of the power 

they hold (20.0 percent of answers), a new senior citizens center built in Kenai has brought elders 

together (power in numbers) (10.0 percent), and elders’ knowledge is more appreciated or recognized 

(8.3 percent). Most Kenai respondents in 1991 (84.5 percent), 1992 (97.3 percent), and 1993 (89.6 

percent) said their view of what makes a good leader did not change as a result of the oil spill. 

Table VI-50 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 Kenai’s beaches were not 

significantly oiled, many of the respondents were uncertain what each of these groups had to do with the 

clean-up, and as a result, they responded with “I do not know.” An interesting finding was that, with 

much of Kenai’s population employed by the oil industry, the only three groups rated “not effective” by 

the majority of respondents in most of the study years were Exxon, Veto, and Alyeska Pipeline Service 

Company. To give them some credit, however; with the exception of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), none of the groups that were rated, received 

a “somewhat” or “effective” rating by the majority of Kenai’s respondents in any of the study years. The 

USCG was rated “somewhat effective” in 1992 by 35.1 percent, and “effective” in 1993 by 31.3 percent 

of the respondents. Also ADEC was given a “somewhat” effective rating in 1991 by 30.3 percent as well 

as in 1992 by 32.4 percent of Kenai’s respondents. 

VI-21 
Concerning the safety of wild foods following the Exxon oil spill, Kenai respondents claimed t0 

be informed, ranking high compared to most other study communities (Fig. l-9). Percentages Of 

respondents that felt adequately informed about the safety of eating these foods were in 1991, 63.6 

percent, 71.4 percent in 1992, and 60.0 percent in 1993 (Table VI-51). Those that said they were not 

adequately informed, said they did not receive any information or only incomplete information about the 

safety of eating these foods. 

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 VI-52). As demonstrated in Figures I10 through l-14, Kenai residents were, for most study years, the most certain of all 18 study communities 

that off-shore oil development would have little effect on the populations of these resources. Only 8.1 to 

28.0 percent of Kenai’s households predicted OCS activities would lower populations of fish, marine 

invertebrates, marine mammals, land mammals, or birds if it were to occur in their region. Much of this 

optimism was based on a good safety track record with the off-shore oil platforms in Cook Inlet, 

according to many of the respondents. 

When Kenai respondents were asked if they thought OCS activities would provide more jobs to 

residents of their community, most said “yes” (1991, 88.0 percent; 1992, 97.3 percent; 1993, 85.1 

percent) (Fig. l-15, Table VI-52). When asked if a small oil spill could be contained and cleaned up in 

their region most respondents in 1991 said “yes” (56.0 percent), while most of 1992 (83.8 percent) and 

1993 (60.4 percent) thought “maybe”. However, at least 48.6 percent of all respondents said they did not 

think a large oil spill if it were to occur in their region could be contained and cleaned up. Weather 

conditions were often given as reasons for their evaluations. 

Overall, Kenai residents in 1992 (86.5 percent), and 1993 (82.2 percent), were in favor of search 

for oil in their region (this question was not asked in 1991). Those in support thought that the search for 

oil would create more jobs in the community, and be beneficial to the economy. Again, the majority of 

1992 (89.2 percent) and 1993 (83.2 percent) respondents were also in favor of the development of oil in 

their region. Of those in favor, however, about 14 percent were in support of development if done 

carefully. They thought oil exploration in addition to the reasons provided above would also reduce the 

United States dependency on foreign oil and thus enhance national security, Of the 11.9 percent of 1992 

households not in support of exploration and development of oil in their region, some were concerned 

about pollution and other environmental impacts it might cause. Others did not trust the oil industry and 

were in favor of exploration of alternative and renewable resources (Table VI-52). 

CONCLUSION 

There was an overall feeling among those interviewed in Kenai that the Exxon Valdez oil spill 

(EVOS) of 1989 did not have any direct impact on the community of Kenai. Many were not even aware that 

VI-22 
oil from the spill had made its way into Upper Cook Inlet, forcing the closure of many commercial fishing 

activities in the area. As mentioned earlier, the oil and gas industry has made a significant impact on the 

economic and social development of Kenai. Those employed in this sector felt that the oil and gas industry 

was being unnecessarily persecuted for the EVOS. It was pointed out by a few people that they believe the 

oil and gas industry has done many good things for Kenai and Alaska such as boosting the state economy 

and in turn facilitating the building of much needed schools. One person made the comment that “people 

only miss the water when the well dries up,” indicating her belief that many in the state take the oil and gas 

industry for granted and should be more aware of the good as well as the bad that may be directly or 

indirectly caused by the oil and gas industry. 

On the other hand, Kenai commercial fishermen interviewed in 1991 were all too aware of the 

impacts caused by the EVOS. Many Upper Cook Inlet fishermen were still waiting for compensation from 

the Glacier Bay Oil Spill of the summer of 1987 which restricted commercial fishing that year as well. One 

commercial salmon and halibut fisherman said, “Since the oil spill [EVOS], our income has dwindled. The 

oil spill has just about done us in.” Another commercial fisherman was concerned about rumors he heard 

that the fish resources were going to be scarce in 1994 as an indirect impact of the EVOS. It is a concern 

among biologists as well; the restrictions on commercial fishing allowed three times the desirable level of 

sockeye salmon to spawn up the Kenai River system in 1989. Overescapement has been linked to lowered 

adult production in other Alaskan systems, and ADF&G biologists predicted a 90 percent decline in Kenai 

adult returns in at least 1994 and 1995, based on a high 1990/91 winter mortality of juvenile salmon 

(Koenings et al. 1993:25). As it turned out, the total run of sockeye salmon in 1994 for Upper Cook Inlet 

(including the Kenai River) while below the last ten year average, was much greater than the pre-season 

forecast (Tarbox 1995, personal communication). 

Overall, the concerns expressed reflect the diversity of the community of Kenai. This diversity was 

highlighted by one respondent: 

I am concerned about the balance between industry and nature and don’t want industry to 

ruin natural resources. Industry can be promoted if the effects are minimal. I see an 

importance of having a diversified economy. Industry shouldn’t be so regulated that they 

cannot stay in business; just need to see that they are trying. 

The concern expressed in Kenai over resources seemed to be based upon factors having to do 

with the cash economy and to a lesser extent recreation rather than subsistence. In other words, many 

people felt that they could live without wild resources if they were just harvested for food purposes; 

however, respondents felt that wild fish and game were very important to the economy of Kenai since this 

is what drives the commercial fishing industry and is a large factor in the tourism industry. This is not to 

say that there are not people in Kenai that rely greatly on wild fish and game for food (see Reed 1985). 

Further, there are many people in Kenai that take great pleasures in their hunting, fishing, and gathering 

VI-23 
pursuits and place a high value on wild fish and game for recreational purposes. Many of these same 

people also set the value of preserving Kenai’s economic base of which the oil industry is a major part. 

A few respondents, discussed other kinds of spill impacts. One respondent spoke about a large 

amount of spill impact money that was funneled through the city government in 1989 and 1990. Another 

respondent who does counseling stated that numerous clients went through divorce, became physically 

abusive, and developed drinking and drug problems as a result of making lots of money on the spill cleanup and coming into contact with unlawful people. One mentioned that there were precautionary shutdowns of oil platforms in Cook Inlet during the time of the Emon Valdez oil spill. Others mentioned that the 

local governments and tourism industry had to deal with calls from people wondering if Kenai Peninsula 

was still a safe vacation destination. 

In summary, overall, interviewed households in Kenai throughout the three-year study, seemed to 

be relatively unaffected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill and unaware of the spill impacts to the area. Most 

responded that they were in favor of the oil industry in their community, favored future off-shore or onshore oil exploration and development and thought the industry was safe in Cook Inlet. It appeared that 

households that were commercial fisherman, worked in the fisheries business, or contained Alaska Natives 

claimed they were impacted by the spill, primarily economically. However, in 1993 for example, only 10 

percent of the selected households interviewed in Kenai were employed as commercial fisherman, and 7 

percent contained Alaska Natives. 

A final observation is that by the third year of the study, even though people were aware that much 

of the social effects survey was directed at oil spill impacts, when it came time for them to express their 

own comments or concerns, many chose to comment on local resource issues such as sport fishing 

regulations on the Kenai River, and not about the oil spill or future oil development possibilities. 

VI-24 
.I 

E 

s 

. 

\I 

5 

IA 

VI-25 
. 

; 

. 

i 

i 

. 

F 

VI-26 
Table VI-2 Demographic Characteristics of Households, Kenai, 

January 1992, January 1993, and January 1994 

Characteristics 1991 1992 1993 

Sampled Households 100 37 101 

Number of Households in the Community 2,137 2,137 2,274 

Percentage of Households Sampled 4.68 1.73 4.44 

Household Size 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

3.18 3.11 2.80 

1 1 1 

8 8 8 

Sample Population 

Estimated Community Population 

Age 

318 115 283 

6.79566 6.642.03 6,371.70 

Mean 30.34 27.59 31.77 

Minimum 0.10 0.05 0.01 

Maximum 81.11 71.82 81.11 

Median 30.24 30.26 33.73 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

11.62 10.25 11.07 

0.10 0.05 0.01 

61.05 31.00 45.00 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

14.60 12.31 12.96 

0.5 3 0.5 

61.05 31 45.00 

Sex 

Males 

Number 3.547.42 3.696.43 3.332.20 

Percentage 52.20 55.65 52.30 

Females 

Number 3.24624 2.94559 3.03950 

Percentage 47.80 44.35 47.70 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 

Percentage 

Estimated Population 

Number 

Percentage 

128.22 173.27 112.57 

6.00 8.11 4.95 

406.03 577.57 270.18 

5.97 8.70 4.24 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992,1993. and 1994. 

VI-27 
g 60-64 

4 So-54 IL 

0 2 40-44 

4 30-34 

> 

20-24 

POPULATION 

0 MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Table VI-3. Population Profile, Kenai, April 1992 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 406.03 11.45% 11.45% 

5-9 427.40 12.05% 23.49% 

lo-14 384.66 10.84% 34.34% 

15- 19 277.81 7.83% 42.17% 

20-24 128.22 3.61% 45.78% 

25-29 235.07 6.63% 52.41% 

30-34 364.66 10.84% 63.25% 

35-39 213.70 6.02% 69.26% 

40-44 213.70 6.02% 75.30% 

45-49 277.81 7.83% 83.13% 

50-54 85.46 2.4” # 85.64% 

55-59 170.96 4.82% 90.36% 

60-64 106.85 3.01% 93.37% 

65-69 106.85 3.01% 96.39% 

70-74 85.48 2.41% 96.60% 

75-79 0.00 0.00% 98.80% 

80-64 0.00 0.00% 96.60% 

85 - 89 0.00 O.WW 98.80% 

90-94 0.00 0.00% 96.80% 

95-99 0.00 0.00% 98.80% 

100-104 0.00 0.00% 96.60% 

Missing 42.74 1.20% lW.W% 

277.81 8.55% 8.56% 

235.07 7.24% 15.79% 

320.55 9.87% 25.66% 

277.81 8.55% 34.21% 

170.96 5.26% 39.47% 

192.33 5.92% 45.39% 

299.18 9.21% 54.61% 

363.29 11.18% 65.79% 

192.33 5.92% 71.71% 

320.55 9.87% 81.58% 

106.86 3.29% 64.87% 

149.59 4.61% 89.47% 

149.59 4.61% 94.08% 

85.48 2.63% 96.71% 

64.11 1.97% 98.66Ob 

21.37 0.66% 99.34% 

21.37 0.66% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% loo.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

683.84 10.06% 

662.47 9.75% 

705.21 10.38% 

555.62 8.18% 

299.18 4.40% 

427.40 6.29% 

683.64 10.06~b 

576.99 8.49% 

406.03 5.97% 

598.36 8.81% 

192.33 2.83% 

320.55 4.72% 

256.44 3.77% 

192.33 2.63% 

149.59 2.20% 

21.37 0.31% 

21.37 0.31% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

42.74 0.63% 

10.06% 

19.81% 

30.19% 

38.36% 

42.77% 

49.06% 

69.12% 

67.81% 

73.58% 

82.39% 

85.22% 

89.94% 

93.71% 

96.54% 

98.74K 

99.06% 

99.37% 

99.37% 

99.37% 

99.37% 

99.37% 

lW.W% 

TOTAL 3,547.42 52.20% 3,248.24 47.80% 6.795.66 1 W.W% I 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

VI-28 
20-24 

600 525 450 ,375 300 .225 150 .75 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525 

POPULATION 

0 MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey. 1993 

T able VI4 Population Profile, Kenai, January 1993 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 

5-s 

lo-14 

15-19 

20-24 

25-29 

30-34 

35-39 

40-44 

45-49 

So-54 

55-5s 

60-64 

65-69 

70-74 

75-79 

80-84 

85-89 

90-94 

95-99 

loo-104 

Missing 

519.81 14.06% 14.06% 

577.57 1563X 29.69% 

462.05 12.50% 42.19% 

231.03 6.25% 48.44% 

57.76 1.56% 50.00% 

115.51 3.13% 53.13% 

288.78 7.81% 60.94% 

577.57 15.63% 76.56% 

173.27 4.69% 81.25% 

346.54 9.38% 90.63% 

57.76 1.56% 92.19% 

115.51 3.13% 95.31% 

0.00 0.00% 95.31% 

57.76 1.56% 96.88% 

115.51 3.13% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 O.OO?b lW.W% 

0.00 O.OO?b lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

TOTAL 3.696.43 55.65% 

173.27 

173.27 

404.30 

173.27 

288.78 

115.51 

346.54 

404.30 

462.05 

57.76 

173.27 

57.76 

57.76 

0.00 

57.76 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

I 

5.88% 5.88% 693.08 10.43% 10.43% 

5.68% 11.76% 750.64 11.30% 21.74% 

13.73% 25.49% 866.35 13.04% 34.78% 

5.88% 31.37% 404.30 6.09% 40.87% 

9.80% 41.18% 346.54 5.22% 46.09% 

3.92% 45.10% 231.03 3.48% 49.57% 

11.76% 56.86% 635.32 9.57% 59.13% 

13.73% 70.59% 981.86 14.78% 73.91% 

15.69% 66.27% 635.32 9.57% 83.48% 

1.96% 88.24% 404.30 6.09% 89.57% 

5.88% 94.12% 231.03 3.48% 93.04% 

1.96% 96.08% 173.27 2.61% 95.65% 

1.96% 98.04% 57.76 0.87% 96.52% 

0.00% 96.04% 57.76 0.87% 97.39% 

1.96% lW.W% 173.27 2.61% 1 00.00% 

0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.OO% 

O.W% 100.001 0.00 0.00% lOo.W% 

0.00% lW.OO% 0.00 0.00% lOo.W% 

2,945.59 44.35% 6,642.03 lW.W% I 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fiih and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

VI-29 
o-4 

I 

I 

POPULATION 

0 MALE W FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

Table VI-5 Population Profile, Kenai, January 1994 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 

5-S 

lo-14 

15-1s 

20-24 

25-2s 

30-34 

35-3s 

40-44 

45-49 

W-54 

55-5s 

60-64 

65-69 

70-74 

75 - 79 

80-84 

85-89 

SO-94 

95-99 

00-104 

Missing 

270.18 

337.72 

427.78 

202.63 

180.12 

90.06 

202.63 

450.30 

225.15 

360.24 

135.09 

157.60 

90.06 

90.06 

60.06 

22.51 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

8.11% 

10.14% 

12.84% 

6.08% 

5.41% 

2.70% 

6.08% 

13.51% 

6.76% 

10.81% 

4.05% 

4.73% 

2.70% 

2.70% 

2.70% 

0.88% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

O.W% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

8.11% 

18.24% 

31.06% 

37.16% 

42.57% 

45.27% 

51.35% 

64.86% 

71.62% 

82.43% 

86.49% 

91.22% 

93.92% 

86.62% 

99.32% 

loo.W% 

lW.W% 

lW.W% 

lW.W% 

lW.W% 

lW.oo% 

lW.W% 

247.66 8.15% 8.15% 

292.69 9.63% 17.78% 

180.12 5.93% 23.70% 

135.09 4.44% 28.15% 

382.75 12.59% 40.74% 

135.09 4.44% 45.19% 

270.18 8.89% 54.07% 

292.69 9.63% 63.70% 

292.69 9.63% 73.33% 

202.63 6.67% 80.00% 

202.63 6.67% 66.67% 

225.15 7.41% 94.07% 

45.03 1.48% 95.56% 

67.54 2.22% 97.78% 

22.51 0.74% 98.52% 

22.51 0.74% 99.26% 

22.51 0.74% lW.oo% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

517.84 8.13% 8.13% 

630.42 9.89% 18.02% 

607.90 9.54% 27.56% 

337.72 5.30% 32.88% 

562.87 8.83% 41.70% 

225.15 3.53% 45.23% 

472.81 7.42% 52.65% 

742.99 11.66% 64.31% 

517.84 8.13% 72.44% 

562.87 8.63% 81.27% 

337.72 5.30% 86.57% 

382.75 6.01% 92.58% 

135.09 2.12% 94.70% 

157.60 2.47% 97.17% 

112.57 1.77% 90.94% 

45.03 0.71% 99.65% 

22.51 0.35% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

TOTAL 3,332.20 52.30% 3,039.50 47.70% 6.371.70 lW.W% I 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

VI-30 
Table W-6. Employment Characteristics, Kenai, 1991, 1992. and 1993 

Characteristics 

ADULTS 

Total 

Employed 

Number 

Percentage 

Jobs 

Number 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Months Employed 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Year-Round 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Total 

Employed 

Number 

Percentage 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 

1991 1992 1993 

4,594s 4,274.W 4.52549 

3.290.98 3.234.38 3.219.62 

71.63 75.68 71.14 

4.124.41 4,156.49 4,345.37 

1.25 1.29 1.35 

1 1 1 

3 3 5 

9.77 10.46 10.31 

1 1 1 

12 12 12 

60.39 64.29 65.73 

2,137.w 2,137.OO 2.274.00 

1 ,a1 6.45 1,963.73 i .958.79 

85.00 91 .a9 86.14 

2.27 2.12 2.22 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992. 1993. and 1994. 

VI-31 
Table VI-7. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by Employer Type, Kenai, 1991 

INCOME 

INCOME SOURCE COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources s106.456,377.13 $49.ais.ai $15665.35 

Earned Income $90,141,624.09 $42.181.39 $13.26459 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 6.619940.32 3.097.77 974.14 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 6.619,940.32 3.097.77 974.14 

Hatchery/Enhancement i .089.870.00 510.00 160.38 

Commercial Fishing 5.530.070.32 2587.77 813.77 

Hunting/Trapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 20.458,111.57 9.573.29 3.010.47 

Construction 3,048.074.33 1.426.33 448.53 

Manufacturing 15,587,662.66 7,294.la 2,293.77 

Cannery 3294570.16 1.541.68 484.81 

Other Manufacturing 12.293.092.50 5.75250 1,808.96 

Loggingmimber 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Transportation, Communicatrons. and Utilities 5,635,269.W 2q637.00 829.25 

Trade 6.707,483.82 3.138.74 987.02 

Wholesale AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Retail 6.707.483.82 3,i 38.74 987.02 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 2.605.003.00 1,219.oo 383.33 

Services i 3.405.565.3s 6.273.08 1.972.67 

Government 16,074,514.00 7,522.W 2.36541 

Federal 0.00 0.00 0.00 

State 7.597.035.00 3.555.00 1 ,117.92 

Local 8.477.479.w 3.967.00 1,247 48 

Local Government 491.51o.w 230.00 72.33 

Local Education 7.985.969.00 3,737.oo 1.175.16 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Income 516.314.753.05 $7.634.42 $2.400.76 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

VI-32 
Table VI-8. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Kenai, 1991 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

JI Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity aonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s Comp./lnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

Women, Infants, and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

0.00 

3.00 

0.00 

0.00 

13.00 

11.00 

15.00 

3.00 

4.00 

2.00 

3.00 

11.00 

4.00 

11.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

92.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

$16,314,753.05 $77.634.42 52.40976 

0.w 0.00 0.00 

529805.04 247.92 77.96 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

4,560.094.60 2.105.80 662.20 

784.279.00 367.00 115.41 

1.872.567.62 876.26 275.55 

284,221 .w 133.00 41 .a2 

23-357.41 10.93 3.44 

313348.31 146.63 46.11 

134.631 .W 63.00 i 9.81 

480.436.07 224.82 70.70 

113,261 .W 53.00 16.67 

859,337.56 462.12 126.45 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.w 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

5.552.823.54 2.598.42 817.11 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.w 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other 9.00 866.59090 405.52 127.52 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

VI-33 
VI-34 
VI-35 
Table VI-1 0. Community, Household. and Per Capita incomes, All Sources and by Employer Type, Kenai, 1992 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

INCOME SOURCE 

All Sources 

Earned Income 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 

Agriculture 

Forestry 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 

Hatchery/Enhancement 

Commercial Fishing 

Hunting/Trapping 

Mining 

Construction 

Manufacturing 

Cannery 

Other Manufacturing 

Logging/Timber 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

Finance, Insurance. and Real Estate 

Services 

Government 

Federal 

State 

Local 

Local Government 

Local Education 

Unknown 

Other Income 

$129.797.067.50 $60.737.98 

$109,579,873.11 $51,277.43 

5.375,710.14 2515.54 

98.186.49 45.95 

0.00 0.00 

5277523.65 2.489.59 

2,714.567.57 1.270.27 

2.562,956.08 1,199.32 

0.00 0.00 

23.275.972.97 10.891.89 

823.033.78 385.14 

42,740.000.00 20,000.00 

7,623.891.89 3,567.57 

35,116,108.11 16.432.43 

0.00 0.00 

5.995,151.35 2.805.41 

9.433,988.65 4.414.59 

5.775.675.68 2.702.70 

3.658.312.97 1.711.89 

1 ,178,237&l 551.35 

7.508,378.38 3.513.51 

13.249.400.00 6.200.00 

0.00 0.00 

6,179.972.97 2,891.89 

7&x9.427.03 3,308.11 

2.368.027.03 1.108.11 

4,701,4Kl.00 2.200.00 

AMT UNK AMT UNK 

$19541.79 

S16,497.96 

809.35 

14.78 

0.00 

794.57 

468.70 

385.87 

0.00 

3504.35 

123.91 

6,434.78 

18147.83 

5s286.96 

0.00 

902.61 

1 e420.35 

869.57 

550.78 

177.39 

1.130.43 

1.994.78 

0.00 

930.43 

1,064.35 

356.52 

707.83 

AMT UNK 

$20,217.194.39 $9.460.55 53.043.83 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

VI-36 
Table VI-1 1. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Kenai, 1992 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

ill Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s CompJlnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weathertzation 

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 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

0.00 

0.00 

5.41 

0.00 

8.11 

8.11 

13.51 

2.70 

5.41 

2.70 

0.00 

10.81 

2.70 

21.62 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

94.59 

0.00 

0.00 

5.41 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

$20.217.194.39 $9,460.55 S363.043.83 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

596.049.73 278.92 89.74 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

3.11886486 1459.46 469.57 

693.081.08 324.32 104.35 

1,862.828.66 871.70 280.46 

115,513.51 54.05 17.39 

23.680.27 11.08 3.57 

128,913.08 60.32 19.41 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

610.219.39 285.55 91.87 

219,475.68 102.70 33.04 

3.031,074.59 1.41838 456.35 

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 

5555.04486 2.599.46 836.35 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

3.003.351.35 1.405.41 452.17 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.w 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other 5.41 1.259.097.30 589.19 189.57 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

VI-37 
VI-38 
Table VI-l 2. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by Employer Type, Kenai, 1993 

INCOME SOURCE 

hII Sources 

Earned Income 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 

Agriculture 

Forestry 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 

Hatchery/Enhancement 

Commercial Fishing 

Hunting/Trapping 

Mining 

Construction 

Manufacturing 

Cannery 

Other Manufacturing 

Loggingmimber 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

Finance, Insurance. and Real Estate 

Services 

Government 

Federal 

State 

Local 

Local Government 

Local Education 

Unknown 

Other Income 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

$125.150.120.52 $55,035.23 $19,641.55 

$107.769.117.50 547,391.87 $16.913.71 

1.747,152.48 768.32 274.20 

180,118.81 79.21 28.27 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

1.567.033.66 689.11 245.94 

1,125.742.57 495.05 176.68 

441,291.09 194.06 69.26 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

26.057.188.12 11.458.75 4.089.52 

5.172.41168 2.274.59 811.78 

19.917,865.71 8.75896 3,125.99 

3.48960198 1534.65 547.70 

16,428.063.73 78224.30 2.578.28 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

9.665,625.74 4,250.50 1.516.96 

10292543.74 4.526.18 1.615.35 

2.926.930.69 1,287.13 459.36 

7,365,613.05 3v239.06 1 ,155.99 

2e622.980.20 1 ,153.47 411.66 

13.556.168.59 5,961.38 2.127.56 

18.737,181.05 8.239.75 2,940.69 

2.138,910.89 940.59 335.69 

8.785.616.69 3.863.51 1 e378.85 

7,812.653.47 3,435.64 1,226.15 

3.850.039.60 1 a693.07 604.24 

3.962.613.86 1.742.57 621.91 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

$17.381 .W3.03 57.643.36 152.727.84 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey. 1994 

VI-39 
Table VI-13. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Kenai, 1993 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOL CAPITA 

JI 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 II. -.ome 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

Supplemental Union Benefits 

Gifts 

MedicareNedicaid 

Other 

0.00 

6.93 

1.98 

0.00 

9.90 

11.88 

18.81 

0.99 

5.94 

2.97 

5.94 

9.90 

2.97 

13.86 

1.98 

1.98 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.98 

96.04 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.99 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

$17381.003.03 $7643.36 $2.72784 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

2.026.913.Ol 891.34 318.11 

188.044.04 82.69 29.51 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

248386343 1.09229 389.83 

933.342.93 410.44 146.48 

3.170,578.91 1.394.27 497.60 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

31.529.80 13.87 4.95 

474.973.31 208.87 74.54 

223.977.74 98.50 35.15 

371.881.02 163.54 58.36 

12,901 .Ol 5.67 2.02 

516.94699 227.33 81.13 

162,106.93 71.29 2544 

319.710.89 140.59 50.18 

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 

135314.26 59.50 21.24 

5.579.180.20 2.453.47 875.62 

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 

450297.03 198.02 70.67 

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 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

3.96 299.44752 13168 47.00 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

VI-40 
VI-41 
Table VI-l 4. Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Kenai, 1991, 1992, and 1993 

)tudy Year 1991 1992 1993 

lean Number Of Resources Used Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

6.21 6.76 7.14 

0 0 0 

18 32 29 

Il.99 28.86 13.77 

6 6 6 

lean Number Of Resources Attempted To Harvest Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 

Median 

5.20 5.73 5.43 

0 0 0 

20 31 26 

15.61 32.39 16.81 

5 5 4 

nean Number Of Resources Harvested Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 

Median 

4.17 4.70 4.49 

0 0 0 

15 29 19 

16.39 36.33 17.42 

4 4 3 

nean Number Of Resources Received Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

2.69 2.70 3.16 

0 0 0 

10 15 15 

15.68 35.05 18.99 

2 2 2 

Aean Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 

Minimum 

Maximum 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 

Median 

1 &I 2.49 2.27 

0 0 0 

9 17 16 

22.73 50.77 24.99 

1 1 1 

Jean Household Harvest, Pounds 

Minimum 

Maximum 

rotal Pounds Harvested 

:ommunity Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 

237.01 229.60 

0.00 0.00 

I e956.55 933.82 

606.48567 490,663.Ol 

74.53 73.87 

234.70 

0.00 

1968.74 

533.715.00 

83.76 

‘ercent Using Any Resource 98.00 94.59 98.02 

‘ercent Attempting To Harvest Any Resource 87.00 89.19 89.11 

‘ercent Harvesting Any Resource 81 .OO 83.78 86.14 

‘ercent Receiving Any Resource 84.00 78.38 81.19 

‘ercent Giving Away Any Resource 66.00 62.38 

Vumber Of Households In Sample 100 

lumber of Resources Available 123 

72.97 

37 

133 

101 

146 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992, 1993, and 1994 

VI-42 
Table VI-1 5. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Kenai, 

r 

lQQl,lQQ2, and 1993 

Study Year 

rotal Number of People 

SAME 

FISH 

FURBEARERS 

PLANTS 

Hunt 

Process 

Fish 

Process 

Hunt or Trap 

Process 

Gather 

Process 

ANY RESOURCE 

Attempt 

Process 

Number I ,367.68 $97.38 ,395.92 

Percentage 20.13 16.52 21.91 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number IJ46.31 501.68 1485.98 

Percentage 19.81 22.61 23.32 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 4.46633 1389.51 4,300.34 

Percentage 65.72 66.09 67.49 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 3,974.82 1,6Q6.43 4.097.70 

Percentage 58.49 55.65 64.31 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 85.48 115.51 225.15 

Percentage 1.26 1.74 3.53 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.w 0.00 0.00 

Number 42.74 0.00 45.03 

Percentagr 0.63 0.00 0.71 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 2.67125 2,310.27 2.589.21 

Percentage 39.31 34.78 40.64 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 2 179.74 

Percentagt 32.08 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

1.848.2 

27.83 

Ki 

2,454.l i 

38.52 

0.00 

0.00 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

4.979.21 

73.27 

4338.11 

63.84 

In of Sub 

4.793.8’ 

72.17 

4J89.5’ 

66.09 

tence, 

4,908.2r 

77.03 

4.705.s 

73.85 

3URCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Dh 

1991 

i,795.66 

1992 

i(642.03 

1993 

i,371.70 

Household Survey, 1992.1993, and 1994. 

VI-43 
u, g 888888888888888~~~~~~~~~ 

.gg (3 ddddddddddddddd000000000 

q 8 888888888888888888888888 

B L-ddddddd ~ddddddddddddddd 

VI-44 
Table VI-17. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource Category, Kenai 

1982,1991,1992, and 1993 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

1982 1991 1992 1993 

Salmon 

Other Fish 

Marine Invertebrate 

Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Birds and Eggs 

Wild Plants 

15.5 28.4 35.2 38.7 

11.7 24.9 20.5 16.3 

3.4 5.6 7.9 5.1 

6.2 13.4 7.9 16.9 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 

0.4 0.7 1 .o 0.9 

0.7 1.5 1.3 5.2 

All Resources 1 37.9 74.5 73.9 83.8 1 

Table VI-1 8. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Kenai, 

1982,1991,1992, and 1993 

Salmon 

Other Fish 

‘Marine Invertebrates 

ILand Mammals 

‘Marine Mammals 

Birds and Eggs 

Wild Plants 

Percentage of Total Harvest 

1982 1991 1992 1993 

40.9% 38.1% 47.7% 46.2% 

30.8% 33.4% 27.8% 19.4% 

9.1% 7.5% 10.7% 6.1% 

16.4% 18.0% 10.7% 20.2% 

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 

1.1% 1 .O% 1.4% 1.1% 

1.7% 2.0% 1.7% 6.2% 

VI-45 
VI-46 

-. 
(4 0 

9 0 

9 

I I I 

SWeld PI!M 

S663 pile SpJ!a 

spm.uew aU!JeW 

qewwew puel 

sa/eJqauafiuj 

au!Jew 

0 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 9 

s i? $3 

tn 

e 

Yj 0 ti 0 

N c- v 

UOSJ+j lad SpUtlOd 

VI-47 
VI-48 
E 

$ 6 

$ _ 

5: 

sa3Jnosa)j llv 

SWWd PI!M . 

S663 B SPJ!El 

slelJJweW auyew 

sa*eJqavaAul 

au!JeW 

uolules 

VI-49 
VI-50 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

,: d & d d cd 0’ 6 ti d uj ti 6 6 ti 

0.0 

- 6 

9 0. cf tq 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.9 4 0. q 9 q q q c 

.-ONt900~0N000-.--0OOC 

c0 0 

G d 

0. 0, q 9 4 0. 0. 0. q 0. q 0. q 0. 

-ONt.~.--C’,~b,-J .- 7- 

9 9 9 0. q 0. 0. cq 9 9 0. 0. 9 cq 0. 9 0. 9 0. c 

-q8 voo- NolOOcg-.rtOOO----OOOC 

VI-51 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cq 0,o.o.q 9 0.9 0.0.4 9 9 0. c 

~~dddddddddddddddddiiti~~~~~00000000000 

0 
9 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.9 q q 9 0.0.9 0.9 0.0, q 0, q G d ,’ d d d 6 d d d d d d d d Y G .- dOddOOOOOOOO~~N-WOO 

a 

VI-53 
I 

VI-54 
I 

-2 m 

5 

ii 

VI-55 
VI-56 
VI-57 
8 

d 

8 (d 

8 c-4 

8 

6 

8 d 

8 cj 

8 

d 

8 

d 

8 8 8 8 

d a’ hi d 

8 6 

8 

d 

8 

d 

VI-58 
VI-59 
VI-60 
VI-61 
VI-62 
r 

VI-63 
VI-64 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 9 0 0 9 9 0 G C? 9 0. C? Cf? W. F ‘9 k 0. 7, W, 0. 9 9 0, b. 9 s 2 

ddddddddooooddooddoooooooo~wmwooooNo -F-F 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0. 0, 0. of q 0. 9 9 cq 0. 0. ly m. *, q p: - -. 7, 0, 9 9 9 k 0. lq b. 

dddddddddOdOOOOOOOOOOO~~~~~tiWWOOOONOON 

VI-65 
,t3~E3~~~~&~?SS 8888888888888888888?88 za8 

x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d d d d d d d d d d d 6 d d d d d d 6 6 0 d d rc: d 

6 

xf iz 

; 7ijit 

L=,Ei?2kZSi3$Ej~Z3i3 

o Tii 0 5; 0 0 k g c$ g k 6 0 G 0 s; 0 0 6 $6 d d d 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

E-ij v)WN.-v) ai- wm8F188 ~~88888~8~88~~ 88888888888888888EixM 

=a cj 6 d d d 0 d d d d 6 6 d d d d d d d d d d d d d 6 6 d 6 6 6 ci d d d rc’ rc’ 6 

z 

OI-OOF- r-r-t00f-0r-00~r-000000000000000000~0~~. 

d ti j d ni cd hi ti ti d 6 c-i d hi d d hi hi d d d 6 d d 6 d d d d d d d d d d k k Cn 

or-OOk- br--co.r-or-oobI-ooooooooooooooooo~~co~ 

6 pj d d Pi ai ni hi Ki 6 ;: hi 6 c-i 6 d ni hi 6 d d d d d d 6 d d d d d 6 d d d 

t=J8” 
VI-67 
VI-68 
VI-69 
VI-70 
VI-71 
c888888888~888 

P E~ddddddddOddd 

E 5 

u, IL I 

4 ~888888888~??s pddddddddoooo 

lE L?888888~ss8w3 6 ci d d ci d ci 0 d 0 0 0 0 

2 

k 5 z 

VI-72 
VI-73 
VI-74 
VI-75 
VI-76 
VI-77 
VI-78 
f ii 

s! 13 m c 

VI-79 
,-I g3 w m000000000000000000 I 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0. 9 0. 0. 0. 9 9 0. u! 3 0. -7= * m. ‘4 q bOOO- 9 9 9 9 9 9 olnuJwNr-pc~ 9 9 (9 9 m. cr! 9 

vc 

VI-80 
2 

w 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 a! 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 o! 2 

.~NOOOOOONOOOOWPP00O0OW =- 

g”‘3 -c 

s 9 0. 0, 0. 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 w m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

-ooo- d ti d ci d 6 ti ti hi d 6 d d d c-4 s 

-c .v, 

m 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0. 9 q 0. q (4 ‘4 w, 9 0, 0. q 0. w. g ._ ~~~dddddoooooo~~~ooooo~ .g 

-ooo- ouJoooo3; 

VI-81 
VI-82 
VI-83 
e 

i:l;ljr 

VI-84 
8 

d 

8 

d 

8 

d 

8 g: 

d 6 

8 8 

d d 

VI-85 
VI-86 
VI-87 
\ 

VI-88 
8 1 

VI-89 

K/l l Pfl*Nl 

VI-91 
Y 

: It!+-: + 
VI-93 
VI-94 
VI-95 
G 

+-+-+ + J 

VI-96 
VI-97 
VI-98 

.- 

E 

E 

. 

E .C 

.z 

> .C 

‘; 

< 

. 

3 

;: 



VI-104 

.- i 

2 : 

d : 

VI-106 
.- C 

.z cn 

* t 

f E 

b 
VI-1 08 
+-+- + 

i ; +-+ 
I 

I 

+-+ 

VI-110 
VI-III 
.- 

s- 

.C 0 

‘;; 

i 

w 

5 

+--l-i 

I 

, 

I I 
.C 2 

e 

. 

3 

p 

(L 

.C B 

.- 

0 

;; 
. 

L 

f 

u 

P .; g w 

03- 000 w-0” vw 

VI-114 
.C ,P 
+-+ 

VI-116 

. . 

VI-118 
.- 

2 

E 

t!i 

.- 

ii 5 .C 

. 

VI-I 19 
8 

.- 

2 

E 
.- ; ; ; +-+-+ E : 

A 
VI-122 
VI-123 
;: 

al 

5 ; -- B-‘ 

2 m 

+-+ 

VI-l 24 
Table VI-53. Subsistence and Personal Use Salmon Harvests, Kenai, 1982, 1991, 

1992, and 1993 

1982 1991 1992 1993 

subsistence Harvests, Pounds 

Jsable Weight per Capita 

Setnet 

Dipnet 

All Subsistence Methods 

‘ercentage of Total Salmon 

in numbers of fish) 

Zaught by Subsistence Methods 

Setnet 

Dipnet 

All Subsistence Methods 

‘ercentage of Sampled Households 

Jsing Subsistence Methods 

Setnet 

Dipnet 

All Subsistence Methods 

: 

I 

I 

I 

NA I 4.0 8.5 0.4 

NA I 3.7 4.7 6.6 

0.9 ; 8.5 13.2 9.1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

NA I 17.8% 14.3% 1.1% 

NA ) 14.2% 25.1% 18.4% 

5.7% ; 31.9% 39.4% 24.8% 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

NA ; 12.0% 13.5% 2.0% 

NA 13.5% 12.9% 

9.2% 

; 14.0% 

I 25.0% 27.0% 16.8% 

Subsistence methods includes dipnets and set nets operated under subsistence 

or personal use regulations. 

Subsistence harvests by gear type not available for 1982 

“All subsistence methods” includes methods other than setnet and dip net. 

Sources: Scott et al. 1993; ADF&G, Division of Subsistence Household 

surveys, 1992, 1993, and 1994 

VI-l 25 
Table W-54. Subsistence/Personal Use Setnet Harvests, Selected Fisheries, 

Upper Cook Inlet, 1982,1991,1992, and 1993 

Number of Number of Salmon 

Permits Chinook 1 Sockeye 1 Coho 1 Pink 1 Chum 

<asilof Personal Use 

1982 649 372 7,543 24 17 0 

1991 NA 34 8,380 0 0 0 

1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1993 NA 47 7,942 0 0 0 

-all Coho Personal Use/ 

Subsistence 

1982 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1991 360 0 0 2,703 0 8 

1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1993 535 0 0 1,168 23 0 

Jorthem/Central Districts 

Subsistence 

1982 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1991 7,065 550 32,230 3,520 537 1,598 

1992 9,200 1,139 46,419 10,320 1,818 1,827 

1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Source: Ruesch and Fox 1994:61 

Vi-l 26 
CHAPTER VII: SELDOVIA 

by 

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

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 

Seldovia is located near the southern tip of the Kenai Peninsula on the south shore of Kachemak 

Bay in Southcentral Alaska (Fig. l-l). The community is not connected by road with the rest of the Kenai 

Peninsula or the state. Kachemak Bay is an ice-free, deep-water harbor that offers a transportation avenue 

for the residents of Seldovia. The climate in Seldovia is characterized by much fog and an annual rainfall of 

37 inches (Reed 1985). 

At historic contact, Seldovia Bay was at the boundary of the territories of the Dena’ina Athabaskan 

Indians and Chugach Alutiiq people. By the late 19th century the community consisted of an Alaska Native 

village centered around a trading post. By the turn of the century, Seldovia had become an important 

shipping and trade center, the most important in Cook Inlet, because of its natural deep water port. 

Salmon canneries were built during this period of time, beginning Seldovia’s reliance upon commercial 

fishing for a large portion of its income for decades to come. The community’s population grew with the 

development of commercial herring fisheries in the 1920s. Many non-Native, long-term residents, often of 

Scandinavian heritage, arrived during that decade. In 1945, Seldovia became incorporated as city. By the 

1950s, other commercial centers on the Kenai Peninsula had outgrown Seldovia (Reed 1985143, 146; 

Georgette 1985:3). Its population rose in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970% but began to decline in the 1980s 

with the collapse of commercial crab fisheries (Table l-l ; Figure VII-l). For more background on Seldovia’s 

history, see Reed (1979) and Reed (1985). 

DeVito (1992) reports that Seldovia’s economy has moved away from commercial fishing and 

processing income in recent years, especially with the closure of its last seafood cannery, and that the 

visitor industry is becoming more important. Unlike Kenai, the oil and gas industry was not a major 

industry in Seldovia in the mid 1980s (Reed 1985). However, the creation of the Seldovia Oil Spill 

Response Team in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill has given the oil and gas industry more of a 

presence in Seldovia. The commercial fisheries are still a major industry for Seldovia, but with the 

instability of fisheries in the last decade, Seldovia is having to diversify its economy by turning to other 

industries such as tourism. 

The Alaska Ferry Tustumena serves Seldovia twice a week in the summer and once a week in the 

fall and early spring. There is no service from January 1 to mid-March. Other transportation facilities 

include a small boat harbor and an airport with flights to neighboring Homer, Port Graham, and Nanwalek. 

Also located in Seldovia is a school (K-12), a police station, a fire station, a post office, a library, a senior 

VII-1 
citizens housing project, a grocery store, a drug store, and a health center. Visitor accommodations 

include several hotels, bed and breakfast homes, three restaurants, three bars, and a laundromat. 

The Division of Subsistence had previously conducted research in Seldovia in 1983, pertaining to 

resource harvest activities that occurred in 1982 (Reed 1983, 1985). Limited fieldwork also occurred in 

1985 (Georgette 1985). Comparisons between this earlier research and the more recent findings are 

limited by two factors. First, the 1982 survey was administered to a random sample of 35 households, 

approximately 20 percent of the community total. The more recent samples were much larger, at least 65 

households representing a 42 to 57 percent random sample. The second factor is that the survey 

instrument used in the more recent research asked about a much more detailed range of resources than 

did the 1982 instrument (Reed 1985:202). For example, the 1982 survey asked about “clams” but did not 

ask about any specific type of clam such as razors or littlenecks. Thus it is difficult to make certain 

comparisons due to the different levels of specificity of the surveys; however, comparisons will be made 

when appropriate. 

RESEARCH METHODS 

Fieldwork occurred in Seldovia in all three study years.’ The “study year” for which data were 

collected ran from April through the following March. Hence, the first year pertains to the period from April 

1991 through March 1992, the second study year is April 1992 through March 1993, and the third study 

year covers April 1993 through March 1994. 

For the first study year, the goal for Seldovia was a total of 65 household interviews. Up to 27 of 

these were to be conducted with members of a panel of households interviewed previously as part of the 

MMS-sponsored Social Indicators (SI) research project (see Chapter I), with the remainder to be drawn 

randomly from a list of habitable dwellings within the Seldovia city limits. As shown in Table VII-l, the total 

sample of 66 households was comprised of 16 SI panel members and 50 other households, representing 

56.9 percent of the total estimated number of permanent households in the community. The interviewing 

took place between April 8 and April 30, 1992. The study team consisted of Ron Stanek, Lisa Tomrdle, 

Gladys Yuth (local research assistant), and Lillian Elvsaas (local research assistant). On average, in the 

first study year, harvest survey interviews in Seldovia took 0.71 hours (43 minutes) to complete (Table l-7), 

and social effects interviews took an additional 0.75 hours (45 minutes) (Table l-8). 

In the second field season, the Seldovia study area was increased to include households along the 

Jakolof Bay Road (also known as the Seldovia Red Mountain Road) including the Barabara Heights 

subdivision.2 Consequently, the estimated number of dwelling units increased from 189 to 257. In 

’ For more detail on sampling methods and the conduct of fieldwork, see the series of interim reports prepared at the close of 

zach field season (Fall and Utermohle 1992, 1993a, and 1994). 

In recent years, a residential area has developed along a lo-mile stretch of the Jakolof Bay Road, outside the city limits of 

Seldovia. A large parcel of land along the road, owned by the Seldovia Native Association, was subdivided and the lots were made 

VII-2 
addition, the 1991 SI panel was retired. The 50 households randomly selected in the previous year became 

a new panel, with a goal to interview enough households from this group to make up to one half of the total 

goal of 65 interviews. Out of this panel, 32 households were interviewed and an additional 33 randomly 

selected households made up the balance of the sample, 47.5 percent of all year-round households. 

Compared to the year before, there was a relatively high refusal rate during the second round of research, 

17.7 percent of all households contacted (14 households) (Table VII-l). This may have been due to people 

being fatigued from filling out numerous questionnaires dealing with lawsuits against Exxon. Several 

respondents even confused ADF&G researchers with Exxon representatives. 

The study team for the second year consisted of Lisa Tomrdle, Brad Palach, Susan McNeil, and 

Lillian Elvsaas (local research assistant). The interviewing occurred in the last two weeks of March, 1993. 

On average, the harvest surveys took 0.36 hours (22 minutes) to administer (Table l-7);3 the social effects 

interviews lasted an average of 0.52 hours (31 minutes) (Table l-8). 

For the third study year (1993), sampling goals were similar to the year before. Of the 32 panel 

members from 1992, 25 were reinterviewed. A new sample of 40 randomly selected households made up 

the balance of 65 interviews, for a sample of 42.5 percent of the year-round households in the community 

(Table VII-l). Also as in the year before, the study area included the city of Seldovia as well as the Jakolof 

Bay Road area outside the city limits. The interviews took place between March 29 and April 7, 1994. The 

study team consisted of Dave Andersen, Matt Kookesh, Susan McNeil, and Lillian Elvsaas (local research 

assistant). The average harvest survey took 0.5 hours (30 minutes) to complete in Seldovia in the third 

study year, about midway between the two earlier years (Table l-7). The average for the social effects 

surveys was 0.56 hours (34 minutes) (Table l-8). 

DEMOGRAPHY 

The 1991 Studv Year 

Based on the first year’s research, the estimated population of the city of Seldovia was 341 

persons in 1991, slightly higher than the 1990 U.S. Census figure of 316 people within the city limits (Table 

VII-2). This estimate was about 29 percent lower than the population of 479 people in 1980. The collapse 

of the king crab fishery in the early 1980s seems to have been a contributing factor to the decline in 

population (Reed 1985:146). However, there has also been a movement out of the city itself to properties 

along the Jakolof Road. Because this population is not included in the official census records for Seldovia, 

reliance on U.S. census data alone exaggerates the Seldovia area’s population decline (see discussion on 

available to its shareholders through a lottery. Consequently, many homes in this area are owned by long-term Seldovia residents 

who have, for a variety of reasons, chosen to live “out of town.” U.S. Census data for Seldovia do not include these residents, but 

5 

or this study, it was important to include them since they are part of the Seldovia community. 

The length of the interviews decreased because the harvest survey instrument was substantially shorter in the second study 

year. See Chapter One. 

VII-3 
demography for the second and third study years, below). The average household size in Seldovia in 1991 

was almost three (2.94) and ranged from one to six people. 

Figure VII-2 and Table VII-3 show a 1991 population of 52.6 percent male and 47.4 percent female 

for Seldovia. The 1991 average length of residency for household heads was 17.8 years (Table VII-2). The 

Alaska Natives comprised about 23.7 percent of the 1991 estimated population (81 people), compared to 

15.2 percent (48 people) from the U.S. Census estimate for 1990. 

The 1992 Studv Year 

Because the Seldovia study area was increased to include a larger area connected by road to the 

city itself, the estimated number of households in the community increased from 116 in 1991 to 137 in 1992 

(Table VII-2). The 1992 estimated population was 375 with a mean household size of 2.74 persons, a 

decrease of 0.20 persons from the year before. Very slight changes occurred in the sex and age structure. 

Although a segment of older-aged (late 70 and 80s) people appears to have been missed, this could be 

because a low-income housing unit was not sampled during 1992 (Table VII-3; Figure VII-3). The Alaska 

Native portion of the population increased to 34.3 percent, 10.6 percentage points over 1991. This change 

is likely due to the high percentage of Native-occupied housing in the new area outside the city limits which 

was included in this second study year. This is further supported by the increase in the average length of 

residency, from 13.9 years in 1991/92 to 15.1 years in the second study year. 

The 1993 Studv Year 

There were an estimated 153 year-round households in the Seldovia area in the 1993/94 study 

year, which, like 1992/93, included households living within the city limits and in the area connected to the 

city by road (Table VII-2). This represented an increase of 16 households over the year before. The 

estimated total population increased notably, to 430, compared to 375 the year before, as a consequence 

of the larger number of households and a slight increase in the average size of households in the 

interviewed sample. While this estimate of 430 for the Seldovia area is still well below the 479 estimated by 

the US. Census for 1980, it tempers the degree of population decline suggested by focusing on the area 

within the city limits alone. 

Figure VII-4 and Table VII-5 report the age and sex structure of Seldovia’s population during the 

third study year. The percentage of Alaska Natives in the study population in 1993/94 was 32.8 percent 

(141 people), remaining about the same as the year before. The average length of residency of household 

heads was 19.7 years, about midway between the two previous years’ estimates (Table VII-2). 

VII-4 
CASH ECONOMY 

The 1991 Studv Year 

According to the study findings, the average total (earned and other) household income in 

Seldovia in 1991/92 was $43,022. The total per capita income was $14,636 (Table VII-7), comparable to 

the U.S. Census finding of $14,052 per capita in 1989 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992a). As Reed 

(1985148) pointed out, Seldovia’s economy has been overwhelmingly based upon commercial fishing 

throughout most of its history. Seldovia’s reliance upon commercial fishing in 1991/92 is reflected in Table 

VII-7, with commercial fishing contributing the largest share ($12,778 or 29.7 percent) to the average total 

household income. It should be noted that the 1991 lower Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishery followed 

a poor 1990 season and itself was a “disappointment,” with a harvest of less than half the preseason 

forecast and an ex-vessel value of about half the 20-year average (Bucher and Hammarstrom 1993:1,87). 

Contributing almost as much as commercial fishing to Seldovia’s 1991/92 cash income was 

government employment at $9,775 (26.3 percent). Lesser sources of earned income for 1991/92 are listed 

in Table VII-7. 

Incomes derived outside of jobs in 1991/92 are summarized in Table VII-8. (Note that this income 

was included in the total household and per capita income, discussed above.) The average household 

other income was $9,465 and the per capita was $3,220. The largest share of other income was provided 

by Alaska Permanent Fund Dividends ($2,103 per household); other (rental property incomes for example) 

incomes ($1,768), retirement pensions ($1,765), dividends and interest ($1,167), and social security 

($1,109), held the next largest shares, respectively. 

In 1991, 67.0 percent of the estimated total number of adults in Seldovia were employed (Table VII6) for some part of the year. The survey found that less than half, 40.0 percent, of these adults worked 

year-round. On average, employed adults worked 8.7 months during the study year. By comparison, in 

the road-connected community of Kenai, 64.9 percent of the adults were employed year-round in 1991/92. 

Seldovia’s income shows a heavier reliance upon seasonal jobs such as commercial fishing than was 

found in Kenai for the same year. In neighboring Port Graham and Nanwalek, 67.1 percent of the 

Nanwalek adults and 67.4 percent of the Port Graham adults were employed in 1991; 13.7 percent of the 

Nanwalek and 41.5 percent of the Port Graham adults worked year-round. Seasonal logging employment 

was more common among Nanwalek adults which may account for the lesser number of year-round 

employed adults in this community. 

In terms of employment by type of industry in 1991/92, commercial fishing dominated all other 

categories with 33 percent of the jobs in Seldovia (Fig. VII-5). Services were the next nearest job source 

with 13 percent, and local government-education followed at 9 percent. The retail trade industry played a 

large role in the job market in Seldovia in 1991/92 with 9 percent of the jobs. 

VII-5 
The sampled Seldovia households estimated that, on average, they spent $437 per month on food 

during the 1991/92 study year. The median monthly expenditure for food was $400. This represents 11.3 

percent of the average household income in Seldovia in the first study year (Table I-101). 

The majority of the interviewed households in Seldovia (54.6 percent) reported that their financial 

situation during the 1991/92 study year was about the same as before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill of March 

1989. Also, 10.6 percent of the households said their financial situation was better than before the spill and 

28.8 percent said it was worse (Table l-103). 

Table VII-9 provides a summary of the kinds of equipment and supplies used by Seldovia 

households during the study year for subsistence harvesting and processing. Overall, the replacement 

value of this equipment averaged about $15,591 per household. 

The 1992 Studv Year 

Many respondents who were interviewed in the second year of the study reported that the local 

monetary economy in Seldovia had declined since the year before. For example, some people reported 

that the economy had been so bad that some families were forced to move away in order to find work. 

Despite these reports of a worsening economy, the percentage of adults who were employed increased by 

12.2 percentage points to 80.2 percent. The average number of months employed was 8.6 per employed 

adults (compared to 8.7 the year before). The number of jobs held per person increased by three-tenths 

and the mean number of jobs per household increased by six-tenths (Table VII-6). 

Comparable to 1991 were the percentages of jobs provided by several sectors such as 

commercial fishing, retail trade, mining, and state government (Figure VII-6). However, major changes 

occurred in several other sectors. Most dramatic was the loss of the single cannery which was responsible 

for a 66 percent decline in manufacturing jobs. Two new job sectors appeared in the Seldovia employment 

picture - agriculture, forestry, and fishing provided one percent of the total jobs, and wholesale trade 

provided five percent (16.2 new jobs). 

In the second study year, average household incomes in Seldovia dropped to $36,907, a decline of 

14.2 percent from the previous year. Likewise, per capita incomes dropped to $13,477 in 1992/93 (Table 

VII-10). Some of this decrease may have been due in part to the inclusion of a population segment with 

lower average incomes than households formerly surveyed within the city limits. Commercial fishing 

remained the largest single source of earned income in Seldovia in 1992/93 at $3,760 per capita, a decline 

of $586 from the previous year (Table VII-10). The 1992 commercial salmon fishery in lower Cook Inlet was 

depressed. The total harvest only achieved 38 percent of the preseason forecast and the exvessel value 

was the lowest since 1976 (Bucher 1992:l). 

For the sources of other income (Table VII-l l), there was an overall decrease to $2,803 per person 

in 1992/93. Income from some public assistance programs, such as food stamps, unemployment, child 

support, and AFDC showed modest increases, however. 

VII-6 
The 1993 Studv Year 

The cash employment situation in Seldovia in the third study year was, in some ways, generally 

similar to findings from the previous year. On average, employed adults worked 8.9 months (compared to 

8.7 in 1991/92 and 8.6 in 1992/93). In 1993/94, 45 percent of Seldovia’s work force was employed yearround, very similar to the 40 percent estimated for 1991/92 and 39 percent in 1992/93 (Table VII-6). 

However, the contribution of commercial fishing to income in Seldovia dropped notably from the two 

previous years. Jobs in commercial fishing contributed $1,524 per person to the average earned incomes 

in the community (15.3 percent of earned income, 8.7 percent of all income), third after services ($3,084 

per capita) and government ($2,142) (Table VII-12). In contrast, commercial fishing had ranked first in both 

1991/92 and 1992/93 at $4,347 per person (38.1 percent of earned income, 29.7 percent of all income) 

and $3,760 per person (35.2 percent of earned income, 27.9 percent of all income), respectively. 

Figure VII-7 illustrates the percentage of jobs in Seldovia in 1993/94 by sector. In contrast to the 

first two study years, in 1993/94 commercial fishing ranked second, with 22 percent of the jobs, compared 

to services, with 23 percent. The first two years, commercial fishing had ranked first by far, with 33 percent 

and 33 percent of the jobs, respectively. 

These findings regarding commercial fishing jobs and income in Seldovia in 1993/94 are 

consistent with the economic performance of the lower Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. Although the total 

salmon harvest doubled over the year before, the 1993 commercial season was the fourth consecutive year 

of poor returns to the lower Cook Inlet salmon fleet (Bucher and Hammarstrom 1994:l). The catch 

remained below the 20-year average, and, with low prices, the exvessel value of the catch was the lowest 

since 1976. 

Particularly noteworthy for 1993/94, was the increase in total per capita income in Seldovia, to 

$17,502, up from $14,637 in 1991/92 and $13,477 in 1992/93 (Table VII-12). However, earned income 

decreased to $9,948 per person, from 11,416 in 1991/92 and $10,674 in 1992/93. The overall gain is 

accounted for by the increase in other income to $7,555 per person, compared to $3,220 in 1991/92 and 

$2,803 in 1992/93. Responsible for virtually all of this change was an increase in Native corporation 

dividends to $4,147 per person (compared to just $214 per person in 1991/92 and $260 per person in 

1992/93) (Table W-13) This represents a one time “return of capital” payment to shareholders in the 

Seldovia Native Association resulting from a land settlement with the State regarding inholdings within the 

Kachemak Bay State Park. Consequently, for the community overall, “other income” represented 43.2 

percent of the community’s total income, compared to 22 percent in 1991/92 and 20.8 percent in 1992/93. 

On average, Seldovia households estimated that they spent $445 per month on food in the 

1993/94 study year, and a median of $400. This represented 9.7 percent of the average household income 

(Table l-l 02). This was very similar to the 1991/92 study year. 

VII-7 
RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1991/92 

Participation in Huntina. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities 

During the first study year, use of wild resources in Seldovia was almost universal, with 98.5 

percent of all surveyed households reporting use of at least one wild resource (Table VII-14). Most 

households (92.4 percent) attempted to harvest wild resources and were successful. Another large group 

of households (95.5 percent) reported receiving resources while 84.9 percent gave away wild resources. 

The most widely used resources were berries (90.9 percent of the estimated households utilized them), 

halibut (89.4 percent), chinook salmon (74.2), coho salmon (69.7 percent), and butter and steamer clams 

(63.6 percent each) (Table VII-19). 

Table VII-19 lists the 73 kinds of resources, excluding wood and edible plants, utilized by Seldovia 

households in 1991/92. This list includes 29 kinds of fish (including unknown salmon and trout), 12 

species of land mammals, 2 species of marine mammals, 15 species of birds, and 15 types of marine 

invertebrates. On average, in the 1991/92 study year, Seldovia households used 13.5 kinds of wild 

resources, attempted to harvest 9.3 types, harvested 9.0 varieties, received 6.4 types, and gave away 4.8 

kinds (Table VII-14). 

With 77.8 percent of Seldovia residents attempting to harvest fish and marine invertebrates during 

the first study year, fishing activities generated the highest levels of participation among the population 

(Table VII-15). Plant and berry gathering activities followed fishing closely, with 74.7 percent of the 

population participating. A smaller percentage (21.7 percent), hunted for land and sea mammals. Only 1 .O 

percent of the population engaged in hunting or trapping of furbearers. Overall, 89.2 percent of the 

population attempted to harvest any one resource, and 88.7 percent processed (butchered, preserved, and 

stored) at least one resource. 

Seldovia households were involved in resource exchanges with residents of 19 other Alaska 

communities in 1991/92 (Table VII-16). Of all Alaska communities, the most households gave resources to 

other residents of Seldovia (77.3 percent). People living outside of the state received wild resources from 

31.8 percent of Seldovia households, while Anchorage residents received gifts of wild foods from 22.7 

percent of the households. The most Seldovia households received gifts of wild resources from other 

residents of Seldovia (92.4 percent), followed by Homer (7.6 percent), Anchorage (7.6 percent), and 

Nanwalek (English Bay) (4.6 percent). 

Resource Harvest Quantities and Harvest Composition 

In Seldovia during 1991/92, the average household harvest of wild resources was 604.0 pounds 

usable weight and the per capita harvest was 205.5 pounds (Table VII-14, Fig. VII-8). The average harvest 

was divided among salmon at 64.6 pounds per person (30.9 percent of the total harvest), other fish at 68.2 

pounds per person (32.6 percent), marine invertebrates at 33.8 pounds per person (15.0 percent), land 

VII-8 
mammals at 29.6 pounds per person (14.2 percent), birds at 1.2 pounds per person (0.6 percent), and wild 

plants and berries at 11.6 pounds per person (5.5 percent). No marine mammal harvests were documented 

for 1991/92 (Fig. VII-g, Fig. VII-lo; Table VII-18). 

The largest percentage of households in Seldovia, 45.5 percent, estimated that between 1 percent 

and 25 percent of their annual supply of meat, fish, and poultry derived from wild resources in the first 

study year. The second-largest portion, 21.2 percent, provided an estimate of 26 to 50 percent, while 19.7 

percent estimated 51 to 75 percent and 12.1 percent estimated 76 to 99 percent. Finally, 1.5 percent of the 

households used no wild foods (Table l-104). About 46.9 percent of the residents to the social effects 

questionnaire had used a wild food the day before the interview (Table VII-43). This was about the in the 

mid range of study communities, more than double the rate of Kenai, about the same as Port Graham, but 

lower Nanwalek (Fig. I-3). 

Of the sampled Seldovia households, 67.2 percent reported that their 1991/92 uses and harvest of 

wild resources were about the same as the previous year, 1990 (Table l-57). Only 14.8 percent reported an 

increase in harvest and use and 18.0 percent reported a decrease over the year before. Of the latter group, 

most cited a decline in resource abundance as the reason their harvests decreased. When asked to 

compare 1991 with the year before the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1988), 73.1 percent said their 1991 harvests 

and uses were about the same, 1.9 percent said they were higher, and 25.0 percent said they were lower 

(Table l-58, Fig. VII-l 1). Again, most respondents citing lowered uses blamed decreases in the availability 

of resources, while a few also mentioned time constraints and less effort. Only one household mentioned 

contamination concerns as leading to lower uses than before the spill (Table l-62). 

Seldovia residents harvested 64.6 pounds of salmon per capita during the study year (Table VII17). The harvest was divided up among coho salmon at 30.1 percent, chinook salmon, at 25.6 percent, 

chum salmon at 19.1 percent, sockeye salmon at 16.4 percent, and pink salmon at 8.8 percent. As 

illustrated in Table VII-20, Table VII-21, and Table VII-22, 46.4 pounds of salmon per household (24.5 

percent of the total harvest) was removed from commercial catches, 38.1 pounds (20.1 percent) were 

taken with subsistence set gillnets, 3.5 pounds (1.9 percent) were taken with dip nets, and 101.8 pounds 

(53.6 percent) were taken by rod and reel. Of the households harvesting salmon, 27.3 percent removed 

salmon from commercial catches, 10.6 percent took salmon with subsistence set gillnets, 6.1 percent 

harvested with dip nets, and 66.7 percent took salmon with rod and reel (Table VII-23). 

Over half of the Seldovia households (59.0 percent) estimated that their 1991/92 harvest and use 

of salmon was the same as in 1990; 14.8 percent said it was higher and 26.2 percent said it was lower 

(Table l-9). Compared to 1988, 64.2 percent of the households reported that their 1991/92 harvest and use 

was the same, 13.2 percent said it was higher, and 22.6 percent said it was lower (Table l-10, Fig. VII-l 1). 

On average, Seldovia households used 2.6 methods to preserve their salmon harvests in 1991/92 

(Table l-106). The most households froze salmon (80.3 percent of all households), followed by smoking 

VII-9 
(48.5 percent), canning (43.9 percent), pickling (28.8 percent), salting (27.3 percent), kippering (19.7 

percent), and drying (13.6 percent). 

Of the 23 types of non-salmon finfish harvested in 1991/92 by Seldovia households, halibut 

contributed the largest share at 147.2 edible pounds per household (73.5 percent of the total non-salmon 

finfish harvest) (Table VII-19). Gray cod, at 12.4 pounds (6.2 percent), and Dolly Varden, at 8.2 pounds (4.1 

percent) were the next largest contributors. As illustrated in Table VII-20, Table VII-24, and Table VII-25, 

29.4 percent of the non-salmon fish harvest in pounds was removed from commercial catches, 4.4 percent 

was taken with subsistence gear, and 66.3 percent was taken with rod and reel. As shown in Table VII-26 , 

57.6 percent of Seldovia’s households used rod and reel gear to harvest fish other than salmon in 1991, 

27.3 percent removed these fish from commercial catches, 9.1 percent used subsistence methods, and 1.5 

percent fished through the ice with hook and line gear. 

A high percentage of sampled households (77.0 percent) said their 1991/92 use and harvest of fish 

other than salmon was the same as the year before (Table l-15). Only 3.3 percent said it was higher while 

19.7 percent said it was lower. Compared to 1988, 73.6 percent said 1991 was about the same, 5.7 percent 

said it was higher, and 20.8 percent said it was lower (Table l-16; Fig. VII-l 1). 

Seldovia residents harvested 33.8 pounds per capita of marine invertebrates in 1991/92 (Table VII17). Clams composed over one-half (54.7 percent) of the harvest at 15.1 pounds per person (Table VII-19). 

This high use of clams reflects Seldovia’s proximity to productive claming beds like Jakolof Bay. The 

importance of clams to Seldovia residents was noted by Reed (1985:161). A majority of the sampled 

households, 73.8 percent, estimated that their 1991/92 marine invertebrate uses were about the same as 

1990, and 66.7 percent said they were the same as 1988 (Table l-45, Table l-46). When comparing the 

1991 harvests and uses with 1990, 8.2 percent said they were higher and 18.0 percent said they were 

lower; compared to 1988, 3.7 percent said it was higher and 29.6 percent said it was lower (Fig. VII-l 1). 

The big game harvest by Seldovia households of 29.6 pounds per capita in 1991/92 was largely 

made up of moose and deer, with black bear, caribou, and goat contributing much smaller portions (Table 

VII-17, Table VII-19). While moose could be obtained in the local area, Seldovia hunters had to travel to 

other areas such as Kodiak and Prince William Sound to find deer. Most households estimated that their 

1991 big game harvest and use was about the same as 1990 (80.3 percent of the sampled households) and 

1988 (the year before the oil spill) (90.6 percent) (Table l-21, Table l-22). Higher harvest and use was 

reported by 4.9 percent of the households when compared to 1990 and none of the households compared 

to 1988. Lower harvest and use was reported by 14.8 percent of the households compared to 1990 and 

9.4 percent compared to 1988 (Fig. VII-1 1). 

Just as was the case in Kenai during 1991/92, hunting and trapping for small land mammals 

generated little participation among Seldovia households in 1991 with only 4.5 percent of the households 

using small game (Table VII-19). The 1982 survey found similar results and many of the respondents to 

that survey reported that furbearers were not abundant in the local area (Reed 1985:164). Per capita 

VII-10 
harvest in 1991/92 was less than one pound (0.7 pounds) and this was exclusively made up of hares. 

Other small game taken for fur only were coyotes, land otters, mink, and weasels. Most of the sampled 

households reported no change in harvest or use of small game and furbearers when asked to compare 

1991 to 1990 and 1988 (Table l-27, Table l-28). 

Although there was no documented harvest of marine mammals by sampled Seldovia households 

in 1991/92, 6.1 percent of the households reported utilizing marine mammals (Table VII-19). Marine 

mammals were received from unsampled households within the community and also from the neighboring 

village of Port Graham. All households reported that their 1991 harvest and use of marine mammals was 

about the same as in 1990 and 1988 (100 percent for 1990 and for 1988) (Table l-33, Table l-34; Fig. VII-l 1). 

In subsequent research conducted by the division (Wolfe and Mishler 1993), several active marine 

mammal hunters were identified among Seldovia residents. Harbor seals are the main target of these 

hunters. One reason why this harvest was not documented in the 1991/92 harvest survey is that of the six 

hunters identified in 1993, only two had been active harvesters in the last few years. Commercial fishing 

activities sometimes occur at the same time as the preferred seal hunting seasons, such as in the spring. 

For some hunters, commercial fishing has priority over seal hunting. Knowledgeable seal hunters told the 

researchers that the seal population has gone down dramatically in the last seven or so years. It is harder 

to find the seals now and requires a greater investment of time and energy. It is unclear to many of the 

hunters just what is causing this decline but conjectures were given such as depletion of food for seals by 

commercial, sports, and subsistence fishing. The Exxon Valdez oil spill was also mentioned as adding to 

the decline. 

As Table VII-l 9 illustrates, 24.2 percent of Seldovia households used birds in 1991/92 and 22.7 

percent attempted to harvest them. The per capita harvest of birds was 1.2 pounds. Of the sampled 

households, 93.2 percent said that their 1991 harvest and use of birds and eggs was the same as 1990 

(Table l-39). No one said it was higher and 6.8 percent said it was lower. The 1991 harvest and use was 

about the same in 1988 for 92.3 percent of the households; 1.9 percent said it had increased and 5.8 

percent said it had decreased (Fig. VII-l 1). 

Seldovia households widely engaged in plant and berry gathering in 1991/92, with 83.3 percent 

harvesting plants and berries and 90.9 percent using them (Table VII-19). The per capita harvest was 11.6 

pounds. Nine sampled households (13.6 percent) used plants for medicinal purposes, with 16 different 

kinds used (Table l-109). Over three-quarters of the households, 83.6 percent, reported their 1991 plant 

and berry use and harvest was the same as the previous year, 1990 (Table l-51). Only 9.8 percent reported 

an increase in plant and berry harvest and 6.6 percent reported a decline. For 1988, 90.7 percent said their 

1991 harvest and use was about the same, 3.7 percent said it was higher and 5.6 percent said it was lower 

(Table l-52, Fig. VII-l 1). 

VII-1 1 
RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1992/93 

Participation in Huntina. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities 

Participation levels for wild resource harvesting activities among Seldovia residents in 1992/93 

were very much like those of the year before. Almost identical to 1991/92, the vast majority of the 

households in 1992/93 used at least one resource (98.5 percent), and just over 93 percent attempted, 

harvested, and received at least one resource, while 84.6 percent gave away at least one resource. For all 

resources, 90.4 percent of the total estimated population attempted to harvest at least one type of resource 

in the second study year. On average, households used 12.3 kinds of wild resources in 1992/93 

(compared to 13.5 kinds in 1991/92), attempted to harvest 8.9 kinds, harvested 8.4 types, received 6.2 

varieties, and gave away 4.3 kinds (Table VII-14). 

Resource Harvest Quantities and Harvest Comoosition 

The estimated per capita harvest of wild resources in Seldovia in 1992/93 was 145.1 pounds, a 

decrease of about 30.5 percent from the previous year’s estimate of 205.5 pounds per person (Fig. VII-8). 

Also, per capita harvests of all the major resource groups were down from 1991/92 levels (Table VII-17, 

Fig. VII-g). The largest decline occurred in non-salmon fish (down about 27 pounds per person), land 

mammals (a 14 pound per person decrease), and marine invertebrates (down by 16 pounds per person). 

Smaller declines occurred with salmon (down by 6.1 pounds per capita) and plants (down by 1.7 pounds 

per person). Very slight increases occurred in marine mammals (up from no harvest to 1.3 pounds per 

person) and birds and eggs (up by 0.1 pounds per person).4 

The percentage of Seldovia respondents who had used a wild resource the day before the 

interview was 44.6 percent in 1993, virtually identical to the 46.9 percent recorded for the year before (Table 

VII-43). This again was more than double the rate for Kenai, but was below that of Port Graham or 

Nanwalek (Fig. l-3). 

With regard to the methods used to harvest fisheries resources, there were several modest 

changes from 1991/92 to 1992/93. Removal of resources from commercial harvests for home use 

accounted for 26.2 percent of the total harvest, an increase over the 19.1 percent from the year before 

(Table VII-28). 

For non-salmon fish overall (Table VII-32, Table VII-33), rod and reel accounted for the bulk (58.7 

percent) of the harvest, while subsistence gear took 4.1 percent, and removal from commercial harvests 

provided 36.9 percent. The proportions taken by each method of harvest were comparable between years. 

Table VII-34 reports the percentage of households using subsistence methods (16.9 percent), commercial 

4 Resource assessment questions were not asked in the second study year. 

VII-12 
removal (30.8 percent), rod and reel (46.2 percent), or ice fishing (3.1 percent) to obtain non-salmon fish in 

1992/93. 

The salmon harvest in 1992/93 by Seldovia residents (Tables VII-29 and VII-30) was taken primarily 

by rod and reel (52.0 percent), while subsistence gear took 12.6 percent and removal from commercial 

harvests accounted for 35.4 percent. The proportions taken by rod and reel were comparable for the two 

years, however, a shift occurred where about 10.0 percent more was taken from commercial sources in 

1992/93. A corresponding decrease occurred in the percentage taken by subsistence gear. Participation 

in the use of different gear types (Table VII-31) for salmon harvest also changed slightly. About 10 percent 

fewer households used some subsistence method in 1992, whereas use of rod and reel increased by 4.0 

percent, and dip net usage increased by 4.5 percent. 

The proportion of the total harvest comprised by each resource group changed relatively little 

between years (Table VII-18, Fig. VII-g, Fig. VII-12). Salmon changed the most (up 9.4 percentage points), 

while the other groups either decreased slightly (non-salmon fish, marine invertebrates, and land 

mammals), stayed about the same (plants and birds), or increased (marine mammals). 

RESOURCE HARVESTS AND USES: 1993/94 

Participation in Huntina, Fishina, and Gatherina Activities 

As in the two previous study years, participation in resource uses in Seldovia in the 1993/94 study 

year was very high. As shown in Table VII-14, 95.4 percent of the households used, attempted to harvest, 

and harvested wild resources in 1993/94, while 86.2 percent received wild resources and 78.5 percent 

gave them away. On average, Seldovia households used 12.9 kinds of wild resources in this third study 

year, attempted to harvest 9.3 kinds, harvested 8.9 types, received 6.4 types, and gave away an average of 

5.0 kinds. These levels were higher than in the previous study year (1992/93), but were quite similar to 

those of 1991/92. 

As shown in Table VII-15, 93.4 percent of Seldovia’s population participated in some resource 

harvest activities in 1993/94, even higher than the two previous years. In 1993/94, 78.1 percent of the 

population fished, 18.0 percent hunted, 1.6 percent trapped, 84.2 percent gathered wild plants, and 89.1 

percent helped process these wild resources. There was substantial continuity across the three study years 

in individual participation in wild resource activities. 

Resource Harvest Quantities and Harvest Comoosition 

The estimated mean household harvest of wild resources in Seldovia for 1993/94 was 516.7 

pounds usable weight, and the per capita harvest was 183.5 pounds (Table VII-14, Table VII-35). Both 

estimates are about midway between those of the two previous years, being lower than that of the first 

study year (1991/92) and higher than that of the second (1992/93) (Fig. VII-8). The composition of the 

VII-13 
harvest in 1993/94 was broadly similar to the early findings (Table VII-18; Fig. VII-13, Fig. VII-14). AS in 

1992/93, salmon ranked first, at 35.0 percent of the total harvest, and other fish second, with 23.8 percent; 

other fish had ranked first in 1991/92 and salmon a very close second. As in both previous years, marine 

invertebrates were third (18.5 percent), land mammals fourth (12.9 percent) and wild plants fifth (8.5 

percent). Birds and eggs, at 0.7 percent, and marine mammals, also at approximately 0.7 percent, made 

up very small portions of the total harvest, as they had in prior study years. 

About 36.9 percent of the Seldovia households estimated that between 1 and 25 percent of their 

annual use of meat, fish, and poultry derived from wild foods, while 24.6 percent gave an estimate of 26 to 

50 percent, 15.4 percent said 51 to 75 percent, and 9.2 percent said 76 to 99 percent. Additionally, 4.6 

percent said that all their meat, fish and poultry was from wild resources, and 9.2 percent said that they 

used no wild meat (Table l-105). These percentages were very similar to those reported for 1991/92. AS 

reported in Table VII-43, 43.1 percent of Seldovia respondents had used a wild food the day before the 

interview. This was very similar to the findings for the two previous years. 

Most Seldovia households (56.7 percent) thought that their wild resource uses in 1993/94 were 

similar to the year before, while 20.0 percent said uses were higher and 23.3 percent said they were lower 

(Table l-95). Compared to the year before the spill (1988), subsistence uses in 1993/94 were about the 

same for 52.1 percent of the households, higher for 18.8 percent, and lower for 29.2 percent (Table l-95). 

The latter was very similar to the 25.0 percent reporting lower uses in 1991/92 than before the spill (Fig. VII11). Just 7.7 percent of all sampled households (five households; 35.7 percent of the 14 households 

reporting lowered uses) cited an oil spill reason for their reduced level of uses in 1993/94 in comparison 

with 1988. The spill as a cause of lower numbers of animals was the most often mentioned reason (Table I98). While for some resource categories, a larger percentage of respondents in 1994 than in 1992 said 

uses had gone down in comparison to 1988 (Fig. VII-l l), few pointed to the spill as a cause of the change. 

For example, while half of the 20 households who used birds said their uses were down, only one 

household cited a spill-related reason (Table l-86). 

As in the two previous study years, removal of resources from commercial harvests for home use 

was important in Seldovia in 1993/94, accounting for 16.9 percent of the total resource take. This 

compares to 19.1 percent in 1991/92 and 26.2 percent in 1992/93 (Table VII-36). 

The 1993/94 salmon harvest of 64.3 pounds per person was virtually identical to that estimated for 

1991/92 and just slightly higher than that for 1992/93. Rod and reel harvests predominated (60.1 percent 

of all salmon harvested; 65.5 percent of the usable pounds of salmon), followed by commercial removal 

(29.1 percent of the salmon) and subsistence methods (9.6 percent) (Table VII-37, Table VII-38). This 

represented an increase in the contribution of rod and reel harvests and a corresponding decrease in 

commercial removal and harvests with subsistence methods, compared to the first two study years. In 

1993/94, 63.1 percent of the Seldovia households harvested salmon with rod and reel, 18.5 percent 

removed salmon from commercial catches for home use, and 7.7 percent used subsistence methods 

VII-1 4 
(Table VII-39). In 1993/94, chinook ranked first among salmon in terms of pounds harvested per capita, 

and coho were second, followed by sockeye, chum, and pink. 

For fish other than salmon, the 1993/94 estimated harvest of 43.6 pounds per person was very 

similar to that of the previous year (41.1 pounds per person) but remained well below the estimate for 

1991/92 (68.2 pounds) (Table VII-l 7, Fig. VII-g). As in previous years, rod and reel harvests accounted for 

most of the catch (65.6 percent), followed by commercial removal (29.9 percent) and subsistence methods 

(4.5 percent) (Table VII-40, Table VII-41). As reported in Table VII-42, 50.8 percent of the households used 

rod and reel to harvest fish other than salmon, 24.6 percent removed these fish from commercial harvests, 

and 6.2 percent used subsistence methods. 

The marine invertebrate harvest of 34.0 pounds per person in 1993/94 represented a near doubling 

of the estimated harvest of the year before (17.8 pounds per person) and a return to the relatively high 

harvest level estimated for 1991/92 (30.4 pounds per person) (Table VII-17, Fig. VII-g). Removal from 

commercial harvests accounted for just 5.7 percent of the total marine invertebrate take (Table VII-36). 

Land mammal harvests also increased in 1993/94, to 23.6 pounds per person, in comparison to 

the estimate of 15.2 pounds in 1992/93, but remained below the 29.6 pounds per person estimated for 

1991/92. Wild plant harvests also increased, to 15.6 pounds per person, higher than either of the previous 

two years. Harvests of marine mammals (1.2 pounds per person) and birds and eggs (1.3 pounds per 

person) were again relatively low in 1993/94 (Table VII-l 7; Fig. VII-S). 

DISCUSSION 

Patterns of Wild Resource Uses 

As noted above, there was a substantial amount of continuity over the three study years of 

1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 in the patterns of wild resource use in Seldovia. Participation were very 

high, and the range of resources used was relatively broad. On the other hand, particularly striking is the 

very large difference between harvest estimates in these three most recent study years compared to 

findings from the 1982 division research (Reed 1985). The 1982 harvest estimate of 50.7 pounds per 

person is just 28.4 percent of the average of the three most recent study years. For the five major 

categories of resources which make up most of Seldovia’s harvests (salmon, other fish, marine 

invertebrates, land mammals, and wild plants), in no case was a per capita estimate for one of the last three 

years less than twice that of 1982; in most cases, the more recent estimates were three to four times as 

large. 

In contrast to the large difference in harvest quantities, the composition of the 1982 harvest is very 

similar to those of 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94, and especially to the three-year average (Table VII-17, 

Table VII-18, Fig. VII-8, Fig. VII-14). Except for 1991/92, when salmon ranked second to other fish, the rank 

order of major resource categories’ contribution to the total wild food harvest was identical between years. 

VII-1 5 
Particularly noteworthy is the relatively high ranking of marine invertebrates, third overall in all four years. It 

is unusual in Southcentral Alaska for marine invertebrates to rank above land mammals or, in some Native 

communities, marine mammals. 

There are several possible explanations for the differences in estimated quantities of resources 

harvested for home use in Seldovia in the early 1990s compared to 1982. One possibility is that the 1982 

research did not accurately document harvest levels. Other explanations include regulatory changes, 

changes in resource abundance and availability, changes in the local economy, and demographic changes 

(including changes in the ethnic composition of the community). 

Addressing the question of the reliability of the 1982 data, it should be noted that, at the time, some 

of the results were “unexpected,” according to the researchers who conducted the study. It was, for 

example “surprising to find that despite an average lengthy household residency in the community, a 

resource-extractive economy, and proximity to marine resources, Seldovia households used fewer 

resources than nearby Homer which had a much larger population and more diversified economy” 

(Georgette 19851). Additional research was carried out in 1985, which largely supported the earlier study 

findings. One conclusion at the time was that “limited game in the area and regulatory restrictions on 

subsistence salmon fishing contributed to a relatively low harvest of resources by Seldovia households” 

(Georgette 198515). A second explanation concerned the cultural background of the majority of Seldovia 

residents: 

[M]uch of the [surveyed] Seldovia population did not come from hunting and fishing 

traditions. Several long-term Seldovia residents who immigrated to the community during 

the 1920s explained that they hunted game when they had to but quit as soon as it was no 

longer necessary, when meat became available in the store. These immigrants felt that 

hunting was an activity one engaged in when there were no alternatives for food. They 

preferred to work for wages and purchase the meat they needed. This attitude is 

understandable in the context of Seldovia’s historical role as Cook Inlet’s commercial 

center (Georgette 1985: 15). 

This was offered as a reason why Seldovia’s non-commercial resource uses in the early 1980s were below 

those of predominately Alaska Native communities in Cook Inlet such as Nanwalek, Port Graham, and 

Tyonek. 

Third, the 1985 research found that in the 1970s and early 1980s the commercial fisheries in which 

Seldovia fishermen participated had become increasing competitive. These fishermen needed to 

participate in a variety of fisheries, often entailing distant travel, larger boats, investment in diverse gear, 

and consequent large debt. These factors discouraged removal of fish from the commercial catches for 

home use. For these fishermen, most of whom were seiners or drift gillnetters, fish were viewed more as a 

commodity than as a food item. Nevertheless, Seldovia set net fishermen exhibited a different pattern. 

They tended to fish more locally, were more oriented to sharing, and had local facilities for processing fish 

for home use (Georgette 1985:20-21). 

VII-16 
As was noted earlier, the survey conducted for the 1982 study in Seldovia was based on a smaller 

household sample (35 households) and used a more limited list of resources to collect the harvest data 

than that employed during the last three study years. Because of these methods, it might be suggested 

that highly productive households were missed and that harvests of key resources were not recorded for 

1982. This is unlikely, for three reasons. First, the 1982 sample of households contained a range harvest 

levels, including a relatively small portion of households that harvested well above the community average. 

A similar pattern was found in the later study years. Second, as noted above, despite the differences in 

harvest quantities, the composition of the harvests was very similar across all study years, suggesting that 

the 1982 sample was representative of activities occurring at the time. Third, even though a more limited 

list of resources was used, data were collected on the key species that make up the bulk of the harvests. 

In summary, the available information suggests that the earlier data do provide a good 

representation of harvest quantities in Seldovia in the early 1980s. Consequently, the findings for 1991/92, 

1992/93, and 1993/94 demonstrate a substantial increase in noncommercial resource uses in the 

community. This also means that the 1982 data should not be used to depict present levels of resource 

harvests and uses in Seldovia. 

Changes in regulations may account for some of the differences between resource harvests in 

Seldovia in 1982 and those of the early 1990s. As is discussed in the Kenai chapter above, the regulations 

governing subsistence fishing in Cook Inlet in 1982 were vastly different than those in place in 1991, 1992, 

and 1993. In 1982, Seldovia Bay was closed to the taking of salmon under subsistence regulations 

(ADF&G 1982); further, other nearby open areas were restricted to use by residents of those areas only 

(i.e., only Port Graham and Nanwalek residents could subsistence fish in the Port Graham Subdistrict). For 

these reasons, there was no reported harvest by subsistence set gill nets or dip nets in 1982, only removal 

from commercial gear (35 percent) and use of rod and reel (65 percent) were reported (Reed 1985186). In 

contrast, subsistence salmon harvests provided 41.6 pounds per household in 1991/92, 56.7 pounds in 

1992/93, and 17.3 pounds in 1993/94. On the other hand, the contribution of subsistence-caught salmon 

remained relatively low; thus regulatory changes are not the primary explanation for the increase in 

estimated harvests. 

A second source of the increased harvests in Seldovia is changes in resource abundance and 

availability of chinook and coho salmon. For example, the most widely used and harvested salmon in 

Seldovia in 1991, 1992, and 1993 was chinook salmon, with per capita harvests of 16.5 pounds, 18.0 

pounds, and 26.6 pounds, respectively (Table VII-19, Table VII-27, and Table VII-35). This represents a 

significant difference from the 1982 data which rated use of chinook salmon below sockeyes, cohos, and 

pinks, with a per capita harvest of just 1.7 pounds (Reed 1985:153). Prior to 1988, chinook salmon were 

not available in the Seldovia area. In 1987, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game first released chinook 

smelt into Seldovia Bay (Dudiak 1993). About 800 chinooks returned in 1988, 1,000 in 1989, 1,340 in 1990, 

and 1,570 in 1991. Many respondents reported that they can now catch chinook salmon with rod and reel 

VII-1 7 
in Seldovia Slough, whereas before they had to travel out of the Seldovia area. Rod and reel accounted for 

69.9 percent of the chinook harvest in 1991/92, 69.4 percent in 1992/93, and 79.3 percent in 1993/94. 

There was very widespread household participation in this fishery: 53.0 percent of the households caught 

chinooks with rod and reel in 1991/92, as did 46.2 percent in 1992/93 and 56.9 percent in 1993/94. In 

sharp contrast, the 1982 survey reported that all of the chinook salmon harvested by the sampled 

households were brought home from commercial catches, by just four sampled households (11.4 percent) 

(Reed 19851156). 

Harvests of coho salmon by Seldovia residents also increased substantially from the 6.7 pounds 

per person recorded for 1982. Harvests of cohos, in pounds usable weight per person, were 19.4 pounds 

in 1991/92, 14.2 pounds in 1992/93, and 15.2 pounds in 1993/94. In 1982, coho salmon were scarce in 

the immediate Seldovia vicinity. The primary fishing location for cohos had been along the Rocky River 

Road, but in 1982 a portion of this road washed out, preventing ready access to coho runs in the Rocky 

River. In the mid 1980s. a restocking program rehabilitated runs of cohos into Seldovia Bay itself 

(Georgette 1985117-18). Consequently, these fish have been more readily available for harvest with rod 

and reel or with subsistence gear than in 1982. 

Changes in the local economy may also account for some of the differences in harvest quantities 

in Seldovia. As noted earlier, Seldovia has a historical reliance upon commercial fishing. As was explained 

by Reed (1985: 148), salmon and crab resources have tended to fluctuate greatly from year to year over the 

last several decades. In 1975, 105 commercial fishing permits were held by Seldovia residents: 54 for 

crab, 34 for salmon, and 17 for other types of fish and shellfish (Reed 1983:189). By 1982, 161 permits 

were held by Seldovia residents: 31 for crab, 38 for salmon, 38 for halibut, 43 for herring, and 11 for other 

fish and other shellfish (Reed 1985:148). By 1991, only 24 crab permits were held by Seldovia residents 

(out of a total of 188 permits) and only six of these were specifically for Cook Inlet (Commercial Fisheries 

Entry Commission 1993). Crab permits were 51 percent of all permits held in 1975, 19 percent in 1982, and 

13 percent in 1991. King crab fishing has been closed since 1983, and Dungeness crab fishing was closed 

in 1991 for Lower Cook Inlet. Most of the crab removed from commercial catches by Seldovia fishermen in 

all three study years was Tanner crab. But the 1991 commercial crab removal was only 4.4 percent of the 

total crab harvest as compared to the 1982 removal of 84 percent of the total crab harvest (Reed 1985:50). 

Commercial salmon fishing in Cook Inlet has fared somewhat better than crab but has still seen its 

share of problems in the last few years. From 1984 through 1988, the salmon harvest for Cook Inlet 

increased along with the salmon prices (Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development District, Inc. 

1992a. 1992b, 1992c). By 1991, the salmon harvest had declined 32 percent from the year before resulting 

in a ten-year low in harvest numbers. At the same time, prices for chinooks, sockeyes, and cohos were the 

second lowest they had been in ten years and pink and chum prices were the lowest they had been in ten 

years. The 1993 season was the fourth consecutive year which below average harvests and very low 

VII-18 
prices resulted in earnings to fishers about half or less than the 20-year average (Bucher and 

Hammarstrom 1994:112). 

The last fish cannery in Seldovia closed its doors in October of 1991, taking with it not only a local 

place to deliver fish, but also several seasonal jobs. A couple of respondents that had worked at the 

cannery were planning on leaving Seldovia because they were having difficulty finding work and had 

supplemented their food expenses with fish received from the cannery. A commercial fisherman who was 

interviewed in 1992 reported that his use of wild resources has decreased in recent years because “fishing 

has gone to hell,” meaning his commercial fishing activities. 

The relative contribution of resources removed from commercial catches remained fairly steady 

over all four study years. Seldovia residents obtained about 27 percent of their fish harvests for home use 

and 19.1 percent of their overall harvests by removal from commercial catches in 1991, compared to 36 

percent in 1992 (26.2 percent of all resources) and 27 percent in 1993/94 (16.9 percent of all resources). 

This compares to 26.9 percent of all fish and 15.6 percent of all resources in 1982. In terms of harvest 

quantities, however, there has been a large increase since 1982, when about 4,750 pounds of wild foods 

were removed from commercial catches5 (about 8 pounds per person), compared to an average of about 

12,735 pounds from 1991/92 through 1993/94 (about 33 pounds per person). 

The decline in commercial fishing earnings has occurred alongside an increase in removal of 

resources from commercial catches for home use. This suggests that downturns in commercial fishing 

returns have encouraged people to retain more of their catch, and rely more heavily on local wild resources 

than had been the case in the early 1980s and 1970s when fishing incomes were higher. 

Finally, demographic factors may play a role in the increase in wild resource harvests in Seldovia 

since the early 1980s. Overall, the population in the Seldovia area has decreased in the last 10 years; this 

decrease has been attributed to economic factors. It is possible that those who have chosen to remain in 

Seldovia are more committed to living in the community and to the harvest of local wild resources for food. 

It should also be noted that despite the general population decline, the Alaska Native population in 

Seldovia was higher in 1993 (141 people) than in 1980 (123). This segment of Seldovia’s population has a 

strong commitment to traditional uses of wild foods (Reed 1979:70-73, Reed 1985:167-171), which has 

perhaps also been reinforced by the economic factors listed above. 

Comparisons with other Communities 

Comparatively, Seldovia’s per capita harvest quantities in the 1990s were lower than those of the 

nearby, predominately Alaska Native communities of Port Graham (see Chapter VIII) and Nanwalek (see 

Chapter IX), as well as the smaller Alaska Native villages of Prince William Sound and the Kodiak Island 

Borough. Harvest levels in Seldovia were higher than those of road-connected Kenai Peninsula 

’ This total only includes fish, since data on commercial removal of marine invertebrates were not collected for 1982. 

VII-19 
communities such as Kenai (see Chapter VI), Cooper Landing (91.5 pounds in 1990-91), and Hope (110.7 

pounds in 1990-91) (Seitz, Tomrdle, and Fall 1992), as well as Valdez (see Chapter Ill). 

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

This final section examines possible long-term effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) on 

Seldovia, focusing primarily on patterns of wild resource use. Selected findings from the social effects 

questionnaire will be used. These are summarized in Tables VII-43 through VII-52). For a review of oil spillrelated events in Seldovia in 1989, see Impact Assessment Inc. (IAI) (IA1 199Oc:172-179) and for further 

discussion of the effects of the spill on Seldovia, see the summary of key respondent interviews conducted 

as part of the MMS-sponsored Social Indicators study (McNabb 1993).6 

As discussed by IAI (199Oc) and McNabb (1993), oil spill issues in Seldovia in 1989 especially 

concerned the view that Exxon and Veto “took over” the spill response, ignoring local institutions and 

knowledge. There was also criticism of the local government’s handling of the spill response. Other effects 

noted by these studies included stress, anxiety over the future of resources and the commercial fishery, 

and effects on children separated from their parents. 

In the present study, one of the most important reasons respondents gave for why they live in 

Seldovia was the small town, isolated, safe feeling they felt in the community. Some respondents felt the 

EVOS and clean-up activities were detrimental to this atmosphere by causing social disruption and stress 

within the community. Some residents said they noticed more “greed” among their neighbors and felt that 

the EVOS had “changed a lot of people.” On the other hand, some residents felt that the EVOS may have 

brought people in the community together to work towards clean-up and prevention of future spills. 

Regarding economic impacts of the spill, as also discussed in the Kenai chapter, some Seldovia 

fishermen were unable to commercial salmon fish in Upper Cook Inlet due to oil from the Exxon Valdez Oil 

Spill (EVOS). Other perceived effects mentioned by fishermen and business people included the lack of 

tenders that were hired away to work on the EVOS; lack of construction and maintenance associated with 

commercial fishing boats because many of these too were hired away to the EVOS; and lower prices for 

salmon in 1989. 

In 1992, few Seldovia respondents to the social effects questionnaire said that their opinion of living 

in their community had suffered since the spill; just 14.8 percent said they liked living in Seldovia less in 

1991 than before 1989, as did 10.9 percent in 1993, and 14.0 percent in 1994 (Table VII-49). This was about 

the same as Port Graham and Nanwalek, but notably below the level of increased dissatisfaction expressed 

by residents of Prince William Sound communities (Fig. l-8). 

6 Keeble (1991:181-194) describes, in one chapter of his book on the oil spill, some spill-related issues and events in Seldovia in 

1989. These include an early volunteer effort to deploy booms to protect Seldovia Bay, frustrations in getting adequate fiscal and 

logistical support from Exxon and Veto, allegations that Exxon largely ignored clean-up needs in Cook Inlet, and further 

allegations that some individuals and groups profited improperly from the spill. 

VII-20 
In the IAI study and the social indicators project, interviewed respondents in Seldovia did not offer 

as concerns any oil spill-related subsistence issues or food contamination issues. The lack of these two 

issues as post-spill concerns is in stark contrast to the neighboring communities of Port Graham and 

Nanwalek, where concerns about the safety of subsistence foods and the short-term and long-term 

impacts of the spill on subsistence resources were central issues. 

The division did not conduct systematic household surveys to document subsistence harvests 

levels in Seldovia in 1989, the year of the oil spill. Therefore, it is not possible to directly assess any effects 

of the spill on harvests and uses in that specific year. In Nanwalek and Port Graham, subsistence harvests 

were down about 50 percent in 1989 compared to 1987 (Fall 1991 b). As noted above, it appears that 

subsistence harvests in Seldovia in the three study years of 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 were 

substantially higher than those of the early 1980s. This suggests that if the spill had disrupted subsistence 

harvests in Seldovia in 1989, the effect was short-lived. Further evidence of a relatively small impacts on 

harvest levels in Seldovia is provided in Figure l-16. Only 25.0 percent of the Seldovia households stated 

that they believed their overall level of resource uses in 1991/92 was lower than the year before the oil spill. 

This was fourth-lowest among study communities, and half or less the rate for the nearby communities of 

Port Graham (50.0 percent reporting lowered uses in 1991/92) and Nanwalek (57.7 percent having lower 

uses in 1991/92). Also, as illustrated in Figure VII-l 1, in the assessment of 70 percent or more of the 

Seldovia households, resource uses at the category level were about the same or higher in 1991/92 than in 

1988. Regarding 1993/94, while 29.2 percent of the households said their uses were lower than in 1988, 

only five (10.4 percent of the 48 sampled households which had lived in the community before the spill) 

pointed to the spill as the reason for the change (Table l-98). 

As discussed in Chapter I, the safety of using subsistence resources which may have been 

contaminated by oil was a major issue in many villages following the Exxon Valdez spill (Fall 1991 a, 1991 b; 

Walker and Field 1991). In the first study year, eight sampled Seldovia households (12.1 percent) 

discarded some wild resources during the study year (Table l-107). Marine invertebrates were the most 

frequently discarded, by three households (4.5 percent). In most cases, respondents were unable to 

provide a suggested cause of the abnormality, although most said they had not observed such conditions 

before the oil spill. 

Only 36.7 percent of Seldovia households in 1991 reported that they had been adequately 

informed about the safety of subsistence foods (Table VII-51). This was the second-lowest of any study 

community (after Chenega Bay) and substantially below that of Port Graham (50.0 percent adequately 

informed) and Nanwalek (62.1 percent adequately informed) (Fig. l-9). In the second study year, about half 

the Seldovia respondents said they had been adequately informed, but this dropped to 36.2 percent in 

1994. It should be noted that the Oil Spill Heath Task Force did not include Seldovia in its round of 

community visits in 1989 or 1991. This was primarily because the Task Force had not received any 

communications from the community that oil contamination was a concern 

VII-21 
In 1992 and subsequent years, few Seldovia respondents expressed concerns about the safety of 

subsistence foods. None in 1992 and just 6.3 percent in 1993 suggested that seals were not safe for 

children to eat. This percentage increased in 1994 to 20 percent (3 or 15 households which used seals) 

which said they were not sure if seals were safe for children to eat; none said they were certain they were 

not safe and none gave a reason for their uncertainty, however. Regarding the safety of using clams, just 

6.8 percent in 1992, 3.4 percent in 1993, and 6.8 percent in 1994 had misgivings about the safety of clams. 

In 1993 and 1994, one respondent cited oil contamination as the reason for clams being unsafe: none 

mentioned oil contamination in 1992. Concerns about the safety of these resources were much higher in 

all three study years in Port Graham, Nanwalek, and the Prince William Sound villages of Tatitlek and 

Chenega Bay (Fig. l-4, Fig. l-5). 

Several questions in the social effects instrument addressed potential social effects of the spill, 

including its possible impact on the noncommercial distribution and exchange of subsistence foods among 

households. Most Seldovia respondents did not suggest that sharing of subsistence foods had declined 

since the spill (Table VII-47). In 1992, only 15.5 percent gave that opinion, fourth lowest among the study 

communities and below the level for Port Graham (32.6 percent) and Nanwalek (48.1 percent). In the 

second study year, only 11.5 percent of Seldovia’s respondents said sharing was less than 1988; this was 

the lowest among all study communities. This percentage increased slightly for 1993, to 22.4 percent, but 

remained lower than Port Graham, Nanwalek, and the Alaska Native villages of Prince William Sound (Fig. 

l-7). 

Likewise, only 7.9 percent of the Seldovia respondents in 1992 said they believed that the spill had 

affected children’s participation in subsistence activities, second lowest among study communities in that 

study year. This percentage rose slightly, to 14.8 percent of respondents in 1992, but remained relatively 

low, and returned to about its first year level in the third study year, at 7.9 percent (Table VII-46). This 

contrasted with Port Graham and Nanwalek, where 43.2 percent and 53.8 percent, respectively, in the first 

study year, 34.8 percent and 61.3 percent in the second year, and 54.5 percent and 62.1 percent in the 

third year, said that the spill had adversely affected children’s participation in subsistence (Fig. l-6). 

For most resources, a relatively low percentage of Seldovia respondents believed that populations 

had declined since the year before the spill. For many resources, such as rockfish, octopus, sea lions, 

bidarkies (chitons), sea urchins, and harbor seals, respondents offered no opinion as to resource status 

(Table VII-45). Only for clams, a very widely used and highly valued resource in Seldovia, did a majority of 

respondents (61.5 percent) in 1992 report there were less than in 1988 (Fig. VII-15). This percentage 

dropped to 45.3 percent in 1993 (Fig. VII-16), but bounced back up to 63.5 percent in 1994 (Fig. VII-17). 

This was also the resource category for which the largest percentage of respondents reported lowered 

uses in 1991/92 in comparison to 1988 (24.2 percent). Also, a shift occurred from the first to the second 

year, with a larger percentage of households reporting lowered populations of salmon, common murres, 

and sea ducks. This was generally the case in the third study year as well, with a larger percentage of 

VII-22 
respondents reporting lower populations than they had reported in the first study year (Table VII-45). 

Particularly noteworthy in the third year was the relatively large percentage of respondents reporting that 

salmon populations had dropped compared to before the spill. This view was offered by 59.6 percent of 

the respondents in 1994, compared to just 28.8 percent in 1992 and 41.5 percent in 1992 (Table VII-45). 

Concerning the impact of future Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development, just under half of 

Seldovia’s respondents predicted lower levels of fish (43.8 percent in 1991, 43.1 percent in 1992, 49.2 

percent in 1993), marine mammals (48.4 percent, 46.2 percent, 47.7 percent), birds (42.2 percent, 41.5 

percent, 38.5 percent), and marine invertebrates (48.4 percent, 41.5 percent, and 49.2 percent), about in 

the mid-range of community responses. Lower percentages, 35.9 percent in 1991, 26.2 percent in 1992, 

and 24.6 percent in 1993, predicted lowered land mammal populations if OCS development occurred. 

About 46.9 percent of the Seldovia’s respondents for the 1991 study year thought that OCS development 

would bring more jobs; this rose to 55.4 percent for 1992 but dropped to 41.5 percent in 1993 (Table Vll52). This was about midway between the responses from Nanwalek (lower) and Port Graham (higher), but 

far fewer than Kenai (88.0 percent for 1991, 97.3 percent in 1992, 85.1 percent in 1993) (Fig. l-l 5). 

In summary, it appears that among Kenai Peninsula communities, the Exxon Valdez oil spill left 

more long-lasting affects in Nanwalek and Port Graham than in Seldovia. Comparatively few households in 

Seldovia reported lowered harvest levels, reduced levels of sharing, lower participation in subsistence 

activities by children, or depressed resource populations since the spill, and few were concerned about oil 

contamination of subsistence foods. This may in part reflect the relatively low levels of oiling of beaches 

near Seldovia, in contrast to the moderate to heavy oiling suffered by some places, such as Windy Bay and 

Chugach Bay, that are part of the subsistence harvest areas of Port Graham and Nanwalek. On the other 

hand, Seldovia residents, like their neighbors in Nanwalek and Port Graham, were divided over the 

potential benefits of outer continental shelf development, with about half predicting negative impacts on 

fish and wildlife and about half predicting enhanced employment opportunities. This is in contrast to Kenai, 

a community highly dependent on the oil and gas industry, where most respondents did not predict 

environmental problems with OCS development and most believed that new jobs would result from such 

activities. 

VII-23 

0 

0 

c 

0 

VII-25 
Tabie VII-2 . Demographic Characteristics of Househotds, Setdovia, April 1992, April 1993, and April 1994 

Chaaoteristics 1991i92SY 1992l93SY 199394SY 

jampted Househotds 

Jumber of Househoids in the Community 

Jercentage of Househokk Sampled 

iousehold Size 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Sample Population 

Estimated Community Population 

49e 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Median 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maxjmum 

.9X 

MaleS 

Number 

Percentage 

Females 

Number 

Percentage 

Alaska Natii 

Households (Eiiher Head) 

Number 

Percentage 

Estimated Population 

Number 

Percentage 

66 65 65 

116 137 153 

56.90 47.45 42.48 

2.94 2.74 2.82 

1.00 1.00 1 

6.00 6.00 6 

194 178 183 

340.97 375.17 430.75 

33.59 33.10 34.10 

0.32 0.34 1.43 

84.40 90.86 86.40 

33.706 34.809 36.604 

13.88 15.12 15.10 

0.32 0.13 0 

66.13 80.13 63.63 

17.76 20.16 19.73 

0.63 0.63 0 

66.13 60.13 63.63 

179.27 193.91 226.32 

52.58 51.69 53.01 

161.70 181.26 202.43 

47.42 46.31 46.99 

31.64 52.69 58.85 

27.27 38.46 38.46 

80.85 126.57 141.23 

23.71 34.27 32.79 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992,1993,and 1994 

VI l-26 
Figure VII-2. Population Profile, Seldovia, April 1992 

w-84 

70-74 

u w-64 

8 So-54 

$ 2 40-44 

4 30-34 

B20-24 

20 .15 ,lO 

-i 

.5 0 5 10 15 20 

POPULATION 

0 MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Table W-3. Population Profile, Seldovia, April 1992 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

O-4 8.79 4.90% 4.90% 

5-Q 14.06 7.84% 12.75% 

lo-14 15.82 8.82% 21.57% 

15-19 19.33 10.78% 32.35% 

20-24 8.79 4.90% 37.25% 

25-29 3.52 1.96% 39.22% 

30-34 15.82 8.82% 48.04% 

35-39 14.08 7.84% 55.88% 

40-44 8.79 4.90% 60.78% 

45-49 19.33 10.78% 71.57% 

W-54 14.06 7.84% 79.41% 

55-59 15.82 8.82% 88.24% 

60-64 3.52 1.96% 90.20% 

65-69 3.52 1.96% 92.16% 

70-74 8.79 4.90% 97.06% 

75-79 0.00 O.W% 97.06% 

W-84 0.00 0.00% 97.06% 

85-89 0.00 0.00% 97.06% 

90 - 94 0.00 0.00% 97.06% 

95-99 0.00 0.00% 97.06% 

loo-104 0.00 0.00% 97.06% 

Missing 5.27 2.94% 1 co.W% 

12.30 7.61% 7.61% 

17.58 1 10.87% 18.48% 

7.03 4.35% 22.83% 

15.82 9.78% 32.61% 

7.03 4.35% 36.98% 

12.30 7.61% 44.57% 

12.30 7.61% 52.17% 

15.82 9.78% 61.96% 

14.06 8.70% 70.65% 

10.55 6.52% 77.17% 

12.30 7.61% 84.78% 

8.79 5.43% 90.22% 

0.00 0.00% 90.22% 

5.27 3.26% 93.48% 

1.76 1.09% 94.57% 

0.00 0.00% 94.57% 

3.52 2.17% 96.74% 

0.00 O.W% 96.74% 

0.00 O.W% 96.74% 

0.00 0.00% 96.74% 

0.00 0.00% 96.74% 

5.27 3.26% lW.W% 

21.09 6.19% 

31.64 9.28% 

22.85 6.70% 

35.15 10.31% 

15.82 4.64% 

15.82 4.64% 

28.12 8.25% 

29.88 8.76% 

22.85 6.70% 

29.88 8.76% 

26.36 7.73% 

24.61 7.22% 

3.52 1.03% 

8.79 2.58% 

10.55 3.09% 

0.66 0.00% 

3.52 1.03% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

0.00 0.00% 

10.55 3.09% 

6.19% 

15.46% 

22.16% 

32.47% 

37.11% 

41.75% 

5o.wx 

58.76% 

65.46% 

74.23% 

81.96% 

89.18% 

90.21% 

92.78% 

95.88% 

95.88% 

96.91% 

96.91% 

96.91% 

96.91% 

96.91% 

lW.W% 

TOTAL 179.27 52.66% 161.70 47.42% 340.97 lW.W% 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

VII-27 
20-24 c 

r 

.n .” 

30 25 20 15 10 .5 0 5 lo 15 20 25 30 

POPULATION 

0 MALE H FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

Table W-4. Population Profile, Seldovia, April 1993 

MALE FEMALE 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 12.65 6.52% 6.52% 

5-9 18.97 9.78% 16.30% 

10-14 14.75 7.61% 23.91% 

15-19 25.29 13.04% 36.96% 

20-24 2.11 1.09% 38.04% 

25-29 2.11 1.09% 39.13% 

30-34 10.54 5.43% 44.57% 

35-39 21.08 10.87% 55.43% 

40-44 14.75 7.61% 63.04% 

45-49 18.97 9.78% 72.83% 

50-54 18.97 9.78% 82.61% 

55-59 10.54 5.43% 88.04% 

60-64 12.65 6.52% 94.57% 

65-69 2.11 1.09% 95.65% 

70-74 2.11 1.09% 96.74% 

75 - 79 2.11 1.09% 97.83% 

BO-B4 2.11 1.09% 98.91% 

85-w 2.11 1.09% lW.W?b 

90-94 0.00 0.00X lW.W% 

95-99 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

loo-104 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

Missing 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

TOTAL 193.91 51.69% 

25.29 13.95% 13.96% 

23.18 12.79% 26.74% 

10.54 5.81% 32.56% 

8.43 4.65% 37.21% 

4.22 2.33% 39.53% 

8.43 4.65% 44.19% 

23.18 12.79% 56.98% 

10.54 5.81% 62.791 

18.97 10.47% 73.26% 

8.43 4.65% 77.91% 

16.86 9.30% 87.21% 

6.32 3.49% 90.70% 

4.22 2.33% 93.02% 

4.22 2.33+?b 95.35% 

2.11 1.16% 96.51 ‘?b 

0.00 0.00% 96.51% 

0.00 0.00% 96.51% 

2.11 1.16% 97.67% 

2.11 1.16% 9884% 

0.00 0.00% 98.84% 

0.00 0.00% 98.84% 

2.11 1.16% lW.W% 

181.26 48.31% 

37.94 10.11% 10.11% 

42.15 11.24% 21.35% 

25.29 6.74% 28.09% 

33.72 8.99% 37.08% 

6.32 1.69% 38.76% 

10.54 2.81% 41.57% 

33.72 8.99% 50.56% 

31.62 8.43X 58.99% 

33.72 8.99% 67.98% 

27.49 7.39% 75.28% 

35.83 9.55% 84.83% 

16.86 4.49% 89.33% 

16.86 4.49% 93.82% 

6.32 1.69% 96.51% 

4.22 1.121 96.63% 

2.11 0.58% 97.19% 

2.11 0.56% 97.75% 

4.22 1.12% 98.88% 

2.11 0.56% 99.44% 

0.00 0.00% 99.44% 

0.00 0.00% 99.44% 

2.11 0.56% lW.W% 

375.17 lW.oo% 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

VI l-28 
Figure VW. Population Profile, Seldovia, April 1994 

g 60-64 

a IL W-54 

0 

20-24 

lo-14 

35 30 25 20 ,15 ,lO ,5 0 5 10 15 20 25 

POPULATION 

•I MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

Table VII-5 Population Profile, Seldovia, April 1994 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 4.71 2.06% 2.08% 

5-9 23.54 10.31% 12.37% 

lo-14 23.54 10.31% 22.68% 

15-19 32.95 14.43% 37.11% 

20-24 7.06 3.09% 40.21% 

25-29 4.71 2.06% 42.27% 

30-34 9.42 4.12% 46.39% 

35-39 25.89 11.34% 57.73% 

40-44 21.18 9.28% 67.01% 

45-49 23.64 10.31% 77.32% 

50-54 11.77 5.15% 82.47% 

55-59 14.12 6.19% 88.66% 

60-64 11.77 5.15% 93.81% 

65-69 9.42 4.12% 97.94% 

70-74 0.00 0.00% 97.94% 

75-79 2.35 1.03% 98.97% 

W-84 0.00 0.00% 98.97% 

85-89 0.00 0.00% 98.97% 

90-94 0.00 0.00% 98.97% 

95-99 0.00 0.00% 98.97% 

loo-104 0.00 0.00% 98.97% 

Missing 2.35 1.03% lW.W% 

21.18 10.47% 10.47% 

11.77 5.81% 16.28% 

14.12 6.98% 23.26% 

23.54 11.63% 34.86% 

2.35 1.16% 36.05% 

9.42 4.65% 40.70% 

7.06 3.49% 44.19% 

21.18 10.47% 54.65% 

23.54 11.63% 66.28% 

18.83 9.30% 75.58% 

14.12 8.98% 82.56% 

16.48 8.14% 90.70°b 

9.42 4.65% 95.35% 

0.00 0.00% 95.35% 

4.71 2.33% 97.67W 

2.35 1.16% 98.84% 

0.00 0.00% 98.84% 

2.35 1.16% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00X 1 W.W”b 

25.89 6.01% 6.01% 

35.31 8.20% 14.21% 

37.66 8.74% 22.95% 

56.49 13.11W 36.07% 

9.42 2.19% 38.25% 

14.12 3.28% 41.53% 

16.48 3.83% 45.36% 

47.08 10.93% 56.28% 

44.72 10.38% 66.67% 

42.37 9.84% 76.50% 

25.89 6.01 I 82.51% 

30.60 7.10% 89.62% 

21.18 4.92% 94.54% 

9.42 2.19% 96.72% 

4.71 1 .oQ% 97.81% 

4.71 1.09Qb 98.91% 

0.00 0.00% 98.91% 

2.35 0.55% 99.45% 

0.00 0.00% 99.45% 

0.00 0.00% 99.45% 

0.00 0.00% 99.45% 

2.35 0.55% lW.W% 

TOTAL 228.32 53.01% 202.43 46.99% 430.75 1 W.W% I 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

VII-29 
Table W-6. Employment Characteristics, Seldovia, 1991&X,1992/93, and 1993B4 

Characteristics 1991192 1QQz93 1993194 

IDULTS 

Total 249.68 255.03 317.77 

Employed 

Number 166.97 204.45 249.51 

Percentage 66.90 80.17 78.52 

Jobs 

Number 223.21 330.91 386.03 

Mean 1.34 1.62 1.65 

Minimum 1 1 1 

Maximum 4 5 5 

Months Employed 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Year-Round 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Total 

Employed 

Number 103.70 120.14 143.58 

Percentage 89.39 87.69 93.85 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Employed Adutts 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

8.67 8.60 8.89 

1 1 1 

12 12 12 

40.00% 39.18% 45.28% 

116.60 137.00 153.00 

2.15 2.75 2.69 

1 1 1 

7 6 11 

1.61 1.70 1.74 

1 1 1 

5 4 6 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992,1993 and 1994. 

VII-30 
VII-31 
Table VII-7. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All SOWC~S and by Employer Type, S&hia, lQQ1/92 

INCOME SOURCE 

All Sources wQQ626.49 $14636.57 

Earned Income 63.892,719.59 $33557.93 $11,418.61 

Agricutture, Forestry, and Fishing 1482269.09 12,778.18 4.34722 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 

FQ-QY 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 1482269.09 12,778.18 4347.22 

Hatchery/Enhancement 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Commercial Fishing 1482.09333 12.776.67 4346.70 

Hunting/Trapping 175.76 1.52 0.52 

Mining 351,515.15 3,030.30 1.03693 

Construction 131,818.18 1,136.36 386.60 

Manufacturing 

Cannery 

Other Manufacturing 

Logginflmber 

179338.64 

179338.64 

AMT UNK 

AMT UNK 

1546.02 

1546.02 

AMT UNK 

AMT UNK 

525.97 

525.97 

AMT UNK 

AMT UNK 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 65,909.09 568.18 193.30 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

145,527.27 1254.55 426.86 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

145,527.27 1.254.55 426.80 

Finance, Insurance. and Real Estate 1 i7,093.33 1526.67 519.38 

Services 225.286.06 1.942.12 660.72 

Government 1 ,133,962.77 9,775.54 3,325.70 

Federal 0.00 0.00 0.00 

State AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Local 1.133.962.n 9,775s 3.325.70 

Local Government 420,763&l 3627.27 1234.02 

Local Education 713,199.13 8,148.27 2J91.68 

Unknown 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other Income $1,097,906.90 %I+&71 $3,219.95 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

VII-32 
Table Vll-8. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Seldovia, 1991192 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

II Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social sscwity 

Workman’s CompJlnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

InvestmentsJStockslBonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

W.:men, Infants, and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

Other 

0.00 

3.03 

0.00 

0.00 

9.09 

15.15 

16.67 

0.00 

4.55 

3.03 

0.00 

15.15 

22.73 

10.61 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

87.88 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

7.58 

$1,097,9rJ69cJ $9464.71 $3,219.95 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

7.63 0.06 0.02 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

204666.18 1,764x 600.25 

52.727.27 454.55 154.64 

128693.71 1,109.43 377.43 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

1,933x3 16.67 5.67 

15269.82 131.64 44.78 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

37499.13 323.27 109.98 

72,829.55 627.84 213.60 

135J33.33 1.16667 396.91 

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 

243,897.03 2,102.56 715.30 

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 

205.650.51 1,767.68 601.37 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

VII-33 
VII-34 
VI l-35 
Table VII-l 0. Community. Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sowoes and by Employer Type, Seldovia, 1992/93 

INCOME SOURCE 

All Sources ss*056,304.54 $36,907.33 $13,477.40 

Earned Income w.rlo4.643.75 s.2w3Q.98 S10.674.23 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 

Agriculture 

Forestry 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 

Hatchery/Enhancement 

Commercial Fishing 

Hunting/Trapping 

1.42344933 

12.846.1s 

0.00 

1,410.803.18 

0.00 

1,410,603.16 

0.00 

10.390.14 

92.31 

0.00 

10.29763 

0.00 

10297.83 

0.00 

3,794.15 

33.71 

0.00 

3,76&&l 

0.00 

3,760.44 

0.00 

Mining 286646.15 2,092.31 764.04 

Construction l33,068.l2 971.45 354.74 

Manufacturing 242393.05 I,76929 646.09 

Cannery 170,415.3s 1.243.91 454.24 

Other Manufacturing 843.08 8.15 2.25 

LcggingflTmber 71 ,134.82 519.23 189.61 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 198.123.08 1448.15 526.09 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

282,315.89 2.tJ60.70 752.50 

52.692.31 384.62 140.45 

229s23.50 1,676.W 612.05 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 115,501.!54 643.08 307.87 

Services 358,277.63 2,615.17 954.98 

Government 964,848.85 7g42.69 2,571.77 

Federal 0.00 0.00 0.00 

State 152,388.15 1,112.31 466.18 

LoCal 812462.69 5,930.38 2,165.59 

Local Government 281587.89 2,05!xt8 750.56 

Local Education 530,875.OO 3,875.W 1.415.03 

UnklloWll AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITP 

Other Income $1,951,86tI.78 $7.67636 $2603.16 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

VII-36 
Table VII-l 1. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Seldovia, 1992/93 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

II Sources 

l3mn Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s CompJlnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Natii Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disabilii 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

Women, Infants, and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

0.00 

3.08 

0.00 

0.00 

9.23 

13.85 

10.77 

0.00 

6.15 

1.54 

3.08 

13.85 

29.23 

6.15 

3.08 

3.08 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

98.46 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

$1,051,660.78 $7,676.36 $2803.16 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

5o,os7.69 365.38 133.43 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

219,021.27 1598.70 583.79 

63230.77 461.54 166.54 

129,981.38 948.77, 348.46 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

35w.31 25.62 9.35 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

6.74462 49.23 17.98 

66,896.05 488.29 178.31 

97,510.18 711.75 259.91 

30582.82 223.23 81.52 

16,018.46 116.92 42.70 

18,126.15 132.31 48.31 

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 

326,279.20 2,381.w 869.69 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.P-l 

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 6.15 23,703.11 173.02 63.18 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

VI l-37 
VII-38 
Table VII-1 2. Community, Household, and Per Capita Incomes, All Sources and by Employer Type, Seldovia, 1993/94 

INCOME SOURCE 

ill Sources 

Iamed Income 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 

Agriculture 

Forestry 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 

Hatchery/Enhancement 

Commercial Fishing 

HuntinglTrapping 

Mining 

Construction 

Manufacturing 

Cannery 

Other Manufacturing 

LogginglTimber 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 

Services 

Government 

Federal 

State 

Local 

Local Government 

Local Education 

Unknown 

Other Income 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

$7539223.31 $49,275.97 $17,502.39 

$4.284.997.04 S26$06.52 $9947.67 

657,714.31 4.298.79 1,526.89 

1,412.31 9.23 3.28 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

656,302.W 4289.56 1,523.61 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

656,302.w 4,289.56 1.523.81 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

282,461.54 1646.15 655.74 

424,310.19 2,773.27 985.64 

36,1Cl8.T7 249.08 88.47 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

38,106.n 249.08 88.47 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

267689.43 1680.32 687.87 

285582.74 1666.55 662.98 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

285582.74 1666.55 682.98 

57q4.62 378.46 134.43 

1,328,477.14 8682.86 3.084.07 

922,748.31 6,031.03 2,142.17 

14,123.08 92.31 32.79 

181.08923 1,183.59 420.40 

727536.00 4,755.14 1688.96 

160.782.15 1 g50.86 373.26 

566.75365 3.704.27 1,315.73 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

$3264.22626 $21269.45 $7.554.72 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Household Survey, 1994 

VI l-39 
Table VII-l 3. Community, Househdd, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Seldovia, 1993/94 

SOURX 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

rll Sources 

Exxon Claims 

AM to Families with Dependent Chlldren 

Adutt Public Assistance 

Ejocon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social security 

Workman’s CompJlnsurance 

Energy Assiianca 

Supplemental Security Income 

Focd Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fiiing Permit Leasing 

Par Dii 

Diibiltty 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weathertzation 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC El&r Trust 

Supplemental Union Benefns 

Gifts 

Medicare/Medicaid 

Other 

0.00 

4.62 

1.54 

0.00 

12.31 

9.23 

10.77 

1.54 

9.23 

1.54 

10.77 

10.77 

35.38 

4.62 

0.w 

3.88 

0.00 

1.54 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.54 

92.31 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.54 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

$x254,226.26 $21.26945 $7554.72 

0.00 0.w 0.00 

78,736.15 514.62 182.79 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

423,315.69 2.768.77 982.73 

35307.69 230.77 81.97 

152,872.89 999.17 354.90 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

5,790.46 37.85 13.44 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

50331.51 328.96 118.85 

138g89.80 982.55 326.58 

1,786,218.92 11674.63 4,146.73 

105$23.08 692.31 245.96 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

18J30.77 123.08 43.72 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

32953.85 215.38 76.50 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

5,413.85 35.38 12.57 

349,826.22 2,286.45 812.13 

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 

0.0 0.00 0.00 

70,815.38 461.54 163.93 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

VI l-40 
Table vll-14. Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use. Seldovia. 1991/92,1992/93, and 1993/94 

study Year 1991l92 1992193 1993l94 

lean Number Of Resources Used Per Househotd 13.52 12.31 12.94 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 36 30 37 

95 % Confidence Umit (+/-) 9.91 9.81 10.83 

Median 11.5 11 13 

lean Number Of Resources Attempted To Harvest Per Househotd 9.30 8.91 9.29 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 35 27 25 

95 % Conf&nce Limit (+I-) 11.63 12.46 11.71 

Median 6 8 8 

lean Number Of Resources Harvested Per Househotd 9.00 8.35 8.88 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 35 27 25 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 12.26 12.72 11.90 

Median 8 8 7 

lean Number Of Resources Received Per Household 6.42 6.18 6.38 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 24 23 31 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 14.02 13.78 16.31 

Median 5 5 5 

lean Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 4.86 4.28 5 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 21 20 17 

95 96 Confidence Limit (+/-) 17.66 18.01 15.79 

Median 3 3 5 

dean Household Harvest, Pounds 603.98 397.45 518.69 

Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Maximum 4583.04 3,788.62 3466.15 

‘otal Pounds Harvested 70959.41 54450.78 79g53.88 

:ommuntty Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 205.47 145.14 183.52 

‘ercent Using Any Resource 98.48 98.46 95.38 

‘ercent Attempting To Harvest Any Resource 92.42 93.85 95.38 

‘ercent Harvesting Any Resource 92.42 93.85 95.38 

‘ercent Receiving Any Resource 95.45 95.38 66.15 

‘ercent Giving Away Any Resource 84.85 84.82 78.46 

dumber Of Households In Sample 66 65 65 

Jumber of Resources Available 114 133 146 

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Household Survey, 1992. 1993, and 1994 

VII-41 
Table VII-15. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Seldovia, 1991/92, 

1992l93, and 1993i94 

Study Year 

Total Number of People 

GAME Hunt 

Process 

FISH Fish 

Process 

FURBEARERS Hunt or Trap 

Process 

PLANTS Gather 

Process 

ANY RESOURCE 

Attempt 

Process 

1991l92 199z93 1993l94 

340.97 375.17 430.75 

Number 73.82 99.06 77.68 

Percentage 21.65 25.40 18.03 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 93.15 120.14 131.82 

Percentage 27.32 32.02 30.60 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.w 0.00 

Number 265.39 290.86 336.60 

Percentage 77.84 77.53 78.14 

Missing 1.76 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.52 0.00 0.00 

Number 267.15 299.29 334.25 

Percentage 78.35 79.78 77.60 

Missing 1.76 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.52 0.00 0.00 

Number 3.52 6.32 7.06 

Percentage 1.03 1.69 1.84 

Missing 1.76 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.52 0.00 0.00 

Number 3.52 10.54 16.48 

Percentage 1.03 2.81 3.83 

Missing 1.76 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.52 0.00 0.00 

Number 254.85 301.40 362.49 

Percentage 74.74 80.34 84.15 

Missing 1.76 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.52 0.00 0.00 

Number 235.52 263.46 348.37 

Percentage 69.07 70.22 80.87 

Missing 1.76 0.00 0.w 

Missing % 0.52 0.00 0.00 

Number 304.06 339.34 402.51 

Percent 89.18 90.45 93.44 

Number 302.30 322.48 383.68 

Percent 88.66 85.96 89.07 

Department of Fish and Division Of Subsistence. 

Household Survey, 1992.1993, and 1994 

VII-42 
u, Fi 88888888888888ZG888888$ 

.EE 0 ~dddd~dddddddd~-ddddddo 

Q 5 8888888Ei888888z22-488g8888 

tz dddddddddddddd~iddddddd 

VII-43 
Table VII-17. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by 

Resource Category, Seldovia, 1982, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 

Salmon 17.9 

Other Fish 11.6 

Marine Invertebrates 8.4 

Land Mammals ~ 7.0 

Marine Mammals ~ 0.0 

Birds and Eggs i 1.4 

Wild Plants 4.4 

I All Resources I 50.7 

‘ounds Usable Weight per Person 

! Three-Year 

i Average, 1991/92 

1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 i through 1993/94 

64.6 58.5 64.3 i 62.5 

68.2 41 .l 43.6 i 50.1 

30.4 17.8 34.0 i 27.6 

29.6 15.2 23.6 i 22.6 

0.0 1.3 1.2 i 0.9 

1.2 1.3 1.3 : 1.3 

11.6 9.9 15.6 i 12.5 

II 205.5 145.1 183.5 i 177.4 

Table VII-18. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Seldovia, 

1982,1991/92, 19932l93, and 1993194 

t1982 

Salmon 35.3% 

Other Fish 22.8% 

#Marine Invertebrates 16.6% 

gland Mammals 13.8% 

~Marine Mammals 0.0% 

Birds and Eggs 2.8% 

Wild Plants 8.7% 

Percentage of Total Harvest 

: Three-Year 

i Average, 1991/92 

1991192 1992l93 1993194 i through 1993194 

31.4% 40.3% 35.0% ; 35.2% 

33.2% 28.3% 23.8% f 28.2% 

14.8% 12.3% 18.5% i 15.6% 

14.4% 10.5% 12.9% ; 12.7% 

0.0% 0.9% 0.7% i 0.5% 

0.6% 0.9% 0.7% ; 0.7% 

5.6% 6.8% 8.5% : 7.0% 

VI l-44 
elide3 lad 3~6!a~ alqesn spunod 

VII-45 
T 

WWd PI!M 

~663 pue SpJ!g 

slewweyy puey 

uowles 

UOSJad lad SplJtIOd 

VI l-46 
VI l-47 
Weld PI!M 

SC63 % SPJ!9 

I 1 

saaeJqavanul 

au!Jelly 

e 

t 

F: 

VII-48 
VII-49 
VII-50 
a. Q q 9 0. 9 0. lq 4 0. 0, 0. b. b. - --y IQ (4 ‘4 (4 q 0. 0. 0. 9 0. m. -. q 0. 0. (9 m. q 0. c 

~~OOOOOOOOOOO~~dN.-~~‘TOOOOOO-WWOOOUV@7C 

a 

VW c-vVII-51 
3 0 0 W 0 U-J v) 0 0 0 0 

5 d t-3 4 d r’ G d I5 d 

0. 

d 

0. 0, 0. 9 0. 0, 0. 4 0. 0. C? o\ Cq Cq ‘- N. q 0. 9 (4 q W, - (‘! 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a ;?teww -00l-.-~e5al 

N N 
VII-53 
.‘G; P 

, :c IP !‘ 

I 

: 

VII-54 
000 

VII-55 
d 

= > 

VII-56 
VI l-57 
VII-58 
VI l-59 
VI l-60 
In 

E 

2 

a 

VII-61 
e m ‘0 .?; m 

f ii 

x 3 -0 

s 

--QJlcU,.-NC-,-N 

a 

VII-62 
r 

VII-63 
ooooo-. 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N -’ d d d d d $ d d d d d d d cd 0, 9 0, q q 0. q m. m, 0 t‘. -, q 9 m. m. 0. c 0 0 0 0 m w 0 0 - 2 2 z g m E 2 m 0 c 

VI l-64 
i 

.v, 

m ~~ooooodowooom~ 9 9 9 9 9 0 0. h! 9 9 q cr ‘4 m .-.-OOOcjtiG-rd ” 9 9 9 - - w 0 ” --oooooocooooo m. 0. 0. 0. 9 0. q 9 9 0. 9 0. 0. 

ea 

d 

VII-65 
J 

VI l-66 
VII-67 
VI l-68 
VI l-69 
VI I-70 
VII-71 
f ii 

VII-72 
VII-73 
VII-74 
VI l-75 
- 

c 

8 

.o 

VII-76 
388 j d d ~~888888888S~8~8~~~8~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~5 d 6 d d d 6 d 6 6 ,’ ,’ 15 ,’ d d ci d d z 2 0 0 0 c-4 cj 0 0 F- 0 0 0 
VII-78 
VII-79 
VII-80 
- 

VII-81 
VII-82 
VII-83 
VII-84 
VII-85 
88888888888888888888888888888888 

d d d d d d 6 d d d d d d d 6 d 6 d 6 d d 6 d d d d d d d 6 d d 

88888888888888888888888888888888 

6 d 6 d d d d d 6 d 6 d d 6 d 6 d d d d 6 d d 6 6 d d d d d d d 

~z3~888s88a888sl8888w~8~88888$?888~ 

8 0 0 d d 6 hi d cd ,’ d d d ,’ 6 d 6 d ,’ CD *; d d d d 6 d d d d 6 d c 

VII-86 
VII-87 
VII-88 
P 

VII-89 
VII-90 
.C 2 

‘;; 

. 

VII-93 
Q 

.- 

VII-96 
+--;-+A 

I 

I 

Ii 

3 

f3 E .C 

w 

.- I 

v- I 

w i 

VII-97 
VII-98 
VI l-99 
I 

b 

.- 

w 

.- 

> 

.- 

w 

Y 

I 1 I 

I I 

+-+-A + 
+-; 
I 

-+ 

VII-102 

+ 
i 

.t 

9 

VII-105 

; ; ; ; 

8 I 

+-+-+ + 

VII-107 
.C 

E .C m 

. 

s 

VII-108 
VII-1 09 
VII-I 10 
G ; +--;-A 

+-+ 

VII-I 11 

VII-113 
sin 

I 

A- 

, 

I 8 

;-+ 

VII-114 
t F 
. . . . , 

8 g: 

z 2: 

VII-1 16 
. 

f 

f 

p: 

b 
VII-118 
8 

VII-1 19 
vtt-120 
+-+-+ + 

I : ,M M 

I amam NC .-YI Nuff 

x a-2 0 ’ 

N- N.- N?: 

IA 

. 

‘cd m r.4 IA: 
k 

VII-122 
+-+-+ + 

I x 

NZ 

x 

N.- NZ 

N w x 

9-v) -it? -# N- o 

r; P-i r; 

. 

- NC; rA 

m 

, I I 

VII-l 23 
i 

0 

5 

2 

0 

8 

. 

s: 

VII-l 24 
VII-125 
VII-126 
VII-127 
VII-128 
CHAPTER VIII: PORT GRAHAM 

by 

Ronald T. Stanek 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 

Port Graham is located near the tip of the lower Kenai Peninsula on the south shore of 

Kachemak Bay in Southcentral Alaska. The community has no road access, however, it is readily 

accessible by boat and small aircraft from nearby communities. While the waters of outer Kachemak 

Bay are ice-free, the inner portion of Port Graham bay often has skim ice during very cold winter months. 

The climate of the area is maritime with moderate amounts of rainfall, and weather conditions are often 

highly variable with persistent fog, high winds, or clear and calm conditions. 

A summary of the Prehistory and history of the lower Cook Inlet area is provided in Stanek 

(1985:31-51). Detailed discussions of the Gulf of Alaska archaeology can be found in de Laguna (1934), 

Jacobson (1977), Workman (1980), Workman, Lobdell, and Workman (1980), Lobdell (1981), and 

Workman and Workman (1985). Briefly, the Prehistory of the Kachemak Bay area is a complex series of 

movements of two cultural groups, the Pacific Eskimos and Athabaskan Indians. The cultural traditions 

are typified by five cultural sequences currently dated from before 400 B.C. to A.D. 1800. Recorded 

history of the area covers the past 245 years, and can be divided into three periods: European 

exploration between 1741 and 1791 during which time trading posts were established on Kodiak and at 

Alexandrovsk (English Bay); the Russian period between 1780 and 1867 when the primary focus was 

exploitation and trade of sea otter pelts and the introduction of the Russian Orthodox Church: and the 

American period from 1867 to the present, which was characterized by the development of the 

commercial fishing industry, the establishment of Native village governing bodies, and the creation of 

Native regional and local profit corporations and the transfer of land entitlements to those organizations. 

Braund and Behnke (1980) describe Port Graham as primarily a commercial fishing community. 

Since the Exxon Valdez oil spill, however, the local cannery has closed, and salmon runs in lower Cook 

Inlet have declined dramatically making commercial fishing far less significant than it was 10 years 

earlier. The oil and gas industry and tourism have not played a significant role in the economy of Port 

Graham as they have in other Kenai Peninsula communities. The cash economy has become more 

diversified, drawing on small construction projects, transfer payments, a salmon hatchery, logging, 

administrative jobs, a small amount of commercial fishing, and Native corporation dividends to sustain 

itself. In spite of this diversification, an increasing number of young job seekers have been forced to 

leave the community to find employment. 

The Division of Subsistence had previously conducted research in Port Graham in 1983, 1988, 

1990, and 1991 pertaining to resource harvest and use activities (Stanek 1985, forthcoming a; Fall 

1992a). The research in 1983 differs from that of the more recent years in that it was based on a system 

VIII-1 
of monthly harvest report calendars, while the later projects were based on comprehensive household 

interviews relying on retrospective recall of the previous year’s activities. All the surveys attempted to 

interview 100 percent of the households and typically achieved about 85.0 percent. 

RESEARCH METHODS 

For this study, fieldwork occurred in Port Graham in all three study years.’ Port Graham is 

notable in that a very large percentage of the interviews in all three years was done by local assistants. 

The study year for which data were collected ran from April through March. Hence, the first year pertains 

to the period April 1991 through March 1992, the second study year is April 1992 through March 1993, 

and the third study year covers April 1993 through March 1994. 

For all three study years, the sampling goal for Port Graham was 100 percent of the households 

permanently residing in the community during at least six months of the previous year. Unlike some 

other project study communities, Seldovia and Kenai for example, there was no panel of households with 

members previously interviewed as part of the Minerals Management Service-sponsored Social 

Indicators (SI) research project (see Chapter I). In this case, interviewees for the social effects 

questionnaires (SEQ) were selected by using a set of random number and gender sheets. Because of 

the SEQ requirement for the same person in each household to be interviewed throughout the project, 

these individuals were retained whenever possible as the interviewees over the three-year study period. 

Table l-4; Table l-5; Table l-6; and Table VIII-l show the total sample achievement for the three 

study years. The interviews took place during approximately the same time for each of the three years. 

In the first year, interviews were done between April 17th and June 1st. There were 49 (84.5 percent) of 

the total 58 occupied households interviewed with the harvest survey. Two households (3.9 percent) 

declined to be interviewed, and seven households (12.0 percent) were temporarily out of the community. 

On the average, the length of each harvest survey was 0.92 hours (55 minutes) (Table l-7), and ranged 

in length from 0.17 hours to 2.00 hours. In addition, SEQ interviews required an average of 0.92 hours 

(Table l-8) and ranged from 0.32 hours to 2.83 hours. 

In the second field season, the Port Graham interviews took place between March 30th and May 

31st. There were 61 occupied households, and harvest interviews were completed in 48 of them (78.7 

percent). Social effects interviews were completed in 47 (82.76 percent) of the 58 permanent 

households attempted. The average length of harvest interviews (0.57 hours) decreased by 0.35 hours 

(38 percent) in the second year due to the removal of a series of harvest assessment questions. The 

range of time was 0.25 hours to 1.80 hours. A reduction and revision of the SEQ resulted in a shorter 

average time of 0.52 hours, a decrease of 0.29 hours (31.5 percent) from the first year. 

’ For more detail on sampling methods and the conduct of fieldwork, see the series of interim reports prepared at the close of each field season (Fall 

and Utermohle 1992,1993a, and 1994). 

VIII-2 
In the third year, interviews were conducted between March 21 and April 7. This was 

substantially faster than the previous two years, and was due in part to an early start date, cold weather 

which kept people at home, and no unforeseen interruptions. The interview goal was 61 households 

which was slightly higher than the previous year, A total of 51 households (83.6 percent of the goal) 

completed the harvest survey and 47 households completed the SEQ. 

Refusal rates for the three-year period increased slightly each year. A variety of reasons were 

given by households declining interviews including the feeling that the information might be used to 

make undesirable hunting and fishing regulations, while others felt the questions too intrusive or 

intimidating. Several household heads were too ill to participate. 

DEMOGRAPHY 

1991/92 Studv Year 

The 1991/92 survey interviewed 49 households. Based on a sample population of 136 people, 

the estimated community population for Port Graham was 160.9 people (Table VIII-2). This estimate 

was 5.1 persons less than the 1990 U.S. Census figure of 166 people (Fig. VIII-l). The average 

household size in the community was just over two and one-half (2.8) people and ranged from one to 

seven people. Figure VIII-2 and Table VIII-3 show the Port Graham population breakdown for 1991/92 

with 54.4 percent males and 45.6 percent females. The average age of the population was 32.5 years 

and the range in ages was 0.31 years to 80.0 years. The sampled population resided in the community 

an average of 23.4 years, while the range of residency was 0.13 years to 78.7 years. Ethnically, the 

population was 83.8 percent Alaska Native (134.9 people), comparable to the 1990 census. 

1992193 Studv Year 

In the second study year, 48 households were interviewed. Virtually the same population 

characteristics persisted (Table Vltl-2). The 1992/93 sampled population totaled 138 people, and the 

estimated community population was 166.8 people. The average household size increased by one-tenth, 

and the range in size was the same as in the first year. The sex and age structure changed by only 

hundredths of a percentage point (Fig. VIII-3, Table VIII-4). Length of residency averaged the same as 

in 1991/92 and while the minimum length of residency decreased by two-tenths, the maximum stayed 

the same. The ethnic composition of Port Graham based on the sampled households showed some 

difference from the year before, with the percentage of household heads being Alaska Native increasing 

from 93.9 percent in 1991192 to 100 percent in year two. This was largely due to the refusal of several 

non-Natives to be interviewed. However, these household heads still remained in the community. As a 

consequence of this sampling bias the estimated Alaska Native population increased by almost ten 

points to 92.8 percent and the estimated number increased by 20 people. 

VIII-3 
1993194 Studv Year 

The third study year (1993194) found three additional households in Port Graham, and a 

corresponding increase of three households in the sample size (57 households). Consequently, the 

sampled population increased by eight people and the estimated community population also went up by 

eight people to 174.6 (Table VIII-2). The only other characteristic changing by several percentage points 

was the Alaska Native contingent, decreasing by three percent and falling between the two previous 

study years to 89.7 percent. All other population characteristics remained virtually the same as the 

previous two study years (Fig. VIII-4, Table VIII-5). 

CASH ECONOMY 

1991192 Studv Year 

In the 1991192 study year, there were an estimated 106.5 adults of employment age (16 years or 

older) in Port Graham (Table VIII-6). Of this potential workforce, 72.4 percent (76.9 people) worked an 

average of eight months in a total of 119.5 jobs, averaging 1.6 jobs per person. Employees held 

between one and four jobs, and worked between one and twelve months during the year, while 38.5 

percent worked year-round. 

At the household level, 49.7 (85.7 percent) of the 58 occupied households in the community held 

at least one job. Employed households, had as many as six jobs and as few as one job, while they 

averaged 1.6 jobs each. Overall, in each employed household about 1.6 persons held jobs, and between 

one and three persons were employed. 

The origin of jobs by industry in 1991/92 (Fig. VIII-5) shows twice as many jobs as any other 

category coming from commercial fishing (24.0 percent). The manufacturing industry including logging 

and canneries provided the second largest percentage of jobs (13.0 percent). The services sector was 

third largest job provider with 12.0 percent. 

Expenses for food in Port Graham households during 1991/92 were almost one-quarter (24.7 

percent) of the total annual household income (Table l-101). Households reported spending an average 

of $483.26 a month, while most households spent about $500.00 per month. Although the average 

monthly food expense was comparable to the neighboring communities of Seldovia and Nanwalek, it was 

twice the percentage of annual income compared to Seldovia and one-third higher than that of 

Nanwalek. 

During this first study year, the average Port Graham household received an income of 

$24,306.94, and each person received and average of $8,757.65 total annual income (Table VIII-7). 

Households averaged an income of $15,965.33 from jobs, for a per capita average of $5,752.21. 

Households took in an annual amount of other income averaging $8,341.61, the per capita average was 

$3,005.43. 

VIII-4 
As far as earned income sources are concerned, fishing contributed the largest household 

average ($5,451.81), and a per capita amount of $1,964.25. Within the fishing sector, commercial 

fishing earnings averaged $4,625.27 per household ($1,666.46 per capita) and hatchery enhancement 

averaged $826.53 per household or $287.79 per capita. 

Government was the second largest contributor to earned income with a household average of 

$4,013.27 and a per capita average of $1,445.96. Among the three types of government, local 

government provided the most money ($3,417.35 per household, $1,231.25 per person). Federal and 

state government provided 6432.65 and $163.27, respectively, to the average amount earned per 

household. Five other employment sectors were sources of lesser amounts of income in 1991/92. 

Income from other sources came primarily by way of the Alaska Permanent Fund with the 

average household amount of $2,413.00. Native corporation dividends averaged $1,591.40 per 

household, while social security had an average amount of $1,348.86 per household. Other sources 

such as food stamps, longevity bonus, public assistance, and others (Table VIII-8) each provided an 

average of less than $1 ,OOO.OO dollars per household. 

Finally, as relates to the financial condition of households, respondents were asked to assess 

their overall financial situation since the Exxon Valdez oil spill (March 1989). providing a relative rating of 

“better than, about the same, or worse than before the spill” (Table l-103). There were 16.3 percent 

(eight households) which indicated their financial situation as better than before the spill. Just over twofifths, 40.8 percent (20 households) indicated their situation was about the same, and a nearly equal 

portion, although the largest, (42.9 percent) said their situation was worse than before the spill. One 

major financial impact of oil spill cleanup employment came with a debt of back income taxes owed by 

boat owners who contracted equipment. Either unknowingly or through misunderstanding, many boat 

owners did not deduct sufficient money for taxes as is done by employers for hourly wage employment. 

Consequently, many households still faced large tax debts in 1992. 

1992/93 Study Year 

During 1992193 there was a slight increase in the employment level of seven people over the 

previous year, raising the total of employed adults to 84.6 people in Port Graham (76.1 percent) of the 

total 111.2 estimated employment-aged adults (Table VIII-6). Employed adults held a total of 135.3 jobs 

during the year and averaged 1.6 jobs per person, equal to the prior year. Comparable to 1991/92, in the 

second year each household worked an average of eight months, and a slight decrease of six percent 

occurred in the percentage of households with year-round employment (32.9 percent). 

Port Graham’s second year household employment picture remained almost identical to the first 

year. The number of employed households increased by one (1.8 percent), while the mean number of 

jobs increased by seven-tenths and the maximum number of jobs held by a household increased by two. 

The number of employed adults per household increased very slightly by two-tenths percent. 

VIII-5 
Although the employment levels rose slightly in the second year, the proportions of jobs in each 

sector shifted considerably (Fig. VIII-6). The services sector, for example, more than doubled to 37.9 

jobs (28.0 percent). Hatcheries, Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (F.I.R.E.), and retail trade, canneries, 

federal and state government also gained jobs. Logging lost 6.5 jobs, while local government and local 

education also lost jobs. 

Average household income increased by $986.35 (4.5 percent) to $25293.27 in 1992193 (Table 

VIII-10). All the increase ($1588.25 or 10.1 percent) occurred in the earned income category, while 

other income decreased by $601.89 (7.2 percent). Several sectors which contributed small amounts to 

earned income commercial fishing with the average amount per household increasing $353.38 (6.1 

percent). The average amount from commercial fishing decreased slightly, while the average household 

earnings from fishery enhancement doubled. The shifts in income-earning sectors are reflected above 

by the numbers of jobs in each sector. Other sector incomes varied slightly with some increasing and 

others decreasing, however, with such small numbers of jobs in each sector, not interviewing one or two 

individuals would result in such changes. 

In 1992/93, income from other sources decreased by $601.89, however, large variations from 

the previous year occurred within individual categories (Table VIII-11). For example, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) grant money was absent in the first year and present in the second, Native corporation 

dividends increased by almost $1,300.00 in the second year, while unemployment, longevity bonus, adult 

public assistance, and social security all decreased by almost half in the second year. 

1993194 Study Year 

The 1993/94 study year showed only modest changes in employment patterns in Port Graham 

compared to the two previous years (Table VIII-6). The total number of adults in the population 

increased by 12 people over the 1992193 year. The number of employed people remained the same as 

the year before (83.7 people), but was a smaller percentage of the population (67.9 percent) than a year 

earlier. The total number of jobs in Port Graham fell midway among the three years at 123.2, and the 

mean number of jobs per adult fell to 1.5 per person. The mean number of months employed remained 

about the same at around eight per adult, and the percentage of adults holding full-time jobs rose by 

almost five percent over the second year to 37.1 percent. 

At the household level, although the sample size increased by three households, there was a 

decrease of just over five percent in the proportion of households employed. Apparently the added 

households brought no new jobs to the employment rolls as the number of employed adults dropped 

slightly to 82.4 percent from 1992/93. 

Like the two previous years, 1993/94 showed some major shifts in several job sectors 

(Fig. VIII-7). Most notably was the 13.0 percent increase in the F.I.R.E. sector and a comparable decline 

in the services sector. There was a complete loss of forestry jobs in the manufacturing sector, and a two 

percent decline in commercial fishing. Most other sectors changed by only a percentage point or two. 

VIII-6 
The income picture for 1993/94 experienced some interesting changes (Table VIII-12). Whereas 

the total average household income increased to a three-year high ($28,084.33), an increase of 

$2,791.04 (11.0 percent) over the previous year, earned income declined by $358.56 per household. 

Taking up the slack was a $3,149.59 increase per household in other income, bringing this source to the 

highest in the three year period. 

Among the sources of earned income, commercial fishing and hatcheries had large losses with a 

$734.94 decline overall. Government on the other hand increased by $751.43 (57.6 percent) over the 

previous year. As mentioned above, F.I.R.E. sector jobs increased markedly, likewise that sector’s 

contribution to wage income also climbed by $581.53 (80.6 percent). Over the three study years this 

sector experienced a steady increase in annual income contributions. 

As already pointed out, other income (Table VIII-13) was responsible for the large increase in 

total annual income. Among these sources, Native corporation dividends produced $2,200.36 per 

household more in 1993/94 than the previous year, and $3,474.46 (218.3 percent) more than year one. 

The bulk of the increase resulted from Seldovia Native Association’s (SNA) distribution of earnings from 

the sale of timber rights to the State of Alaska. Several Port Graham households have members who 

are shareholders in SNA. 

In the 1993/94 study year, the “monthly expenses for food” question was reinstituted and found 

Port Graham households’ average to have dropped only slightly ($4.93 per household) (Table l-102), 

while the percentage of total household income spent on food stayed about the same at 21.8 percent. 

RESOURCE USES: 1991192 

Participation in Huntinq. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities 

Levels of participation in wild resource harvesting and processing activities were determined for 

the entire sample population and expanded to the total estimated community population (Table VIII-15). 

Estimated population participation levels were determined for hunting or processing any kind of game, 

fishing or processing any kind of fish or shellfish, trapping or processing any furbearer, gathering or 

processing any plants. Household participation levels were determined for each individual resource, and 

will be discussed in the next section on use and harvests levels, 

For the 1991/92 estimated population of 161 .O persons in Port Graham, there were 140.9 (87.5 

percent) who hunted, fished, or gathered wild resources. An equal percentage (87.5 percent) processed 

at least one resource. Individual resource categories had the following levels of participation. There 

were 42.6 persons (26.5 percent) who hunted game, and 65.1 persons (40.4 percent) who processed 

some kind of game. A large number of persons, 117 (72.8 percent) fished for finfish or collected some 

kind of shellfish. The largest number of persons, 124.3 (77.2 percent) gathered wild plants, while the 

same number 123.1 (76.5 percent) processed plants. The smallest number of persons hunted or trapped 

furbearers (2.4 persons, 1.5 percent). 

VIII-7 
Harvest Quantities and Composition 

Table VIII-14 shows resource harvest and use characteristics of Port Graham. On average, each 

household used 22 different types of resources, attempted to harvest 15.2, and actually harvested 13.6 

kinds. Resource sharing activity indicates households, on the average, receiving 13.4 different types Of 

resources and giving away 10.2 resources. In terms of amounts of resources harvested, the household 

average was 779.6 pounds (280.9 pounds per capita) of usable weight, and the range of harvest was 

zero to 2,573.5 pounds. Household participation levels for all wild resources were high; 100 percent of 

the households used at least one resource, while 95.9 percent attempted to harvest, and 95.9 percent 

harvested at least one resource. 

Households estimated the annual amount of meat, fish, and fowl derived from wild resources 

(Table l-104). Nearly half the households (49.0 percent; 24 households) estimated between 26 and 50 

percent of their annual consumption was wild resources. The second largest group, 34.7 percent (17 

households), estimated that 1 to 25 percent was wild resources, while 12.2 percent (six households) 

estimated the amount to be between 51 and 75 percent. No households estimated all their meat, fish, 

and fowl came from the wild, and two households reported that none of their foods was of wild origin. 

Sharing of resources within the community also showed similarly high levels of participation with 

98.0 percent receiving and 87.8 percent giving. A certain amount of resource sharing took place with 

other communities (Table VIII-16). Port Graham households shared with 21 other locations. Most 

commonly, sharing occurred with their immediate neighbors in Nanwalek, with an estimated 20.4 percent 

of the households receiving some resource from Nanwalek, and 14.3 percent giving at lease one 

resource to that community. Although salmon was the resource which most commonly came from 

Nanwalek, with 14.3 percent of the households receiving, all six other resource categories were shared at 

some level. The other communities with which Port Graham residents often shared included Seward, 

Seldovia, Homer, and Anchorage. Interestingly, almost all sharing with Seward was receiving hooligan, 

a fish not harvested near Port Graham. Sharing with Anchorage involved giving salmon and plants to 

relatives living there. Sharing with twelve other communities was at levels involving one or two 

households exchanging one or more resources, mostly with relatives. Even the exchange with 

communities outside Alaska was with children attending school or other relatives in permanent residency. 

In terms of harvest quantities (Table VIII-19), an estimated total 45,216.g pounds of resources 

taken by Port Graham resulted in a mean household harvest of 779.6 pounds, and a per capita harvest 

of 280.9 pounds. Data collected by three previous Division of Subsistence studies can be used for 

comparison with 1991192 (Fig. VIII-8). Information from 1987 shows high levels of participation in use, 

harvest, and sharing activities occurring that year, with the per capita harvest of 227.4 pounds of edible 

resources (Stanek 1990). In 1989, the year of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the per capita harvest level 

dropped by over 100.0 pounds to 122.3 pounds. Following the spill, harvest levels increased to 214.0 

pounds in 1990, and 280.9 pounds per household in 1991/92, slightly higher than the 1987 level. 

VIII-8 
Similarly, the variety of different resources harvested by the community or diet breadth, decreased in 

1989, and in 1991/92 returned to levels slightly higher than those in 1987. Much of the relatively rapid 

return to pre-spill harvest levels had to do with the dramatic decrease in cash employment and a need to 

rely on wild foods, and an expressed “greater appreciation” of wild foods and Alutiiq traditions as a result 

of the spill. 

Fish, including salmon and non-salmon species, were used by 100 percent of the households in 

Port Graham, while 87.8 percent attempted and actually harvested fish. The distribution of fish among 

households involved 93.9 percent which received fish and 75.5 percent which gave fish to other 

households. All fish accounted for 37,387.5 pounds of the total community resource harvest (82.8 

percent). The contribution of fish to the household average was 644.6 pounds, and to the per capita 

total, 232.3 pounds. 

For salmon only, 100 percent of the households used at least one kind of salmon, while 83.7 

percent attempted to harvest, and 83.7 percent actually harvested salmon. Sharing of salmon involved 

83.7 percent of the households which received it and 71.4 percent which gave it away. Salmon 

harvesters produced a total of 21,338.4 pounds for a household mean of 367.9 pounds and a per capita 

amount of 132.6 pounds. There was an estimated total harvest of 5,870 salmon taken by the 

community. The harvest was composed of 2,763 pink, 1,564 coho, 638 chum, 560 sockeye, and 346 

chinook. Despite the in-season closures on sockeye salmon, especially good runs of pink and silver 

salmon to the Port Graham and English Bay drainages in 1991 contributed to the relatively high 

harvests. 

The methods of salmon harvest by Port Graham residents are reported in Table VIII-20, Table 

VIII-21, Table VIII-22, and Table VIII-23. Methods by which the majority of each species of salmon were 

caught varied, but overall, the primary method used was rod and reel with 68.1 percent of the total 

harvest caught by that method. Subsistence set gillnet was the other method used to catch the bulk 

(27.2 percent) of the remaining harvest. Dip netting and removal from commercial catch provided 0.7 

percent and 4.0 percent, respectively. 

To preserve salmon, Port Graham households used eight different methods (Table l-106). 

Although there is no estimate of the quantities preserved by each method, relative percentages of 

households using each method are provided. Also, a detailed description of preservation and 

preparation methods for salmon is available in Stanek (1985:141-144). Almost all households 

interviewed (95.9 percent), repotted freezing as one method, and this usually involved freezing not only 

fresh fish but also other preserved products in order to maintain freshness and extend shelf-life. Threefourths (75.5 percent) of the respondents reported using cold smoking and the same percentage used 

drying. Although cold smoking requires extensive drying, the two methods are often used separately. 

Kippering, which involves a hot smoke curing, was used by 46.9 percent. Salting was reported by 67.4 

percent and was usually used to preserve king and silver salmon. Pickling was reported by 40.8 percent 

of the households, and canning was used by 36.7 percent. Lastly, fermenting was reported by 16.3 

VIII-9 
percent of the respondents who use this method primarily for making a traditional food out of salmon roe. 

A few people ferment salmon flesh. One household did not specify any particular preservation method. 

Although several preservation methods could be used in combination, on average, 4.6 different methods 

were used by each household. 

Non-salmon fish including cod, halibut, flounder, greenling, herring, rockfish, char, and trout, 

were used by 98.0 percent of Port Graham households. There were 81.6 percent which attempted to 

catch non-salmon fish, and 77.6 percent which actually caught some fish. The distribution of the harvest 

occurred among 89.8 percent of the households which received non-salmon fish and 69.4 percent which 

gave it away. There was a total harvest of 16,049.l pounds which yielded a household average of 276.7 

pounds, and a per capita amount of 99.7 pounds. Among all the non-salmon species, halibut accounted 

for the largest portion of the harvest with 8,841.3 pounds (54.9 percent). The Dolly Varden harvest was 

the second largest portion with 2,026.7 pounds (12.6 percent). Three species of cod produced the third 

largest quantity of non-salmon fish with 1,413.g pounds (8.8 percent). Flounder produced the fourth 

largest amount with 1,272.5 pounds (7.9 percent), while rockfish was fifth with 1,272.4 pounds (7.8 

percent), and herring and herring roe were seventh with 1,018.6 pounds (6.4 percent). The remaining 

271.6 pounds (1.7 percent) was composed of greenling, sculpin, smelt, and sole. 

In contrast to salmon, the methods used to catch the majority (55.7 percent, 8,944.6 pounds) of 

the non-salmon fish included set gillnet, seine, handline, or longline. In addition, fishermen using rod and 

reel caught 24.9 percent (3,991.5 pounds) of the harvest, and 19.4 percent (3,112.6 pounds) was 

removed from commercial catches (Table VIII-24; Table VIII-25). Subsistence gear was also the method 

used by the majority of Port Graham households (63.3 percent), while rod and reel was used by 44.9 

percent and removal from commercial catch was used by 18.4 percent of the households (Table VIII-26). 

Game resources used by Port Graham residents included such resources as black bear, deer, 

goat, moose, hare, and porcupine. Overall, game was used by 77.6 percent of the households. Slightly 

more than one-fourth (26.5 percent) attempted the harvest of game, however, just 12.2 percent were 

successful. Despite this participation level, game was received by 75.5 percent of the households and 

distributed by 30.6 percent of the community households. The total amount of game harvested was 

526.1 pounds amounting to 9.1 pounds per household, and 3.3 pounds per capita. Slack bear 

contributed the largest portion to the harvest at 411.9 pounds (78.3 percent), goat provided 85.8 pounds 

(16.3 percent), and porcupine 28.4 pounds (5.4 percent). 

Marine mammal harvests included harbor seal and sea lion which were used by 75.5 percent and 

30.6 percent of the households, respectively. Together, these two species totaled 2.367.3 pounds of 

edible product. The only other marine mammals reported were four sea otters used by 2.0 percent of the 

households, only for fur. Although Port Graham residents reported their hunting areas had a scarcity of 

harbor seals and sea lions, in 1991 there was a near doubling of pre-spill harvests. At least part of the 

reason for the increase may be due to the previously mentioned appreciation and awareness of wild 

resources and traditions, and two individuals who were very active hunters during 1991. 

VIII-10 
Birds and eggs harvested by Port Graham residents were used by just over half the households 

(53.1 percent). While slightly over one-third (34.7 percent) of the households harvested birds and eggs, 

only a few more (36.7 percent) attempted a harvest. Nearly equal percentages, 28.6 percent which 

received and 24.5 percent which gave away, participated in sharing bird products. As a category of 

resources, birds and eggs accounted for a relatively small portion of the mean household harvest at 5.0 

pounds, as well as the per capita harvest with 1.8 pounds. There was a total of 288.9 pounds of birds 

and eggs harvested. The largest amount of bird products came from ducks with 239.2 pounds (82.8 

percent). The only other groups of birds harvested were grouse with 27.3 pounds (9.5 percent) and 

seabirds with 7.1 pounds (2.5 percent). Egg harvests, all gull eggs, produced 15.3 pounds total, or 5.3 

percent of birds and eggs combined. 

One of the most important resource groups harvested by Port Graham residents was marine 

invertebrates. Their importance is indicated by the household levels of use (95.9 percent), the level of 

harvest and attempting to harvest (79.6 percent each), and the degree of sharing (89.8 percent receiving 

and 69.4 percent giving). A total of 3,475.l pounds (7.7 percent of the community harvest) of 

invertebrates was harvested by the community, providing a household average of 59.9 pounds and a per 

capita average of 21.6 pounds. The relative amounts of invertebrates harvested were as follows: 

bivalves including clams, cockles, mussels, and horse clams (1,730.8 pounds), chitons (1,020.l pounds), 

octopus (554.0 pounds), snails (77.4 pounds), and crab (87.7 pounds). Additional small quantities of 

whelks, limpets, and sea urchins were also harvested. 

Lastly, the community harvest of plants and berries totaled 1,171.9 pounds, for a household 

average of 20.2 pounds and per capita amount of 7.3 pounds. Berries made up the largest portion of the 

harvest with 858.2 pounds, seaweed and kelp totaled 162.8 pounds, while plants, greens, and 

mushrooms totaled 150.9 pounds. Not included in the edible foods, 188.2 cords of wood were harvested 

in 1991192. The use of plants for medicinal purposes was asked in the study, and 30.6 percent of the 

households responded with some type of use (Table l-108; Table l-109). Although 12 groups or species 

of plants used for medicines are listed here, this is not all the plants used by the community, and a more 

complete listing along with their uses can be found in Russell (1991). For all but two groups the specific 

uses were not given, while “pine” pitch (spruce) and cranberries were indicated as used for coughs and 

colds. 

In addition to wild resources harvested through non-commercial means, there were 3,920.4 

pounds removed of salmon and non-salmon finfish from commercial harvests (Table VIII-20). These 

harvests provided 8.7 percent of the community’s total fish harvest. The total amount of salmon 

removed was 807.8 pounds or 3.8 percent of the community salmon harvest. Sockeye salmon provided 

the largest portion of the total fish harvest with 390.2 pounds (10.0 percent). Non-salmon finfish totaled 

3,113.O pounds or 6.9 percent of the total community resource harvest. Halibut provided the largest 

quantity with 1,662.8 pounds. Red rockfish and cod also provided 580.0 pounds and 573.8 pounds, 

respectively. 

VIII-I 1 
From the standpoint of the overall composition of the 1991192 harvest (Table VIII-17; Table VIII18), salmon made up 47.2 percent, non-salmon fish 35.5 percent, marine invertebrates 7.7 percent, 

marine mammals 5.2 percent, and plants 2.6 percent, game 1.2 percent, and birds and eggs composed 

0.6 percent. Compared to 1987, the relative composition of the harvest by each category listed above 

remained about the same (Fig. VIII-IO). Although plants showed a decease of 4.9 percent, this change 

could easily be due to annual variations in available quantities of berries. 

Looking at the pattern in harvest quantities for the four years of estimates, there was a decline in 

response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill and then a recovery in 1990 and 1991192 to equal or slightly higher 

levels in four of seven categories. Although several categories of resources including salmon, and 

marine mammals were particularly high in 1991192, annual salmon seasons are subject to closures on 

sockeyes which has resulted in the harvest of alternative species. Marine mammal harvests are subject 

to a long-term decline owing to decreases in their populations. 

1991192 Household Assessments of Chanoe In Wild Resource Use 

In this study, Port Graham households were asked to assess any changes in their 1991192 

subsistence use levels against their uses of the previous year (1990) and the year before the oil spill. 

The Overall assessment for all resource categories (Table l-58; Fig. VIII-11) found half the households 

(50.0 percent, 22 households) indicating they used less than before the spill, and 34.1 percent indicating 

their uses as the same. Seven households (15.9 percent), indicated higher use levels, while three 

households were not in the community and two households gave no response or did not know. For 

comparison with the previous year (1990) (Table l-57), just over half (51 .O percent; 25 households) 

indicated using less, 38.8 percent (19 households) indicated using the same, and 10.2 percent (five 

households) indicated higher use levels. 

Each resource group also received an assessment of change for the year before the oil spill, and 

Port Graham surveys had the following results: for salmon (Table I-IO), fish other than salmon (Table I16), marine mammals (Table l-34), and marine invertebrates (Table l-46), between 35.7 percent and 

52.4percent of the households reported less, between 23.9 percent and 39.1 percent reported the same, 

between 10.7 percent and 18.6 percent reported higher, and between one and three households gave no 

response; for large game (Table l-22), small game and furbearers (Table l-28), birds (Table l-40), and 

plants (Table l-52), between 2.3 percent and 37.8 percent reported less, between 46.7 and 77.3 percent 

reported the same, between 2.3 percent and 13.0 percent reported higher, and from two to six 

households didn’t know or did not respond. For this evaluation of change, there were two households not 

present during the year of comparison. 

For comparisons with the previous year, Port Graham households reported the following: 

salmon (Table l-9), other fish (Table l-15), marine mammals (Table l-33), and marine invertebrates 

(Table l-45), between 30.6 percent and 49.0 percent reported less, between 34.7 percent and 49.0 

percent reported no change, and between 4.1 percent and 20.4 percent reported higher uses; for large 

VIII-12 
game (Table l-21), small game and furbearers (Table l-27), birds (Table l-39), and plants (Table l-51), 

between 6.4 percent and 33.3 percent reported less use, between 53.1 percent and 74.5 percent reported 

the same, and between 6.4 percent and 20.4 percent reported higher usage. From one to two 

households did not respond or did not know. 

In summary, the assessment for change responses followed a pattern corresponding to resource 

groups being either terrestrial or aquatic. For the year before the spill, water-based resources received 

the largest number of responses indicating less usage, a moderate number of the same amount of use, 

and the least number of responses indicating higher levels of use. Land-based resources received the 

highest percentages of responses for the same amount of use during the year before the spill, the 

second highest percentage for less use, and the lowest amount of responses for higher use. 

In comparison with 1990, both land and water-based resource groups had very similar groupings 

of responses. The highest percentages of Port Graham households responded with “the same” or “no 

change” in use levels, the second largest percentage reported they had “less” use, and the least amount 

reported “higher” use levels. 

1991192 Discarded Wild Resources 

Harvesters at Port Graham occasionally find wild resources which do not appear normal and 

these are usually discarded. In this study, 20.4 percent of the respondents (IO households) reported 

discarding resources for a variety of reasons (Table l-107). The groups of resources in which 

abnormalities were found and the percentages of households discarding something from each resource 

group were as follows: salmon (4.1 percent); non-salmon fish (2.0 percent); unspecified fish (4.1 

percent); marine mammals (2.0 percent); birds (4.1 percent); marine invertebrates (6.1 percent); and 

plants (2.0 percent). Abnormal appearance was the single largest reason for which 18.4 percent 

discarded resources, and the remaining 2.0 percent gave no specific reason. Within the 18.4 percent, 

6.1 percent gave an apparent, nonspecific pathological reason for discarding. As to the perceived 

reasons for the abnormalities, most respondents (14.3 percent) did not know the reasons, while 8.2 

percent thought it was due to oil contamination, and 2.0 percent thought it due to improper handling. No 

one reported normal variation or disease as the reason for the abnormality. As to whether the 

abnormalities were known prior to the oil spill, 18.4 percent reported they had not heard of the unusual 

condition before the spill and 2.0 percent had heard of the abnormality. 

RESOURCE USES: 1992/93 

Participation in Huntina. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities 

The estimated Port Graham population in 1992193 (166.8 people) was 5.8 persons more than in 

1991192. Table VIII-15 shows that overall, 93.5 percent (155.9 people) attempted to harvest at least one 

type of resource, while 92.0 percent (153.4 people) processed at least one type of resource. These two 

VIII-13 
estimates represent 6.0 percent and 4.5 percent increases, respectively, above the 1991192 levels. The 

pattern of participation in 1992193 was the same as in 1991192, that is, the highest numbers of people 

participated in plant gathering, the second highest in fishing, the third highest in hunting, and the fourth 

highest in harvesting furbearers. The highest level of participation in harvest was with plants where 88.4 

percent attempted to gather plants and 84.1 percent processed plants. There was a 14.2 percent 

increase in plant gatherers, and a 11.2 percent increase in processors. Fishermen had the next highest 

participation levels with 82.6 percent attempting, and 85.5 percent processing. The 1992/93 levels were 

9.8 percent higher for fish harvesters and 9.0 percent higher for processors. Hunters were the third 

highest in level of participation with 217 percent of the population involved in attempting to take some 

type of game animal including marine mammals. Because of the high levels of sharing game products, 

almost twice as many people (43.5 percent) processed game resources. Typical for lower Cook Inlet 

communities, the lowest level of participation was in attempting to take furbearers, where only 2.9 

percent attempted to hunt or trap them, and 3.6 percent processed furbearers in 1992193. 

Harvest Quantities and Composition 

In 1992193, wild resource harvest and use levels were at their normally high levels among Port 

Graham households with 100 percent of the sample (48 households) using at least one resource, 

attempting to harvest a resource, harvesting a resource, and receiving a resource (Table VIII-14). These 

levels are 4.1 percent higher than the previous year. All but one household (97.9 percent) gave away 

resources in 1992193, and this is a slight increase (10.1 percent) over 1991192. The wild resource use 

information in 1992193 does not include estimates of the percentage of meat, fish, and fowl made up of 

wild fish and game, nor does it include information on sharing with other communities as in 1991192. 

As far as the numbers and pounds of resources used is concerned, the pounds harvested per 

household in Port Graham increased only slightly from 779.6 pounds to 784.1 pounds while per capita 

amounts deceased by 8.1 pounds to 272.7 pounds. The mean number of resources used per household 

remained about the same at 22.1, although the minimum per household increased from two to eight and 

the maximum decreased from 43.0 to 39.0. While the mean number of resources per household stayed 

the same (14.8), the minimum number of resources attempted increased from zero to one, while the 

maximum decreased from 47 to 44. Likewise, the mean number of resources actually harvested per 

household stayed the same, while the minimum increased from zero to one and the maximum decreased 

from 41 to 33. The mean numbers of resources shared remained about the same for the two study 

years. In addition, the mean number of resources received per household in 1992193 remained about 

the same at 14.0, while the mean number given away also remained about the same at 11 .l resources. 

Harvests of fish in 1992193 dropped by 3.9 percent or 26.2 pounds per household below 1991192 

levels (Table VIII-27; Table VIII-17; Fig. VIII-12). The majority of this decrease occurred in the salmon 

harvest which dropped 7.9 percent or 60.8 pounds per household. Non-salmon fish showed an increase 

Of 13.0 perCent Or 35.6 pounds per household, Responsible for the majority of this increase was halibut 

VIII-14 
with a 27.6 percent increase or 41.7 pounds and Dolly Varden with a 125.8 percent or 43.9 pounds per 

household increase over 1991192. Although game showed a 19.8 percent increase in pounds harvested 

over 1991, it contributed only 1.8 pounds more per household. Marine mammal harvests were up 44.8 

percent or 27.7 pounds per household. Marine invertebrates increased by 14.7 percent and were 8.8 

pounds above the 1991 household level. Lastly, plant harvests were up by 46.6 percent, adding 4.4 

pounds to the 1991192 levels for a 1992193 total of 10.7 pounds per household. Furbearers and birds 

had no substantial changes in amounts produced between 1991192 and 1992193. 

Overall, there was little change in the proportions of salmon harvested by different gear types 

between 1991192 and 1992193 (Table VIII-29; Table VIII-30; and Table VIII-31). However, the majority of 

the salmon harvest (62.4 percent; 191.5 pounds per household) occurred in the rod and reel fishery, and 

while the percentage of pounds by gear type in 1992/93 was nearly identical to 1991192, the mean 

pounds per household decreased by 60.5 pounds (16.5 percent). Subsistence gear, specifically setnets, 

harvested 30.6 percent (93.9 pounds per household or 30.5 pounds less) of the salmon in 1992193 and 

33.8 percent in 1991192. Although removal from commercial catch doubled in 1992193, the increase was 

only 3.2 percent of the total salmon harvest. There were 21.7 pounds per household harvested in 

1992193 and 13.9 pounds in 1991192. As far as which methods people chose to use, there was a 12.2 

percent increase in rod and reel usage during 1992193. The percentages of users of the two other 

methods remained about the same as in 1991192. 

Nearly equal amounts of non-salmon fish were harvested by rod and reel (54.3 percent; 9,843.8 

pounds) and subsistence gear including handline (45.5 percent; 8,245.7 pounds) (Table VIII-32; Table 

VIII-33; and Table VIII-34). The remaining 0.13 percent (24.2 pounds of halibut) was taken from 

commercial harvests (Table VIII-28). Similar to salmon fishermen, 75.0 percent of fishermen used rod 

and reel and 52.0 percent used subsistence gear, while 2.1 percent removed halibut from commercial 

harvests. 

RESOURCE USES: 1993/94 

Participation in Huntina. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities 

In 1993194, participation levels wild in resource use-related activities for Port Graham maintained 

the same rankings among resource groups as in the previous two study years (Table VIII-15) with plant 

gathering having the highest level of participants followed by fishing, and then hunting. No trapping 

occurred in Port Graham in 1993194. Overall, there was a slight (2.4 percent) increase to 95.9 percent of 

population which participated in some type of activity. 

In their fishing efforts, most Port Graham households (82.4 percent) used rod and reel gear to 

catch salmon (Table VIII-37; Table VIII-38; Table VIII-39), just over half (51.0 percent) used setnets or 

picked up salmon by hand. While fishing for non-salmon fish most households (60.9 percent) again used 

VIII-15 
rod and reel, but 41.2 percent used subsistence gear, and 7.8 percent removed fish from commercial 

harvests (Table VIII-40; Table VIII-41; Table VIII-42). 

Resource Use. Harvest Quantities, and Comoosition 

Characteristics of resource harvest and use took a slight downturn from the previous year’s 

levels, with all features except use and receiving any resource decreasing a few percentage points. 

Attempting to harvest and harvesting any resource declined by two percent, and giving away any 

resource dropped by 7.7 percent (Table VIII-14). 

In terms of the number of resources per household, every feature declined slightly compared to 

the previous two years. The mean number of resources used per household dropped by 1.7 items below 

1992193, the mean number attempted dropped by 3.1 items compared to the other two years, and the 

mean number harvested decreased by 2.7 items. The mean numbers of resources given and received 

dropped slightly. 

Per capita harvests also decreased by 60.6 pounds to 212.1 pounds, and household levels 

decreased to 607.3 pounds, 176.7 pounds below the 1992193 estimates, and slightly less compared to 

the estimates for 1991192 (Table VIII-35). A decrease in the salmon harvest accounted for the majority 

of the reduction in total annual household harvests. Correspondingly, there was a shift in household 

estimates of the annual amount of meat, fish, and fowl derived from wild resources (Table l-105) 

showing increases over 1991192 levels in percentages of households in the 26-50 percent and 51-75 

percent categories and a decrease in the next lowest and highest categories. 

The composition of the 1993194 harvest nearly the same as in the previous years (Table VIII-18; 

Fig. VIII-13). Salmon ranked highest with 45.9 percent of the total harvest, other fish next with 34.3 

percent, marine invertebrates third with 7.5 percent, wild plants including berries at 6.0 percent was 

fourth (the only change from the previous two years), and marine mammals, land mammals, and birds 

and eggs were 5th, 6th, and 7th, respectively. 

Typically, the bulk of the fish harvest at Port Graham in recent years has come from rod and reel 

harvest, and 1993194 was no different (Table VIII-37; Table VIII-38; Table VIII-39; Table VIII-40; Table 

VIII-41; Table VIII-42). Compared to the previous two study years, a big decrease occurred in the 

amount of resources removed from commercial sources with less than one percent during 1993194 

(Table VIII-36). 

Assessments of Chanoe in Wild Resource Use 

In the 1993194 study year, Port Graham households were asked to provide an assessment of 

their uses and harvest of wild resources as in the first study year. [Compared to the previous year and to 

the year before the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Table l-95)]. While the almost half (45.8 percent) reported 

harvests as being the same as the previous year, slightly less than half (48.8 percent) of the sampled 

households reported harvests lower than before the oil spill (Fig. VIII-l 5). This estimate was 1.2 percent 

VIII-16 
lower than the percentage of households reporting lower harvests in 1991192. In 1992193, there was an 

increase in those households reporting their harvests as the same levels, and a decrease in those 

reporting higher harvests. Most often (83.3 percent), households noted decreased resource abundance 

as the reason for lower harvests (Table l-98). Secondly, they reported food conditions or safety concerns 

(33.3 percent) as the reason for lower harvests. 

For individual resource groups (Fig. VIII-l l), all the major groups (salmon, other fish, and marine 

invertebrates) had more households in 1993/94 than 1991/92 reporting lower harvests. However, for all 

resource groups, fewer households in 1993194 than 1989190 reported lower harvests. Reasons for lower 

harvests in 1993194 varied among groups. For salmon (Table l-66) most households (82.4 percent) 

reported lower resource abundance as the reason for lower harvests. Other fish harvests were reported 

lower for reasons of abundance by 83.3 percent of those households sampled (Table I-70). Marine 

mammals also (Table l-82) were reported lower by 91.2 percent of those responding because of lower 

abundance. All other groups, except land mammals (Table l-74), were reported lower for reasons of 

abundance. Harvests of large land mammals were reported lower by equal proportions of those who 

responded for reasons of residents’ lack of effort, lower interest, lower resource abundance, or time to 

pursue the activity. 

DISCUSSION 

Patterns of Wild Resource Uses 

Wild resource harvest levels have been estimated using comprehensive interview surveys in 

Port Graham during six study years (Fig. VIII-9). Overall harvests (Fig. VIII-8) fluctuated by as much as 

129.4 percent between the year of the oil spill and 1991192 when harvests reached their highest per 

capita levels. During and immediately following the oil spill per capita resource harvests dropped nearly 

half. By 1991192 per capita harvests surpassed the single pre-spill measurement by nearly one-fourth 

(23.4 percent). Interestingly, Port Graham residents achieved slightly higher per capita harvests in 

1991/92 than their neighbors in Nanwalek and nearly equaled their harvests in 1992193 (Table xX111-4). 

In part, greater confidence in the safety of wild foods by Port Graham residents might account for the 

comparable harvest estimates. In 1991192, greater numbers of households in Nanwalek assessed their 

harvests as lower than before the oil spill than did in Port Graham for reasons of lower resource 

abundance and food safety concern. In the sixth year of study results, 1993/94, Port Graham’s per 

capita harvests decreased by 23.9 percent. Most likely, this decrease was due to the deaths of three key 

resource harvesters, and several other community members. Lowered resource abundance was also 

reported as a factor in the decline. 

Additional comparisons of per capita data for each resource category revealed the following. In 

1992193, salmon harvests were within 11 pounds of the 1987 and 1990 levels, 67.2 pounds above the 

1989 level, and 25.8 pounds below the 1991192 levels. Except for 1989, when oil spill cleanup activities 

VIII-17 
and fear of contamination prevented many harvest activities (Fall 1992), the 1992193 levels may have 

been strongly influenced by salmon run strength in the Port Graham and English Bay rivers. In 1991192, 

for example, there were strong local runs of pink and coho salmon and harvest levels of those species 

were very high. In 1987 and 1990, salmon run strengths were poor to moderate. Likewise, salmon 

harvest levels were relatively low, and comparable between those years. In 1991192, pink salmon runs 

were poor in the Port Graham River, and coho salmon runs were only of moderate strength. 

Harvests of non-salmon fish in 1992193 increased slightly for the third year following the oil spill. 

Accounting for the bulk of the harvest were halibut and Dolly Varden. In recent years, Dollies have 

become increasingly popular with Port Graham residents as an early season source of fresh fish and 

bait. Several extended periods of good weather during the spring of 1992 may have been the main 

factor which influenced the increased halibut harvest taken predominantly with rod and reel. 

Land mammal harvests have remained low and are an indication of the low numbers of 

accessible big game animals in the area. Bird harvests, especially ducks, have remained low since the 

spill and may be an indication not only of low numbers, but decreased levels of hunter effort in response 

to lower numbers of birds. 

Marine mammal harvests during 1990/91 and 1991192 increased rapidly relative to 1989 and 

1990 levels in spite of reports of decreasing numbers of animals in local populations. The exact reason 

for the increased harvest is not certain, but a heightened awareness and pursuit of Alutiiq cultural values 

among several households greatly increased those households’ harvests. 

Plant harvests increased by two-thirds the previous year’s amount, but determining the exact 

reasons for the increase is difficult. Plants and greens and seaweed and kelp increased by large 

proportions while berries increased only slightly. This is mostly likely an indication of good spring 

weather for seaweed to grow and easy access to picking on prime seaweed rocks. 

Like its neighbor Nanwalek, Port Graham also shows marked consistency over the six-year 

period with regard to the composition of wild resource harvests (Fig. VIII-g), even in the wake of the 

Exxon Valdez oil spill. For the same reasons as in Nanwalek, that is, established harvest practices, 

cultural preferences, accessibility, affinity for traditional use areas, and relative abundance of local 

resources, Port Graham’s consistency persists. Fortunately, the degree of oiling in the vicinity of Port 

Graham did not have as dramatic an impact on resource harvests as, for example, in Chenega Bay. 

Additional factors influencing resource harvest activities include both perceived and real impacts of the 

spill. In the following section some of these impacts will be discussed relative to their potential to 

influence resource uses. 

Comparisons with other Communities 

The unique location of Port Graham at the tip of the Kenai Peninsula with immediate and easy 

access to abundant marine resources makes it directly comparable with few other Southcentral 

communities other than Nanwalek and Seldovia owing to the similarity of their locations. As mentioned 

VIII-18 
above, the composition of harvests in Port Graham and Nanwalek are basically the same (Chapter IX). 

A slightly higher proportion of nonsalmon fish in Port Graham’s harvests is due to the availability of boat 

docking and landing facilities making fishing areas accessible at almost any time. This in not the 

situation in Nanwalek, where boat launching opportunities are considerably restricted. On the other 

hand, in Nanwalek, salmon is typically a larger proportion of the harvest than other fish because of the 

ready access to a salmon stream. 

Seldovia, by comparison to Port Graham, is more similarly situated to the ocean by virtue of 

access through’a boat harbor. Its local runs of salmon are relatively small. Also, the proportion of nonsalmon fish in the harvest is like that of Port Graham. In contrast, marine invertebrates compose over 

twice the proportion of the harvest in Seldovia than they do in both Port Graham and Nanwalek. In this 

case, Seldovia has much greater access to clam and cockle beds than do Port Graham and Nanwalek. 

In other comparisons, Port Graham’s household average for resources used is equal to 

Nanwalek, whereas the number of resources harvested is slightly lower. It is notable that while these two 

communities receive the same average number of resources per household, on average Port Graham 

gives away a few less (Fig. xX111-25; Fig. XXIII-26). 

For sake of analysis in this study, it is noteworthy that Kenai which is located on the upper Kenai 

Peninsula and does not have ready access to the abundance of marine resources in the lower inlet, 

contrasts sharply in resource harvest practices with those of Port Graham. Kenai residents on average 

harvest and use only about one-third as many resources as Port Graham, and half as many as Seldovia 

(Table xX111-4; Fig. XXIII-22; Fig. XXIII-24). Its per capita pounds harvested are just less than one-third 

those of Port Graham. However, apparently because of the abundance of moose, caribou, and wetlands 

on the upper peninsula, Kenai had over twice the harvest of land mammals of Port Graham and 

waterfowl harvests which were only slightly less per capita. Similarly, other Kenai Peninsula 

communities harvest considerably less pounds and use fewer resources than Port Graham (see Chapter 

VII; Chapter VI). 

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Port Graham 

This final section discusses selected findings about wild resource use relative to immediate 

conditions and the possible long-term effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill and future outer continental 

shelf development for Nanwalek. The questions chosen for discussion are divided into three topical 

areas: respondents’ perception of food safety; respondents’ assessments of their participation in 

subsistence and community activities; and respondents’ predictions of the future conditions of the natural 

and human environments. While the former two topical areas are indicators of social effects of the 

Exxon Valdez oil spill in the past and present, the latter focuses on responses about future outer 

continental shelf (OCS) development. 

Chapter I discussed findings about the safety of eating wild resources which may have been 

contaminated by oil. Clearly, issues of food safety were of primary concern in many communities (Fall 

VIII-19 
1991, 1993) and were no less so in Port Graham where wild foods are a common part of the daily diet 

(Table VIII-43). Regarding respondents’ perception of food safety, when asked whether they thought 

they were adequately informed about the safety of eating wild foods after the oil spill (Table VIII-51; Fig. 

l-9), half thought they were in first study year, but in the following two study years positive responses fell 

to 31.9 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively. In both Port Graham and Nanwalek, the Oil Spill Health 

Task Force (Walker and Field 1991) made concerted efforts to address concerns about food safety by 

providing bulletins with findings of foods testing projects. 

To further understand community concerns about wild food safety, questions were asked about 

resources which were key elements of subsistence harvests. For example, respondents were asked 

whether clams were safe for children to eat (Table VIII-44; Fig. l-4), less than half (43.2 percent) thought 

they were in 1991192, and confidence jumped to 69.6 percent and 61.0 percent over the following two 

years. Port Graham households responded to the same question about seals; the majority felt 

throughout the three study years that seals were safe to eat (Fig. l-5). Responses to questions of Clam 

and seal edibility demonstrated a slightly diminishing concern about safety. Also of interest is the 

contrast between Port Graham and Seldovia respondents’ feelings about resource edibility. Whereas 

Port Graham residents experienced light oiling on their beaches and one-fourth to one-third expressed 

concern about edibility, Seldovia had no oil wash ashore on its beaches and none to a very small 

percentage expressed concern. 

Another measure of the impact of oil pollution on wild foods was respondents’ perceptions of 

relative abundance of resource between time periods (Table VIII-45). For most water-based resources 

except halibut, respondents thought there were currently fewer of some species than before the spill. 

The second category of questions measured current involvement in resource use activities and 

satisfaction with the community. Although there appears to be increased dissatisfaction with living in 

Port Graham over the three years of this study, over 80.0 percent of respondents liked living there either 

more or the same since the spill (Table VIII-49; Fig. l-8). Interestingly, feelings fluctuated over the three 

year period, while 15.6 percent said they liked it less in 1991192, attitudes improved in 1992193, but went 

back to liking it less in 1993194. This seems to be a pattern in several other study communities such as 

Cordova, Seldovia, Kodiak, and Kenai. Relative to some other communities in the spill area, such as 

Cordova and Chenega Bay, Port Graham residents generally liked living where they did, and it would 

take something other than an oil spill to cause residents to move away. For instance, in 1991192, 84.8 

percent said they would live in the area when they were old, and 69.6 percent said they would rather not 

live in another community. Residents’ participation in political activities may be another measure of their 

liking for the community (Table VIII-48). The majority of people (59.1 percent) did not change their views 

of community leaders as a result of the spill, while the views of almost one-third (29.5 percent) of the 

respondents did change. The vast majority of residents, over 70.0 percent, continue to be active in local 

and statewide elections. 

VIII-20 
It was very clear that opinions about participation in subsistence activities by children were 

somewhat unsure as reflected by the changing percentages of Port Graham households’ responses 

during all three study years (Table VIII-46; Fig. l-6). This feeling was somewhat different than in 

Nanwalek where a high percentage (87.5 percent) of adults worked on cleanup jobs in 1989 (Stanek 

forthcoming). 

In another question measuring the likely effects of the spill, respondents were asked to compare 

current levels of sharing with levels before the spill (Table VIII-47). Two years following the spill found 

one-third (32.6 percent) of households reporting less sharing than before the spill (Fig. l-7) while almost 

70.0 percent reported the same or more sharing. In the third year, almost twenty percent fewer 

households reported less sharing than before the spill. By the third year, an inexplicable decline of 111.8 

percent of the households (28.6 percent) reported less sharing. Interestingly, a similar but less 

pronounced pattern of response occurred in Ouzinkie, Kodiak, and Kenai, while a more pronounced 

pattern occurred in Nanwalek. 

The last series of questions examined here deal with the perspective respondents had relative to 

impacts oil development might have on populations of wildlife and the human condition. Predictably, 

Nanwalek respondents echoed their concerns expressed during earlier inquiries about offshore oil and 

gas development in the 1980s (Braund and Behnke 1980:228). As to how OCS development would 

affect wild resources, the majority of responses predicted lower populations (Table 1X-52) of fish (Fig. Ilo), marine invertebrates (Fig. l-11), marine mammals (Fig. l-13), and birds, especially waterfowl and 

marine birds (Fig. l-14). Understandably, Port Graham respondents were somewhat less inclined to 

predict lowered land mammal populations, however, their responses were tempered with the knowledge 

that animals such as black bears and mountain goats utilize shorelines and intertidal areas in search of 

food during certain times of the year. Not surprisingly, Nanwalek residents mirrored Port Graham’s 

responses about impacts to wildlife. 

Port Graham respondents’ skepticism about impacts of OCS development carried over to their 

predictions about impacts on job availability. Just over half (Fig. l-15) predicted more jobs would result 

from OCS development in the region. This is somewhat more optimistic than views in Nanwalek. 

Attitudes about job availability fluctuated throughout the three-year study. 

In addition to the few variables mentioned above, there were many other elements of the social 

and economic environments covered by this study. Only time and money have precluded a more 

extensive examination into the nature of those other factors’ influence upon resource use in Port Graham. 

In addition, many other unstudied variables such as health, language, and education have still to be 

factored into the resource use equation. 

VIII-21 
I -l 

r 

VIII-22 
Table VIII-l. Sample Participation: Port Graham 1992,1993, and 1994 

Households Interviewed 

Failed to Contact/Unavailable 

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) 

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 households which were not present during the study year 

or which were resident less than the required number of months, 

VIII-23 
Table VIII-2. Demographic Characteristics of Households. Port Graham, 

April 1992. April 1993, and April 1994 

Characteristics 1991192 I QQ2lQ3 1993194 

Sampled Households 

Number of Households in the Community 

Percentage of Households Sampled 

51 

61 

83.61 

Household Size 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

2.56 

1 

7 

Sample Population 

Estimated Community Populatron 

146 

174.63 

Age 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Median 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Mlntmum 

Maximum 

21.17 

0.13 

79.21 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

49 48 

58 58 

84.48 82.76 

2.78 2.88 

I I 

7 7 

136 138 

160.98 166.75 

32.53 32.26 

0.31 0.35 

79.95 78.21 

33.00 33.25 

23.35 23.64 

0.125 0.35 

78.72 78.21 

32.43 32.54 

0.625 0.625 

78.72 78.21 

32.65 

1.57 

79.21 

32.47 

30.49 

0.63 

79.21 

Sex 

Males 

Number 

Percentage 

Females 

Number 

Percentage 

87.59 91.83 95.69 

54.41 55.07 54.79 

73.39 74.92 70.94 

45.59 44.93 45.21 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 

Percentage 

Estimated Population 

Number 

Percentage 

54.45 58.00 

93.88 100.00 

134.94 154.67 

83.82 92.75 

-- 

58.61 

96.08 

156.69 

89.73 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey. 1992. 1993. and 1994. 

VIII-24 
‘Igure VIII-L. ropularton rrorse, ron wanam, npnl ikw 

70 - 74 

60-64 

* 20-24 

0 5 10 15 

POPULATION 

0 MALE n FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

Table VIII-3. Population Profile, Port Graham, Ap$l 1992 

o-4 9.47 10.81% 10.81% 

5-9 10.65 12.16% 22.97% 

lo-14 8.29 9.46% 32.43% 

15-19 2.37 2.70% 35.14% 

20-24 4.73 5.41% 40.54% 

25-29 4.73 5.41% 45.95% 

30-34 8.29 9.46Ob 56.41% 

35-3s 9.47 10.81% 66.22% 

40-44 3.55 4.06% 70.27% 

45-49 3.65 4.05% 74.32% 

50-54 5.92 6.76% 81.08% 

55-59 8.29 9.46% 90.54% 

60-64 2.37 2.70% 93.24% 

65-69 2.37 2.70% 85.95% 

70-74 0.00 0.00% 96.9S”b 

75-79 3.55 4.05% lW.W% 

80-84 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 

85-89 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

W-94 0.00 O.OO?b 1 W.W”b 

95-99 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

loo-104 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

Missing 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

5.92 8.06% 8.06% 

10.65 14.52% 22.58% 

7.10 9.68% 32.26% 

2.37 3.23% 35.48% 

2.37 3.23% 38.71% 

2.37 3.23% 41.94% 

9.47 12.90% 54.84% 

5.92 8.06% 62.90% 

2.37 3.23% 66.13% 

5.92 866% 74.19% 

5.92 8.06% 82.26% 

1.18 1.61% 83.87% 

4.73 6.45% 90.32% 

3.55 4.84% 96.16% 

2.37 3.23% 98.39% 

1.18 1.61% lW.W% 

0.00 O.W% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 W.W”b 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

15.39 9.56% 9.56% 

21.31 13.24% 22.79% 

15.39 9.56% 32.35% 

4.73 2.94% 35.29% 

7.10 4.41% 39.71% 

7.10 4.41% 44.12% 

17.76 11.03X 55.15% 

15.39 9.56% 64.711 

5.92 3.68% 68.38% 

9.47 5.88% 74.26% 

11.84 7.35% 81.62% 

9.47 5.88% 87.50% 

7.10 4.41°b 91.91% 

5.92 3.68% 85.59% 

2.37 1.47% 97.06% 

4.73 2.94% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

160.98 lW.W% TOTAL 87.59 64.41% 73.39 45.59% I 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

VIII-25 
rrgure VIII-J. ropuranon rrorw2, ran wanam, npnl IJJJ 

70 - 74 

60-64 I 

t 

50-54 1 

I 

40-44 I 

30-34 I 

1 

20-24 

I 

lo-14 E 

1 

o-4 I I 

15 *lo 5 0 

POPULATION 

5 10 

•I MALE= FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

Table Vlll-4. Population Profile, Port Graham, April 1993 

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 

85-89 

90-94 

95-99 

loo-104 

8.46 9.21% 9.21% 6.04 8.06% 8.06% 14.50 8.70% 8.70% 

9.67 10.53% 19.74% 7.25 9.68% 17.74% 16.92 10.14% 18.84% 

10.88 11.84% 31.58% 8.46 11.29% 29.03% 19.33 11.59% 30.43% 

3.63 3.95% 35.53% 6.04 8.06% 37.10% 9.67 5.80% 36.23% 

1.21 1.32% 36.84% 1.21 1.61% 38.71% 2.42 1.45% 37.68% 

7.25 7.89% 44.74% 3.63 4.84% 43.55% 10.88 6.52% 44.20% 

9.67 10.53% 55.26% 7.25 9.68% 53.23% 16.92 10.14% 54.35% 

6.04 6.58% 61.84% 9.67 12.90% 66.13% 15.71 9.42X 63.77% 

6.04 6.58% 68.42% 2.42 3.23% 69.35% 8.46 5.07% 68.84% 

4.83 5.26% 7368% 3.63 4.84% 74.19% 8.46 5.07% 73.91% 

8.46 9.21% 82.89% 7.25 9.68% 83.87% 15.71 9.42% 83.33% 

8.46 9.21% 92.11% 2.42 3.23% 87.10% 10.88 6.52% 89.86% 

2.42 2.63% 94.74% 4.83 6.45% 93.55% 7.25 4.351 94.20% 

1.21 1.32% 96.05% 1.21 1.61% 95.16% 2.42 1.45% 95.65% 

1.21 1.32% 97.37% 3.63 4.84% lW.W% 4.83 2.90% 98.55X 

1.21 1.32% 98.68% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 1.21 0.72% 99.28% 

0.00 0.00% 98.68% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 99.28% 

0.00 0.00% 98.68% 0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 0.00 0.00% 99.28% 

0.00 0.00% 98.68% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 99.28% 

0.00 0.00% 98.68% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 O.W% 99.28% 

0.00 0.00% 98.68% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 99.28% 

1.21 1.32% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 1.21 0.72% lW.W% 

TOTAL 91.83 55.07% 74.92 44.93% 166.75 1 W.W% 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey. 1993 

VIII-26 
Figure 

r 

VIII-~. Population Profile, Port Graham, April 1994 

15 .lO .5 0 5 10 15 

POPULATION 

I q MALEH FEMALE 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

Table VIII-5. Population Profile, Port Graham, April 1994 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 9.57 10.00% 10.00% 

5-9 8.37 8.75% 18.75% 

lo-14 9.57 10.00% 28.75% 

15-19 5.98 6.25% 35.00% 

20-24 4.78 5.00% 40.00% 

25-29 5.98 6.25% 46.25% 

30-34 7.18 7.50% 53.75% 

35-39 11.96 12.50% 66.25% 

40-44 4.78 5.00% 71.25% 

45-49 2.39 2.60% 73.75% 

50-54 7.18 7.50% 81.25% 

55-59 9.57 10.001 91.25% 

60-64 3.59 3.75% 95.00% 

65-69 1.20 1.25X 96.25X 

70-74 1.20 1.25% 97.50% 

75-79 1.20 1.25% 98.75% 

80-84 1.20 1.25% lW.W% 

85-89 0.00 0.00% 1 W.W”b 

90-94 0.00 0.001 1 W.WX 

95-99 0.00 O.W# lW.W% 

loo-104 0.00 0.00% 1 W.W% 

Missing 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

TOTAL 95.69 54.79% 

3.59 4.55% 4.55% 

9.57 12.12% 16.67% 

9.57 12.12% 28.79% 

4.78 6.06% 34.85% 

3.59 4.55% 39.39% 

4.78 6.06% 45.45% 

4.78 6.061 51.52% 

11.96 15.15% 66.67% 

2.39 3.03X 69.70% 

3.59 4.55% 74.24% 

5.98 7.58% 81.82% 

2.39 3.03% 84.85% 

4.78 6.06% 90.91% 

3.59 4.55% 95.45% 

3.59 4.55Ob 1 W.W*b 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00X lW.W% 

0.00 0.001 1 W.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 O.W% 1 W.W% 

78.94 45.211 174.63 lW.W% I 

13.16 7.53% 7.53% 

17.94 10.27Ob 17.81% 

19.14 10.96% 28.77Ob 

10.76 6.16% 34.93% 

8.37 4.79% 39.73% 

10.76 6.16% 45.89% 

11.96 6.85% 52.74% 

23.92 13.70% 66.44Ob 

7.18 4.11% 70.55% 

5.98 3.42% 73.97% 

13.16 7.53% 81.51% 

11.96 6.85% 88.36% 

8.37 4.79% 93.15% 

4.78 2.74% 95.89% 

4.78 2.74% 98.63% 

1.20 0.68% 99.32% 

1.20 0.68% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 W.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 W.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 W.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 103.00% 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

VIII-27 
Table VIII-6. Employment Characteristics, Port Graham, 1991192. 1992l93, and 1993/94 

Characteristics 1991192 1992l93 1993194 

ADULTS 

Total 106.53 111.17 123.20 

Employed 

Number 76.94 84.56 83.73 

Percentage 72.22 76.09 67.96 

Jobs 

Number 119.55 135.33 123.20 

Mean 1.55 1.66 1.47 

Minimum 1 1 1 

Maximum 4 4 4 

Months Employed 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Year-Round 

8.08 8.14 7.97 

1 1 1 

12 12 12 

39.46 32.86 37.14 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Total 58.00 58.00 61 .W 

Employed 

Number 

Percentage 

49.71 50.75 50.24 

85.71 87.50 82.35 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

2.40 2.67 2.45 

1 1 1 

6 8 10 

Employed Adults 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

1.55 1.67 1.67 

1 1 1 

3 3 4 

SOURCE: Alaska Department sf Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992.1993, and 1994. 

VIII-28 
Table VIII-7. Community, Household, and Per Capita income, All Sources and by Employer Type, Port Graham, 1991192 

INCOME 

INCOME SOURCE COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $1.469.802.37 $24.30694 38,757.65 

Earned Income $925,989.13 $15965.33 $5752.21 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 316204.71 S-451.81 1964.25 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.W 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 316,204.71 5,451.81 1964.25 

Hatchery/Enhancement 47,938.78 826.53 297.79 

Commercial Fishing 268.265.93 4.625.27 1668.46 

Huntingmrapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Manufacturing 67.418.66 1 .162.39 418.86 

Cannery 21,306.12 367.35 132.35 

Other Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Logging/Timber 46.112.54 795.04 286.45 

Transportation. Communications, and Utilities 20,714.29 357.14 128.68 

Trade 74,429.39 1.283.27 462.35 

Wholesale 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Retail 74,429.39 1.283.27 462.35 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 66.048.98 1.138.78 410.29 

Services 146403.72 2.55866 921.88 

Government 232.769.39 4.013.27 1.44596 

Federal 25.093.88 432.65 155.86 

State 9.469.39 163.27 58.82 

Local 198.206.12 3.4; 7.35 1.231.25 

Local Government 76.65510 1.35612 488.60 

Local Education 119,551.02 2,061.22 742.65 

Unknwm AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Income S483.813.24 $8.341.61 $3.005.43 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

VIII-29 
Table VIII-8. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Port Graham, 1991192 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

JI Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s CompJnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

Women Infants. and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

0.00 

4.08 

16.33 

0.00 

4.08 

12.24 

22.45 

4.08 

32.65 

8.16 

20.41 

38.78 

48.98 

10.20 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

97.96 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

$483,813.24 $8341.61 $3.W5.43 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

27.891.13 480.88 173.26 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

12.854.69 221.63 79.85 

31.959.18 551.02 198.53 

78.234.05 1,348.86 485.99 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

8,080.54 139.32 50.20 

14942.69 257.63 92.82 

11.972.86 206.43 74.38 

430454.78 749.22 269.94 

92301.46 1,591.40 573.37 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

0.00 0.w 0.00 

0.00 0.w 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

139,954.oo 2,413.OO 869.39 

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 6.12 22.167.84 382.20 137.71 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

VIII-30 
VIII-31 
Table W-9. Subsistence Equipment Expenses and Use, Port Graham 1991192 

This information was not collected in Port Graham. 

VIII-32 
Table VIII-1 0. Community, Household, and Per Capita Income. All Sources and by Employer Type, Port Graham, 1992/93 

INCOME 

INCOME SOURCE COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $1.467.011.07 $25293.29 S8v797.67 

Earned Income $1 .018,107.59 $17.55358 $6,105.59 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 375.167.36 6468.40 2,249.88 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 375a167.36 6.46840 2.249.88 

Hatchery/Enhancement 116.OOO.W 2.000.w 695.65 

Commercial Fishing 259,167.36 4.46840 1.554.23 

Hunting/Trapping 0.w 0.00 0.00 

Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Construction 0.00 0.00 0.w 

Manufacturing 47.46750 818.75 284.78 

Cannery 11.6W.W 200.00 69.57 

Other Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Logging/Timber 35.887.50 618.75 215.22 

Transportation, Communications and Utilities 26.462.50 456.25 158.70 

Trade 42.412.50 731.25 254.35 

Wholesale 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Retail 42.412.50 731.25 254.35 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 120,229.17 2,072.92 721 .Ol 

Services 189.392.31 3,265X 1.135.79 

Government 216.956.25 3t740.63 1.301.09 

Federal 19.937.50 343.75 119.57 

State 10.875.00 187.50 65.22 

Local 186.143.75 3.209.38 1 .116.30 

Local Government 99.325.00 1,712.50 595.65 

Local Education 86.818.75 1.496.88 520.65 

Unknown 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other Income s448.903.49 $7.739.72 $2.692.07 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

VIII-33 
Table VIII-l 1. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Port Graham, 1992/93 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

&II Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s Comp./lnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permrt Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

Women, Infants. and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

0.00 

2.08 

10.42 

0.00 

4.17 

12.50 

18.75 

2.08 

25.00 

8.33 

12.56 

14.58 

81.25 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

95.83 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

6.25 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.w 

0.00 

0.00 

$448.90349 $7,739.72 $2,692.07 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

1,203.50 26.75 7.22 

15.95o.w 275.00 95.65 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

17.71658 305.48 166.25 

15.104.17 260.42 90.58 

47.218.04 814.10 283.17 

386.67 6.67 2.32 

6,725.58 11596 46.33 

19,281.78 332.44 115.63 

5,168.83 88.08 30.64 

14587.00 251 SO 87.48 

166.199.00 2.865.50 996.70 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.w 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

137.247.33 2.366.33 823.07 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

2.175.00 37.50 13.04 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.w 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

VIII-34 
VIII-35 
Table VIII-l 2. Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer Type, Port Graham, 1993/94 

INCOME 

INCOME SOURCE COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $1.713.144.29 328J84.33 $9,810.28 

Earned Income %1,048,896.14 $17,195.02 $6,006.48 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 264549.77 4,336.88 1514.94 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 264549.77 4,336.88 l-51 4.94 

Hatchery/Enhancement 100,789&l 1.65229 577.17 

Commercial Fishing 163.760.22 2.684.59 937.77 

Hunting/Trapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Manufacturing 25340.12 415.41 145.11 

Cannery 24,981.29 409.53 143.05 

Other Manufacturing 358.82 5.86 2.05 

Logging/Timber 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Transportabon. Communications, and Utilities 26.026.67 426.67 149.04 

Trade 49.398.04 809.80 282.88 

Wholesale 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Retail 49.398.04 809.80 282.88 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 227.459.43 3.728.84 1 s302.54 

Services 97,695.69 1,601.57 559.45 

Government 358.426.43 5,875.84 2.05252 

Federal 37.111.92 608.39 212.52 

State AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Local 321.31451 5.267.45 1.840.00 

Local Government 37.843.92 620.39 216.71 

Local Education 283.470.59 4.647.06 7.623.29 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Income $6644.248.15 $10689.31 93.803.80 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

VIII-36 
Table VIII-l 3. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other income by Source, Port Graham, 1993@4 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

JI Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s CompJlnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

Supplemental Union Benefits 

Gifts 

Medicare/Medicaid 

Other 

0.00 

5.88 

3.92 

0.00 

7.84 

17.65 

21.57 

1.96 

7.84 

9.80 

15.69 

19.61 

92.16 

1.96 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

92.16 

0.00 

0.00 

0.w 

0.00 

5.88 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.w 

0.00 

0.00 

S664.248.15 $10889.31 63803.80 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

29,423.53 482.35 168.49 

5.59525 91.73 32.04 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

17868.84 279.82 97.74 

29.602.94 485.29 169.52 

51.553.85 845.15 29522 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

1.483.14 24.31 8.49 

27.77294 45529 159.04 

27,167.25 445.36 155.57 

26.122.35 428.24 149.59 

389.017.63 5.065.86 1.76958 

78.94 1.29 0.45 

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 

136.539.35 2,238.35 781.89 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

2,822.15 46.26 16.16 

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 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

VIII-37 
VIII-38 
Table VIII-1 4. Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Port Graham, 1991/92,1992/93, and 1993B4 

Study Year 1991l92 1992l93 1993l94 

kan Number Of Resources Used Per Household 21.96 22.10 19.37 

Minimum 2 8 6 

Maximum 43 39 36 

95 % Conftince Limit (+/-) 4.63 4.10 3.94 

Median 22 23 18 

kan Number Of Resources Attempted To Harvest Per Household 14.69 14.79 11.57 

Minimum 0 1 0 

Maximum 47 44 25 

95 % ConfWnce Limit (+/-) 7.55 6.75 6.59 

Median 12 13.5 12 

tlean Number Of Resources Harvested Per Household 13.61 13.60 10.92 

Minimum 0 1 0 

Maximum 41 33 24 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 7.57 6.36 6.93 

Median 11 13 10 

lean Number Of Resources Received Per Household 13.39 14.02 13.00 

Minimum 0 2 1 

Maximum 27 33 29 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 5.54 6.12 5.72 

Median 14 12.5 12 

nean Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 10.20 11.13 9.86 

Minimum 0 0 0 

Maximum 30 37 26 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 9.34 9.38 8.30 

Median 9 9 9 

nean Household Harvest, Pounds 779.60 764.05 607.29 

Minimum 0.00 4.00 0.00 

Maximum 2,573.51 3,163x3 6,940.39 

-otal Pounds Harvested 45.216.98 45,475.05 37JI44.49 

kmmunity Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 280.89 272.71 212.13 

‘ercent Using Any Resource 1w.w lw.w lw.w 

‘ercent Attempting To Harvest Any Resource 95.92 lw.w 98.04 

‘ercent Harvesting Any Resource 95.92 100.00 98.04 

‘ercent Receiving Any Resource 97.96 lW.00 lw.w 

‘ercent Giving Away Any Resource 87.76 97.92 90.20 

dumber Of Households In Sample 49 48 51 

dumber of Resources Available 115 133 146 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992, 1993, and 1994 

VIII-39 
Table VIII-15. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Port Graham, 

1991/92.1992/93. and 1993&M 

Study Year 

Total Number of People 

GAME Hunt 

Process 

FISH Fish 

Process 

FURBEARERS Hunt or Trap 

Process 

PLANTS Gather 

Process 

ANY RESOURCE 

Attempt 

Process 

Number 42.61 36.25 39.47 

Percentage 26.47 21.74 22.60 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 65.10 72.50 71.76 

Percentage 40.44 43.48 41.10 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 117.18 137.75 148.31 

Percentage 72.79 82.61 84.93 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 123.10 142.58 151.90 

Percentage 76.47 85.51 86.99 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.w 0.00 

Number 2.37 4.83 0.00 

Percentage 1.47 2.90 0.00 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 4.73 6.04 0.00 

Percentage 2.94 3.62 0.00 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 124.29 147.42 161.47 

Percentage 77.21 88.41 92.47 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 123.10 

Percentage 76.47 

Missing 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

3URCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division o 

Household Survey, 1992.1993, and 1994. 

19Qll92 

160.98 

140.86 

87.50 

140.86 

87.50 

ubsisten 

199243 

166.75 

140.17 

84.06 

0.00 

0.00 

155.88 

93.48 

153.46 

92.03 

199394 

174.63 

160.27 

91.78 

0.00 

0.03 

167.45 

95.89 

167.45 

95.89 

VIII-40 
VIII-41 
Table VIII-17. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource Category, 

Port Graham, 1987, 1989, 1990191, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993194 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

1987 1989 1990191 1991 I92 1992f93 199314 

Salmon 

mother Fish 

Marine Invertebrates 

Land Mammals 

,Marine Mammals 

IBirds and Eggs 

:Wild Plants 

96.2 39.9 95.0 132.6 106.8 97.4 

77.9 59.7 92.8 99.7 108.6 72.7 

16.6 8.6 14.5 21.6 23.9 16.0 

5.4 0.4 1.5 3.3 4.1 4.1 

12.3 8.9 3.3 14.7 16.9 8.7 

3.2 2.0 1.1 1.8 1.7 0.7 

15.8 2.8 5.7 7.3 10.7 12.7 

All Resources 1 227.4 122.3 214.0 280.9 272.7 212.1 

Table VIII-18. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, 

Port Graham, 1987, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 

1987 

Percentage of Total Harvest 

1989 1990191 1991192 1992193 199314 

Salmon 42.3% 32.6% 44.4% 47.2% 39.2% 45.9% 

Other Fish 34.3% 48.9% 43.4% 35.5% 39.8% 34.3% 

Marine Invertebrate 7.3% 7.0% 6.8% 7.7% 8.8% 7.5% 

Land Mammals 2.4% 0.3% 0.7% 1.2% 1.5% 1.9% 

Marine Mammals 5.4% 7.3% 1.5% 5.2% 6.2% 4.1% 

Birds and Eggs 1.4% 1.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 

Wild Plants 6.9% 2.3% 2.7% 2.6% 3.9% 6.0% 

VIII-42 
eydlea md JL@!aM alqesn SpUnOd 

VIII-43 
9 9 0 0 0 

22 

9 9 9 

s Ei g z s 0 0 

N 

v ‘c- cUOSJad Jad Jl#!aM alC.jESn SpUnOd 

VII l-44 

SWWd PI!M 

s663 pue spJ!g 

Sll?UJUJtZ~ aU!JEW 

sp3lNm?~ put21 

uouJp?S 
VIII-45 
I.6 

Z-61 

sa3Jnosau 1lj-f 

~663 % swa 

W!j Jaw0 

UoulleS 

VII l-46 
VIII-47 
3 P-VVtT.-.-lcoO0 7 9 a! ” -. -. 0. ” -. 88883883888888888888%8888888 

cigg-gooomwbdddd G d d d d d 6 d d d d d 6 d d d d d d d d d 

9 9 9 0. r\r -. -. 

O.- 

u! u! 9 9 9 0 9 -. c! 9 n! 0. 9 9 9 -7 r 9 9 0. 9 9 9 - -. 4 0. 9 9 

~~Owv~co~ON00ww00000rJvvooooootivoooo 

Lc)lnm.- c - 

VIII-48 
l,nI lRr)*h~d,nr.rorr--~-~mrrrrh -- -- ----.-------I 
WI-50 
VIII-51 
VIII-52 
u v I 

VIII-53 
P ii 

a E 

VIII-54 
VIII-55 
VIII-56 
VIII-57 
VIII-58 
VIII-59 
E 

m 

a 

VIII-60 
5????~S???S?~~S~8~~~8~~8~8~88888~88~ 300000000000~c$0~ 6 d d d d d d d d 6 6 d d d d d d d d c 

58888=888888233858w$88zz8238%88888888E 6 d 6 d d 6 d d d d d d k k d k d d 0 d 6 i + d d d c-5 6 d d d d d d d c 

VIII-61 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 k 0. q 0, b. rc: q IQ q cq q - ‘T 9 w. q w. 9 9 

.$ 6 d d 6 d d d 6 d 6 6 d d 6 6 ci d $ 0 0 0 

0 

.--0NOWWPiNOWWWOO 

c c- CFF 

VIII-62 
:8 ici~$88Fi%6Fi~~ 8iG88888888888888888888% i 6 6 6 6 6 6 (xj 6 cj 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 d d d d d d 6 6 d d 6 d d d d 6 d 

:8 j 6 6g888i.z$~6~~888~8~8888~8888888~8~8~ 6 ci d d d 6 6 d d 6 d d d d 0 6 0 d d d 6 0 d 6 d d d d 6 d d d d d 

JONNOOOWNC9 .-WN00000000000000000OOOOOC 

j 6 i i 6 6 15 0’ P’ (d d + i d d d d d d d d 6 d d 6 d d d d d d d d d d c 

VIII-63 
6 .-- .-- 

VIII-64 
f ii 

F 3 

> 

VIII-65 
a 

VIII-66 
VIII-67 
88 dd 

g 

88 dd 

88 dd 

88 dd 

VIII-68 
VIII-69 
VIII-70 
VIII-71 
VIII-72 
VIII-73 
z 

E 

P 

VIII-74 
VIII-75 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (9 9 9 0. (4 ‘9 9 0. a\ q u, k b. 9 p ‘4 (I: 

d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 6 ~ooot-boNu2ln~mmommcJ 

-v -- v-c 

VIII-76 
6 

VIII-77 
VIII-78 
VIII-79 
VIII-80 
6 d d 

888 

d d 6 

888 ddd 

888 ddd 

888 

d d d 

325 

VIII-81 
33 88 00 g3 S? S? 88 00 00 00 

VIII-82 
VIII-83 
VIII-84 
P E n L 

d $88888888888888888888 -4 6 d d 6 6 6 6 d d d d d d d 6 d d d d d 

c 

g,; 

1g-g 

L 

E 

$~888~88~888~~~~~~~~~ dGdddddd&ddd cJ00000000 

8 

VIII-85 
VIII-86 
I I 

I 

VIII-87 

5 .- 

iii c .- 

E 

z 

8 

VIII-89 
E f 

t 

VIII-90 
VIII-91 

o^ 

+-+-+ + J I I I 
I 

+-+-+ 

+-+ 

n-# 

x M 

-VI -VI 

. . 

YI In In 
VIII-95 
4-i-A I + 

VIII-96 
VIII-97 
I 

+-+ 

VIII-98 
VIII-99 
VIII-100 
VIII-101 
i P 
+ 

+ 

E 

.C 

VIII-103 

+-+ 

VIII-105 
VIII-106 
VIII-107 
v- 0 

VIII-108 

.- 

R 

.- 

0 
E 

f 

b 

.- 

0 

% 
.- 

0 

‘;; 

5 

,iz, I 

I m+-+ 

. . . + 
.- 

0 

?i 
. 

h: 

f 

p: 

*- 

0 

b 

; ; ; 

! s+-+ : 

is-;--; I + 
. 

5: 

; ; ; 

+-+-+ + 
VIII-1 16 
B 

. 

G: 

;: 

al 
VIII-1 18 
E 

c 

P cl 

Y 

b 

a. 
VIII-120 
e 

8 

r 

b 

2 

u- 

.f 

. . 

5 
VIII-122 
CHAPTER IX: NANWALEK 

by 

Ronald T. Stanek 

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 

Nanwalek (formerly English Bay) is located on the southern shore of Kachemak Bay about three 

miles west of Port Graham. A summary of the Prehistory and history of the lower Cook Inlet area is 

provided in Stanek (19853151). Detailed discussions of the Gulf of Alaska archaeology can be found in 

de Laguna (1934), Jacobsen (1977), Workman (1980) Workman, Lobdell, and Workman (1980), Lobdell 

(1980), and Workman and Workman (1985). Briefly, the Prehistory of the Kachemak Bay area is a 

complex series of movements of two cultural groups, the Pacific Eskimos and Athabaskan Indians. The 

cultural traditions are typified by five cultural sequences currently dated from before 400 B.C. to A.D. 

1800. Recorded history of the area can be divided into three periods: European exploration between 

1741 and 1791 during which time trading posts were established on Kodiak and at Alexandrovsk (English 

Bay); the Russian period between 1780 and 1867 when the primary focus was exploitation and trade of 

sea otter pelts and the introduction of the Russian Orthodox Church; and the American period from 1867 

to the present, which is characterized by the development of the commercial fishing industry, the 

establishment of Native village governing bodies, the creation of Native regional and local profit 

corporations and the transfer of land entitlements to those organizations. 

As Braund and Behnke (1980:178) point out, Nanwalek, unlike nearby Port Graham, maintained 

a degree of isolation by not having a cannery as did Port Graham. Its residents also attempted to retain 

elements of their past customs thereby remaining considerably more traditional than their neighbors, It 

was not until 1958 that a school was built, and a Russian Orthodox church had been a focal point since 

the 1890s. The economy developed with a certain amount of dependence on cash, but subsistence 

foods were a major part of the economic picture. 

The Division of Subsistence conducted research in Nanwalek in 1985, 1988, 1990, and 1991 

pertaining to resource harvest and use activities (Stanek 1985, forthcoming a; Fall 1992a). The research 

from 1985 differs from that of subsequent years in that it was based on a system of monthly harvest 

report calendars, while the latter were based on comprehensive household interviews relying on 

retrospective recall of the previous year’s activities. 

IX-1 
RESEARCH METHODS 

As in the neighboring communities of Port Graham and Seldovia, fieldwork in Nanwalek for this 

project’ was conducted in all three years. Year one covered the period April 1991 through March 1992, 

year two was April 1992 through March 1993, and year three included April 1993 through March 1994. 

During all study years, the sampling goal was 100 percent of the households permanently 

residing in the community during at least six of the previous 12 months. As in Port Graham, there were 

no panel households with members previously interviewed as part of the MMS-sponsored Social 

Indicators (SI) research project (see Chapter I). Therefore, interviewees for the social effects 

questionnaires (SEQ) were selected by using a set of random number sheets which also designated the 

sex of the individual chosen. These same people were to be interviewed with the social effects survey 

instrument in each year of the study. 

In Table IX-1 are listed the sample achievements for each of the three study years. All interviews 

took place at approximately the same time during each study year. For the first year, interviews were 

completed between April 17th and June 30th. There were 70.7 percent (29) of the 41 households which 

completed both the harvest and social effects surveys. In the second year, surveys occurred between 

March 28th and May 15. There were 32 households out of 41 which completed the survey (78.1 

percent). The third study year picked up one more household for 33 households, but the total number of 

households residing in the community decreased to 37, giving an 89.2 percent sample. Interviews were 

conducted April 2nd through April 29th. 

The average lengths of harvest interviews (Table l-5) over the three years gradually decreased 

from 1.26 hours in 1992, to 0.71 hours in 1993, and 0.66 hours in 1994. This may be due in part to a 

reduction in number of questions, but is undoubtedly also due to a greater familiarity with the questions 

by the interviewers and interviewees. Social effects surveys followed a similar pattern, requiring 0.99 

hours in 1991/92, 0.74 hours in year two, and 0.56 hours in the third year. 

DEMOGRAPHY 

1991192 Study Year 

The demographic characteristics of Nanwalek households are presented in Table 1X-2, and 

Figure IX-l. From the total 41 households in the community, the 29 sampled households (70.7 percent) 

had a mean size of 3.9 persons, and ranged in size from one to nine. There were 114 persons in the 

sample population, 70.7 percent of the estimated community population of 161.2 persons. The sample 

population had a mean age of 25.0 years, and ranged in age from newborn to 77.5 years with a median 

age of 20.9 years. The majority of the population was male (52.6 percent), while females were 47.4 

’ For further detail on sampling methods and the conduct of fieldwork, see the series of interim reports prepared at the close of each field season (Fall 

and Utermohle 1992, 1993a, and 1994). 

IX-2 
percent (Table 1X-3; Fig. 1X-2). The length of residency for household heads averaged 26.4 years, while 

the shortest term of residency was one-half year and the longest 58.1 years. The ethnic composition for 

the estimated community population was 90.4 percent Alaska Native, and for one or the other household 

head, 93.1 percent were Native. The remaining percentage was classified only as non-Native. 

Compared with 1987, there was an increase of one occupied household and nine persons. The 

percentage of households with either the head or spouse Alaska Native decreased by 9.9 percent from 

100 percent in 1987 (Stanek 1990), while the average length of residency decreased by 17.1 years. 

Nanwalek’s population has increased steadily since the 1940s when there were 48 persons 

(Braund and Behnke 1980), to the estimated 161.2 persons in 1992. This later population estimate was 

three more people than appeared in the 1990 U.S. Census estimate (Fig. IX-l). 

In the early 1980s a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing project built about 20 new 

homes to meet the growing population needs. Today, those houses are fully occupied and there is need 

for more housing. Even though there is little economic incentive to live in Nanwalek many young people 

chose to remain there because of the personal freedoms, subsistence opportunities, and the relatively 

safe conditions for raising children. The attraction of family and Alutiiq culture are added incentives. As 

noted in Braund and Behnke (1980:199), a family can get along in Nanwalek on relatively little cash. 

Many families occupy homes they built themselves because they could afford the outlay for building 

materials or were able to acquire small home construction grants. 

1992193 Studv Year 

In the second study year, 1992/93, three additional households were in the sample of 32 

households which contained 133 people, and the average household size increased to 4.2 people. This 

raised the population estimate to 170.4 people in 41 households, an increase of nine people over the 

year before (Table 1X-2). The age structure of the population remained virtually the same (Fig. 1X-3; 

Table 1X-4). The average age decreased slightly to 23.7 years as did the median to 18.4 years. The 

oldest person was 77.3 years. 

The average length of residency for the population increased by less than one year, with the 

longest residing person living there 81.1 years. For household heads, the mean time in the community 

was 30.2 years, an increase of four years over 1991/92. 

Most of the population was males, 53.4 percent, the same as the previous year, while females 

were 46.6 percent, also the same. Alaska Natives were again the ethnic majority of the population (89.5 

percent), while 93.8 percent of one or the other household heads were Native. 

1993194 Study Year 

In the third study year, one more household appeared in the sample (33), whereas four 

households had moved away from the community, making the total 37 resident households (Table 1X-2). 

The sample population decreased to 126 people, and the estimated community total decreased by 29 

IX-3 
people to 141.3 people. Most of these households had moved to Homer or Anchorage in search of job 

training and employment. 

The age structure of the population returned to near what it was for the first year with 26.2 years 

the average age and 19.7 years the median age (Fig. 1X-4; Table 1X-5). The population’s sex 

composition had shifted to a slightly higher percentage of males (56.4 percent) than females (43.7 

percent). 

The average length of residency remained around 18 years, and the maximum length of 

residency was 79.5 years. The average length of residency of any household head remained about the 

same as in previous years (25.6 years). As expected, ethnic composition remained the same as in the 

two previous study years. 

CASH ECONOMY 

1991192 Study Year 

Table IX-6 provides information on Nanwalek residents’ employment characteristics. In the total 

estimated population, 97.6 persons 16 years of age or older were of employment age. Of this total, 67.9 

persons (69.6 percent) were employed. Employed adults held a total of 84.8 jobs, and averaged 1.3 jobs 

per person with a range of one to three jobs. The length of employment averaged 7.0 months with a 

minimum of one month and a maximum of 12 months. For those employed, 8.5 persons (12.5 percent) 

were employed during 12 months of the year. At the household level, 35.3 households (86.2 percent) 

had employed adults. The number of jobs per household ranged from one to five, with a mean of 2.4 

jobs. In each household, a range of one to three adults were employed, averaging 1.9 adults employed 

per household. The duration of employment for heads of household ranged from one month to twelve 

months, and averaged 7.5 months. Compared to 1987, the average length of time worked increased by 

1.7 months. 

The estimated 84.8 jobs held by Nanwalek residents made up 12 different industrial types (Fig. 

1X-5). The majority of jobs were in the manufacturing sector (32.0 percent) and involved work on a 

timbering project on English Bay Corporation lands. The service sector held 15.0 percent of the jobs, 

while local government (education) accounted for 12.0 percent with jobs such as teachers, teacher’s 

assistants, clerical, and labor. With a road resurfacing project in the community, 7.0 percent of the jobs 

were located in the construction sector. Hatcheries and retail trade each held 7.0 percent, transportation, 

communications, and utilities (T.C.U.) (3.0 percent), finance, insurance, and real estate (F.I.R.E.) (5.0 

percent), and federal government had 3.0 percent. Non-education local government positions were 5.0 

percent, while state government and commercial fishing each had 2.0 percent. The estimated number of 

jobs in the community increased from 1987 to 1991/92 by 12 jobs. The most significant changes 

occurred in the commercial fishing and manufacturing (timber and logging) sectors providing 34 percent 

of the jobs. While the former decreased by 22.7 percent, the latter increased by 7.0 percent. With the 

IX-4 
closure of the cannery at Port Graham, that part of the manufacturing sector was down from 27.3 percent 

in 1987, to 0.9 percent (Stanek forthcoming b). The road resurfacing project contributed a new sector 

(construction) to the job market in 1991/92. 

Cash income from both earned and unearned sources was determined for the total estimated 

Nanwalek population based on incomes reported by respondents (Table 1X-7). From all sources, earned 

and unearned income combined, the average household income was $28,614.97. The average 

household earned income only from all sources was $20,979.58. The breakdown of average household 

earned income from each source (standardized Department of Labor categories) was as follows: 

government provided the largest amount ($9,266.21) and included federal ($20.69) state ($41.38) and 

local ($9,204.14); timber and logging ($5,045.09) was the second largest: local services including health 

care, social workers, and day care provided the third largest amount to earned income with $2,755.17; 

construction, ($1,351.72); finance insurance and real estate ($1,206.90); hatchery and enhancement 

(8486.21; retail trade (6471.72); commercial fishing ($224.14); transportation, communications, and 

utilities ($172.41). The low amount generated by commercial fishing reflected the extremely poor 

production of the fishing industry in lower Cook Inlet during recent years and the very few limited entry 

permit holders in the community. Although timber and logging produced a substantial amount of earned 

income in 1991/92, logging on English Bay Corporation lands ended in the summer of 1992, drying up 

that source for the near future. 

Other income (unearned) from non-employment sources is presented in Table 1X-8, and 

produced an average per household of $7,635.39. The highest of all unearned income sources by twice 

any other source was the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend averaging $3,128.72 per household. The 

next highest source was Native corporation dividends with an average $1,603.31 per household. The 

only other source to pay more than one thousand dollars per household was social security with 

$1,111.17. 

Monthly expenses for food were provided by 26 of the 29 households interviewed (Table l-101). 

An estimated 18.5 percent of the total household income was spent on food. Household food expenses 

ranged from as little as $125.00 to as much as $1 ,OOO.OO monthly, with an average of $484.00 per month 

and a median of $400.00 per month. 

In this study, a one-time assessment of equipment was made to determine the capital and 

annual costs of items used to harvest and preserve foods harvested for subsistence use (Table 1X-9). 

Since this was the first time for such an assessment, no previous comparable data are available for 

Nanwalek. On average Nanwalek households owned 7.6 different types of equipment with 87.0 percent 

of the use of these items for subsistence purposes. The resulting value of the equipment for subsistence 

purposes was $8,619.07 per household. From the standpoint of equipment sharing, 69.0 percent of the 

households reported borrowing some type of equipment, and 93.1 percent reported lending at least one 

equipment item. Household interviews revealed that a large amount of new equipment was purchased 

by Nanwalek households with money earned on the oil spill clean-up. As might be expected, the items 

IX-5 
with the highest average cost per household were skiffs ($2,139.25) and ATVs or 3- and 4-wheel 

motorcycles ($2,072.59). These two items also incurred the highest annual average operating cost for 

fuel at $25.86 and $166.08, respectively. Among a large number of other equipment items are several 

high-value items. Their description and annual cost per household were as follows: cabins ($447.93), 

guns ($440.80), freezers ($430.24) fishing tackle ($363.61), and smoke house and drying rack 

($311.90). Highway vehicles and boats with inboard motors both appeared in the survey as high-valued 

items, such that even their limited use for subsistence purposes resulted in high costs. 

Finally, as relates to the financial condition of households, respondents were asked to assess 

their overall financial situation since the oil spill, providing a relative rating of “better than, about the 

same, or worse than before the spill” (Table l-103). There were 10.3 percent (three households) which 

indicated their financial situation as better than before the spill. Just half, 48.3 percent (14 households) 

indicated their situation was about the same, and almost one-third (31 .O percent) said their situation was 

worse than before the spill. Three households, 10.3 percent, provided no information. 

1992/93 Study Year 

Although the total number of employment-age persons did not change from 1991/92 (Table IX6). the number of persons employed did increase by 11.6 persons (17.1 percent) (4.4 households; 10.7 

percent). In addition, the total number of jobs held by Nanwalek residents in 1992/93 increased by 37.8 

jobs (41.9 percent). While the mean number of months employed decreased slightly, the percentage of 

persons employed year round increased 54.4 percent. The increase in number of jobs in the community 

during 1992/93 not only appears in the total number of jobs available, but also in the mean number of 

jobs worked per household, an increase over 1991 of 0.50 jobs. Slight increases also occurred in mean 

and maximum numbers of adults employed. 

Several job sectors had substantial increases in the proportion of jobs during the 1992/93 study 

year (Figure 1X-6). The services sector appears to be the area responsible for the majority of growth with 

30.0 percent of the jobs and a 15.0 percent increase over the previous year. Local government noneducation increased by 4.0 percent, commercial fishing stayed about the same (3.0 percent), and federal 

and state government each increased by 2.0 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively. The agricultural, 

forestry, and fishing sector appeared in 1992193 with several jobs in a local fisheries enhancement 

program. Two employment sectors which decreased substantially were manufacturing, down by 12.0 

percent because of the loss of logging jobs, and local government education, down by 3.0 percent. 

Despite an overall increase in jobs in Nanwalek during 1992/93, cash incomes decreased from 

1991 levels (Table IX-IO). Overall, there was a substantial ($6,155.41; 21.5 percent) decrease in the 

average household total income, a $4,452.38 decrease in earned income, and a $1,700.03 decrease in 

other household income. Correspondingly, 1992/93 per capita incomes decreased $1,875.45 overall, 

$1,360.44 in earned cash income, and $515.01 in other income. It is not exactly clear what caused this 

IX-6 
$252,372.06 (21.5 percent) decrease in total community income, but a closer look at employment 

sources might give some answers. 

Among all the sources of cash income, there were some substantial changes in the amounts 

some employer types contributed to the community during 1992/93. One of the most notable decreases 

was in local government which suffered a $103,579.35 loss. Manufacturing, having lost the timber and 

logging project at Koyuktolik Bay, suffered an $87,692.56 (42.4 percent) loss in income. The other major 

loss was in construction which provided $9,096.88 in 1992/93, but over $55,000 in 1991/92. The other 

areas showing losses were government, which decreased by $86,350.21, F.I.R.E. with a $20,000 loss, 

and commercial fishing which lost $6,563.31 total and $160.08 per household. 

The remaining earned income sources increased by varying amounts and accounted for some 

substantial gains. Among those sources showing gains were services, which increased by $1,330.99 

(48.3 percent), and forestry and fishing yielded a $248.79 mean household increase accounted for by the 

sockeye enhancement project. Transportation, communication, and utilities added $161.97 to mean 

incomes, state government added another $262.79 above last year’s amount, the federal government 

added $157.44 more than the previous year, and retail trade added $47.66 to the average household 

income. 

From 11 sources of unearned income (Table IX-l 1) in 1992/93, one less than 1991192, Nanwalek 

households received an average of $5,932.00, and saw a $515.01 decrease from the prior year. Nine 

sources were nearly the same in both years, three sources from the prior year produced no income in 

1992/93, and two new sources (Bureau of Indian Affairs grants and other unidentified) were reported only 

in 1992/93. One source, other, was reported no income amount was given. As in 1991/92, the Alaska 

Permanent Fund provided the largest average amount to each household with $2,832.19. 

Unemployment provided the second largest amount in both years with $1,169.50, but it was $430.00 less 

in 1992/93. Native corporation dividends provided slightly less in 1992/93 with $450.00. Social security 

had the largest loss in 1992/93 at $715.17 and produced only $395.63 per household. 

1993194 Study Year 

By the third year of study, the Nanwalek employment scene had again changed dramatically 

(Table 1X-6). The number of employment-age adults had dropped to 85.2 as a number of households 

had moved away in search of employment. The number of adults employed fell below both previous 

years’ levels, although the percentage of employed adults remained between the two previous years. 

The average number of jobs per person, 1.2 jobs, was comparable to the first year as was the maximum 

number of jobs held per person (three). On average, the number of months employed was 7.4, a slight 

increase over the previous year which was probably a result of the increased influence of permanent 

jobs. The third year showed the highest percentage of workers holding year round jobs (26.8 percent; 

16.8 people), but this is only about one more worker than the previous year (15.4) and twice as many as 

the first year (8.4). 

IX-7 
Household employment characteristics showed a downturn with the fewest households employed 

in three years (32.5). The mean number of jobs held per household also reached its lowest level at 2.3, 

while the average number of adults employed per household equaled 1991/92 levels. 

In 1993/94, the logging industry had completely disappeared from the employment picture (Fig. 

1X-7) as logging companies moved away during the previous year. The entire manufacturing and 

construction sectors dropped out, while the retail trade and F.I.R.E. sectors were nearly zero. 

Dominating the employer categories were the service industries with 31 .O percent of the jobs. Although 

this appears as an increase over the previous year, it was actually 11 fewer jobs than 1992/93, but twice 

as many as the first year. 

Initially, the 1993/94 income picture looked bright in Nanwalek with a 32.4 percent increase in 

total income from all sources to $29,730.80 (Table 1X-12). However, household earned income 

continued to plummet by 21.9 percent in this third year to $13,040.44, while per capita income dropped 

by $561.12 (14.1 percent). Responsible for over half ($7,300.54) the total earned income was 

government, and most of that came from the local school. The services sector contributed one-fifth of 

the earned income, while fisheries, hatcheries, and the oil and gas industry each provided about 10.0 

percent to the total earned income amount. 

Most significant was the amount of money from other income (Table 1X-13) which was nearly 

triple the second year amount and over twice that of the first year at $16,690.37 per household. Native 

corporation dividends contributed the largest proportion (53.9 percent) with $9,001.99 per household and 

$2,357.66 per capita. The majority of this money originated in the Seldovia Native Association’s (SNA) 

(several Nanwalek residents are SNA shareholders) land settlement with the State of Alaska. Additional 

other income sources included the Alaska Permanent Fund with $3,217.37, unemployment ($1,159.07), 

social security and SSI with $539.64 and $649.70 respectively, and several other smaller sources. 

Monthly expenses for food (Table l-102) decreased by 0.6 percent to 16.2 percent of the total 

household income. The median amount spent stayed the same, but the average amount spent 

increased by almost $30.00 while the range in amounts spent spread from $50.00 to $1,450.00. 

In summary, the Nanwalek economy, like Port Graham’s, has dramatically shifted away from 

commercial fishing as its focus to a reliance on short-term and temporary jobs in construction and repair 

of local homes and roads, a short-term logging project, services, and local government for cash 

employment. Unearned income sources such as the Alaska Permanent Fund, Native Corporation 

dividends, social security, and unemployment benefits contributed over one-third of annual household 

income. Interestingly, despite the large cash influx from the oil spill clean-up work and subsequent 

logging work, over three-fourths of the households considered their financial situation the same or worse 

than before the spill. The closing of local fisheries due to low escapements, and the closure of the Port 

Graham cannery have nearly eliminated commercial fishing as an income source. Several setnet permit 

holders in the community have not fished in many years. The only prospect for the return of commercial 

fishing to the immediate vicinity of Nanwalek is the success of a four-year old sockeye enhancement 

IX-8 
project on the English Bay River. The first fish from the project were due to return in 1994, and a 

substantial increase in run size did occur, but not enough to allow a commercial harvest. Also, plans for a 

cold storage facility at either Nanwalek or Port Graham may breathe new life into the fishery as a viable 

income source. In addition, a small amount of timber on nearby Native allotment lands could be sold in 

the next year or two, and might provide a substantial influx of cash to a few households in the 

community. 

RESOURCE USES: 1991192 

Participation in Huntinq. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities, and Use of Resources 

Levels of participation in wild resource harvesting and processing activities were determined for 

the sample population and expanded to the total estimated community population. Individual 

participation levels for the estimated population were determined for the categories of hunting or 

processing any kind of game, fishing or processing any kind of fish or shellfish, trapping or processing 

any furbearer, gathering or processing any plants. Household participation levels were determined for 

each individual resource, and will be discussed in the next section on use and harvests levels. 

For the total 161.2 persons in Nanwalek’s estimated population, there were 145.6 (90.3 percent) 

who hunted, fished, or gathered wild resources (Table 1X-15). An equal percentage (91.2 percent) 

processed at least one wild resource. For individual resource categories: 32.5 persons (20.2 percent) 

hunted game and 50.9 persons (31.6 percent) processed some kind of game; nearly five times as many 

persons, 142.8 (88.6 percent) fished for finfish or collected some kind of shellfish giving this category the 

highest level of participation; exactly the same number processed fish or shellfish; the next largest 

number of persons (137.1 persons, 85.1 percent) gathered wild plants, while a smaller number (132.9 

persons, 82.5 percent) processed plants; no one trapped furbearers, and only 1.4 persons (0.9 percent) 

processed them. 

Table IX-14 provides household participation levels in any use or haWest activity. For any 

resource, 100.0 percent of the households in Nanwalek used and attempted to harvest at least one 

resource. Sharing of resources also showed the same high levels of participation with 100 percent 

receiving and giving. 

Households estimated their annual percentage of meat, fish, and fowl derived from wild 

resources (Table l-104). Slightly over one-third of the households (34.5 percent; 10 households) 

estimated between 1 and 25 percent of their annual consumption was wild resources. Just less than onethird 31 .O percent: 9 households) estimated that 26 to 50 percent was wild resources, while 24.1 percent 

(seven households) estimated the amount to be between 51 and 75 percent. Two households estimated 

76 to 99 percent came from wild foods. No households estimated all their meat, fish, and fowl came 

from the wild, and no households reported that none of their foods was of wild origin. 

IX-9 
This relatively high dependence on wild foods at Nanwalek is in part responsible for the return Of 

the harvest to pre-spill levels discussed below. In addition, respondents reported increased confidence in 

the edibility of the resources, and that in spite of any lingering concerns of contamination, their hunger 

for Native foods was more than they could tolerate and they had to take the risk. 

Sharing of resources within the community also showed similarly high levels of participation with 

100 percent receiving and 100 percent giving (Table 1X-16). As could be expected, most sharing activity 

went on within Nanwalek itself with 90.6 percent receiving and 84.4 percent giving to other households in 

the community. The households that provided information about sharing with other communities 

identified 12 other locations. Contrary to what might be expected, most sharing outside the community 

did not occur with their immediate neighbors in Port Graham, but instead went on with Homer. Just over 

one-third (34.4 percent) of Nanwalek households received resources from Homer, and 9.4 percent gave 

at least one resource to that community. In this case, the large percentage of households receiving 

game from Homer is a result of meat from road-killed moose being sent to the community. Port Graham 

was a source of resources for the second largest group of recipients (15.6 percent), and the community 

to which 12.5 percent gave resources. Not surprisingly, Anchorage was where the largest group (34.4 

percent) gave resources yet no households received from there. Most of this one-way exchange was to 

relatives and friends living in Anchorage and was often in exchange for a place to stay during visits to 

the city. The other communities with which a few Nanwalek residents shared included Seward, Kodiak, 

and places outside Alaska. Six other communities were involved in sharing at levels of one or two 

households exchanging one or two resources, mostly with relatives. 

Harvest Quantities and Composition 

Table IX-14 and Table IX-19 show wild resource harvest and use characteristics for Nanwalek. 

On average, in 1991/92 each household used 21.2 different types of resources, attempted to harvest 

14.9 different types, and harvested 14 types. Resource sharing activities among households involved 

receiving an average of 12.8 different resources, and giving away 9.9 resources. In terms of the 

amounts of edible weight harvested, an estimated total of 41,715.90 pounds of resources were harvested 

by the community. Each household’s average harvest was 1,017.5 pounds of edible food (258.8 pounds 

per capita), and ranged from eight pounds to 3,719.g pounds. 

Data from three previous Division of Subsistence studies can be compared with those of 1991192 

(Fig. 1X-8). Participation and use levels in 1987 were comparable with those in 1991/92, while per capita 

levels were 30 pounds higher in 1987 (Stanek 1990). In 1989, the year of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, per 

capita harvest levels dropped by more than half the 1987 level. Following the spill, harvest levels 

increased to slightly in 1990191 to 181.3 pounds, and nearly reached 1987 levels during 1991/92. In 

terms of the variety of resources used during the four study years, there were 25 different types used in 

1987, half that many in 1989, and a return to near previous levels in 1990/91 and 1991/92. 

IX-1 0 
The following is a discussion of individual groups of wild resources and their levels of use and 

harvest in Nanwalek in 1991/92 (Table 1X-9). Fish, including salmon and non-salmon species, were used 

by 100 percent of the households and harvested by 96.6 percent. The distribution of fish among 

households also involved 89.7 percent which received fish and 93.1 percent that gave fish to other 

households. All fish accounted for 33,572.g pounds of the community harvest (80.5 percent) (Fig. 1X-10). 

The contribution of fish to the household average was 818.9 pounds, and to the per capita total, 208.3 

pounds. 

For salmon, 100 percent of the households used at least one kind, while 96.6 percent attempted 

to harvest salmon, and the same percentage successfully harvested some. Sharing of salmon involved 

72.4 percent of the households which received it and 86.2 which gave it away. Salmon harvesters 

produced a total of 20,241.g pounds for a household mean of 493.7 pounds and a per capita amount of 

125.6 pounds. There was a estimated total harvest of 6,994 salmon by the community. The harvest was 

composed of 3,996 pink, 1,415 coho, 1,407 sockeye, 89 chinook, and 86 chum. 

The methods of salmon harvest used by Nanwalek residents in 1991192 are reported in Table IX21, Table 1X-22, and Table 1X-23. Nearly two-thirds (64.7 percent; 4,527 salmon) of the total salmon 

harvest numbers were taken with rod and reel. In addition, the majority of Nanwalek households (89.7 

percent) used this method. Subsistence gillnet was the other most commonly used method by which 

34.5 percent of the households caught 1,999 salmon, 28.6 percent of the total harvest. Other 

unidentified methods were used by 10.3 percent (three households) to catch 270 salmon (3.9 percent of 

the harvest). One household (3.4 percent) used a dip net to harvest 198 salmon (2.8 percent). 

To preserve salmon in 1991/92, Nanwalek households used nine different methods (Table I104). Although there is no estimate of the quantities preserved by each method, relative percentages of 

households using each method are provided. Also, a detailed description of salmon preservation and 

preparation methods is available in Stanek (1985:141-144). Almost all households interviewed (87.5 

percent), reported freezing as one method, and this usually involved freezing not only fresh fish but also 

other preserved products in order to maintain freshness and extend shelf-life. Just over three-fourths 

(78.1 percent) of the respondents reported using cold smoking and the same percentage used drying. 

Although cold smoking requires extensive drying, the latter is also used separately. Kippering, which 

involves hot smoke curing, was used by 15.6 percent. Salting was reported by 62.5 percent and was 

usually used to preserve king and silver salmon. Pickling was reported by 31.3 percent of the 

households, and canning was used by 43.8 percent. Lastly, fermenting was reported by 34.4 percent of 

the respondents who use this method primarily for making a traditional food out of salmon roe. A few 

people ferment salmon flesh. Several households did not specify any particular preservation method. 

Although several preservation methods could be used in combination to make a single product, on 

average, each household used 4.4 different methods to preserve salmon. 

Non-salmon fish including cod, halibut, flounder, greenling, herring, rockfish, char, and trout were 

used by 100 percent of Nanwalek’s households. There were 86.2 percent which attempted to catch nonIX-1 1 
salmon fish, and 82.8 percent which actually caught some fish. The distribution of the harvest occurred 

among 86.2 percent of the households which received non-salmon fish and 69.0 percent which gave it 

away. There was a total harvest of 13,330.g pounds which yielded a household average of 325.1 

pounds, and a per capita amount of 82.7 pounds. Among all the non-salmon species, halibut accounted 

for the largest portion of the harvest with 5,871.6 pounds (44.0 percent). The Dolly Varden harvest 

produced the second largest amount of non-salmon fish with 4,475.2 pounds (33.6 percent). Two 

species of cod represented the third largest quantity of non-salmon fish with 1,283.5 pounds (9.6 

percent). Flounder produced the fourth largest amount with 462.3 pounds (3.5 percent), while trout was 

fifth with 322.6 pounds. The remaining poundage (318.1 pounds, 2.4 percent) was composed of 

greenling and sculpin. 

In contrast to Port Graham, over two-thirds (68.9 percent) of Nanwalek households (Table 1X-26) 

used rod and reel to catch the majority (57.9 percent; 7,716.g pounds) of their non-salmon fish harvest 

(Table 1X-24; Table 1X-25). Subsistence methods including set gillnet, seine, handline, or longline were 

used to catch 41.4 percent. A small amount of the harvest was caught by ice fishing (0.7 percent) with 

either handline or rod and reel. There was no removal from commercial sources. 

The only game resource harvested by Nanwalek residents in 1991/92 was black bear. Other 

game species which were used included brown bear, goat, moose, and porcupine. In spite of the harvest 

being relatively low, 93.1 percent of the households reported using some wild game products. Threefourths of the households (75.9 percent) reported using black bear, while 34.5 percent hunted, and 13.8 

percent harvested bears. 

Marine mammal harvests included only harbor seal which was taken by 17.2 percent of the 

households. There were many households reporting use of sea lion (51.7 percent). For the two species 

of marine mammals, 72.4 percent reported using them. The harbor seal harvest totaled 1,029.2 pounds 

of edible product. This was only one-fourth the reported 1987 harvest. Respondents attributed the low 

harvest to the scarcity of seals, and near absence of sea lions. One Nanwalek resident reported that 

they hardly see any seals around since the oil spill, saying, “We used to get them in Dogfish Bay. Now 

there’s nothing.” 

Birds and eggs harvested by Nanwalek residents were used by just over half the households 

(55.2 percent). While 41.4 attempted and harvested birds and eggs, 37.9 percent received them, and 

34.5 Percent gave them away. As a category of resources, birds and eggs accounted for an overall 

household harvest at 15.0 pounds, and produced a total community harvest of 616.8 pounds. The 

largest amount of production from birds came from ducks with 429.8 pounds (69.7 percent). The other 

groups of birds harvested were grouse and ptarmigan with 14.8 pounds, and seabirds with 36.8 pounds. 

Egg harvests, all gull eggs, produced 134.0 pounds total harvest (21.7 percent). 

Like Port Graham, one of the most important resource groups harvested by Nanwalek residents 

was marine invertebrates. The importance of this resource is demonstrated in part by the high 

household levels of use (100 percent), and by the level of harvest and attempting to harvest (89.7 

IX-12 
percent each), and also the degree of sharing (79.3 percent receiving and 69.0 percent giving). A total of 

3,929.5 pounds (9.4 percent of the community resource harvest) of invertebrates were harvested by the 

community, providing a household average of 95.8 pounds and a per capita average of 24.4 pounds. 

The relative amounts of invertebrates harvested were as follows: bivalves including clams, cockles, and 

mussels (1,645.l pounds), chitons (1,790.5 pounds), octopus (424.1 pounds), and snails (68.9 pounds). 

Lastly, plants and berries together yielded 2,075.6 pounds for the community, for a household 

average of 43.7 pounds and per capita amount of 11.1 pounds (5.0 percent of the total community 

harvest). Berries made up the largest portion of the harvest with 1,374.2 pounds; plants, greens, and 

mushrooms totaled 450.4 pounds; while seaweed and kelp totaled 251.0 pounds. Not included with 

edible foods were 208.5 cords of wood harvested for heating, smoking fish, and building in 1991/92. The 

use of plants for medicinal purposes was asked in the study, and 79.3 percent of the households 

responded with the use of some type of plant (Table l-108; Table l-109). Although seven groups or 

species of plants used for medicines are listed here, this is not all the plants used by the community, and 

a more complete listing along with their uses can be found in Russell (1991). For all but one group, the 

specific uses most often given were for relief of colds and coughs. Other uses included treatment for 

arthritis, leukemia, and tuberculosis. 

From the standpoint of the overall composition of the 1991192 harvest (Fig. IX-lo), salmon made 

up 48.5 percent, non-salmon fish 32.0 percent, marine invertebrates 9.4 percent, marine mammals 2.5 

percent, plants 4.9 percent, game (1.2 percent) and birds and eggs at 1.5 percent. Compared to 1987, 

the relative composition of the harvest by each category listed above changed considerably in some 

areas. For example, salmon increased by 11.0 percent, non-salmon fish decreased by 5.0 percent, land 

mammals decreased 2.0 percent, and marine mammals decreased by 5.0 percent. Shellfish increased 

slightly (1.6 percent), while birds and plants remained about the same. Looking at the pattern in harvest 

quantities for the four years of measurement, there was a decline immediately after the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill and a recovery in 1990 and 1991/92, although equal or slightly higher levels of harvest compared to 

1987 occurred in only two of seven resource categories (Table 1X-17, Table 1X-18, Fig. 1X-9). 

1991/92 HOUSEHOLD ASSESSMENTS OF CHANGE 

In this study, households were asked to assess changes in their 1991192 overall subsistence use 

levels with their uses of the previous year and the year before the oil spill. The overall assessment for all 

resource categories found just over half the households (57.7 percent) indicated they used less than 

before the spill, and 30.8 percent indicated they used the same (Table l-58) (Fig. 1X-11). Three 

households (10.3 percent) indicated higher use levels, while an equal number (three households) were 

either not in the community, gave no response, or did not know. In the year of the oil spill, 1989/90, 

nearly every household (97.0 percent) repotted lower uses. For comparison with the previous year 

(1990) (Table l-57), 19.2 percent (five households) indicated using less, 50.0 percent (13 households) 

IX-1 3 
indicated using the same, and 30.8 percent (nine households) indicated higher use levels. Three 

households (10.3 percent) were not in the community during 1990. 

Each resource group also received an assessment of change for the year before the oil spill, and 

Nanwalek surveys had the following results: for salmon (Table I-1 0), fish other than salmon (Table l-16), 

marine mammals (Table l-34) and marine invertebrates (Table l-46), between 51.7 percent and 69.0 

percent of the households reported less, between 17.2 percent and 27.6 percent reported the same, 

between 3.4 percent and 10.3 percent reported higher, and one household gave no response; for large 

game (Table I-22) small game and furbearers (Table l-28), birds (Table l-40) and plants (Table l-52), 

between 6.9 percent and 37.9 percent reported less, between 41.4 percent and 69.0 percent reported the 

same, between 3.4 percent and 6.9 percent reported higher, and from three to five households did not 

know or did not respond. 

In comparison with the previous year, Nanwalek households reported the following: salmon 

(Table l-9), other fish (Table l-15) marine mammals (Table l-33), and marine invertebrates (Table l-45), 

between 24.1 percent and 37.9 percent reported less, between 24.1 percent and 48.3 percent reported 

no change, and between 10.3 percent and 37.9 percent reported higher uses; for large game (Table I21), small game and furbearers (Table l-27), birds (Table l-39), and plants (Table l-51), between 6.9 

percent and 17.2 percent reported less use, between 44.8 percent and 72.4 percent reported the same, 

and between 6.9 percent and 24.1 percent reported higher usage. 

In summary, the assessment for change in use responses from Nanwalek households followed a 

pattern based on whether the resources were either terrestrial or aquatic. For example, in the year 

before the spill, water-based resources received the largest number of responses indicating less usage, a 

moderate number of responses indicated the same amount of use, and the least number of responses 

indicated higher levels of use. Land-based resources received the highest percentages of responses for 

the same amount of use during the year before the spill, the second highest percentage of responses for 

less use, and the lowest amount of responses for higher use. In comparison with last year, both land and 

water-based resource groups had very similar grouping of responses. The highest percentages of 

Nanwalek households responded to the same or no change in use level, the next largest percentage said 

they had less use, and the least amount said they had higher use. 

1991/92 DISCARDED WILD RESOURCES 

Harvesters at Nanwalek occasionally find resources which do not appear normal and these are 

usually discarded. In this study 48.3 percent of the respondents (14 households) reported discarding 

resources for a variety of reasons (Table l-107). The groups of resources in which abnormalities were 

found and the percentages of households discarding something from each resource group were as 

follows: salmon (31.0 percent), non-salmon fish (10.3 percent), game (3.4 percent), birds (3.4 percent), 

marine invertebrates (17.2 percent), unspecified resource (3.4 percent). Abnormal appearance was the 

IX-14 
reason the single largest group (55.2 percent) gave for discarding resources. Fear of contamination was 

the other reason given by 13.8 percent. Within the 55.2 percent who listed abnormalities, 31.0 percent 

gave an apparent, nonspecific pathological reason for discarding resources. As to the perceived reasons 

for the abnormalities, most respondents (55.2 percent) did not know the reasons, while 20.7 percent 

thought it was due to oil contamination, and 3.4 percent thought it due to improper handling. Nobody 

reported normal variation or disease as the reason for abnormality. As to whether the abnormalities were 

known prior to the oil spill, 41.4 percent reported they had not heard of the condition before the spill and 

6.9 percent were missing responses. 

RESOURCE USES: 1992/93 

Participation in Huntina. Fishina. and Gatherina Activities 

Overall in 1992193 and 1991192 were essentially the same in the percentages of the population 

attempting to harvest any type of resource, while a decrease occurred among those processing any type 

of resource (Table 1X-15). Within categories, however, more modest changes are evident. For example, 

in 1992/93, 3.3 more persons attempted to harvest some type of game animal and 17.0 more persons 

processed some type of game. This increase in activity is supported by the increased amount of game 

resources harvested. Interestingly, in spite of the slight decrease in the percentage of households fishing 

and processing in 1992/93, there was an increase in the percentage of persons who attempted and 

processed. Plant harvesting remained relatively unchanged, and processing activity declined. 

Although 96.9 percent of the households attempted to harvest salmon, not every household tried 

for every species of salmon (Table 1X-31). The largest percentages of households harvested coho 

salmon (84.4 percent) and sockeye salmon (84.4 percent). Smaller numbers tried for pink salmon (78.2 

percent) chinook salmon (31.3 percent) and chum (31.3 percent). Likewise, for fish other than salmon, 

90.6 percent of the households harvested at least one type of fish and the most commonly harvested 

type were Dolly Varden (81.3 percent), halibut (78.2 percent), and gray cod (53.2 percent) (Table 1X-34). 

When fishermen attempted to catch salmon or other species of fish they selected several 

methods. For salmon, the vast majority selected rod and reel (96.9 percent), but some chose a net (31.3 

percent), a seine (6.3 percent), or a dipnet (3.2 percent). Among salmon species certain types of gear 

were more popular than others. The preferred method of catching chinook salmon was by net (18.8 

percent), a net was also often used for catching chum salmon (12.5 percent). For fish other than salmon, 

most households chose rod and reel (87.2 percent), but they commonly used several other methods for a 

variety of species. 

Harvest Quantities and Composition 

Overall, there was very little change in Nanwalek’s resource use and harvest characteristics from 

1991/92 to 1992193 (Table 1X-14). A slight increase in the 1992193 mean household harvest of 142.2 

IX-1 5 
pounds to 1,159.7 pounds (14.8 percent), or 20.2 pounds per capita (7.8 percent) to 279.0 pounds, will be 

analyzed in the following discussion of the major resource groups. 

Typically, the two resource groups which most often influence changes in harvest levels in 

Nanwalek are salmon and non-salmon fish (Table 1X-17, Table 1X-27). In 1992/93, these two groups 

equalized each other in their effects in that salmon decreased by 4.0 pounds per capita, and non-salmon 

fish increased by 5.7 pounds per capita. Overall, fish increased by only 1.6 pounds per capita. Salmon 

and non-salmon fish remained in similar proportions of the harvest as in 1991/92 (Table 1X-18, Fig. IX12). Interestingly, game (land mammals) and marine mammals together had the most impact on 

changes in overall per capita harvests. Not too surprisingly, however, the two moose taken in 1992193 

increased the game harvests by 11.4 pounds per person above 1991/92 when no moose were taken. 

This amount alone accounted for over half the total per capita increase in game harvests. Marine 

mammals accounted for the remainder of the increase by adding 10.4 pounds per capita to the 1991KJ2 

level. While no Steller sea lions were reported during 1991/92, in 1992/93 there were 6.4 animals or 7.5 

pounds per capita added to the harvest. Harbor seal also added 2.9 pounds per capita. These two 

groups became equal proportions of the total resource harvest at 5.9 percent each. The remaining three 

resource groups including birds and eggs, marine invertebrates, and plants showed no or only very small 

changes in per capita amounts harvested. Although the per capita amounts harvested for these three 

groups were very similar to their 1991/92 levels, their proportions of the total harvest became smaller as 

a function of the increased portions of game and marine mammals. 

Detailed information on methods of harvest for salmon was collected during this study (Tables 

1X-29; Table 1X-30; and Table 1X-31). Basically, the majority of the salmon harvested by Nanwalek 

residents was caught by rod and reel. In 1992/93, three-fourths of the total number of salmon were taken 

by this method, while the balance of the harvest was caught by subsistence setnets. A small portion of 

the harvest was taken with seines. Although the portion of the 1992/93 salmon harvest taken on rod and 

reel was 11.5 percent higher than in 1991/92, this is not beyond normal variations (see Stanek 1989). By 

comparison, the total number of salmon harvested was lower in 1992/93 than in 1991/92, but due to the 

larger catch of coho salmon, the total edible weight harvested was just over one thousand pounds more 

in 1992/93. 

For non-salmon fish (Table 1X-32; Table 1X-33; and Table 1X-34), just over one-half (54.0 

percent) of the 1992193 harvest was taken by rod and reel, while subsistence gear accounted for the bulk 

of the remainder (43.9 percent). These proportions are almost exactly the same as for the previous year. 

The proportion of households using rod and reel to harvest non-salmon fish was 18.6 percent higher. 

The amount by which the 1992/93 household harvest is higher than 1991/92 harvest (42.3 pounds) is 

13.0 percent of the 1991192 average household harvest. A very small amount was taken from 

commercial catches (0.22 percent) (Table 1X-28). 

IX-16 
RESOURCE USES: 1993/94 

Participation in Huntino. Fishino, and Gatherino Activities 

Measured at the household level, essentially all resource use and harvest characteristics 

remained the same as in the previous two years (Table 1X-14, Fig. 1X-8). A slight increase in per capita 

harvests to 304.9 pounds and mean household harvests to 1,164.l pounds continued the three-year 

pattern. Interestingly, the minimum and maximum household harvests increased substantially over the 

previous two years to 123.4 pounds and 5,433.5 pounds respectively. Similar to the first year of the 

study, the percentage of meat, fish, and fowl came from wild resources was estimated to be 1 to 25 

percent for 21.9 percent of the household, 26 to 50 percent for 43.8 percent of the households, 51 to 75 

percent for 28.2 percent of the households, and 76 to 99 percent for 6.3 percent of the households. No 

one said all or none of their annual food came from the wild (Table t-104). 

At the individual level, 91.3 percent of the estimated population (the highest in three years) 

hunted, gathered, or fished for some type of resource (Table 1X-15). Slightly less than that, 89.7 percent, 

processed some type of resource. Although plant gathering received the highest participation level in 

1993/94, this year was that activity’s lowest level in the three-year study. Fishing and fish processing 

received the second highest participation levels at 81 .O percent and 74.6 percent, respectively. Hunting 

and game processing were the third highest in participation levels, while hunting or trapping furbearers 

appeared for the first time 1993/94. 

In their fishing efforts, most Nanwalek households (93.9 percent) continued to use rod and reel 

as the preferred method to harvest salmon (Table 1X-39). In particular, coho salmon, pink salmon, and 

sockeye salmon were fished with rod and reel by 84.9 percent, 75.8 percent, and 81.8 percent of 

households respectively. Chinook salmon and chum salmon were preferably fished with setnets by 30.3 

percent and 21.2 percent of the households, respectively. 

When catching fish other than salmon (tomcod, halibut, and Dolly Varden) rod and reel were 

used by three-fourths of Nanwalek households, but other types of subsistence gear (beach seines, 

handlines, or skates) were also commonly used by 51.5 percent of the households (Table 1X-42). 

Harvest Quantities and Composition 

The mean household harvest of wild resources in Nanwalek for 1993/94 was 1,164.l pounds, 

and the per capita harvest was 304.9 pounds (Table 1X-35). Both estimates are higher than the previous 

two study years (Table 1X-14). The composition of the 1993/94 harvest was about the same as the 

previous year, with only plants and marine mammals changing in their respective ranks (Table 1X-17; 

Table 1X-18; Fig. 1X-13). 

Changes within groups of resources from 1992/93 to 1993/94 included the following: an increase 

in sockeye harvest of over 100 pounds per capita above both previous years; an average increase of 

22.5 pounds per capita harvest of halibut in each of the three years; a tripling of the Pacific tomcod taken 

IX-1 7 
between the second and third years and a 54-fold increase from the first year to the third; a decrease in 

Dolly Varden harvest by half between the second and third years and by one-third from the year one to 

year three; a decrease of just over four black bears from the second to third year, and an increase Of two 

and one-half bears from the first to the third year; one moose was taken in 1993194, whereas two and 

one-half were harvested in the second year and none in the first year; harbor seal harvest decreased by 

two in the third year and was up by ten seals from the first year; Stellar sea lion harvest was Constant in 

the second and third years, whereas none were taken in the first year; migratory bird harvest decreased 

slightly in the third year and was one pound per capita lower than the first year. Essentially no small 

game or furbearers were taken in any of the three years, although several squirrels were harvested in the 

second and third years. Scoters typically make up the bulk of the duck harvest and this held true for all 

three years. Marine invertebrate harvests maintained an almost identical levels over the three years at 

24 pounds per capita with chitons and butter clams sustaining the majority of the harvest in all three 

study years. Lastly, the wild plant harvest varied by only slightly more than a pound between any of the 

three years. Berries and greens were the two main items in the harvest. 

In terms of how most of Nanwalek’s fish harvest was caught during 1993/94, Table 1X-36, Table 

1X-37; Table 1X-38; Table 1X-39; Table 1X-40; Table 1X-41; and Table IX-42 report percentages and 

quantities of the harvest by gear type. The majority of salmon (67.7 percent) were caught on rod and 

reel, and 35.5 percent were caught with some other subsistence method such as setnet or handline. 

Among species of salmon, gear type specializations did occur, for example chinook and chum salmon 

were taken primarily with setnets (78.3 percent and 73.3 percent of the harvest respectively) although 

some rod and reel harvest does occur. Non-salmon fish were caught by gear type similar to salmon, 

however, there is a much stronger specialization for gear type. Most non-salmon fish were caught on rod 

and reel (61.0 percent) while 37.6 percent were caught on subsistence gear (longline, handlines, beach 

seines, or throwlines) and a small amount was caught on commercial gear (primarily longlines). These 

patterns of gear type usage parallel those of previous study years with roughly similar percentages of the 

catch taken by each gear type. 

During two years of this study and in two prior years, after the oil spill, Nanwalek households 

were asked to assess their current subsistence uses relative to before the spill (Fig. 1X-11) and to last 

year. In 1989/90 the majority of respondents (97.0 percent) indicated their harvests were lower, and all 

of those were because of some oil spill-related reason (Stanek forthcoming b). By 1993/94, 66.7 percent 

of respondents indicated lowered harvests (Table l-95), but of those, 11 households (61.1 percent) 

indicated a decrease because of oil spill-related reasons. This was a decrease of 30.0 percent between 

the two years. Among oil spill-related reasons (Table l-98) given in 1993/94, households gave several 

different reasons. The majority of responses (72.7 percent) indicated a decrease in abundance of 

resources, just over one-third (36.4 percent) attribute the lower harvest to concerns about food safety 

conditions (contamination), and 9.1 percent each pointed to their personal economic situation and 

decreased personal effort. Interestingly, the trend in the first three years of comparison did not continue 

IX-1 8 
into the fourth year when there was an increase in the percentage of households indicating lower 

harvests in 1993/94 compared to before the oil spill. In addition, an increased number of households 

said their harvests were higher. 

For individual resource categories between years (Fig. IX-1 1; Fig. 1X-13), all categories of 

resources showed fewer respondents reporting in 1993/94 with lower harvests than before the spill. For 

example, 97.0 percent of respondents reported lower average use levels in 1989 and 66.7 percent of 

respondents reported lower levels in 1993/94 - a decrease of 31.3 percent. Some resources showed 

greater degrees of change than others; non-salmon fish showed the greatest change (51.6 percent). 

Those resources living in saltwater including fish, marine invertebrates, marine mammals, and waterfowl 

were harvested by the highest numbers of respondents. 

DISCUSSION 

Patterns of Wild Resource Uses 

Resource harvest levels have been estimated in Nanwalek during six study years (Table 1X-17; 

Fig. 1X-8; Fig. 1X-9). Overall, harvests during four of the six years ranged from 258.8 pounds to 304.9 

pounds, a 17.8 percent variation indicating considerable stability. Immediately after the oil spill, harvests 

dropped to half their previous “normal” level which was achieved again in 1992193 and 1993194. 

During the three years of this study, Nanwalek harvests were on a modest but steady increase 

from oil spill lows, with per capita harvests increasing from 4.1 percent to 8.4 percent annually (Table IX17). Each year following the spill, confidence in the edibility of wild foods increased. Also, employment 

conditions worsened; for example, in 1993/94 the logging had ended and there were no employment 

replacements. Although several households moved away from the community in search of employment, 

many resident households responded to low employment levels by increasing their harvests of wild foods 

and picking up work in the services and other sectors. 

By 1993/94, the sixth year of study, several observations could be drawn from annual 

comparisons (Fig. 1X-9). Subsistence salmon harvests returned to their pre-spill levels while showing 

modest changes in response to local run size such as varying numbers of pink and coho salmon. In 

1993/94 salmon harvests reached a six-year high (149.4 pounds per capita) as a returning run of 

enhanced sockeye salmon boosted the sockeye harvest above the five previous estimates. For nonSaltnOn fish, an upward trend in harvest continued. Although it has not reached pre-spill levels, 1993/94 

was the highest in five consecutive years, and demonstrated an increased confidence in the safety of 

eating bottomfish. Notably, weather strongly influences effort in this fishery. 

Marine invertebrate harvests continue in a relatively stable trend with little variation in quantities 

of individual species of shellfish. Land mammals and marine mammals showed relatively large 

increases in 1992 harvests. However, the size of individual animals can have a big influence when the 

total number harvested is small, as in this case. Typically, two or three moose are taken by Nanwalek 

IX-1 9 
residents and usually several goats and a number of black bears. Harvests of moose and goats are 

highly dependent on effort in any given year. Permit regulations have strongly influenced moose harvest 

in Nanwalek and Port Graham. 

Bird and egg harvests dropped below oil spill levels in 1992/93, even though they were near prespill levels in 1991/92, and equaled 1990191 levels again in 1993/94. The bird harvest appears quite 

stable, but since it is nearly all waterfowl, it is very dependent on the activities of a few hunters who are 

at the mercy of extreme weather conditions during the late fall and winter months when waterfowl are 

present. 

As mentioned in other descriptions of Nanwalek’s resource use, edible plant harvest focuses 

primarily on berries. Not only is berry harvesting time consuming, berry abundance fluctuates widely 

from year to year. Notably, in post-spill years berry harvests have climbed back to almost what they 

were in 1987. 

The composition of wild resource harvests at Nanwalek (Table 1X-18) shows marked consistency 

over the six year period, despite the dramatic impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In large part this is 

due to the long-established harvest practices, resource accessibility, cultural preferences, residents’ 

affinity with their traditional use areas, and relative abundance of local resources. Notably, elements of 

employment, education, housing availability, and food safety were found in this study to strongly 

influence harvest patterns. In the following section, several additional social and economic factors will 

be discussed in their capacity to influence resource uses. 

Comparisons with other Communities 

The use of non-commercial resource harvests for personal consumption is documented in this 

and other community studies in the Cook Inlet region. Compared to other communities, Nanwalek’s per 

capita harvests during this study were the highest in the region (Table XXIII-4). On average, it also 

surpasses all other communities in the study, except Chignik Lake, in the number of resources used (Fig. 

XXIII-22), the number of resources attempted (Fig. xX111-23), the number of resources harvested (Fig. 

xX111-24), and the number of resources given away (Fig. XXIII-26). The average number of resources 

received by Nanwalek households equals the average number of resources received by households in 

Port Graham, and far surpasses the average number received by Seldovia households (Fig. XXIII-25). 

Comparatively, the percentage of food from wild resources consumed by Nanwalek residents 

during 1991192 and 1993194 was greater in Nanwalek than in either Port Graham or Seldovia (Table I104; Table l-105). Monthly expenses for food as a percentage of total household income in Nanwalek in 

1991/92 and 1993194 (Table l-101; Table l-102) were lower than Port Graham, but higher than Seldovia. 

In Nanwalek, patterns of lowered subsistence uses as compared to before the oil spill were similar to 

patterns in Prince William Sound and Kodiak Island communities (Fig. l-7). 

IX-20 
The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Nanwalek 

Finally, this section discusses selected findings about wild resource use relative to immediate 

conditions and the possible long term effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill and future outer continental 

shelf development for Nanwalek. Essentially, the questions chosen for discussion can be divided into 

three topic areas: respondents’ perception of food safety; respondents’ assessments of their participation 

in subsistence and community activities; and respondents’ predictions of the future conditions of the 

natural and human environments. While the former two topic areas are indicators of social effects of the 

Exxon Valdez oil spill in the past and present, the latter focuses on responses about future OCS 

development. 

Chapter I discussed findings about the safety of eating wild resources which may have been 

contaminated by oil. Clearly, issues of food safety were of primary concern in many communities (Fall 

1991, 1993). Regarding respondents’ perception of food safety, they were asked whether they thought 

they were adequately informed about the safety of eating wild foods after the oil spill (Fig. l-9). Nearly 

two-thirds of the of Nanwalek households responded positively in the first study year. Interestingly, in the 

following two study years positive responses fell by 22.7 percent each year. A similar pattern of 

responses occurred in neighboring Port Graham. In both communities, the Oil Spill Health Task Force 

made concerted efforts to address concerns about food safety by providing bulletins with findings of 

foods testing projects (Fall 1990b:7). 

To further understand community concerns about foods safety, questions were asked about 

resources which were key elements of subsistence harvests. Respondents were asked whether clams 

and seals were safe for children to eat (Table 1X-44; Table 1X-51; Fig. l-4; Fig. l-5). Nanwalek 

households had slightly different patterns of responses for these two resources, but the majority felt 

throughout the three study years that clams and seals were safe to eat. Although responses to questions 

about seal edibility demonstrated a slightly diminishing but continuing concern for safety, responses to 

questions about the edibility of clams showed a heightened degree of concern. Much of this concern 

may be in response to declines Nanwalek residents observed in seal and sea lion populations, and to 

intensified studies to learn about marine mammal health and harvests. But, during the oil spill cleanup, 

Nanwalek workers saw oiled seals and helped clean shellfish beaches heavily coated in crude oil. Also 

of interest is the contrast between Nanwalek and Seldovia in respondents’ feelings about resource 

edibility. Whereas both Nanwalek and Port Graham experienced light oiling on their beaches, Seldovia 

had no oil wash ashore on its beaches and their levels of concern for safety were very low. 

The second category of questions measures current involvement in resource use activities and 

satisfaction with community. Although there appears to be increased dissatisfaction with living in 

Nanwalek over the three years of this study, well over 80.0 percent of respondents liked living there 

either more or the same as before the spill (Table 1X-49; Fig. l-8). Interestingly, in 1991/92, the year with 

the lowest percentage of respondents saying they liked it less, there were the lowest employment levels 

and the highest household and personal income levels. Relative to some other communities in the spill 

IX-21 
area, such as Cordova and Chenega Bay, Nanwalek residents liked living where they did, and it would 

take something even more devastating than an oil spill to cause residents to move away. For instance, 

in 1992193 over 75.0 percent said they would live in the area when they were old, and 73.0 percent said 

they would continue to live in Nanwalek if they were unable to get wild foods because of an oil spill. 

Residents’ participation in political activities may be another measure of their fondness for their 

community (Table 1X-48). On average over the three year study, the majority of people (51.9 percent) 

did not change their views of community leaders as a result of the spill, while the views of about onethird of the respondents did change. The vast majority of residents who responded, over 80.0 percent, 

continue to vote in local and statewide elections. 

It was very clear that participation in subsistence activities by children was dramatically affected 

by the oil spill as reflected by over half of Nanwalek households that responded during all three study 

years (Fig. l-6). On average, more Nanwalek households responded affirmatively than in neighboring 

communities (Port Graham and Seldovia) as well as in other study communities. It is noteworthy that 

high percentages (87.5 percent) of adults in Nanwalek were working on cleanup jobs in 1989 (Stanek 

forthcoming). Of particular interest is that those jobs often kept workers away from the community for 

extended periods. In turn, children were not able to engage in their normal pattern of subsistence 

activities accompanied by their parents. 

In another question measuring the likely effects of the spill, respondents were asked to compare 

current levels of sharing with levels before the spill. Two years following the spill found almost half (48.1 

percent) of households reporting less sharing than before the spill (Fig. l-7) while over half reported the 

same or more sharing. In the third year, almost twenty percent more households reported less sharing 

than before the spill as households mentioned greater independence in resource gathering through 

having more equipment to go out on their own. By the third year, an inexplicable decline of 27.2 percent 

of the households (40.7 percent) reported less sharing. Interestingly, a similar but less pronounced 

pattern of response occurred in Port Graham, Ouzinkie, Kodiak, and Kenai. Nevertheless, a higher 

percentage of Nanwalek households than in any other community, except Tatitlek, reported less sharing 

than before the spill. 

One last measure of current activity levels with wild resource uses asked whether the respondent 

had eaten any wild foods the previous day (Table 1X-43; Fig. l-3). Obviously, this variable is highly 

dependent upon the time of year it is asked. In the case of Nanwalek, the surveys were asked at the end 

Of Winter when wild food reserves were low and spring harvest activities had not gotten into full swing. 

Mindful of the influence of survey timing, the three-year pattern in Nanwalek may reflect unique local 

circumstances encountered in each year. These included poor weather conditions in the first year, 

celebration of the Easter holiday and activities surrounding an elder’s death in the second year, and poor 

weather conditions during a very short survey period in the third year. Despite the effects of survey 

timing and other influences, percentages of Nanwalek respondents having eaten a wild food on the day 

before the survey were some of the highest of all communities. 

IX-22 
The last series of questions examined here deal with the perspective respondents had relative to 

impacts oil development might have on populations of wildlife and the human condition. Predictably, 

Nanwalek respondents echoed their concerns expressed about offshore oil and gas development in the 

1980s (Braund and Behnke 1980:228). As to how outer continental shelf (OCS) development would 

affect wild resources, responses overwhelmingly predicted lower populations (Table 1X-52) of fish (Fig. I10). marine invertebrates (Fig. l-11), marine mammals (Fig. l-13) and birds, especially waterfowl and 

marine birds (Fig. l-14). Understandably, respondents were somewhat less inclined to predict lowered 

land mammal populations, however, their responses were tempered with the knowledge that animals 

such as black bears, and mountain goats utilize shorelines and intertidal areas in search of food during 

certain times of the year. Not surprisingly, Port Graham residents mirrored Nanwalek’s responses about 

impacts to wildlife. 

Nanwalek respondents’ skepticism about impacts of OCS development carried over to their 

predictions about impacts on job availability. Fewer than half (Fig. I-1 5) predicted more jobs would result 

from OCS development in the region. What is more, doubts about job availability increased throughout 

the three-year study, and in the third study year was the second highest of all study communities. On the 

question of job availability, Port Graham respondents held a somewhat more positive perspective about 

job prospects with just over half predicting more jobs as a result of OCS development. 

In addition to the few variables mentioned above, many other elements of the social and 

economic environments were covered by this study. Only time and money have precluded a more 

extensive examination of those factors’ influence upon resource use in Nanwalek. In addition, many 

other unstudied variables such as health, language, and education have still to be factored into the 

resource use equation. 

IX-23 
uogqndod snsua3 

IX-24 
Table IX-l Sample Participation: Nanwalek, 1992, 1993. and 1994 

Interview Goal: 

Households interviewed 

Failed to Contact/Unavailable 

Vacant Residential Structures 

Seasonal Households” 

Non-Resident Household l ** 

Invalid Households and Vacancies 

Total Households Attempted: 

Refusal Rate: 

Non-Perm. HH Rate C’Vacancy Rate”): 

Interview Goal (Percentage) 

u 1 01 U 

01 1 I 0 

; 4i 4i 

3.33% 3.03% 0.00% 

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 households which were not present during the study year 

or which were resident less than the required number of months. 

IX-25 
Table IX-2 Demographic Characteristics of Households, Nanwalek. 

April 1992. April 1993, and April 1994 

Characteristics 1991192 1992l93 1993i94 

Sampled Households 29 32 33 

Number of Households in the Community 41 41 37 

Percentage of Households Sampled 70.73 78.05 89.19 

Household Size 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

3.93 4.16 3.82 

1 1 1 

9 9 10 

Sample Population 114 133 126 

Estimated Community Population 161.17 170.41 141.27 

Age 

Mean 25.02 23.73 26.23 

Minimum 0.50 0.27 0.67 

Maximum 77.46 77.33 79.51 

Median 20.88 18.42 19.69 

Length of Residency - Population 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

17.77 18.88 18.53 

0.50 0.27 0.63 

58.13 61.13 79.51 

Length of Residency - Household Heads 

Mean 26.41 30.15 25.63 

Minimum 0.63 0.63 2.13 

Maximum 58.13 81.13 64.13 

Sex 

Males 

Number 84.83 90.97 79.61 

Percentage 52.63 53.38 56.35 

Females 

Number 76.34 79.44 61.67 

Percentage 47.37 46.62 43.65 

Alaska Native 

Households (Either Head) 

Number 38.17 38.44 33.64 

Percentage 93.10 93.75 90.91 

Estimated Population 

Number 145.62 152.47 125.58 

Percentage 90.35 89.47 88.89 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992.1993, and 1994. 

IX-26 
Figure 1X-2. Population Profile, Nanwalek, April 1992 

I 

60 - 64 t 

Y 

8 40-44 I 

2 - 

5 30-34 

* 20-24 

I lo-14 I 7 

I 1 

o-4 I I 

15 10 5 0 5 10 15 

POPULATION 

0 MALE W FEMALE 

Table 1X-3. Population Profile, Nanwalek. April 1992 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 11.31 13.33% 13.33% 

5-9 7.07 8.33% 21.67% 

lo-14 14.14 16.67% 38.33% 

15-19 5.66 6.67% 45.00% 

20-24 7.07 8.33% 53.33*k 

25-29 4.24 5.00% 58.33% 

30-34 7.07 8.33% 66.67% 

35-39 5.66 6.67% 73.33% 

40-44 2.83 3.33% 76.67% 

45-49 5.66 6.67% 83.33% 

50-54 9.90 11.67% 95.00% 

55-59 1.41 I .67% 96.67% 

60-64 0.00 0.00% 96.67% 

65-69 0.00 0.00% 96.67% 

70-74 0.00 0.00% 96.67% 

75-79 2.83 3.33% 100.00% 

80-84 0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

85-89 0.W O.W% lOO.W% 

90-94 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

95-99 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

100-104 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

Missing 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

11.31 14.81% 14.81% 

8.48 11.11% 25.93% 

7.07 9.26% 35.19% 

14.14 18.52% 53.70% 

5.66 7.41% 61.11% 

4.24 5.56% 66.67% 

8.48 11.11% 77.76% 

4.24 5.56% 83.33% 

2.83 3.70% 87.04% 

4.24 5.56% 92.59% 

1.41 1.85% 94.44% 

2.63 3.70% 96.15% 

0.00 0.00% 98.15% 

0.00 0.00% Ba.l!i% 

1.41 1.85% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% loo.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% 1 00.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

22.62 14.04% 14.04% 

15.55 9.65W 23.68% 

21.21 13.16% 36.84% 

19.79 12.26% 49.12% 

12.72 7.69% 57.02% 

8.48 5.26% 62.28% 

15.55 9.65% 71.93% 

9.90 6.14% 76.07% 

5.66 3.51% 81.58% 

9.90 6.14% 67.72% 

11.31 7.02X 94.74% 

4.24 2.63Ob 97.37% 

0.00 0.00% 97.37% 

0.00 0.00% 97.37% 

1.41 0.88% 96.25% 

2.83 1.75% loO.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

0.00 0.00% loo.W% 

0.00 O.W% 100.00% 

0.00 0.00% lW.W% 

‘OTAL 84.83 52.63% 76.34 47.37% 161.17 lW.W% I 

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

IX-27 
Figure 1X-3. Population Profile, Nanwalek, April IS93 

20-24 

.5 0 5 10 15 

POPULATION 

0 MALE W FEMALE 

I 

Table 1X-4. Population Profile, Namvalek. April IS93 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 

59 

lo-14 

15-19 

20-24 

25-29 

30-34 

35-39 

40-44 

45-49 

50-54 

55-59 

60-64 

66-69 

70 - 74 

75 - 79 

80-84 

85-89 

so-B4 

95-99 

w-104 

Missing 

8.97 

12.81 

10.25 

12.81 

6.41 

3.84 

8.97 

6.41 

5.13 

3.64 

6.41 

2.56 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.28 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.28 

9.86% 

14.08% 

11.27% 

14.08% 

7.04% 

4.23X 

9.86% 

7.04% 

5.63% 

4.23% 

7.04% 

2.62% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

1.41% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

1.41% 

9.86% 

23.94% 

36.21% 

49.30% 

56.34% 

60.56% 

70.42% 

77.46% 

83.10% 

87.32% 

94.37% 

97.16% 

97.16% 

97.18% 

97.18% 

98.59% 

9859% 

98.59% 

98.59% 

98.59% 

98.59% 

lW.W% 

8.97 

11.53 

12.81 

8.97 

7.69 

5.13 

5.13 

6.41 

5.13 

3.84 

1.28 

1.28 

0.00 

0.00 

1.28 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.w 

0.00 

0.00 

11.29% 

14.52% 

16.13% 

11.29% 

9.68% 

6.45% 

6.45% 

8.06*h 

6.45% 

4.64% 

1.61% 

1.61% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

1.61% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

11.29% 

25.81% 

41.94% 

53.23% 

62.90% 

69.35% 

75.81% 

63.67% 

90.32% 

95.16% 

96.77% 

98.39% 

98.39% 

98.39% 

lW.W% 

lOo.W% 

lW.W% 

lW.W% 

lW.W% 

1 W.W% 

lW.W% 

1 W.W% 

17.94 10.53% 10.53% 

24.34 14.29% 24.81% 

23.06 13.53% 38.35% 

21.78 12.78% 51.13X 

14.09 8.27% 59.40% 

a.97 5.26% 64.66% 

14.09 6.27% 72.93% 

12.81 7.52% 60.45% 

10.25 6.02% 86.47% 

7.69 4.51% 90.98% 

7.69 4.51% 95.49% 

3.64 2.26% 97.741 

0.00 0.00% 97.74% 

0.00 o.w% 97.74% 

1.28 0.75% 98.50% 

1.28 0.75% 99.25% 

0.00 0.00% 99.25X 

0.00 0.00% 99.25% 

0.00 0.00% 99.25% 

0.00 0.00% 99.25% 

0.00 0.00% 99.25% 

1.28 0.75% 1 W.W% 

OTAL 90.97 53.38% 79.44 46.62% 170.41 loo.W% I 

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

IX-28 
60-64 

W 

z 50 - 54 

IL 

0 40-44 

2 ;5 30-34 

> 20-24 

lo-14 

o-4 

15 -10 .5 0 

POPULATION 

5 10 

0 MALE n FEMALE 

--I 

15 

Table 1X-5. Population Profile, Nanwalek, April 1994 

AGE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 

NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. NUMBER PERCENT CUM. 

PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 

o-4 5.61 7.04% 7.04% 5.61 9.09% 9.09% 11.21 7.94% 7.94% 

5-9 a.97 11.27% 18.31% 6.73 10.91% 20.00% 15.70 11.11% 19.05% 

lo-14 a.97 11.27% 29.58% 11.21 18.18% 38.18% 20.18 14.29% 33.33% 

15-19 13.45 16.90% 46.48% 7.85 12.73% 50.91% 21.30 15.08% 48.41% 

20-24 3.36 4.23% 50.70% 3.36 5.45% 56.36% 6.73 4.76% 53.17% 

25-29 2.24 2.82% 53.52% 1.12 I .82x 58.1 a% 3.36 2.38% 55.56% 

30-34 6.73 8.45% 61.97% 5.61 9.09% 67.27% 12.33 8.73% 64.29% 

35-39 5.61 7.04% 69.01% 7.85 12.73% 80.001 13.45 9.52% 73.81% 

40-44 4.48 5.63% 74.65% 4.48 7.27% 87.27% a.97 6.36% 80.16% 

45-49 3.36 4.23% 76.87% 2.24 3.64% 90.91% 5.61 3.97% 84.13% 

50-54 5.61 7.04% 85.92% 2.24 3.64% 94.55% 7.85 5.66% 89.68% 

55-59 3.36 4.23% 90.14% 1.12 1.82% 96.36% 4.48 3.17% 92.86% 

60-64 0.00 0.00% 90.14% 1.12 i .a2% 98.18% 1.12 0.79% 93.65% 

65-69 0.00 Q.W% 90.14% 0.00 0.00% 9a.law 0.00 0.00% 93.65% 

70-74 0.00 0.00% 90.14% 1.12 I .82x 1 w.w% 1.12 0.79% 94.44% 

75-79 2.24 2.82% 92.96% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 2.24 1.59% 96.03% 

80-84 0.00 0.00% 92.96% 0.00 Q.W% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 96.03% 

S-89 0.00 0.00% 92.96% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 96.03% 

90-94 0.00 0.00% 92.96% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 96.03% 

95-99 0.00 0.00% 92.96% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 96.03% 

I#- 104 0.00 0.00% 92.96% 0.00 0.00% lW.W% 0.00 0.00% 96.03% 

Missing 5.61 7.04% 1 W.W% 0.00 0.00% 1 W.W% 5.61 3.97% lW.W% 

OTAL 79.61 56.35% 61.67 43.65% 141.27 1 W.W% 

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

ix-29 
Table 1X-6. Employment Characteristics, Nanwalek. 1991/92. 1992/93. and 1993/94 

Characteristics 1991192 1992f93 1993194 

ADULTS 

Total 97.55 98.66 as.21 

Employed 

Number 67.86 79.44 62.79 

Percentage 69.57 60.52 73.66 

Jobs 

Number 64.83 115.31 75.12 

Mean 1.25 1.45 1.20 

Minimum 1 1 1 

Maximum 3 4 3 

Months Employed 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Year-Round 

6.98 6.42 7.36 

1 1 1 

12 12 12 

12.56 19.35 26.79 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Total 41 .w 41 .w 37.00 

Employed 

Number 

Percentage 

35.34 39.72 32.52 

66.21 96.88 67.00 

Jobs per Employed Household 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

2.96 2.31 

1 1 

10 6 

Employed Adults 

Mean 

Minimum 

Maximum 

2.46 

1 

5 

1.92 

1 

3 

2.00 1.93 

1 1 

6 6 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Household Survey, 1992,1993, and 1994. 

IX-30 
Table 1X-7. Community, Household, and Per Capita Income, All Sources and by Employer Type, Nanwalek, 1991/92 

INCOME 

INCOME SOURCE COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources %1,173,213.62 f26,614.97 $7,279.25 

Earned Income S860.162.60 $20.979.58 $5.336.91 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 29.124.14 710.34 160.70 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting. Trapping 29,124.14 710.34 180.70 

Hatchery/Enhancement 19.934.48 466.21 123.68 

Commercial Fishing 9,189.66 224.14 57.02 

Hunting/Trapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Construction 5.5420.69 1.351.72 343.86 

Manufacturing 206.848.81 5.04509 1.28340 

Cannery 0.00 0.w 0.00 

Other Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Logging/Timber 206,846.81 5,045.09 1.283.40 

Transportation. Communications, and Utilities 7.068.97 172.41 43.06 

Trade 19,340.69 471.72 120.00 

Wholesale 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Retail 19,340.69 471.72 120.00 

Finance, Insurance. and Real Estate 49.432.76 1.206.90 307.02 

Services 112.962.07 2.755.17 700.68 

Government 379,914.46 9.266.21 2,357.19 

Federal 846.28 20.69 5.26 

State 1.696.55 41.36 10.53 

Local 377.36966 9.204.14 2.341.40 

Local Government 23,921.38 583.45 146.42 

Local Education 353,446.28 8,620.69 2.192.98 

Unknown 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other Income $313,051.02 $7.63539 $1.942.34 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

IX-31 
Table 1X-8. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Nanwalek, 1991192 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

II Sources $313.051.02 $7,635.39 $1.942.34 

Exxon Claims 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Adult Public Assistance 13.79 7.54623 183.91 46.76 

Emon Damages 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Pension/Retirement 3.45 s.oa9.66 124.14 31 sa 

Longevity Bonus 10.34 16965.52 413.79 105.26 

Social Security 13.79 45.558.07 1.111.17 282.67 

Workman’s Comp./lnsurance 3.45 282.76 6.90 1.75 

Energy Assistance 27.59 3.93024 95.86 24.39 

Supplemental Security Income 3.45 15.268.97 372.41 94.74 

Food Stamps 3.45 848.28 20.69 5.26 

Unemployment 46.28 65.735.72 1 e603.31 407.86 

Native Corporation Dividend 27.59 19,680.w 480.00 122.11 

Dividend/Interest 3.45 3.873.79 94.48 24.04 

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 89.66 128,277.69 3,128.72 795.90 

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 O.QO 

ASRC Elder Trust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992 

IX-32 
IX-33 
w cd 

1 

IX-34 
Table IX-1 0. Community, Household, and Per Capita Income. All Sources and by Employer Type. Nanvvalek. 1992/93 

INCOME 

INCOME SOURCE COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

111 Sources $926641.86 $22.45956 S5.40360 

Earned Income $677.61530 $16.52720 $3-976.47 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 32,76156 799.06 192.26 

Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 32,761.56 799.06 192.26 

Hatchery/Enhancement 30.135.00 735.00 176.84 

Commercial Fishing 2.62656 64.06 15.41 

HuntingiTrapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Construction 9J96.88 221 .aS 53.38 

Manufacturing 119.156.25 2.906.25 699.25 

Cannery 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Logging/Timber 119.156.25 2966.25 699.25 

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 13,709.38 334.36 80.45 

Trade 21,294.38 519.38 124.96 

Wholesale 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Retail 21.29438 519.36 124.96 

Finance, Insurance. and Real Estate 20500.00 5GQ.w 120.30 

Services 167.532.59 4.086.16 983.14 

Government 293.56427 7,160.lO 1,722.73 

Federal 7303.13 178.13 42.86 

State 12.470.83 304.17 73.18 

Local 273.790.31 6.677.81 1.606.69 

Local Government 39962.19 974.69 234.51 

Local Education 233.828.13 5,703.13 1.372.18 

Unknown 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Other Income $24322656 $5932.36 91.427.33 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Household Survey, 1993 

IX-35 
Table IX-1 1. Community, Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Nanwalek, 1992/93 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOLD CAPITA 

ill Sources 

Exxon Claims 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Adult Public Assistance 

Exxon Damages 

Pension/Retirement 

Longevity Bonus 

Social Security 

Workman’s CompJlnsurance 

Energy Assistance 

Supplemental Security Income 

Food Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

Housing Allowances/Off-Base Allowances 

Women, Infants, and Children Program 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care. 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

Other 

0.00 

0.00 

3.13 

0.00 

0.00 

3.13 

6.25 

0.00 

21.88 

3.13 

3.13 

34.38 

25.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

87.50 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

40.63 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

9243.22656 $5.93236 $1,427.33 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

7.68750 187.56 45.11 

16.220.63 395.63 95.19 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

2.862.31 69.81 16.80 

.641.91 15.66 3.77 

512.50 12.58 3.01 

47,949.50 1 ,I6956 281.38 

18,450.W 450.00 168.27 

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 

116.119.69 2.832.19 681.43 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

32.782.53 799.57 192.38 

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 0.06 0.66 

3.13 AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1993 

IX-36 
IX-37 
Table 1X-12. Community, Household, and Per Capita Income. All Sources and by Employer Type, Nanvvalek. 1993194 

INCOME SOURCE 

INCOME 

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA 

All Sources $1 .I 00.039.78 S29.730.80 $7.78664 

Earned Income S462,496.15 %I 3JI40.44 83,415.35 

Agriculture, Forestry. and Fishing 52.977.27 1,431.82 375.00 

Agriculture 1,850.W 5o.W 13.10 

Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 51,127.27 1.381.82 361.90 

Hatchery/Enhancement 46.530.30 1.25758 329.37 

Commercial Fishing 4.596.97 124.24 32.54 

Hunting/Trapping 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mining 56.060.61 1.51515 396.83 

Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Manufacturing 

Cannery 

Other Manufacturing 

Loggingfiimber 

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 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Trade 

Wholesale 

Retail 

336.36 9.09 2.38 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

336.36 9.09 2.38 

Finance, Insurance. and Real Estate 4pO36.36 109.09 28.57 

Services 98.965.52 2,674.74 700.53 

Government 

Federal 

State 

Local 

Local Government 

Local Education 

270,120.02 7.300.54 1.912.05 

43,951.52 1.187.88 311.11 

26,684.85 721.21 188.89 

199.483.66 5,391.45 1.412.05 

31,253.79 844.70 221.23 

168229.87 4546.75 1 .I 90.82 

Unknown AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

Other Income t617543.63 1616.690.37 $4.37129 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

IX-38 
Table IX-l 3. Communrty. Household, and Per Capita Other Income by Source, Nanwalek. 1993194 

Source 

OTHER INCOME 

PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY AVERAGE PER 

REPORTING TOTAL HOUSEHOL 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 

“upplemental Security Income 

?ood Stamps 

Unemployment 

Native Corporation Dividend 

Dividend/Interest 

Child Support 

Rental Income 

Veteran Disability 

Equipment Leasing 

Rental Assistance 

Fishing Permit Leasing 

Per Diem 

Disability 

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Weatherization 

Veteran’s Assistance 

Investments/Stocks/Bonds 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Grants 

General Assistance Grant 

Foster Care 

Inheritance 

Contest Winnings 

Capital Gains 

ASRC Elder Trust 

Supplemental Union Benefits 

Gifts 

Medicare/Medicaid 

Other 

0.00 

18.18 

3.03 

0.00 

3.03 

9.09 

6.06 

3.03 

12.12 

15.15 

24.24 

33.33 

93.94 

3.03 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

90.91 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

18.18 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

$617543.63 fl6.690.37 $4,371.29 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

33.972.73 918.18 240.48 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

0.00 0.w 0.00 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

15.136.36 409.09 107.14 

19.966.55 539.64 141.33 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

1.311.07 35.43 9.28 

24.038.79 649.70 170.16 

9,395.76 253.94 66.51 

42885.47 1.159.07 303.57 

333.07346 9.00199 2.357.66 

AMT UNK AMT UNK AMT UNK 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

11 gJ42.57 3.217.37 842.64 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

15357.24 415.06 108.71 

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 

3.03 3.363.64 90.91 23.81 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1994 

IX-39 
IX-40 
Table IX-l 4. Characteristics of Resource Harvest and Use, Nanwalek. 1991192, 1992/93, and 1993/94 

Study Ye:. 1991 I92 1992l93 1993&l 

lean Number Of Resources Used Per Household 21.17 22.88 22.67 

Minimum 12 6 11 

Maximum 44 46 47 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 8.71 7.18 4.03 

Median 18 22 23 

lean Number Of Resources Attempted To Harvest Per Household 14.90 16.69 16.79 

Minimum 2 2 6 

Maximum 41 44 42 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 12.01 9.17 5.75 

Median 13 15 14 

dean Number Of Resources Harvested Per Household 14.03 16.06 15.64 

Minimum 2 2 6 

Maximum 39 40 40 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 12.48 8.93 5.98 

Median 11 14.5 13 

Aean Number Of Resources Received Per Household 12.76 14.06 13.52 

Minimum 3 2 4 

Maximum 37 38 27 

95 % Confidence Limit (+I-) 11.92 11.28 5.92 

Median 11 12.5 12 

nean Number Of Resources Given Away Per Household 9.90 12.34 12.88 

Minimum 1 0 0 

Maximum 37 30 33 

95 % Confidence Limit (+/-) 16.65 10.98 7.17 

Median 7 11 11 

Aean Household Harvest, Pounds 1 ,017.46 1 ,159.69 1.164.01 

Minimum 8.00 18.75 123.36 

Maximum 3.719.80 4.169.45 5,433.52 

rotal Pounds Harvested 41,715.97 47,547.17 43068.21 

:ommunity Per Capita Harvest, Pounds 268.83 279.02 304.86 

‘ercent Using Any Resource 1w.w lw.w 100.00 

‘ercent Attempting To Harvest Any Resource lw.w lw.w lw.w 

‘ercent Harvesting Any Resource lw.w lw.w lw.w 

‘ercent Receiving Any Resource lw.w lw.w lW.00 

‘ercent Giving Away Any Resource lw.w 93.75 96.97 

slumber Of Households In Sample 29 32 33 

Wmber of Resources Available 115 132 146 

SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Household Survey, 1992. 1993, and 1994 

IX-41 
Table 1X-15. Participation in the Harvest and Processing of Wild Resources, Nanwalek. 

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

Study Year 1991/92 I992l93 1993/94 

rotal Number of People 161.17 170.41 141.27 

;AME 

FISH 

FURBEARERS 

PLANTS 

ANY RESOURCE 

Hunt 

Process 

Fish 

Process 

Hunt or Trap 

Process 

Gather 

Process 

Attempt 

Process 

Number 32.52 3!5.88 40.36 

Percentage 20.18 21.05 28.57 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 50.90 67.91 63.91 

Percentage 31.58 33.85 45.24 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.w 0.00 

Number 142.79 135.81 114.36 

Percentage 88.60 79.70 80.95 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 142.79 117.88 105.39 

Percentage 88.60 69.17 74.60 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 0.00 0.00 5.61 

Percentage 0.00 0.00 3.97 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing 96 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 

Percentage 

Missing 

Missing % 

1.41 

0.88 

0.00 

0.00 

2.56 

1.50 

0.00 

0.00 

4.48 

3.17 

0.00 

0.00 

Number 137.14 146.06 119.97 

Percentage 85.09 85.71 84.92 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.w 

Number 132.90 lM.44 118.85 

Percentage 82.48 70.68 84.13 

Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Missing % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

145.62 

so.35 

147.03 

91.23 

wi of Sub 

153.75 

so.23 

137.09 

80.45 

tence. 

128.94 

91.27 

126.70 

Percent 89.68 

)URCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Div 

Household Survey, 1992,1993. and 1994. 

IX-42 
IX-43 
Table IX-1 7. Subsistence Harvests in Pounds Usable Weight per Person by Resource Category, 

Nanwalek, 1987, 1989, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, and 1993/94 

Salmon 

Other Fish 

Marine Invertebrates 

Land Mammals 

Marine Mammals 

Birds and Eggs 

Wild Plants 

All Resources 

Pounds Usable Weight per Person 

1987 1989 1990191 1991192 1992l93 1993194 

113.3 60.2 91.5 125.6 121.6 149.4 

107.2 30.2 56.4 82.7 88.4 90.1 

18.5 16.0 16.7 24.4 24.8 23.3 

9.0 14.8 1.8 3.1 14.5 8.9 

22.0 13.0 5.4 6.4 16.8 18.6 

4.1 2.5 2.2 3.8 1.7 2.3 

14.7 4.4 7.3 12.9 11.3 12.2 

288.8 140.9 181.3 258.8 279.0 304.9 

Table IX-l 8. Composition of Resource Harvests by Resource Category, Nanwalek, 

1987, 1989, 1990191, 1991192, 1992f93, and 1993194 

Salmon 39.2% 42.7% 50.5% 48.5% 43.6% 49.0% 

,Other Fish 37.1% 21.4% 31.1% 32.0% 31.7% 29.6% 

Marine Invertebrates 6.4% 11.4% 9.2% 9.4% 8.9% 7.7% 

Land Mammals 3.1% lcl.5% 1 .O% 1.2% 5.2% 2.9% 

Marine Mammals 7.6% 9.2% 3.0% 2.5% 6.0% 6.1% 

Birds and Eggs 1.4% 1.7% 1.2% 1.5% 0.6% 0.8% 

Wild Plants 5.1% 3.1% 4.0% 5.0% 4.1% 4 0% 

1987 

Percentage of Total Harvest 

1989 1990191 1991192 1992193 1993194 

IX-44 
? 

n 

3 

eydea md ~q6!a~ alqesn spunod 

IX-45 
2 

I 

8 WWd PI!M 

S663 PUe SpJ!a 

alJ!Jew 

6 

SleuJuJeW pug 

0 

uourles 

9 9 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 d d 0 0 

CD d N 0 03 

5: s E 

7 F T- r 

UOSJad lad Jljf$aM alql?Sn SpUnOd 

IX-46 
IX-47 
b-08 

h 

8 

sa3Jnosau llkj 

-I 

Weld PI!M 

~663 ‘8 SPJ!9 

slewluew auyelly 

IX-48 
E 

P 

- 

IX-49 
~~~w~~~~??????s???8????????8~??????? 

“q:mGq~Qco00000000000000000000000000 

m- m- G- 

;%MMi2%%8888888888888888888888888888E 

D G ti ti ni ci cn c-4 ii l-4 ci d d d d d 6 d d d d 6 d d d 6 d 6 d d d d d d d c ‘R$$gcg”qq% 

9: d d 

IX-52 
IX-53 
Table IX-20. Estimated Amount of Resources Removed from Commercial Harvests, Nanwalek, 1991/92 

No removal from commercial harvests in 1991192. 

IX-54 
IX-55 
IX-56 
IX-57 
IX-58 
IX-59 
IX-60 
w 

E 

m 

n 

IX-61 
E 

F 

P 

d 

al 

2 

2 

K E 

IX-62 
2 

L 

i 

: 

IX-63 
N- &- .-- .= 

IX-64 
9 9 7 oo*o*- ooooooooooooooooomooomo~~~.~.~a 

3) 0 m 6 d d d cd 6 d 6 d d 6 d d d d d d 6 d d d d d cd d d d cd d $ k t=; r-J b CaB 

IX-65 
IX-66 
IX-67 
IX-68 
IX-69 
I? ? 8 te R 8 8 

d 

8 d 

8 d 

5: ni 

8 

d 

8 

d 

8 

d 

IX-70 
IX-71 
IX-72 
IX-73 
IX-74 
I: 

d 

a 

f ii 
888 rj ni 0. “888%88888a;x~553sx?Q???????g?5s d 6 d 6 d I5 d d d 6 b’ ,’ 0. WV) ~oooooooooooooc 

IX-76 
l- 

.E 

C 

388888888888888888888882?8t?8i%3tp8EGs 

5 d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d f”““cJ$ dc&ddddodtidd 

IX-77 
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c-4 7 .y -. 0, -. 0. c-j 0.7 q 9 9 cq q 0.9 cq q 9 q q q 0. cq q q q 

,~dddddddd~~cdwowowomomooooooooooooooooooo 

w 

IX-78 
IX-79 
IX-80 
IX-81 
BY 5- 

z 

$2 

vi 

W,9 

5 

-0 

$$ 

d 

f: 

5 ii; v) 

s 

888 

d 6 0. 

888 

0. d ci 

888 

ddd 

888 

ddd 

888 

d d d 

888 

d d d 

888 

d d d 

888 

ddd 

888 

d d d 

888 

6 d d 

888 

ddd 

888 

d d d 

888 

d 6 6 

888 

d d d 

IX-82 
IX-83 
IX-84 
IX-85 
IX-86 
88888888888888888 ddddddddddddddtidd 

98888888888888888 75viddd~ddddddddddd 

IX-87 
IX-88 
IX-89 
IX-90 
. 

% 

x 

w 

7; 

2 

+-+-+ 

IX-91 
IX-92 
;--;--; 

P 

IX-93 

i--i ,--+ ; 

. . 

8 

z 

IX-95 
x 

i-i--+ 4 

IX-96 
A-+ 

IX-97 
IX-98 

IX-1 00 



IX-I 04 

IX-106 



. 

G 

4 Ia 

. Nt% . -2 ,,x ,2! 

. . . N” 

+--;-.; + 
-? 

I 

-+ 

-+ 
IX-112 
8 

-+ 

U 

+-+-+ + 2 

. . . . 

IX-113 
3 

e 

e .; 

. . 

z 

2 

I 

I 

+-+ + 

I I 

+-+ + 

I 

I-. 

IX-116 
+ 
f 

0 

G 

2 

0 

8 
k-i-+ ; 

IX-119 

+-+ 

IX-121 
IX-122 

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.