Social and Economic Assessment of Major Oil Spill Litigation Settlement 

 - Final Baseline Report - 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

Contract Number 0103CT72619 

by 

Impact Assessment, Inc. 

2166 Avenida de la Playa, Suite F 

La Jolla, California 92037 

iai@san.rr.com 

impactassessment@ec.rr.com 

November 2010 
Ms. Chris Campbell November 15, 2010

Sociocultural Specialist, COTR 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

Alaska OCS Region 

Dear Ms. Campbell: 

We are pleased to submit this final baseline technical report for the project titled “Social and 

Economic Assessment of Major Oil Spill Litigation Settlement.” The report is submitted as specified 

under Contract Number 0103CT72619, which calls for in-depth and long-term examination of major 

oil spill litigation and settlement. 

The attached report describes the rationale used to guide the overall project, the nature of the case 

study approach on Kodiak Island, and the nature of the database that has been developed to enable 

long-term monitoring and analysis of litigation and settlement processes associated with the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill (EVOS). Such research, monitoring, and analysis are in keeping with BOEMRE’s 

proactive interest in documenting and planning for beneficial and problematic implications of oil and 

gas development on the nation’s Outer Continental Shelf. 

The attached final baseline report will be followed by a final project report early in 2011. The final 

report will include extensive analysis of the effects of the EVOS settlement, and summary 

information of utility to BOEMRE and other agencies involved in the management of natural 

resources available along the nation’s Outer Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone. 

It has been a great pleasure to participate in this project and to contribute to the BOEMRE mission to 

further the base of knowledge needed to effectively administer development of oil and gas resources 

along the Outer Continental Shelf of Alaska and elsewhere in the United States. We wish to express 

our sincere thanks for your diligent oversight of this important project. 

Sincerely, 

Edward W. Glazier, Ph.D. John S. Petterson, Ph.D. 

Principal Investigator President and Co-Principal Investigator 

Impact Assessment, Inc.

2166 Avenida de la Playa, Suite F 

La Jolla, California 92037 
i

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

This study was funded by the Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. 

 Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., under Contract Number 0103CT72619. 

 This report does not, however, necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau, nor does mention of 

 trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the many researchers and research participants who contributed their time and 

energy to this important project. It is our hope that their efforts will enhance understanding and 

mitigation of any deleterious human effects of oil spills or related litigation and settlement 

processes as these may affect communities in the United States and around the world. 

We also thank the following researchers and reviewers for their gracious contributions: 

Courtney Carothers, Consulting Social Anthropologist, University of Washington; Lee Huskey, 

Consulting Economist, University of Alaska at Anchorage; William Nebesky, Peer Review 

Economist, State of Alaska, Division of Oil and Gas; Libby Stevens, Consulting Human 

Geographer; Stefanie Carlson, Consulting Data Analyst, State of Alaska, Commercial Fisheries 

Entry Commission; Paulo Morais, Consulting Marine Policy Specialist; Lance Kaufman, 

Consulting Demographer; Gregory Button, Consulting Public Health Specialist, University of 

Tennessee; Janet Cohen, Consulting Field Anthropologist, National Park Service; Rachel Mason, 

Consulting Field Anthropologist, National Park Service. 
iii

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1 

 1.1 Administrative Background ...........................................................................................1 

 1.2 Study Background ..........................................................................................................2 

 1.3 Project Rationale and Parameters of the Settlement Award ..........................................4 

 1.4 Principle Goal and Objectives .......................................................................................6 

 1.5 Overview of Research Hypotheses ................................................................................7 

 1.6 General Methodological Approach ................................................................................8 

 1.7 Project Phasing and Component Methods ...................................................................10 

 1.8 Intent and Organization of this Interim Report ............................................................11 

2.0 Overview of Study Area ........................................................................................................12

 2.1 Physical Environment and Demographic Setting ........................................................12 

 Overview ................................................................................................................12 

 Climatic Factors .....................................................................................................14 

 Oceanography and Indicators of Fisheries Productivity ........................................14 

 2.2 A Brief Social History of Kodiak Island ......................................................................15 

Overview of a Complex Culture ............................................................................15 

 On The Significance of Alutiiq Heritage ...............................................................16 

 European and Euro-American Influences through Fishing ...................................17 

 Evolution of Local Government ............................................................................18 

 Overview of Land Holdings ...................................................................................18 

 Historic Disasters ...................................................................................................20 

 2.3 Overview of Select Conditions and Trends: 1940-Present ..........................................20 

General Demographic Trends ................................................................................20 

 Trends in Marine Fisheries ....................................................................................21 

 Trends in Fishing Activities among Alaska Natives..............................................23 

 Transportation Services and the Aerospace Industry .............................................24 

 The Increasing Importance of Tourism ..................................................................24 

 Kodiak’s Public Sector ..........................................................................................24 

 2.4 An Overview of Kodiak and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill ............................................25 

 Clean-up and Mitigation ........................................................................................25 

 Select Commercial Fisheries Effects .....................................................................26 

 Effects on Subsistence Practices ............................................................................27 

 Initial and Ongoing Litigation ...............................................................................28 

 The EVOS Land Trust Process ..............................................................................29 

 Social Remediation ................................................................................................29 

3.0 Overview of the Settlement Baseline and Monitoring Framework ...................................30 

 3.1 Analytical Focus ..........................................................................................................30 

 3.2 Rationale and Methodology for Local and Regional Baseline Assessment ................31 

 Key Economic Principles Used in the Study .........................................................31 

 Specific Hypotheses ...............................................................................................32 

 The Export-Base Model .........................................................................................32 

 Sequence of Approach ...........................................................................................34 
iv

 3.3 Review of Socioeconomic Conditions for Kodiak Island Borough and its Communities ...34 

Principal Formal Economic Sectors and Milestone Events ...................................34 

 Income....................................................................................................................36 

 Labor Force and Employment ...............................................................................37 

 Sources of Income ..................................................................................................39 

 Additional Key Indicators ......................................................................................41 

 Assessing Trends in Subsistence Activities ...........................................................43 

 Summary ................................................................................................................46 

4.0 Support Sector Earnings and Employment Trends ...........................................................48 

 4.1 Economic Sectors Defined ...........................................................................................48 

 Earnings by Major Sector ......................................................................................48 

 4.2 Employment by Major Sector ......................................................................................51 

 4.3 Seasonality of Employment .........................................................................................53 

 4.4 Employment in Seafood Harvesting ............................................................................56

 4.5 Trends in the Entry and Departure of Business Establishments in the Region ...........58 

 4.6 Support Sector Employment ........................................................................................60 

 4.7 Wage and Salary Earnings ...........................................................................................61 

5.0 Investment and Participation in the Seafood Industry ......................................................63 

 5.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................63 

 A Changing Salmon Market ..................................................................................63 

 Rationalization ........................................................................................................64 

 5.2 Trends in Participation and Production in the Kodiak Salmon Fishery .......................65 

 5.3 The Kodiak Groundfish Fishery ..................................................................................69 

 5.4 Effort and Production among Resident Commercial Harvesters .................................71 

 5.5 Community-Level Effort, Production, and Earnings ...................................................78 

 Kodiak City .............................................................................................................78 

 Larsen Bay ..............................................................................................................80 

 Akhiok.....................................................................................................................82 

 5.6 Participation of Kodiak Residents in KMA-Specific Salmon Fisheries .....................84 

 5.7 Residency and Permit Ownership ................................................................................86 

 5.8 Forecast of Patterns of Ownership Proportions ...........................................................94 

6.0 Labor Supply Trends and Employment Decisions .............................................................96 

 6.1 Engaging in the Labor Force ........................................................................................96 

 Decision-making ....................................................................................................96 

 Increased Affluence ...............................................................................................96 

 Alternatives to and Persistence in the Commercial Fishing Industry ....................97 

 New Options for Fishermen ...................................................................................97 

 6.2 Overall Trends in Employment ....................................................................................98 

 6.3 Regional Employment Forecast .................................................................................100 

 6.4 Temporal Allocation of Labor ...................................................................................101 
v

7.0 Patterns of Population Change in the Kodiak Region ......................................................104 

 7.1 Economic and Demographic Conditions and Patterns of Migration .........................104 

 Population Structure, Migration, and Population Size.........................................104 

 Migration and the Attractions of Economic Opportunity ....................................104 

 Subsistence Practices and Migration ...................................................................105 

 7.2 Relevant Baseline Conditions ....................................................................................106 

 Stalled Economic Growth ....................................................................................106 

 Migration and Employment .................................................................................108 

 Population Structure and Migration .....................................................................108 

 Ethnic-Racial Ancestry and Demographic Change .............................................109 

8.0 Community-Level Factors and Effects ..............................................................................111 

8.1 Economics of Population Change ..............................................................................111 

 Diminishing Population Size in the Villages .......................................................111 

 Economic Challenges ...........................................................................................113 

 8.2 Recent Trends of Participation in the Harvest Sector ................................................114 

 8.3 Village-Level Participation in Subsistence Activities ...............................................114 

 Recent Trends in Subsistence Participation and Production ................................114 

 Sharing and Reciprocity .......................................................................................118 

9.0 Summary and Interim Conclusions ...................................................................................120 

 9.1 Summary Economic Overview ..................................................................................120 

 9.2 Trends in Regional Employment and Earnings .........................................................122 

 9.3 Trends in Seafood Industry ........................................................................................123 

 Overview ..............................................................................................................123 

 The Indicative Case of Akhiok ............................................................................124 

 Participation of Residents in Kodiak Limited Entry Salmon Fisheries ...............125 

9.4 Population Change and other Demographic Factors .................................................126 

9.5 Village-level Factors and Conditions ........................................................................127 

9.6 Subsistence Practices and the Potential Effects of the Settlement .............................128 

9.7 Considerations for Project Phase Two .......................................................................130 

9.8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................130 

References ...................................................................................................................................134 

Appendix A: Review of Amoco Cadiz and Prestige, International Policy ..................................141 

Appendix B: List of Archival Sources for Key Monitoring Variables ........................................169 

Appendix C: Project Poster from Alaska Marine Science Symposium 2006 ..............................169 
vi

List of Figures

 

Figure 3-1 Kodiak Island Borough Population and Per Capita Income: 1969-2004 ....................36 

Figure 3-2 Exported Annual Total Earnings by Place of Work: 1969-2003 .................................37 

Figure 3-3 Annual Averages in Labor Force Participation & Employment Counts: 1990-2004 ..38 

Figure 3-4 Size of the Labor Force by Month with Trend line ......................................................38 

Figure 3-5 Seasonal Index for Kodiak Island Borough Labor Force: Jan 2000-Sept 2005 ...........39 

Figure 3-6 Composition of Personal Income: 1969 to 2003 ..........................................................40 

Figure 3-7 Proportional Amounts in Components of Unearned Income ......................................40 

Figure 3-8 Per Capita Total Real and Personal Property Values: 1996-2005 ..............................41 

Figure 3-9 Residential Building Permits & Total Construction Cost: 1999-2004 ........................42 

Figure 4-1 Annual Earnings by Place of Work: 1969-2003 ..........................................................49 

Figure 4-2 Annual Earnings by Place of Work (Export-Base Model Breakdown): 1990-2003 ........49 

Figure 4-3 Average Monthly Employment: January 1997 – March 2005 .....................................52 

Figure 4-4 Seasonal Indices for Monthly Employment by Major Sector ...........................................53 

Figure 4-5 Seasonal Indices for Seafood Processing Employment: 1997-2002 and 2003-2005 ......54 

Figure 4-6 Reiterated Monthly Employment in Support, Basic Non-Fish, and Government: 1997-02 ....55 

Figure 4-7 Reiterated Monthly Employment in Seafood Mnfrg: 1997-2002 and 2003-05 ..............55 

Figure 4-8 Average Monthly Employment Estimates for Harvest Sector: 2000-2004 .................57 

Figure 4-9 Average Monthly Employment in Seafood Harvest by Major Species: 2000-2004 ....57 

Figure 4-10 Monthly Employment by Major Sector: January 2000–December 2004 ..................58 

Figure 4-11 Forecast of Average Monthly Support Employment: April 2005–December 2006 ......60 

Figure 4-12 Average Monthly Wages on Kodiak, by Sector: 1997-2005 ....................................62 

Figure 5-1 Total Salmon Landings, Kodiak Management Area: 1979-2005 ................................65 

Figure 5-2 Total Salmon Landings and Ex-vessel Value: 1970-2005 ...........................................67 

Figure 5-3 Annual Salmon Landings per Fished Permit by Gear Type: 1970-2005 .....................67 

Figure 5-4 Active Salmon Permits by Type of Gear: 1975-2005 ..................................................68 

Figure 5-5 Active Salmon Permits and Ex-vessel Value across All Type of Gear .......................69 

Figure 5-6 Alaska Pacific Cod Landings and Ex-Vessel Value: 1997-2004 .................................70 

Figure 5-7 Monthly Range of Groundfish Landings for the Port of Kodiak: 2002-2004 .......................71 

Figure 5-8 Landings and Earnings for Kodiak Residents, All Fisheries: 1980-2004 ....................72 

Figure 5-9 Effort and Production per Resident Permit, All Fisheries: 1980–2004 .......................73 

Figure 5-10 Landings and Earnings for Resident Groundfish Permit Holders: 1980-2004 ..........74 

Figure 5-11 Effort and Production per Resident Permit, Groundfish Fisheries: 1980–2004 ........74 

Figure 5-12 Landings and Earnings for Resident Crab Permit Holders: 1980-2004 .....................75 

Figure 5-13 Effort and Production per Resident Permit, Crab Fisheries: 1980–2004 ...................75 

Figure 5-14 Landings and Earnings for Resident Halibut Permit Holders: 1980-2004 ................76 

Figure 5-15 Effort and Production per Resident Permit, Halibut Fisheries: 1980–2004 ...............76 

Figure 5-16 Landings and Earnings for Resident Salmon Permit Holders: 1980-2004 ................77 

Figure 5-17 Effort and Production per Resident Permit, Salmon Fisheries: 1980-2004 ...............77 

Figure 5-18 Commercial Permits Issued and Fished by Residents of Kodiak, All Fisheries: 1980-2004 ..78 

Figure 5-19 Landings and Earnings for Residents of Kodiak City, All Fisheries: 1980-2004 ................79 

Figure 5-20 Effort and Production per Permit for Residents, All Fisheries: 1980–2004 ........................79 

Figure 5-21 Commercial Permits Issued and Fished for Larsen Bay, All Fisheries: 1980-2004 ..........80 

Figure 5-22 Landings and Earnings for Residents of Larsen Bay, All Fisheries: 1980-2004 .................81 

Figure 5-23 Effort and Production per Residents of Larsen Bay, All Fisheries: 1980–2004 .................81 
vii

Figure 5-24 Commercial Permits Issued and Fished, Akhiok, All Fisheries: 1980-2004 .............82 

Figure 5-25 Landings and Earnings for Residents of Akhiok, All Fisheries: 1980-2004 .............83 

Figure 5-26 Effort and Production per Residents of Akhiok, All Fisheries: 1980–2004 ..............83 

Figure 5-27 Proportion of Resident Fishers, Permits, and Landings: 1980–2004 .........................84 

Figure 5-28 KMA Salmon Gross Earnings, Resident vs. Non-Resident: 1980-2004 ...................85 

Figure 5-29 Ownership of KMA Limited Entry Salmon Permits by Resident Status: 1975-2004 ........87 

Figure 5-30 Ownership of KMA Limited Entry Salmon Permits by Resident Status (%): 1975-2004 ....87 

Figure 5-31 In- and Out-Migration/Ownership of KMA Salmon/Roe Herring: 1975-2004 ...................89 

Figure 5-32 Transfer of KMA Salmon and Roe Herring Ltd Entry Permits: 1975-2004..............90 

Figure 5-33 Patterns of Ownership of Salmon Purse Seine Fishery Ltd Entry Permits: 1975-2004 ......90 

Figure 5-34 Landings, Earnings, and Value of Permits, KMA Salmon Purse Seine Fishery ..................91 

Figure 5-35 Patterns of Ownership, KMA Salmon Set Net Ltd Entry Permits: 1975–2004 ...................92 

Figure 5-36 Landings, Earnings, and Value of Permit, KMA Salmon Set Gillnet Fishery: 1975–2004 ..92 

Figure 5-37 Patterns of Ownership, KMA Ltd Entry Salmon Beach Seine Permits: 1975-2004 ............93 

Figure 5-38 Patterns of Ownership, KMA Salmon Roe & Herring Seine Permits: 1975-2004 .............93 

Figure 5-39 Patterns of Ownership, KMA Ltd Entry Salmon Roe Gillnet Permits: 1975-2004 ............94 

Figure 5-40 Forecasts of Ownership Patterns for KMA Limited Entry Permits: 2005-2010 ..................95 

Figure 6-1 Labor Force Participation Rate Forecast for Kodiak Island Borough: 2005-2007 ....101 

Figure 6-2 Seasonal Nature of Employment in Kodiak Island Borough: 1990-2004 ..................102 

Figure 8-1 Descriptive Ratios Indicating Involvement in KMA Subsistence Salmon Fisheries ............117 

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Matrix of Shares for Signatory Plaintiffs across Affected Region ..................................5 

Table 1-2 Matrix of Shares for Plaintiffs in Oiled Fisheries Categories: Kodiak ...........................6 

Table 2-1 Population Figures for Kodiak Island Communities and Borough: 1940-2005 ............20 

Table 2-2 Licensed Participation in Commercial and Sport Fishing: Kodiak Island: 2000 ..........22 

Table 3-1 Components of Unearned Income: 1980-2003 ..............................................................39 

Table 3-2 Residential Building Permits: 1999-2004 .....................................................................42 

Table 3-3 Locally Assessed Taxes, Kodiak Island Borough: 1998-2004 ......................................43 

Table 4-1 Descriptive Statistics for Annual Earnings by Sector: 1990-2003 ................................50 

Table 4-2 Summary Statistics for Average Monthly Employment ..............................................52 

Table 4-3 Entry and Exit of Kodiak Island Borough Business Establishments: 2002-2005 .........59 

Table 4-4 Support Employment Forecast: April 2005 – March 2007 ...........................................61 

Table 5-1 Summary of Annual Salmon Landings by Species, KMA: 1990-2005 ........................65 

Table 5-2 Average Number of KMA Salmon Permits Held by Residence Status and Time Period ........88 

Table 6-1 Employment Trends for Kodiak Island Borough: 1980-2004 .......................................99 

Table 6-2 Structure of the Kodiak Island Borough Workforce: 1980-2000 ...............................100 

Table 6-3 Rates of Unemployment and Participation in the Labor Force, Kodiak Island: Year 2000 ...100 

Table 6-4 Annual Allocation of Work Effort in Kodiak Island Borough: 1990 and 2000 ..........102 

Table 6-5 Distribution of Employment across Sectors in Kodiak Island Borough: 1980-2000 ...........103 

Table 7-1 Kodiak Island Borough Population Figures and Rates of Change: 1980-2004 ..........106 

Table 7-2 Components of Population Change for Kodiak Island Borough: 1970-2000 .............107 

Table 7-3 Population Mobility Figures for Kodiak Island Borough: 1980-2000 ........................108 

Table 7-4 Population Structure in Terms of Age and Gender, Kodiak Island Borough: 1990-2000 ......109 
viii

Table 7-5 Ethnic-Racial Composition of the Population for Kodiak Island Borough: 1980-2000.........110 

Table 8-1 Population Figures for the Outlying Communities on Kodiak Island: 1980-2004 ......112 

Table 8-2 Proportion of Alaska Natives Residing in Kodiak Communities: 1980-2000 ............112 

Table 8-3 Patterns of Income in Kodiak Villages, per the Decennial Census: 1980-2000 .........113 

Table 8-4 Families and Individuals Identified as Living below Poverty Level: 1990 and 2000 ...........113 

Table 8-5 KMA Permits, Licensed Crew, and Licensed Guides in the Villages: 2000-2005 .....114 

Table 8-6 Reported Subsistence Harvest of Salmon in the Kodiak Management Area: 1980-2004 ......116 

Table 8-7 Consumption, Use, and Harvest of Subsistence Foods in Kodiak Communities .................... 117 

Table 8-8 Participation in Marine and Terrestrial Subsistence Pursuits, Kodiak Communities ............118 

Table 8-9 Harvesting and Sharing Subsistence Foods on Kodiak, by Community: 1990s and 2003 .....119 

Table 8-10 Additional Notes of Relevance to Subsistence Activities in the Villages .................119 

List of Maps

Map 1-1 Spatial Extent of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill ....................................................................2 

Map 2-1 Circulation Patterns around Kodiak and the Gulf of Alaska ...........................................11 

List of Acronyms

ABS American Bureau of Shipping 

ADCED Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development 

ADOLWD Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

AIOC Amoco International Oil Company 

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

ATC Amoco Transport Company of Monrovia 

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BMA Bahamas Maritime Authority 

BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

BP British Petroleum 

CEDRE Centre de Documentation, de Recherche et d' Expérimentations 

CFEC Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 

CLC Civil Liability Convention 

COPE Compensation for Oil Pollution 

CPSS Common Policy on Safe Seas Communication 

CRISTAL Contract Regarding an Interim Supplement to Tanker Owner Liability for Oil Pollution 

DWT Deadweight 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EEC European Economic Community 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EC European Commission 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EP European Parliament 

ESMA European Agency for Maritime Safety 

ESP Environmental Studies Program 

EU European Union 

EVOS Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 
ix

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration 

GDP Gross Domestic Product 

GRT Gross Registered Tonnage 

IACS International Association of Classification Societies 

IAI Impact Assessment, Inc. 

IFQ Individual Fisheries Quota 

IFREMER French Maritime Research Institution 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

IMCO Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization 

IOPC International Oil Pollution Compensation 

IOPCS International Oil Pollution Compensation Supplementary 

IRA Indian Reorganization Act 

ISER Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska 

ITOPF International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited 

KMA Kodiak Management Area 

LOF Lloyd’s Open Form of Salvage Agreement 

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NAICS North American Identification Classification System 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NGO Non-Governmental Organizations 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

NPS National Park Service 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

OPA 90 Ocean Pollution Act of 1990 

PIL Petroleum Insurance Limited 

POLMAR La Pollution des Eaux Marines 

SAI Standard Oil Company of Indiana 

SASEMAR La Sociedad Española de Salvamento 

SDR Special Drawing Right 

SF 2003 Supplementary Fund 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea 

STCW Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping 

TOVALOP Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement concerning Liability for Oil Pollution 

TSD Time-Series Decomposition 

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

VLCC Very Large Crude Carriers 
1

- Social and Economic Assessment of Major Oil Spill Litigation Settlement - 

1.0 Introduction

The following pages constitute the final baseline report for the ongoing research project titled 

“Social and Economic Assessment of Major Oil Spill Litigation Settlement.” The project has 

been developed and sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) Alaska OCS Region1 to further the base 

of knowledge needed to effectively administer development of oil and gas resources along the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of Alaska. 

The specific intent of the research described herein is to enable comprehensive assessment of the 

social and economic effects of major oil spill litigation and disbursement of compensatory and 

punitive damage awards in areas affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS). A case study of 

litigation and settlement processes on Kodiak Island is being used to generate information and 

policy recommendations of utility for management of oil and gas resources in Alaska and 

elsewhere in the United States and abroad. 

The project is being conducted by Impact Assessment, Inc. (IAI). IAI specializes in social 

science research applications in relation to human activities on the OCS and along the coastal 

zone of the U.S. The descriptive and analytical materials produced for purposes of this project 

are specified under Solicitation No. 0103RP72619 and Contract No. 0103CT72619. These 

materials are intended as useful resources for BOEMRE and other agencies mandated to enable 

safe and responsible oil and gas development and transportation throughout the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United States. 

1.1 Administrative Background 

The BOEMRE is responsible for administering oil and gas development on the OCS per 

stipulations in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 19532

 (OCSLA). The agency is also 

responsive to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which calls for use of 

natural and social science to contribute to decisions associated with major environmental policy 

around the United States. Both NEPA and OCSLA authorize BOEMRE to conduct and sponsor 

studies of coastal and marine environments potentially affected by oil and gas industry activities 

occurring on the OCS. These environments include critically important human processes that are 

amenable to social scientific inquiry and that must be addressed through programmatic research 

and analysis. 

In keeping with these mandates, BOEMRE Alaska OCS Region administers the Alaska 

Environmental Studies Program (ESP) to “define information needs and implement studies to 

assist in predicting, projecting, assessing, and managing the potential effects of oil and natural 

gas development on the human, marine, and coastal environments of the OCS and [adjacent] 

 

1

 Formerly the Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region 

2

 As amended through P.L. 105-580, December 29, 2000 
2

coastal areas” (MMS 2002:1). Information from these studies is used for various decisionmaking and planning purposes, including those associated with agency Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documentation. Acting with this 

authority and with active attention to the long-term human implications of oil spills and related 

litigation and settlement processes, BOEMRE Alaska OCS Region ESP has sponsored and is 

administering the research project described herein. 

1.2 Study Background 

The supertanker Exxon Valdez foundered on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound on March 24, 

1989. The physical-environmental and human effects resulting from the far-reaching spill of 

some 11 million gallons of crude oil were unprecedented in the history of spill-related maritime 

accidents in the United States. Much research was undertaken to document the effects of the 

event, including a range of studies examining its social and economic impacts. An extensive 

literature addressing human dimensions of the oil spill was reviewed and annotated by IAI 

(1999); readers are referred to this bibliography for studies describing and analyzing the ways in 

which people in coastal Alaska were affected by and responded to the event and clean-up. 

Map 1-1 Spatial Extent of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 

Eyak

Hope

Kenai

Cahoe

Homer

Ahkiok

Kodiak

Naknek

Egekik

Seward

Valdez

Tyonek

Karluk

Kaguyak

Afognak

Tatilek

Cordova

Chenega

Nikiski

Chignik

Ouzinkie

Whittier

Sterling

Salamatof

Ninichik

Seldovia

Sand Pont

Anchorage

Larsen

Old Harbor

Port Lions

Dillingham

Clam Gulch

Perryville

Pilot Point

Port Heiden

Port Ashton

Port Graham

English Bay

Halibut 

 Cove

Happy Valley

 Anchor Point

Seldonia

Bay

Wasilla

Aniakchak

National Monument

Kenai Fjiords

National Park

Tongass

National Forest

Lake Clark

National Park

Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge

Becharof National

Wildlife Refuge

Kodiak National

Wildlife Refuge

Togiak National

Wildlife Refuge

Kenai National

Wildlife Refuge

Katmai 

National Park

Gulf of Alaska

Bristol

 Bay

Cook Shelikof Strait

Inlet

Prince

William

Sound

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Kilometers

0 50 100 150 200

Miles

Spatial Extent of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

National Park

National Wildlife Refuge

National Forest

Marine Refuge

Delimits Approximate Exxon 

Valdez Oil Spill Impacted Area

Contour interval 1000 feet

Source: Ecotrust, Conservation GIS Center
3

Early litigation resulted in compensatory awards to commercial fishermen, subsistence 

practitioners, Alaska Native corporations, and other individuals and groups affected by the 

accident. A $250 million settlement followed from the Exxon Criminal Case, which was 

adjudicated in October 1991: $150 million of this was levied as fines; $125 million of which 

was forgiven based on the corporation’s efforts to respond to the spill. The remaining $100 

million was paid as restitution to state and federal government agencies. The Exxon Civil Case, 

also settled in October 1991, involved the distribution of $900 million via a “Joint Trust Fund.” 

Some $684.1 million of the settlement was applied to restoration efforts managed by the EVOS 

Trustee Council beginning in 1992. The remaining $215 million was applied to cleanup costs 

that had been borne by government agencies and Exxon. The Alyeska Civil Case, settled in 

November 1992, involved disbursement of $29.7 million to the State of Alaska and $2 million to 

the federal government.3

 

But the punitive phase of litigation associated with the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) 4 was 

protracted. Exxon Corporation continued to contest as exorbitant the award requirements set 

during class action punitive damages trials held in federal courts since 1994. Various corporatelevel punitive damages cases heard concurrently with the Exxon case influenced the nature of 

arguments and appeals, and the length of time involved in adjudicating the case under due 

process. 

The original punitive damages award figure of $5 billion assessed in federal court in Anchorage 

in 1996 was found to be excessive by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001 and reinstated 

at $4 billion in 2002. The amount was reviewed once again by the Ninth Circuit under newly 

developed U.S. Supreme Court punitive damages guidelines in 2003, and in 2004 it was ruled 

that an award of $4.5 billion plus $2.25 billion in interest was in keeping with the new guidance. 

Subsequent appeal to the Ninth Circuit in December 2006 was based primarily on the arguments 

that previously-disbursed damage compensation awards mitigated the putative reprehensibility of 

certain of Exxon Corporation’s spill-related actions, and that precedent in other corporate-level 

punitive damage cases indicated that damage awards in the Exxon case were excessive.5

 A 

three-judge panel upheld that rationale and reduced the award to $2.5 billion, with interest. 

On January 12, 2007, Exxon Corporation petitioned for a rehearing by the Ninth Circuit panel 

and for rehearing by the Court en banc to further reduce the settlement amount. The appeals 

 

3

 With unspent balances of the latter applied to the Joint Trust Fund. 

4

 Grant Baker; Seahawk Seafoods, Inc.; Cook Inlet Processors, Inc.; Sagaya Corp.; William McMurren; Patrick L. 

McMurren; William W. King; George Norris; Hunter Cranz; Richard Feenstra; Wilderness Sailing Safaris; Seafood 

Sales, Inc.; Rapid Systems Pacific Ltd.; Nautilus Marine Enterprises Inc.; William Findlay Abbott, Jr., PlaintiffsAppellees vs. Exxon Mobile Corporation; Exxon Shipping Company, Defendants, Defendants-Appellants. Signatory 

plaintiff categories include: aquaculture associations, area businesses, cannery workers, municipalities, Alaska 

Natives, Native corporations, personal injury, personal property, processor, real property, recreational use, 

subsistence, tender, and “oiled” and “unoiled” fishers. 

5

 Based on precedent in State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), it was argued that the 

ratio of punitive damages to “actual harm” was in the Exxon case too high. Actual harm was defined as the sum of 

the early compensatory damages verdict of $287 million and Exxon's pre-trial settlements. The total harm thereby 

assessed was on the order of $513 million. 
4

were denied. A final appeal was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in June 2008, it was 

determined that for a maritime case of this nature, punitive damages could not exceed 

compensatory damages, and thus the settlement was limited to $507.5 million. The Supreme 

Court also determined that it would not decide whether interest on the settlement should be paid 

to the plaintiffs. In June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that interest should 

indeed be part of the final settlement. Phased disbursement of the settlement and interest is 

expected to continue well into 2011. 

1.3 Project Rationale and Parameters of the Settlement Award 

The baseline database described in this report was formulated based on the possibility that the 

total settlement award could be as large as $6.5 billion, with significant implications for the lives 

of many of the roughly 32,000 plaintiffs, and their families and communities. It was known that 

individual awards would vary, however, depending on the demonstrable level of effect of the 

spill, as indicated, for example, by the extent of one’s performance in the affected commercial 

fisheries prior to the event. Some settlement amounts would be in the thousands of dollars, as 

for minimally-involved crew members. But others could involve millions of dollars, such as 

those for Kodiak salmon seine owner-operators who were highly productive in the region prior to 

the spill and whose fishery underwent significantly detrimental changes after the spill event. 

Settlement allocation programs for this group of plaintiffs were developed primarily on the 

rationale of loss of income and way of life, and devaluation of permits and vessels. The formula 

and legal rationale for differential allocation of awards is complex. All settlement awards are 

subject to taxation. 6 

While the reduced settlement will not likely generate the kinds of changes that were possible 

prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the settlement and interest will nevertheless generate a variety 

of measurable impacts. Upon actual disbursement of the awards, it can still be expected that new 

opportunities will be available, with cumulative implications for the towns and villages in which 

such persons reside. In short, it was and is expected that settlement awards will enable 

individuals to act on the interests of self and/or those of the family and community. In reality, 

many of those who were originally affected by the oil spill reacted to the litigation process even 

prior to actual settlement. Some report having speculated on the amount and imminence of 

awards from the punitive case and making purchases or investments accordingly. Some have 

been directly involved in and/or have followed the case closely, expending time and resources in 

so doing. Two decades after the spill, plaintiffs’ counsel report that at least 20 percent of those 

who were directly affected and involved in class action suits are deceased. 

It is notable that social-behavioral reaction to settlement-related litigation and to broadlydistributed large-scale settlement awards is not well-known. In fact, there is a paucity of directly 

 

6

 Tax relief on settlement-derived income may potentially be achieved through the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Tax 

Treatment Act (H.R. 1334 and S. 552). The Act provides that the plaintiffs or their heirs and dependents could: (a) 

average settlement income to reflect how fisheries income might have been earned had the oil spill not occurred or 

(b) make contributions to tax-exempt retirement plans. The rationale of the Act is that the oil spill led to diminished 

extent and value of seafood landings and subsequently to loss of income and opportunities to establish retirement 

plans. 
5

related literature. The following pages constitute an initial report on a long-term study intended 

to contribute understanding to a little-known area of social inquiry. 

The settlement in question has the potential to generate social, economic, and demographic 

effects in numerous communities throughout Southcentral Alaska. In fact, the potential scope of 

effect is such that the full range of communities and outcomes cannot be studied in full. A 

geographically-focused case study approach has therefore been advanced as means for 

delimiting, understanding, and representing an otherwise overly broad field of inquiry. In 

keeping with the geographic focus prescribed in the project solicitation, field research is focused 

on assessing the effects of the settlement in communities on Kodiak Island and throughout 

Kodiak Island Borough generally. 

As noted in Table 1-1 below, which depicts settlement shares for each of the signatory plaintiff 

claim categories across the affected region, Kodiak is an appropriate location for study in that 

numerous fishery participants and Alaska Natives involved in the case are residents there. 

Plaintiffs in the Kodiak fisheries category will receive 20.1 percent of the total award.7

 The 

Kodiak salmon seine fishery was significantly affected by the spill, and will be allocated 14.5 

percent of the total award.8 Kodiak salmon set netters will receive 4.47 percent of the total. 

Note that some Kodiak-based fishery participants were involved in multiple fisheries in multiple 

locations and thus may receive multiple awards. Similarly, some plaintiffs may receive 

settlement monies based on their status as Alaska Natives affected by the spill, and also receive 

monies as participants in the oiled fisheries category and/or other categories. Table 1-2 below 

depicts the matrix of shares for plaintiffs in the oiled fisheries categories for Kodiak Island. 

Table 1-1 Matrix of Shares for Signatory Plaintiffs across Affected Region 

Claim Category Percent Share Number of Plaintiffs in Category Who Reside on Kodiak 

Aquaculture Associations 1.910 1 

Businesses 0.280 153 

Cannery Workers 0.530 Number uncertain at time of writing 

Commercial Fisheries Oiled 78.73 ~2,500 

Commercial Fisheries Unoiled 2.310 Number uncertain at time of writing 

Municipalities 2.180 Kodiak Island Borough, Kodiak City, villages 

Alaska Natives 6.640 ~2,500 

Native Corporations 0.650 5 

Personal Injury 0.140 10 

Personal Property 0.014 Uncertain at the time of this writing 

Processors 2.099 5 

Real Property 3.558 ~250 oiled ANCSA land claims being filed by Alaska Natives 

Recreational Use 0.008 ~20 

Subsistence 0.008 ~100 non-Natives in addition to Alaska Native claims above 

Tenders 0.940 ~25 

TOTAL 100.0 ~5,570 

 

7

 Plaintiffs in Chignik fisheries will receive 4.96 percent of the total award. Cook Inlet fishery plaintiffs will receive 

24.3 percent, and Prince William Sound fishery plaintiffs will receive 29.4 percent. Actual dollar amounts to be 

disbursed to individuals in the various award categories cannot be confidently assessed until legal debate regarding 

the total award figure is fully resolved. 

8

 Second only to plaintiffs in the Cook Inlet salmon driftnet fishery, who will receive 15.2 percent of the total award. 

Plaintiffs in the Prince William Sound salmon seine fishery will receive 11.75 percent of the total. 
6

Table 1-2 Matrix of Shares for Plaintiffs in Oiled Fisheries Categories: Kodiak 

Fishery Percent Share Estimated Number of Claimants 

Dungeness Crab 0.034 25-35 

Food Bait Herring 0.033 2-3 

Miscellaneous Finfish * 0.029 ~100 

Miscellaneous Shellfish 0.017 35 

Roe Herring Drift 00.17 ~800 total Roe Herring Seine 00.57 

Salmon Beach Seine 00.24 35 

Salmon Seine 14.50 2,500 

Salmon Set Net 04.47 500 

Scallops 0.015 3-4 

Area Total 20.10 ~3,170 

 *Primarily cod and pollock fisheries 

Our analyses will draw on findings from research conducted throughout Kodiak Island Borough, 

in a manner that will enable inference and extrapolation of the effects of the settlement to other 

regions. Of practical significance to BOEMRE and its mandates, the research described herein 

has been designed to document and analyze the effects of the litigation and settlement sequelae 

of what was then the nation’s largest oil spill to date. It will therefore illuminate the nature of an 

as-yet poorly understood but highly significant human dimension of oil spills in Alaska. Given 

that the social, economic, and environmental setting in question bears similarities to other 

maritime settings around the globe, the analysis may be useful for policymakers elsewhere in the 

U.S. and abroad. 

1.4 Principal Goal and Objectives 

The overarching purpose of this project is to contribute to the base of knowledge required for 

public officials to pursue balanced management of oil and natural gas resources in the federal 

waters of Alaska and other coastal regions of the United States. This is being accomplished 

through objectives associated with development of a large and multi-faceted database through 

which it will be possible to assess, monitor, and analyze the social, economic, and socio-cultural 

outcomes resulting from settlement of the EVOS punitive damages case and disbursement of the 

awards, while analytically controlling for the effects of other sources of change. 

Using the combination of primary source and archival research methods reviewed later in this 

introductory chapter, the research team has compiled extensive information about social and 

economic trends and conditions in the study area. Despite the protracted nature of the litigation, 

the case has now been resolved, and the goal of the project must necessarily involve valid 

assessment of what fiscal empowerment has meant for the actors soon after settlement. But 

because disbursement is still occurring and insofar as reactions may occur over the long-term, 

the project also involves a longer-term post-settlement monitoring objective. 

The baseline is limited to specific and readily measurable social, economic, and demographic 

variables deemed most useful for addressing the study research hypotheses. The hypotheses 

have, in turn, been formulated based on the needs of BOEMRE analysts who seek to understand 

macro-social changes in the study communities and region over time. Because the causal 
7

stimulus for potential change in the study area is primarily fiscal in nature, indicator variables 

have been selected based on their sensitivity to rapid socioeconomic change. These constitute 

the focus of our methodological and analytical approach to the research problem at hand. Given 

the reduced settlement, only certain particularly sensitive variables will be considered in the final 

analysis. 

In sum, the end goals of this project involve: (1) empirically-derived analyses of near- and longterm social and economic effects of oil spill litigation and settlement processes as exemplified in 

the EVOS case and as assessed on Kodiak Island, and (2) formulation of policy 

recommendations for mitigating potential problems associated with spill-related settlement 

processes and outcomes, as these may affect societies throughout the coastal and island regions 

of the United States in future years. The latter will draw not only on the EVOS case, but also on 

lessons derived from other large oil spills occurring in the U.S. and elsewhere. 

1.5 Overview of Research Hypotheses 

Having completed a comprehensive study of the human dimensions of the Exxon Valdez oil spill 

in communities on Kodiak Island and in the remainder of the spill-affected region (Impact 

Assessment, Inc. 1990), research team leaders were, from the outset, familiar with the research 

sites and issues associated with the spill. Moreover, members of the team have been involved in 

ongoing social and economic research with fishery participants on Kodiak Island and across the 

larger region (e.g., see Impact Assessment 2004). Based on our background understanding of the 

study region and communities, various research hypotheses were developed to systematically 

examine the potential effects of the EVOS punitive damages settlement. The overarching 

hypothesis of the study was stated in the project solicitation; that is, that spill restoration and 

settlement monies would amplify social, economic, and demographic trends at household, 

community, and regional levels of analysis. This basic supposition drives development of a 

comprehensive baseline that is descriptive of trends and current conditions in the region. 

A set of subsidiary hypotheses were developed and organized with regard to potential macrosocial and macro-economic responses to the settlement as anticipated through our understanding 

of the region and literature of social change, and as expressed by public officials and fishery 

participants during the formulation of the research proposal. We note that: (a) the subhypotheses were conceived and expressed in general terms and are intended primarily to 

stimulate and organize meaningful and relevant investigation and analysis of the settlement, and 

(b) in the spirit of scientific inquiry, additional hypotheses have been developed and tested as 

understanding of socioeconomic conditions in the study region has grown, and as the empirical 

effects of the settlement have begun to emerge over time. 

First, we hypothesized that unearned income resulting from settlement awards would affect the 

manner and degree of participation in commercial fisheries locally and in the Kodiak region 

generally. A basic uncertainty was whether such income will lead to increased investment in 

commercial operations or exit from commercial fisheries in the region. 
8

Second, we hypothesized that settlement awards would influence the extent and manner of 

participation in subsistence fishing and hunting activities, with associated effects on related 

cultural activities. We anticipated that extensive unearned income may serve to reduce some of 

the tension experienced by Alaska Natives who historically have had to engage in some 

component of the region’s workforce to simultaneously meet the economic demands of the 

household and perpetuate culturally significant subsistence hunting and fishing activities. 

Third, we posited that the settlement would enable long-term residents to leave their 

communities for other parts of Alaska or elsewhere, thereby affecting a range of social and 

demographic conditions in Kodiak Borough. This may also be expressed in the inverse, since 

residents may potentially be able to live a more leisurely life in their home communities. As for 

each of our hypotheses, the amount of the settlement after taxes and the manner of its 

disbursement (i.e., graduated or lump-sum) has a significant bearing on behavioral response. 

Finally, we postulated that spill-related litigation and settlement would amplify socio-political 

challenges within and across residents and groups of residents in the study communities. That is, 

we anticipated that financial empowerment would force difficult individual and collective 

decisions about the future of groups and communities across the region, and that these decisionmaking processes and their outcomes could cause new interpersonal and collective difficulties. 

1.6 General Methodological Approach 

Our social scientific approach is indicated by the potential for macro-social phenomena that 

involve a source of rapid change. The vector of hypothetical social change of principal interest 

in this study is the punitive damages settlement and disbursement of associated monies. As 

reviewed in depth in subsequent chapters of this report, we have compiled a large database that is 

descriptive of recent trends and contemporary social and economic conditions in and across 

communities on Kodiak Island. These data constitute a baseline against which change resulting 

from the settlement may be described and explained. Potentially intervening sources of change, 

such as “rationalization” of the crab fisheries and the economic recession that occurred in the late 

2000s, are also subject to documentation and monitoring, and will be analytically controlled to 

enable valid assessment of settlement-related effects. 

Development of the baseline database required: (a) extensive review and compilation of 

information from a wide variety of archival sources, (b) observation-based fieldwork in the study 

region, (c) an ongoing series of in-depth interviews with knowledgeable fishery participants, 

elders, and local public officials (N=~150), and (c) focus group sessions conducted with 

government officials working in Kodiak Island Borough. Monitoring of conditions in the study 

area continues through use of the same methods. 

Because certain information in the database derives from ongoing programs that are administered 

only periodically, the research plan involves use of an interim data collection strategy that is 

focused on acquisition of information from persons who are highly knowledgeable of relevant 

aspects of life in the study area. These data will complement periodically collected 

programmatic data as it becomes available. For example, we continue to monitor demographic 
9

effects by consulting with local officials and the state demographer’s office, and by directly 

observing demographic changes in the communities. The data and analyses resulting from this 

effort will be complemented with relevant data and analyses deriving from 2010 Census and/or 

from interim updates to the Census as these are made available. 

Similarly, we continue to consult with knowledgeable persons and observe life in the 

communities to document and assess potential changes in local involvement in commercial 

fisheries and subsistence activities. Given the regularity of state and federal monitoring of 

commercial fisheries, data associated with such programs will readily inform our work. 

Acquiring current secondary source information about the nature and extent of local involvement 

in subsistence-oriented hunting, fishing, and gathering is more problematic in that such activities 

are only periodically monitored in the region.9

 Again, our strategy is to work closely with a 

select group of highly knowledgeable informants to update such information and to enable 

inference of post-settlement changes in the consumptive-oriented harvest of natural resources 

across the communities. 10 An important achievement of Phase One of this project has been 

development of rapport necessary for pre- and post-settlement consultation with such persons. 

We note at the outset that individuals and households are important units of analysis in this 

study. This is so primarily because analysis of the perspectives and experiences of 

knowledgeable individuals provides insight into the collective macro-social processes that are 

the actual focus of the study. This is the essential value of the case study approach. The 

individual case, whether it involves an individual, a household, a community, or a specific 

situation, offers data and understanding about the larger social processes of which it is an 

indivisible element. The approach requires that sufficient cases are examined to ensure adequate 

understanding of variability. 

Thus, in order to test hypotheses about macro-social and economic processes potentially 

associated with the settlement, we are examining trends, current conditions, and the potential for 

change for many cases at many levels of analysis. That is, we are investigating trends and 

conditions across Kodiak Island Borough11 to aid in understanding the effects of the settlement 

across Southcentral Alaska and its affected communities; we are examining relevant aspects of 

life in communities on Kodiak Island to enable inference of settlement-related change across the 

larger Borough; and we are examining firms and households to infer change in and across 

 

10 Household surveys are periodically conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in rural communities 

across Alaska. The most recent set of surveys was conducted in the Kodiak region between 2003 and 2005, thus 

providing a relatively recent benchmark against which change can be measured for certain key indicators. We are 

using social network sampling methods to identify persons who are highly knowledgeable of subsistence activities 

in the communities, and we will work with such persons after the settlement to update values for the indicators. Our 

sampling strategy is thus systematic and purposive and our queries will be such that another data point can be added 

to ongoing monitoring of important indicators such as the extent of community-specific participation in subsistence 

activities, per capita consumption of subsistence foods, and nature of interactive effects between involvement in 

commercial fisheries and subsistence activities. 

11 As borough-level data is the best available data for many of the economic and demographic variables anticipated 

to be valid indicators of settlement-related change, the baseline is particularly well-suited for enabling that level and 

those types of analysis. 
10

Kodiak communities. Finally, we are working with many individuals who possess knowledge 

and expertise about families, communities, fisheries, and other relevant dimensions of life on 

Kodiak and across the larger region so as to enable inference at all levels of analysis. 

 

1.7 Project Phasing and Component Methods 

This project has been designed to proceed in two basic phases. Phase One has involved 

compilation of a large dataset and monitoring system prior to settlement of the punitive damages 

case. As litigation was been progressing through the courts, we collected and developed a 

framework for organizing and managing extensive archival and primary source information 

about select social, economic, and cultural trends and conditions in the study area. 

The first phase of the project involved five interrelated objectives. These were: (1) development 

of a research design and ethnographic field plan for conducting the research; (2) review and 

analysis of background literature and a wide range of secondary source data of relevance to the 

study, (3) conduct of extensive interview-oriented fieldwork with public officials, fishery 

participants, and others in the City of Kodiak and in the villages of Akhiok, Larsen Bay, and Old 

Harbor, (4) synthesis of the resulting primary and secondary source data into a coherent format 

of utility for analysts; and (5) completion of this Final Baseline Report, which describes the 

overall project and baseline and select trends and conditions in the study region prior to 

settlement of the punitive phase of EVOS litigation. 

The framework and data system described herein enables monitoring and updates of key 

variables and indicators to a point in time just prior to settlement and disbursement. Per the 

variables reviewed in this report and information associated with a wide array of additional 

variables that constitute our now expansive dataset, a second round of primary source data 

collection has been undertaken as a central element of project Phase Two. That is, we have 

returned and continue to periodically work in the communities to systematically observe and 

document important social, economic, and demographic changes occurring after the settlement. 

The research team has been monitoring relevant conditions and updating the database subsequent 

to delivery of this report and prior to and during initial disbursement of award monies. 

Settlement and initial disbursement initiated a rapid and significant response by our field staff, 

but our efforts have necessarily also accommodated phased disbursement and protracted 

individual and collective response to the settlement. 

Phase Two has therefore involved and continues to involve ongoing use of existing and emerging 

archival data and appropriately-timed return to the study communities since the settlement. 

Fieldwork continues until sufficient information is gathered to enable comprehensive assessment 

of long-term local and regional social and economic change based on analysis of pre-settlement 

trends and conditions vis-à-vis conditions following from: (a) settlement of the case, (b) 

disbursement of the damage awards, and (c) other social and economic processes both related 

and unrelated to the oil spill and resolution of EVOS-related litigation.
11

1.8 Intent and Organization of this Interim Report 

This report is intended to provide BOEMRE with a formal update on a long-term monitoring and 

assessment project. It is also designed to demonstrate the rationale and working utility of a 

baseline and monitoring framework for assessing social change associated with and distinct from 

the litigation and settlement processes. 

We note, however, that this report does not itself constitute the baseline or monitoring 

framework. Only some of it elements and data for certain time periods are presented and 

described in the following pages. In reality, our database is too extensive to effectively describe 

in this venue, and much of it will undoubtedly be analyzed in ways that cannot be predicted at 

this juncture. Although data deriving from ethnographic research is used to support background 

description of the region, the intent here is in no way comprehensive ethnographic description of 

Kodiak Borough and its communities. Ethnographic description and a range of qualitative and 

quantitative analyses have been particularly useful in describing and assessing the social and 

economic effects of the settlement during the second phase of this project. 

It should also be kept in mind that the ultimate intent of the project is not development of a 

baseline per se, but rather development of a valid assessment of the effects of the settlement and 

delineation of useful policy recommendations. The baseline and monitoring framework are 

needed to develop that assessment, but Phase Two of the project is equally or more important 

and we are now focused on additional factors, variables, and research questions that have 

emerged during the period following the settlement. These will be discussed in a forthcoming 

final project report. 

In sum, the current report is focused on elucidating the logic and nature of the baseline and 

monitoring framework per the aforementioned research hypotheses. We describe the baseline 

and framework using specific variables and factors for specific points in time, but emphasize the 

flexibility of the framework and overall approach for updating with new archival data and for 

accommodating newly emerging factors, conditions, variables, and situations. 

Following this introductory chapter, Chapter Two provides overview description of the study 

region. This is intended as context for elaboration of the aforementioned baseline and 

monitoring framework, which is initiated in Chapter Three. Chapter Four furthers the baseline 

by defining the most important sectors of the regional economy and identifiable trends in each. 

Chapter Five is focused on description of trends in Kodiak’s critically important commercial 

fishing industry and implications of those trends for economic sectors across the study area. 

Chapter Six describes employment trends on Kodiak Island over recent decades. Chapter Seven 

describes select demographic and socioeconomic trends and conditions in the study region. 

Chapter Eight provides additional focus on pertinent conditions at the village level of analysis. 

Chapter Nine summarizes key project findings to date and presents additional context for 

conceptualizing the potential effects of the settlement and how these are examined during Phase 

Two of the project. References cited in the body of the report follow. Finally, Appendix A 

describes relevant aspects of the Amoco Cadiz and Prestige oil spills. This material is provided 

as comparative context and as an interim report on ongoing investigation of other major oil spills 

involving protracted litigation and complex social and economic consequences. 
12

2.0 Overview of the Study Area

This chapter provides a brief overview of the study region and communities. The primary intent 

of the material is to provide description of historical and contemporary context at a level of detail 

sufficient for conceptualizing the rationale and utility of the baseline and monitoring framework, 

description and examples of which begin in Chapter Three. 

2.1 Physical Environment and Demographic Setting 

Overview. Kodiak Island is located in the southcentral portion of the Gulf of Alaska, about 250 

air miles south of Anchorage. Encompassing about 3,465 square miles of land area, Kodiak is 

the second largest island in the nation after Hawai'i Island (the Big Island). The Kodiak 

Archipelago extends for some 177 miles along a northeast-southwest axis, no more than 25 miles 

south of the Alaskan Peninsula across treacherous Shelikoff Strait. 

Given the moderating influences of the warm Japanese current, climatic conditions in this region 

of Alaska are considered temperate. Average lows in January are 30° F; average highs in July 

are 54° F. Rain, fog, and high winds are common. Average annual rainfall in Kodiak City is 55 

inches, and average annual snowfall is 60 inches (Chaffin 1967). 

Numerous bays, lakes, rivers, and estuaries transect Kodiak Island. Glaciers formed narrow 

fjords and valleys along the northwest coast. The east and southeast coastlines are commonly 

characterized by estuarine embayment. Sand and gravel beaches typify the western shorelines. 

Much of the terrain is heavily forested and mountainous. Maximum elevation is 4,400 feet at 

Koniag Peak. The landscape in the southern reaches of the island is characteristically wet, with 

extensive areas of grassy tundra. Seismic activity is extensive throughout the region. 

Kodiak Island is sparsely populated and the remainder of the archipelago is largely uninhabited. 

As of the year 2000 Census, the City of Kodiak was home to some 6,334 persons. The six 

Alaska Native villages on Kodiak Island are much smaller. Ouzinkie was home to about 225 

persons at the time of the Census. The population of Port Lions was 256 persons, the figure for 

Old Harbor was 237, Larsen Bay had a population of 115, Akhiok was home to 80 persons, and 

Karluk was home to only 27. 

Personnel from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Subsistence 

conducted household surveys in each of the villages during 2003. Census work associated with 

the survey generated the following population estimates (Fall et al. 2006), most indicative of 

declining population figures across the island: there were 73 persons in 15 households in Akhiok; 

36 persons in 15 households in Karluk; 60 persons in 31 households in Larsen Bay; 190 persons 

in 76 households in Old Harbor; 204 persons in 69 households in Ouzinkie; and 191 persons in 

71 households in Port Lions.12 

 

12 IAI’s work in Akhiok in 2005 indicated extensive in- and out-migration of the same otherwise long-term 

residents. Note that this project has benefited from the doctoral work of Courtney Carothers, which involved 

enumeration (in 2006) of 54 households and 85 residents in Larsen Bay, and ~100 households and 200 residents in 

Old Harbor. 
13

More recent estimates generated by the Alaska Department of Community and Economic 

Development (ADCED) also suggest a trend of declining population figures for the villages. 

The agency estimated that 6,088 persons were residing in Kodiak City in 2005, and that 191 

persons were living in Ouzinkie, 220 in Port Lions, 200 in Old Harbor, 97 in Larsen Bay, and 41 

in Akhiok. The population figure for Karluk was again estimated as 27 persons. 

The communities are separated by mountainous terrain. With the exception of the area around 

Kodiak City, local roads are not paved and tend to terminate at the periphery of the villages. 

Transportation to remote areas occurs by small plane or by boat. 

Kodiak Island 

The open ocean, straits, and more sheltered coves and fjords surrounding the Kodiak 

Archipelago are rich in marine resources. Kodiak-based fisheries are accordingly diverse and 

productive. Indeed, Kodiak City is consistently one of the most productive commercial fishing 

ports in the U.S. The port was ranked fourth in the nation in terms of commercial landings in 

2005 (337.2 million pounds), and third in terms of ex-vessel value of those landings ($95.8 

million) (NOAA Fisheries 2007:7). 

Subsistence-oriented fishing and hunting are important in cultural and dietary terms. This is 

especially so for Alaska Native residents, though many non-Native residents also engage in, and 

to some extent depend on, successful pursuit of wild foods. Introduction of various mammal 

species in the 20th century enhanced hunting opportunities as only river otter, ermine, red fox, 

tundra vole, and brown bear are endemic to the region. Introduced mammal species include Dall 

sheep, reindeer, snowshoe hare, red squirrel, beaver, Sitka black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk, and 

mountain goats (Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department 1983). 
14

Climatic Factors. Large-scale decadal and longer-term changes in atmospheric pressure over 

the North Pacific can create rapid and significant changes in the marine ecological conditions 

around Kodiak. Several such regime shifts have occurred in the region over the past few 

decades. The first occurred in 1977 when the Aleutian Low intensified to generate a relatively 

strong Alaska Current, warmer average ocean temperatures, increased rainfall, and increased 

stability of the water column. The marine ecological effects of these changes included: an 

apparent doubling of primary productivity (Brodeur and Ware 1992); increased recruitment and 

survival of salmon, demersal fish, and flatfish; increased recruitment of rockfish; and decline of 

shrimp and forage fish populations (Anderson 2004). The latter effect may have contributed to a 

measurable decrease in marine mammal and seabird populations (Piatt and Anderson 1996). 

Atmospheric pressure and oceanic regime shifts occurring in 1989 may have been associated 

with cooler and more variable temperatures in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. This, in turn, 

appears to have been associated with a decrease in primary productivity during the period. More 

recently, a general warming trend has been noted in the surface waters of the Gulf of Alaska (< 

50 meters), and the 2005 trawl survey undertaken by NOAA Fisheries observed the highest 

summer water temperatures ever recorded in the region (North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council 2006). 

Oceanography and Indicators of Fisheries Productivity. Two primary currents circulate in the 

Gulf of Alaska – the subarctic gyre in the central basin and the Alaska Coastal Current along the 

continental shelf. The Alaska Coastal Current bifurcates in the waters northeast of Afognak 

Island. One branch flows through Kennedy Entrance into Shelikof Strait. The other current 

flows along the south side of Kodiak Island (Stabeno et al. 2004). 

Map 2-1 Circulation Patterns around Kodiak and the Gulf of Alaska 

(Image courtesy of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council) 

Downwelling associated with coastal currents and gyres is suitable for groundfish fisheries in the 

region. These include fisheries for walleye pollock, Pacific cod, Pacific halibut, and sablefish 

(Francis et al. 1998). Total commercial landings of groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska increased 

from less than 50,000 tons in the 1950s to a high of 384,242 tons in 1965 (much of it rockfish), 
15

and a near high of 377,809 tons in 1984 (much of it pollock). Pacific cod and pollock have 

continued to comprise significant proportions of landings across the Gulf of Alaska in recent 

years (North Pacific Fishery Management Council 2006), with some 100,000 pounds landed by 

residents alone in 2004 (see Chapter Five of this report). Salmon resources are abundant in the 

region, and as indicated throughout this report, they are central to social and economic 

dimensions of on Kodiak Island. 

2.2 A Brief Social History of Kodiak Island 

Overview of a Complex Culture. Kodiak Island has been occupied by human groups for many 

thousands of years. Sites associated with what is called Ocean Bay culture were occupied at 

least 7,000 years before present (Saltonstall and Stefian 1999). Evidence suggests human 

presence in the larger Gulf of Alaska region occurred at least 10,000 years before present 

(Ackerman 1992). A succession of maritime societies have inhabited the Kodiak Archipelago 

over the millennia, each making widespread use of the region’s extensive and varied marine 

resources. Known prehistoric cultural traditions include: Ocean Bay (ca. 4500-1400 B.C.), 

Kachemak (ca. 1400 B.C.-1200 A.D.), and Koniag (ca. 1200-1784 A.D.) (Stefian 2001). 

The long history of society on Kodiak is a complex one. The people encountered by Vitus 

Bering in the mid-eighteenth century revealed cultural traits now known as Alutiiq, and most 

Alaska Natives residing on Kodiak today continue to assert an Alutiiq heritage. But that culture 

appears to have evolved in complex fashion through ongoing interaction between numerous 

Arctic and North Pacific peoples over the course of time. As evinced by archaeological data, 

Crowell and Lurhmann (2001: 25-29) assert that Alutiiq culture was influenced by Inuit peoples, 

Kachemak and Norton Traditions, and possibly by various people practicing Thule culture. 

Alutiiq origin stories indicate influences from societies further north, and from Tlingit people to 

the south (Pinart 1873). Linguistic evidence suggests that Sugpiaq (Aleut) is closely related to 

central Alaska Yup'ik languages. Analysis of art, tools, clothing, systems of belief, and other 

Alutiiq cultural attributes and processes bear similarities to those of Yup'ik, Tlingit, and Unangan 

societies. Genetic evidence indicates relationships between Alutiiq, Inuit, Northwest Coast, and 

Unangan populations. 

Such genetic and cultural influence and admixture is typical of all societies when considered 

over long periods of time. According to Crowell and Luhrmann (2001:29), a clearly distinctive 

(if evolving) culture developed in the Kodiak region at least a millennium ago. It was people of 

this cultural group who were first encountered by Russian and other explorers, and who called 

themselves Qikertarmiut, or people of the island, now know as the Alutiiq.13

Interactions with Russian explorers and fur traders occurred as early as the late 18th century. 

Russian sea otter hunters established the first non-Native settlement on Kodiak Island in 1784 

near the present-day village of Old Harbor. Kodiak remained an important point of commerce 

 

13 According to Crowell (2001:4), “Alutiiq” is the Sugpiaq term for “Aleut,” which was first used by early Russian 

fur traders to describe indigenous peoples in the region. The term was eventually accepted by the native residents - 

who originally called themselves Supiaq (the real people). 
16

for fur traders until the species was protected by international agreement in 1911 (Chaffin 1967). 

Russians brought various material items of utility for the original residents of Kodiak Island. 

The history of interaction between Alutiiq peoples and Russians and others of European ancestry 

is laden with instances of violence and mistrust. Fall et al. (2001) assert that the early presence 

of Russians on the island significantly disrupted kin networks, social ties, and political alliances 

that were characteristic of pre-colonial Alutiiq society. Outsiders also transmitted new viral 

diseases for which the Alutiiq had not developed sufficient immunity. Epidemics took the lives 

of many. This challenging history is retold among contemporary Alaska Natives living on 

Kodiak and thus it bears some influence on contemporary interactions between Natives and nonNatives in and beyond the region. 

Russians and other newly-arriving groups often tended to advocate the tenets of Orthodox 

Christianity. Some elements of this new system of belief became joined or syncretized with 

those of the Alutiiq, which emphasized (and to some extent among some Alutiiq continue to 

emphasize) the importance of the spirit world, spiritual relationships between humans and 

animals, mask symbology, ritualized dancing and feasting, shamanism, and reincarnation. 

Crowell and Leer (2001:213-214) assert that Russian Orthodoxy was embraced by the Alutiiq in 

part because its principles differed from those of non-Orthodox sects, which were being forced 

on them by Euro-Americans during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Moreover, leadership 

from Orthodox dioceses in Russia was waning under conditions of diminishing funds, which 

allowed Alaska Native practitioners to organize and practice with some measure of autonomy in 

their home villages. Certain uniquely Alutiiq/Russian Orthodox practices are still common in the 

Kodiak region, including those associated with the Feast of the Nativity, the Eve of Theophany 

(Epiphany), and the Russian New Year. 

On The Significance of Alutiiq Heritage. We emphasize that the long pre-contact history of 

indigenous peoples in the Kodiak Archipelago is highly significant not merely as it relates to the 

social history and prehistoric record of life in Alaska. Rather, the history and the socio-cultural 

details of the indigenous past are also important elements of the contemporary heritage and 

identity of Alutiiq and other Alaska Native groups. While the meaning and experience of this 

heritage is difficult for outsiders to convey, it is clear that it is subjectively important for a 

variety of cultural, spiritual, political, and other reasons. 

We do not attempt a full ethnographic account of historic or contemporary Alutiiq society in this 

report. The point being made in this overview is that contemporary Alutiiq people living in the 

study region identify closely with a truly ancient, if complex and ever-evolving culture. Only 

those qualified by birthright or rare circumstance enjoy access to that heritage, and thus the 

Alutiiq often view and present themselves as socially and culturally unique. The Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) formally empowered Alutiiq and other Alaska Natives 

in this regard. This has implications for the way in which such persons articulate with modern 

Euro-American society and its various constraints, opportunities, and influences. 

As indicated by Johnson (2001:95), an indigenous heritage and indigenous rights to enact 

cultural practices are typically highly valued by Alutiiq people. Fieldwork in the study area 

bears out this perspective. Subsistence hunting and fishing are integral components of a larger 
17

array of valued cultural practices in the Kodiak villages, and these will likely be dearly held by 

the Alutiiq when making decisions about their own future, including those associated with EVOS 

settlement or other potential sources of change: 

Through generations of gradual cultural change and rapid transitions brought on by 

colonization and traumatic events, the Alutiiq people have remained adaptive and 

resilient while maintaining a strong connection with their distant past. They maintain the 

ability to decide who they are despite outsiders’ attempts to decide for them. The right to 

decide who they are and what they will be called is clearly the exercise of selfdetermination. 

European and Euro-American Influences through Fishing. Whale hunters arrived in the 

Kodiak region in 1835 to develop what would be called the “Northwest right whaling grounds” 

(Chaffin 1967). The industry fell into decline by 1860 and was practically obsolete by 1880. An 

era of immigration followed the purchase of Alaska by the United States in 1867. Persons from 

Sweden, Finland, and Norway were among the first to arrive. Fishing and trapping were 

common forms of employment, and commercial fisheries developed rapidly in association with 

an abundance of marine resources available across the region. 

The first salmon cannery was established on the Karluk spit in 1882. Seattle investors 

established four more canneries in the area by 1889. With a ready market for sockeye, the 

harvest correspondingly grew from about one million fish in 1887 to nearly five million in 1901 

(Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 2006; Fall et al. 2001). 

The population figures for Karluk reflect the growing fishing economy. In 1880, Karluk was 

home to around 300 persons. But by 1890, 1,123 persons were living in the area. About 495 

persons were living in Kodiak City at that time. Other villages were sparsely populated in 1890, 

with about 20 persons living in Larsen Bay, 86 in Old Harbor, and 74 in Ouzinkie (Alaska 

Department of Community and Economic Development 2007). 

 

Russian and Euro-American interactions with Native Alaskans initiated several changes in the 

sociopolitical nature of indigenous Alutiiq society. Marine resources that traditionally had been 

objects for reciprocal exchange and consumption were increasingly recognized for their value as 

export commodities. The attractions of the cash economy drew Alaska Natives into nonindigenous societies and economic entities, including trading companies, capital holding 

corporations, and processing firms (Fall et al. 2001:49-50). 

Cannery owner-operators relied extensively on workers from China, the Philippines, Japan, and 

Mexico. Relatively few Alutiiq men were employed in the canneries, since they tended to prefer 

hunting, trapping, and actual harvesting of marine resources. Some reportedly did sell part of 

their catch to the canneries, and a few were employed building boats. 

More significant economic relationships that developed between Alutiiq residents and cannery 

operators were noted in the 1930s, as some Alutiiq men operated cannery-owned commercial 

fishing vessels and some Alutiiq women began engaging in line work in the plants (Fall et al. 

2001). Extensive commercial fishing activity in the summer months typically was followed by 
18

subsistence-oriented hunting and fishing in the winter. Commercial trapping also supplemented 

household incomes during this period of history. 

Alutiiq fishermen sought more independence from the canneries after World War II. But 

cannery owners tended to monopolize the salmon market via ownership and operation of many 

salmon traps and it was difficult for Alaska Native fishermen to competitively develop their own 

commercial operations (Colt 2000). A ban on traps was sought by independent operators and 

finally won in 1959, soon after statehood was established. Persons of Alutiiq ancestry worked in 

the Kodiak-based commercial fishing industry throughout much of the 20th century. Most also 

participated extensively in consumptive-oriented fisheries and maintained various elements of 

traditional life ways. 

As fishery infrastructure grew in importance as the primary point of transshipment to other 

points in Alaska and to Seattle, the population of Kodiak Island gradually became concentrated 

in Kodiak City. By 1940, the population of Karluk had diminished to 192 persons. Ouzinkie 

was home to 253 persons, Old Harbor to 109, and Larsen Bay to 38. Some 864 persons were 

living in Kodiak City that year (Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development 

2007). 

Evolution of Local Government. The political structure of pre-contact societies on Kodiak was 

based first on relationships between extended families, then upon tribal allegiances and 

hereditary chiefdoms. The political organization of post-contact Native villages is reflective of 

the influence of European agencies and institutions, representatives of which encouraged Alutiiq 

peoples to form village councils led by chiefs and elders, or elected representatives (Alaska 

Judicial Council 1999). The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) codified federal recognition 

of these governing bodies and provided Native groups with a model for reorganizing the political 

structure of the village councils. Despite new empowerment, the authority of village councils 

was and is legally superseded by state and federal authorities. 

Village-level council government developed in tandem with a style of government more typical 

of the lower 48 states. The latter was first engendered in 1884, when Congress passed the 

Organic Act allowing for an Alaska governor, establishment of a legal system, and institution of 

a federal court. The Alaska Territory Constitutional Convention adopted and ratified a 

Constitution in 1956. This became effective when the territory was formally inducted as a state 

in 1959. Government of the Kodiak polity was subsequently enacted via a complex hierarchy of 

village, borough, state, and federal political entities and relationships (see Chaffin 1967). 

Kodiak Island Borough and other borough governments in Alaska govern via an elected 

assembly as in the manner of counties elsewhere in the nation. Kodiak Island Borough was 

incorporated in 1963. Daily operations are overseen by a borough manager. The City of Kodiak 

incorporated and elected its first mayor and city council in 1940. 

Overview of Land Holdings. The European concept and process of ownership of real property 

gradually replaced indigenous stewardship of the land and the characteristically flexible Alutiiq 

arrangement of moving villages in response to environmental challenges and availability of 

resources. Native villages persisted around the archipelago, though lands surrounding the best 
19

anchorages typically became the property of non-Native persons with commercial interests, 

capital, and the ethos of private ownership of land. Federal presence was accelerated during 

World War II, as Kodiak became an important staging area for the Aleutian campaign and other 

North Pacific operations. 

Today, five principal entities own land on Kodiak Island - the federal government, the State of 

Alaska, Alaska Native corporations, Kodiak Island Borough, and persons in the private sector. 

According to the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce (2006), private holdings account for only about 

17 percent of total land area on Kodiak. 

Distribution of land among Alaska Natives is based in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA). ANCSA was passed in 1971 after much struggle and negotiation between the Alaska 

Federation of Natives, federal and state government agencies, oil companies, and 

conservationists. Through a complex process of negotiations, 12 regional and more than 200 

village corporations assumed ownership of some 44 million acres of land, including land in the 

Chugach National Forest, Kenai Fjords National Park, the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife 

Refuge, and the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Mishler 1999). 

ANCSA stipulated the transfer of some 675,000 acres of land to Alaska Native corporations in 

the Kodiak Archipelago. The Kodiak regional corporation is Koniag, Inc., which currently 

represents the interests of over 3,500 shareholders. Its extensive land holdings on Kodiak Island 

are being used for a variety of commercial, recreational, and cultural purposes. Afognak Native 

Corporation represents persons with ancestral ties to Afognak and adjacent islets. Its 

shareholders own some 160,000 acres of land. Natives of Kodiak, Inc. is owned by some 800 

shareholders. It also maintains land holdings on Afognak Island and adjacent islets. Ouzinkie 

Native Corporation represents the interests of 410 shareholders and owns lands around the 

village on Kodiak Island. Akhiok Kaguyak, Inc. is the village corporation for Akhiok. As 

discussed later in the report, some 76,000 acres of its EVOS Land Trust holdings were liquidated 

in 2002. The Kodiak Tribal Council is the non-profit arm of the Sun'ak Tribal Council, which 

regained federal recognition in 2000. It represents interests of many indigenous residents living 

on Kodiak. Old Harbor Native Corporation represents the interests of some 350 shareholders 

and owns parcels of land around Old Harbor and Sitkalidak Island. 

Native corporations own and maintain extensive lands in the Kodiak Archipelago, but a much 

larger land area of 3,400,000 acres remains under the jurisdiction of the federal government. 

Some 1.8 million acres of federal land in the region is managed by the U.S. Department of the 

Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The State of Alaska manages 639,000 acres of land on Kodiak. Holdings include five state parks 

totaling 56,448 acres, and much of the island’s tidelands. Of note, the Department of Natural 

Resources leases portions of its tidal holdings to set netters in the region (Kodiak Island Borough 

Community Development Department 1983). 

Kodiak Island Borough holds title to approximately 70,000 acres of land in the region, more than 

half of which is on Shuyak and Raspberry Islands. Most of these lands were acquired via a state 
20

land grant entitlement in the 1970s. Sixty acres are designated for recreational use at 11 

municipal parks on Kodiak Island (Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 2006). 

 

Historic Disasters. On June 6, 1912 the volcanic eruption of Mount Katmai on the Alaska 

Peninsula covered Kodiak Island with 18 inches of ash, clogging salmon streams, filling lakes, 

and killing vegetation. Commercial salmon fishing and processing operations were obviated for 

much of that year. Numerous Alutiiq people from the Alaska Peninsula were transported to the 

village of Afognak. Pullar (2004) asserts that traditional knowledge about effective response to 

such events ensured the safety of Native residents. Although the eruption was more powerful 

than that of the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa in Indonesia, no lives were lost. 

The earthquake and tsunami of 1964 destroyed 40 percent of the City of Kodiak’s downtown 

business area, and most of the city’s food supply. Damage to public and private property was 

estimated at $22 million (Chaffin 1967). The fishing industry was particularly hard hit. Some 

46 crab vessels were destroyed and 86 were damaged. Mishler et al. (1995) report that costs 

associated with losses of fishing vessels amounted to $7 million in 1964 dollars. Canneries in 

Shearwater and Ouzinkie were also destroyed, as was much of the salmon fleet based there 

(Chaffin 1967). The village of Afognak was largely destroyed, and both Ouzinkie and Old 

Harbor required extensive rebuilding. Kaguyak villagers relocated to the existing community of 

Akhiok. There were 11 deaths in the Kodiak region (Mullan 2003). 

 

2.3 Overview of Select Conditions and Trends: 1940-Mid-2000s 

General Demographic Trends. The post-contact population of Kodiak Island grew slowly until 

the 1940s when America entered World War II (Fall et al. 2001). In the early 1930s, there were 

between 400 and 800 residents in Kodiak City. Between 1940 and 1950, military personnel and 

their dependents and associated contract workers constituted much of a growing population, 

which reportedly reached 15,000 persons. Infrastructure and services were necessarily expanded 

to accommodate the growth (Chaffin 1967). 

Table 2-1 Population Figures for Kodiak Island Communities and Borough: 1940-2005 

Community Total Population by Year 

2005 (est.) 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 

Akhiok 41 80 77 105 115 84 72 n/d 

Karluk 27 27 71 96 98 129 144 189 

Kodiak City 6,088 6,334 6,365 4,756 3,798 2,628 1,710 864 

Larsen Bay 97 115 147 168 109 72 53 38 

Old Harbor 200 237 284 340 290 193 121 109 

Ouzinkie 191 225 209 173 160 214 177 253 

Port Lions 220 256 222 215 227 0** ~ ~ 

Kodiak Island 13,638 13,913 13,309 9,939 7,174 n/d ~15,000* growing 

Source: Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development (2007); * Chaffin (1967); **Community 

was established following the 1964 earthquake; n/d = no data 

Some 15 percent of Borough residents reported Alaska Native ancestry as of the year 2000 

Census. The percentage differed by community. About ten percent of persons residing in 

Kodiak City reported native ancestry. That figure was 94 percent in Akhiok, 96 percent in 
21

Karluk, 79 percent in Larsen Bay, 86 percent in Old Harbor, 88 percent in Ouzinkie, and 64 

percent in Port Lions. The year 2000 Census indicates that some 17 percent of Kodiak Island 

Borough residents have an Asian or Pacific Island ancestry. Nearly 60 percent of residents 

reported Caucasian status. Just over six percent of the population was of Hispanic origin. About 

53 percent of the year 2000 population was male. 

The average annual unemployment rate in 2006 was 8.4 percent. As of 1998, the vast majority 

of jobs in the Borough were provided through local seafood processing firms. A total of 1,952 

such positions were actively filled across seven processing firms that year. The Kodiak Island 

Borough School District employed 394 persons in 1998, and the regional hospital employed168 

persons. Other major employers in 1998 included the City of Kodiak which employed 163 

persons, Safeway Stores which employed 155, Space Mark which employed 105, and Kodiak 

Area Native Association which employed 102 (Fried and Windisch-Cole 1999:8). 

Village population figures have fluctuated over the decades, partly in association with levels of 

participation and production in the harvesting and processing sectors of the seafood industry. 

There are some opportunities for work in local and state government agencies and in Native 

Corporation offices, but commercial fishing and processing have historically been critically 

important venues for earning income. Seasonal fluctuations in village populations are associated 

with seasonal variation in the harvesting and processing of seafood. 

While job availability is important in the modern context, migration in and out of Alaska Native 

villages undoubtedly relates to a complexity of factors. As discussed elsewhere in this report, 

our data suggest that while some people follow employment opportunities and the attractions of 

urban life, this is often conditioned by deep-seated interest in traditional life ways, by 

relationships with family members who continue to reside in the villages, and by lingering 

attachment to rural Kodiak Island. Thus, many people return to the village setting after pursuing 

interests in Anchorage, elsewhere in Alaska, or outside the region entirely. 

Several significant broad-scale demographic changes occurred in the region during the latter half 

of the 20th century. The first can be attributed to the 1964 earthquake, when residents of heavily 

impacted villages were forced to relocate to more habitable areas. Port Lions was established 

during this period. A second shift occurred as the population of Kodiak Island Borough 

increased by nearly 26 percent during the first three years of the 1980s. Yet another occurred as 

the population increased by another 15 percent between 1990 and 1991. Some analysts attribute 

growth in the 1990s to an influx of newcomers who stayed on Kodiak following work on the 

cleanup phase of response to EVOS (Mishler et al. 1995). Finally, the 2004 estimate of 13,276 

persons indicates a five percent decrease in population from the year 2000 Census. Extensive 

discussion of local and regional socio-demographic trends is provided later in this report. 

Trends in Marine Fisheries. The harvest and processing sectors of the Kodiak commercial 

fishing industry gradually expanded during the 20th century to accommodate all five species of 

salmon. By 1966, 18 processing plants were operating in Kodiak City, with eight additional 

facilities in outlying villages (Chaffin 1967). 
22

Participation and production in salmon fisheries were unrivaled until the post-World War II 

years when improvements in transportation infrastructure and venues of distribution rendered 

crab fisheries increasingly lucrative. A crab cannery was established in Kodiak City in 1949. 

This was the first Alaska facility to process king crab in commercial quantities. Most catch was 

taken in the Bering Sea. Landings increased from 60,000 pounds in 1950 to 21,000,000 pounds 

in 1960. Some 94,000,000 pounds of king crab were landed in 1966. The shrimp harvest also 

increased rapidly, from 32,000 pounds in 1958 to an average of 11 million pounds in the early 

1960s. The fishery peaked in 1971, with production reaching 82 million pounds (Chaffin 1967). 

The prosperity initially enjoyed by the crab fleet was not long-lived. By the mid-1980s, 

participants were addressing a variety of challenges associated with diminishing stocks. The 

shrimp fishery suffered as well, and by the late 1980s production was down significantly. 

The Kodiak-based groundfish fleet developed in part due to the establishment of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone, as specified in the Magnuson Act of 1976. This precluded the participation of 

foreign fleets in fisheries occurring from three to 200 miles offshore. The harvesting and 

processing sectors of the groundfish fishery are now mainstays of the Kodiak fishing industry. 

The commercial fishing and processing industries are of central importance to the contemporary 

economy of Kodiak and thus downturns in marine fisheries bear widespread implications. While 

the salmon fishery remains in a state of transition, some fisheries are growing. For example, the 

wholesale value of the Kodiak groundfish fishery increased from $23.5 million to more than $34 

million between 1986 and 2004. Halibut, perch, herring, sole, and flounder are also highly 

valuable resources. Salmon has long been Kodiak's primary fishery in terms of pounds 

harvested. Indeed, there are more than 800 salmon streams in the Kodiak Management Area. 

Salmon comprised 36 percent of the total catch in 2004, with an ex-vessel value of nearly $19 

million dollars (Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 2006). But the fishery has been increasingly 

challenged through depression of prices and a diminishing market share resulting from an influx 

of farmed salmon in world markets (Gilbertson 2003). Participants report that this situation 

began to affect the fishery at about the same time as EVOS, its associated closures, and putative 

challenges associated with public perception of tainted seafood. Some key informants suggest 

that market conditions for salmon may be on the rebound in that Alaska salmon fisheries are now 

achieving a national and international reputation for high quality wild products. Improvements 

notwithstanding, prices remain well below historic peaks. The market price for Alaska sockeye 

was $2.71 per pound in 1988, 53 cents in 2003, and 67 cents in 2006. 

Sepez et al. (2005:202) report that 1,569 commercial fishing permits and 1,263 crew permits 

were issued to residents of Kodiak City during the year 2000. These include both state and 

federal permits. Nearly 958 permits were being fished that year. The total pool of commercial 

permits issued to residents included 119 crab permits, 285 halibut permits, 152 herring permits, 

540 permits for other groundfish, 58 sablefish permits, 348 salmon permits, and 67 shellfish 

permits. The authors also discuss the importance of sport fishing and guiding on Kodiak Island, 

noting that 11,331 sport fishing permits were sold on Kodiak in 2000, 5,030 of which were sold 

to residents of Alaska. Table 2-2 depicts the overall scope of participation in marine fisheries 

across Kodiak Island Borough for the year 2000. Information about the nature and extent of 

Kodiak-based subsistence fisheries is provided elsewhere in this report. 
23

Table 2-2 Licensed Participation in Commercial and Sport Fishing across Kodiak Island: Year 2000 

Community 

Comm. Permits 

Issued to 

Residents * 

Resident 

Licensed Crew 

Members 

Local Seafood 

Processing Firms 

Sport Fishing 

Guide 

Businesses** 

Sport Fishing 

Permits Issued† 

Akhiok 6 12 0 0 0 / 0 

Karluk 0 6 0 6 8 / 79 

Kodiak City 1,569 1,263 11+ Numerous*** 5,030 / 6,301 

Larsen Bay 22 29 1 26 75 / 497 

Old Harbor 72 63 0 12 17 / 101 

Ouzinkie 48 35 0 2+ 46 / 55 

Port Lions 49 41 0 11 18 / 148 

TOTAL 1,766 1,449 12+ >100 5,194 / 7,181 

* Includes both state and federal permits; ** Includes guide operations for both freshwater and marine species; 

**The authors do not specify the total number of sport fishing guides operating from Kodiak City; † Number of 

permits issued to residents / Number of permits issued to non-residents; Source: Sepez et al. 2005 

Kodiak Harbor, 2005 

Trends in Fishing Activities among Alaska Natives. Rates of participation of Alaska Natives in 

Kodiak commercial fisheries has followed the general trend of decline that began late in the 

1980s in conjunction with falling prices for salmon (concurrent with the oil spill). But 

subsistence fishing activities continue to be of central importance to Alutiiq and other Alaska 

Natives living on Kodiak Island. Important resources include razor and butter clams, Dungeness 

and king crab, salmon, trout, char, halibut, rockfish, seal, and various waterfowl. Some persons 

who were formerly employed in commercial fisheries are now using their knowledge of local 

resources to guide visiting hunters and anglers. Socio-cultural and economic dimensions of the 

interface between subsistence and related cultural activities, commercial fishing, and other forms 

of involvement in the capitalist system that is now predominant in the region are discussed in 

greater detail later in this report. 
24

Transportation Services and the Aerospace Industry. Safe and efficient mainland-to-island 

transportation services are basic to the functioning of the economy and daily life on Kodiak 

Island. Air transport services are centrally important in this island setting. The Kodiak State 

Airport supports cargo and passenger jet and propeller services via three active runways. The 

airport is federally-owned but is leased to and maintained by the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities. 

The Port of Kodiak on Chiniak Bay serves as a vital point of consolidation and transshipment for 

cargo arriving from the mainland and heading to Kodiak City and the outlying villages. Two full 

service marinas and three deepwater piers provide moorage for up to 650 commercial, 

recreational, cargo, passenger, and cruise vessels (City of Kodiak 2000). Many of the island’s 

deep-draft bays are ice-free year-round, affording additional possibilities for temporary mooring. 

The Alaska State Ferry system is also an important mode of inter-island and cross-Gulf 

transportation. Its fleet now includes 11 vessels and provides daily passenger, cargo, and vehicle 

service to 32 Alaskan communities. In Southwest Alaska, the ferry sails from Kodiak to 

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, making stops in several communities along the way. It also connects 

Kodiak to the mainland road system via Valdez, Cordova, Homer, Seward, and Seldovia. 

The Kodiak Launch Complex, developed and maintained by the Alaska Aerospace Development 

Corporation, is the nation’s first launch complex not situated on federal property. A variety of 

aerospace missions are conducted from the site for the U.S. Air Force and/or NASA, including 

launches of sub-orbital vehicles, quick reaction launch vehicles, and atmospheric interceptors. 

According to an independent consulting firm, the facility generated a $20 million impact on the 

Kodiak economy, including $16.3 million in purchases and hospitality, and $3.6 million in 

payroll. Some 45 workers were employed at the site in 2005, and spending reportedly generated 

another 80 jobs on the island that year (Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 2007). 

 

The Increasing Importance of Tourism. Kodiak has long attracted visitors. Most come to fish 

and hunt, hike, camp, engage in whitewater rafting, observe wildlife, and learn about island 

culture. The six state parks and the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge attract many. According to 

the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce (2005), about 30,000 tourists visited the island during 2004. 

This was 31 percent of the Southwest Alaska visitor market (Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 

2005). Kodiak tourists contributed nearly $22 million in direct expenditures in 2004. The figure 

was $15 million in 2005 (Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 2007). The recent growth of the 

charter/guide fishing industry is particularly noteworthy. In 1994, third quarter receipts in this 

sector summed to about $175,000; by 2004, receipts for the same quarter totaled nearly $700,000 

(Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 2006). 

 

Kodiak’s Public Sector. Establishment of a naval base on Kodiak in 1939 introduced a new 

governmental presence to the island. The facility was converted to a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

base in 1972. USCG personnel and their dependants, the vast majority of which are non-Natives, 

now constitute a sizeable portion of local population. In 2004, nearly 1,100 active duty 

personnel and 1,700 dependents were living at the base. Integrated Support Command Kodiak is 

the largest Coast Guard base in the country. The base is located seven miles from Kodiak City. 
25

This 21,000-acre facility is also home to Air Station Kodiak, the North Pacific Fisheries Training 

Center, Loran Station Kodiak, Electronics Systems Unit Kodiak, a Coast Guard Investigative 

Services office, Communications Station Kodiak, a 17th District Public Affairs Detachment, and 

a Naval Special Warfare Detachment. Additionally, the CGC Spar, CGC Storis, and CGC Alex 

Haley are based here (Munoz 2005). 

Administrative offices of Kodiak Island Borough, the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and several Alaska Native corporations are based in 

Kodiak City. Government employment and expenditures are important elements of the local and 

regional economy. On average, the public sector engages about 35 percent of the Kodiak labor 

force and generates about 15 percent of its total economic base. Sales tax generated $7.3 million 

in revenue in 2004. Capital funds are also generated through fees on use of city docks; this 

generated nearly $315,000 during 2004. Property taxes generated $8.6 million in 2004. 

2.4 An Overview of Kodiak and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 

The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a highly significant event in the history of Kodiak Island and its 

communities. We regress from description of more recent conditions to provide the reader with 

a basic understanding of the event and the way in which it and its sequelae have conditioned the 

experiences of Kodiak residents since 1989. 

Poor weather and various human factors preceded movement of oil from the grounded tanker in 

Prince William Sound to shorelines as distant as Ivanof Bay along the Alaska Peninsula. By 

mid-April 1989, extensive portions of the Kodiak Island shoreline had been affected by mousse, 

tar balls, and/or sheen emanating from the site of the grounding. The oil spread from the 

northern end of the island, along the west coast, and through many passages, coves, and small 

islands that comprise the Kodiak Archipelago (IAI 1990c: 37). Commercial and subsistence 

fisheries were closed throughout the region during the first year of the spill and an extensive 

response effort was undertaken with the intent of minimizing damage to the region’s natural 

resources. 

Clean-up and Mitigation. Not long after the spill first occurred, it became increasingly clear to 

some that wind and current could ultimately drive the oil toward Kodiak Island. Local 

government officials, concerned fishery participants, and other residents therefore formulated 

response plans prior to the arrival of oil in the region. Community meetings were held on a daily 

basis. Officials interacted with the public to discuss the progress of the spill and strategies for 

effective response, and residents verbalized their own concerns and perspectives. By the time 

Exxon became involved, an involved local response plan had been developed. Local fishing 

fleets were prepared to respond, lists of local volunteers had been generated, and plans for 

treatment of oiled animals had been made (IAI 1990c: 38-39). 
26

Oil Spill Response Workers on Kodiak, 1989 

But interviews with local leaders indicated that Exxon personnel and staff working for its cleanup contractor, VECO, did not articulate effectively with local response planning and actual 

response efforts. Communications challenges notwithstanding, City, Borough, and USCG 

officials worked with Exxon and VECO, and with outlying village representatives toward an 

effective cleanup operation (IAI 1990c: 40). 

The challenges were immense. The oil was distributed more sporadically than in Prince William 

Sound, but this merely forced a spatially interrupted cleanup effort. Cleanup methods included: 

pressure washing of beaches and rocks, removal and bagging of oiled debris and wildlife, 

cleaning of rocks with rags, and various forms of bioremediation. Some 46 percent of adults 

residing in Kodiak Island Borough were employed in oil spill cleanup jobs in 1989 (Fall et al. 

2001). Household incomes were typically higher during the spill year than during previous years 

but returned to pre-spill levels when cleanup ended (Fall et al. 2001: 298). It should be noted 

that many non-residents were hired as well, with some friction noted between local and non-local 

workers and administrators (IAI 1990d: 42). 

Select Commercial Fisheries Effects. Concerns about the potential effect of oil on the region’s 

marine resources and its prospective consumers led to cessation of most commercial fishing 

activities in most locations around Kodiak Island. Because Kodiak Island was homeport for 

numerous fishermen who plied waters outside the area, some were also affected by closures in 

Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and along the Alaska Peninsula. Many fishermen leased their 

vessels and/or directly participated in the cleanup. Crew members were often displaced and also 

worked on the cleanup. Some processing firms also became involved in the response. 

In short, the fishing-based economy of Kodiak shifted to spill response and pursuit of 

compensation for lost fishing seasons (IAI 1990c:47). Exxon eventually paid out $300 million in 

compensation to more than 11,000 people and businesses around the affected areas of 

Southcentral and Southwest Alaska (ExxonMobil 2007). 
27

Indicative of the effects of the spill on participation in the region’s marine fisheries in general, 

salmon landings from the Kodiak region decreased by 11.3 million fish in 1990, a 60 percent 

departure from 1989, and a 42 percent departure from the five year average. The return equaled 

nearly half of the pre-season harvest projection of 14.5 million salmon (IAI 1990b:31). 

Given significant historic rates of participation and production, the Kodiak salmon seine fleet 

was most significantly affected by the spill event and associated closures. Other affected 

fisheries conducted from and around Kodiak included: Dungeness crab, food bait herring, roe 

herring drift, row herring seine, salmon beach seine, salmon set net, scallops, various finfish, and 

various shellfish. Again, some Kodiak-based fishery participants were also affected by closures 

and pricing problems to these and other fisheries conducted elsewhere in the larger region. 

Not all fishermen elected to take clean up work and therefore lost both fishing income and 

income that might have been derived from work on the spill. Others earned extensive income 

via spill response and also received compensation from Exxon. Economic effects were therefore 

varied and driven in part by personal decisions. Of note, some fishermen who did not earn 

substantial income from cleanup work later felt at a disadvantage for competition with those who 

were able to upgrade vessels and gear with income generated by cleanup work (IAI 1990c). 

Native villagers on Kodiak Island typically engage in commercial fishing activities at a higher 

rate than do non-Native villagers. Thus, such participants were disproportionately affected by 

the spill event in their home communities (IAI 1990d: 58-59). 

Effects on Subsistence Practices. Subsistence hunting and fishing and associated cultural 

practice were and remain important aspects of life on Kodiak Island. This is particularly the case 

in the villages. In the early 1980s, nearly all Alaska Natives on Kodiak used subsistence 

resources, with average per capita consumption of 148 pounds of wild foods per year. Fall et al. 

(2001:75) report that 96 percent of Native persons residing in the spill-affected areas harvested 

subsistence foods, 90 percent received them, and 79 percent shared them with kin or others. 

Following the spill, ADF&G personnel considered closing subsistence fisheries throughout the 

Kodiak Management Area. But given punctuated distribution of oil around the island, it was 

decided that subsistence fishers should be allowed to retain the flexibility to shift harvest efforts 

to unaffected areas, and thus not all areas were closed. 

Subsistence activities were disrupted nonetheless. Most village residents reported decreased 

involvement in fishing for food because of the oil spill. For example, while approximately 83 

percent of households in Akhiok, Karluk, Kodiak, and Larsen Bay had engaged in subsistence 

activities prior to the spill, only 68 percent reported doing so after the spill. Some 60 percent of 

respondents reported that the oil spill had a direct effect on their normal patterns of hunting and 

fishing (IAI 1990c: 28). Fall et al. (2001: 208) report that subsistence harvest declined by 50 

percent on Kodiak Island during the year following the spill. This related to: strategic avoidance 

of affected areas, worries about the health effects of eating contaminated wild foods, and less 

time for traditional activities given participation in cleanup activities. 
28

Oiled Beach on Kodiak Island in 1989 

IAI (1990d: xiv, 52) reports that the result of diminished participation in subsistence activities 

led to a variety of corollary social effects, including less time spent with people from other 

households and diminished availability of foods for sharing with kin, elders, and members of 

other households in one’s home village and elsewhere on Kodiak. Decreased involvement in 

subsistence activities reportedly also led to increased reliance on store bought foods (IAI 

1990c:47). 

Initial and Ongoing Litigation. The first of many lawsuits were initiated against Exxon 

Corporation only two weeks after the grounding of the tanker in Prince William Sound. Eight 

months later, more than 150 lawsuits had been filed. The cases and claims were gradually settled 

out of court, adjudicated, and/or consolidated for future hearing (the course of legal outcomes is 

outlined in Chapter One of this report). 

Many thousands of claimants gradually became involved in a protracted punitive damages suit, 

the settlement of which is the vector of hypothetical social change that is the principal subject of 

this report. The ongoing series of legal debates, appeals and settlements, and associated 

speculation, opinions, and promises of favorable outcomes have constituted chronic sources of 

stress for many of those involved, including a disproportionate number of residents of Kodiak 

Island. As Mitchell (1996) notes and our own long-term involvement in research of the spill and 

its human dimensions, the far-ranging and prolonged litigation ‘mania’ following from the oil 

spill should be considered one of its most significant social impacts. 

The situation also made clear the status of Alaska Natives and the legal capacity of the group 

regarding stewardship of natural resources. As Fall et al. (2001:183) assert: 

 “besides creating stress . . .litigation has underscored the legal vulnerability of 

Alaska Natives in claiming compensation for damages to subsistence inflicted by 

the spill. Litigation highlighted the opinion that, although Alaska Native people 

may use natural resources for subsistence, ANCSA terminated their right to act as 

legal trustee for those resources.” 
29

The EVOS Land Trust Process. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council was formed with 

funds from settlement of the Exxon Civil Case. Principal objectives of the Council involve: (a) 

the funding of projects that would protect wilderness habitat in oil-affected and adjacent areas 

around the region, and (b) the purchase of such lands for purposes of conservation. 

Several Alaska Native corporations and entities on Kodiak Island participated in the large parcel 

buyback program established by the Council. The Old Harbor Native Corporation sold 31,609 

acres of land to the Council for $14.5 million. This acreage was subsequently incorporated as 

part of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. The Trustee Council also purchased nearly 

119,000 acres from the Akhiok-Kaguyak Corporation for a price of $46 million. Koniag Inc. 

sold 117,000 acres of land for $26.7 million. The Afognak Joint Venture group sold 42,000 

acres for $70.5 million. Seal Bay/Tonki Cape sold 41,500 acres for $39.5 million. Finally, 

Kodiak Island Borough sold 27,000 acres for $42 million (Phillips 1999). Some 7,000 acres of 

land was also purchased through its small parcel buyback program, 2,923 acres of which were 

located in the Old Harbor area. Other small parcels were located near Larsen Bay, inside Karluk 

Lagoon, and along the Ayakulik River. 

The sale of land was intended to support Trustee Council goals and benefit Alaska Native 

corporation shareholders. Mishler (1999) asserts that proceeds have helped offset losses 

resulting from downturns in the commercial fishing industry, though it is not clear to what extent 

the spill and associated events can be blamed for long-term problems in the region’s fishery, 

such as those associated with pricing of salmon in the world market. 

The land purchase program was not without problematic effects. The Akhiok-Kaguyak 

Corporation, for example, experienced much internal disagreement over the course of 

distribution of buyback proceeds. Shareholders eventually took the corporation president and 

board to court to contest the proposed dividend amount. The board eventually settled out of 

court and the president was subsequently voted out of office (Mishler 1999). As discussed later 

in this report, Akhiok-Kaguyak Corporation later liquidated much of the $36 million trust fund 

that had been part of the civil settlement. This resulted in two large settlements (~$100,000) to 

individual shareholders and a range of subsequent changes, including, among others: increased 

mobility and hence increased in- and out-migration of residents; changes in patterns of 

employment, including temporarily diminished participation in commercial fishing (see Chapter 

Five of this report); and changes in spending patterns, including increased investment in 

materials for subsistence hunting and fishing and high rates of participation in those activities. 

Social Remediation. According to Fall et al. (2001: 288), litigation settlement monies have led 

to some degree of economic and cultural revitalization in Alutiiq villages, including those on 

Kodiak. In many cases, village corporations and shareholders used settlement monies to 

improve infrastructure and other aspects of community life. For instance, some funds were 

applied to the Kodiak Youth Spirit Camp to educate youth about traditional Alutiiq culture, and 

to the Kodiak Island Youth Area Watch. The latter is an “ongoing community involvement 

project designed to engage students in projects with goals aligned with the general restoration 

efforts of the Trustee Council” (Schneider 2003). Fall et al. (2001: 300) further assert that while 

revitalization was being undertaken long before the oil spill and associated settlement monies 

arrived in the region, those monies do in some cases appear to have furthered those efforts.
30

3.0 Overview of the Settlement Baseline and Monitoring Framework

This chapter describes the rationale and methods used to develop the baseline, monitoring, and 

assessment framework for examining the social, demographic, and economic effects of 

settlement awards on Kodiak Island. As discussed in Chapter One, the research methods and 

analytical approach are designed to examine long-term local and regional social and economic 

change resulting from: (a) settlement of the case, (b) disbursement of damage awards, and (c) 

other social and economic processes both related and unrelated to resolution of EVOS-related 

litigation. 

3.1 Analytical Focus 

The primary focus of the following pages is: (a) demonstration of the rationale and methods used 

to develop the baseline and monitoring framework, (b) depiction of key elements of the baseline 

and framework, and (c) actual assessment of trends for select variables of interest as needed to 

understand the implications of new sources of change such as that associated with the settlement 

or other events and factors such as the current economic downturn. Note that the database is too 

extensive to be provided in its entirety and thus we present only those variables and factors that 

are at once most pertinent to the research hypotheses and useful for indicating social and 

economic change. These include variables and factors relating to: measurable trends in 

population and migration, labor supply and participation in the labor force, trends in the entry 

and exit of business firms on Kodiak Island, employment in various economic sectors, earned 

and unearned income, and trends in resident fishery permits and gear ownership. 

Given limited availability of relevant historic information, we begin coverage of the baseline and 

trends assessment with data from 1980. Data is compiled for subsequent years through 2006, as 

availability allowed at the outset of the effort. Monitoring and updating of key variables has 

continued through the present and will be concluded when sufficient data has been collected to 

enable comprehensive analysis of social and economic effects specific to the settlement. 

The assessment includes forecast of economic and demographic conditions in Kodiak Island 

Borough. For purposes of that assessment, the EVOS punitive damages settlement is treated as 

an exogenous economic “shock” to the study region and its communities. We note at the outset 

that the structure of the awards and disbursement process are fundamental to the nature and 

extent of local and regional social and economic effects. Taxation and potential measures for tax 

relief also condition those effects. Disbursements can be expressed in terms of a net present 

value, which in this case has the potential to increase the wealth of some residents. The manner 

in which award recipients respond to settlement-related income is the central focus of this study. 
31

The nature and timing of primary source data collection during Phase Two of the project has 

been sensitive to the reality that the disbursement process has been phased (as will be described 

in our final report), and that some time must elapse before awards can work through the 

economic system, and before recipients can react in a way that can be systematically assessed. 

The final analysis is proving to be both challenging and important since micro- and macro-social 

response to distribution of large-scale settlement awards is not well known. 

3.2 Rationale and Methodology for Local and Regional Baseline Assessment

We are operating from the perspective that a meaningful characterization of baseline social and 

economic conditions should be both descriptive and analytical. In this case, it must be capable of 

assessing the reactions of social actors to economic incentives arriving through an exogenous 

and much anticipated source. 

Key Economic Principles Used in the Study. Review of some basic economic principles may be 

useful for clarifying our approach. First among these is optimization. The concept of 

optimization in economics holds that consumers will maximize well-being through participation 

in the labor force, through constrained consumption, and via savings. Under these parameters, at 

any point in time consumers are constrained by a fixed income “budget.” All else held equal, 

disbursement of punitive damage awards may fundamentally expand household budgets while 

generating opportunities for saving and/or consumption. This may, in turn, reduce the need for 

optimizing well-being through behavior such as engagement in the workforce. As such, 

settlement-related changes in baseline economic conditions and variability in behavioral 

response to those conditions at individual and household levels of analysis may collectively and 

variably affect the local and regional economy. 

Theoretically, producers such as commercial fishermen and other small businesses engage in a 

rational, utilitarian strategy of optimization; in this case, maximization of profit. Under most 

circumstances, profit maximization implies cost minimization and efficiency. In the face of 

rising local demand for goods and services, the rational business operator will seek to increase 

commercial opportunities either by improving use of existing capacity or by investing in greater 

capacity to produce and sell more goods and services. Choice of path to profit maximization will 

depend on available capital, labor costs, and a range of subjective decisions, with the long-term 

outcome of those decisions generating variable implications for the local and regional economy. 

Again, settlement monies have the potential to affect those conditions, decisions, and outcomes. 

The concept underlying equilibrium theory as originally advanced by Ricardian economists is 

that, all things being equal, stability is the natural state of the economy (Wilk 1996:48). Today, 

equilibrium theory is considered useful as a conceptual model for understanding consumption 

and investment patterns in the face of fluctuating economic conditions and factors. That is, 

while consumers or producers rarely experience sustained conditions of social, political, or 

economic stability; and market conditions, cost factors, and consumption and investment 

opportunities are always changing; the behavior of the actors in question can be assessed against 

a model that has them continually reacting to such fluctuating conditions in a way that at once 

maximizes well-being and achieves systemic equilibrium. 
32

Specific Hypotheses. We use the principles of optimization and equilibrium to develop specific 

hypotheses about how settlement awards will affect the Kodiak Island Borough economy and its 

citizens. The hypotheses are as follow: 

1. Settlement award recipients will increase consumption and investment spending above 

prevailing levels; 

2. Settlement award recipients on the cusp of entry to or exit from commercial ventures will 

invest or re-invest in seafood-related industries and sectors, in real estate, and in other 

basic- and support-sector business interests; 

3. Settlement award recipients will spend more than in the past; this will increase the size of 

the local support sector; 

4. Settlement award recipients will change their pattern of labor supply by increasing 

involvement in leisure activities and/or through more active pursuit of subsistence 

activities; and 

5. Settlement award recipients will emigrate from Kodiak. 

Formulation of a regional economic baseline as guided by the above hypotheses warrants several 

considerations, framed here as questions. First, what are the most appropriate measures of 

regional socioeconomic change in this case? Second, what methodological terms are required to 

establish a baseline capable of evaluating the effects of settlement award distributions? Third, is 

it reasonable to evaluate the regional economic impacts of settlement award distributions using 

an approach similar to that available for assessing the effects of significant and distinctly tangible 

“milestone” events such as those enumerated in Figure 3-1 below? 

Our baseline analysis focuses on a regional economy and socioeconomic system characterized by 

highly productive commercial and subsistence fisheries, guided hunting and fishing 

opportunities, scenic and wildlife values, and significant Coast Guard and strategic defense 

activities.14 In general terms, evaluation of changes in these sectors arising from specific macroeconomic events or actions is appropriately measured through variables that are indicative of 

change in socio-demographic, employment, and income conditions. 

The Export-Base Model. A regional export-base model and analytical framework is useful for 

describing and assessing the basic economic structure and socioeconomic trends in resourcedependent regions such as Kodiak Island Borough (Haines 1997). The economic base model is 

used to measure the magnitude of short-term direct, indirect, and induced effects from exogenous 

events (shocks) or significant structural changes imposed on local or regional economies. 

Direct effects pertain to a significant event or anomaly that typically arises from outside of the 

regional economy and results in subsequent feedback effects through the process of interlinked 

 

14 The United States Coast Guard typically employs some 17 percent of the Kodiak workforce and the Kodiak 

Launch Complex provided about 45 year round jobs in 2005. 
33

income and spending. Injection of monies from clean-up efforts associated with large oil spills 

and widespread distribution of litigation settlement monies are examples of such events. 

Feedback effects in this case include both indirect and induced elements of change. Indirect 

effects are driven secondarily by initial input of funds into an existing economic system. An 

example of this would the spending of Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) 

monies by local contractors and suppliers hired to respond to the after-effects of an earthquake. 

In the case of a litigation-related settlement award, monies will flow secondarily and indirectly 

through banks, real estate brokers, retail stores, and service providers such as travel and leisure 

firms. In the more customary case of a surge in export sector demand - such as for seafood 

products - indirect changes would involve increased demand for harvesting and processing 

capacity, logistics support services, and related employment. 

Induced changes are generated by the additional wages and income received and spent in part or 

in total by the directly and indirectly affected entities described above. This secondary spending 

penetrates more deeply into support-service sectors and in turn generates economic expansion (or 

contraction) through successive cycles of income and spending. Taken together, indirect and 

induced effects are traditionally referred to as “multiplier” effects. 

The regional export base model hypothesizes that change is initiated in the export-base sector of 

the economy - the part of the economy that is related to exogenous demand for raw materials or 

products such as seafood products, petroleum, timber, and tourism. As indicated above, the 

resulting expansion or contraction of local trade and service activities constitutes the multiplier 

process. The extent of the total direct impact of the exogenous shock is determined not only by 

its initial magnitude, but also by the nature of inter-industry relationships across a regional 

economy. For example, change in total rate of employment is typically related to a number of 

factors through various linkages and multiplier relationships. Such factors include extent of 

investment in local businesses and hence requirements for workers; the size of a given 

population hence demand for goods and services; subsidies available to supplement household 

income hence potential need for more or better job opportunities; and so forth. 

Under the traditional export-base model approach, historic multiplier relationships are used to 

quantify the indirect and induced impacts of exogenous shocks. The baseline assessment 

developed for this study involves inferences about future economic change under slightly 

modified terms. Here, the export-base model conveniently separates support-sector income and 

employment from the basic and government sectors. The current assessment isolates the support 

sector because the effects of settlement awards are likely to be concentrated there - in the form of 

local consumption and/or investment. For example, settlement awards have the potential to 

affect the supply of seafood, in that some persons may leave their commercial fishing operations 

and others may invest in them. 

Note that settlement awards are likely to affect support sector income and employment in a 

manner consistent with traditional multiplier mechanisms. But awards could also affect basic 

sector activity regardless of exogenous conditions in that sector. For example, distribution of 

settlement awards could be used to fund acquisition of gear and licensing for entry into certain 

fisheries where expected returns are marginal and would not, otherwise, justify such investment. 
34

Sequence of the Approach. In order to enable assessment of the effects of the distribution of 

settlement awards, we organize the baseline socioeconomic data into a time-series framework 

consistent with our modified export-base model. We then identify appropriate economic, 

demographic, and social time-series baseline indicators based on following criteria: (a) relevance 

to hypotheses, (b) degree to which quantitative and/or qualitative analysis is possible over time, 

and, (c) extent to which the data in question can be updated on a regular basis. 

Next we evaluate seasonal and cyclical trends for select indicators. When analytically isolated, 

the time-series dimensions of the variables can provide a benchmark from which the effects of 

shocks or other anomalies can be assessed. The steps for accomplishing such assessment for the 

quantifiable indicators are as follow: 

1. Per historic and contemporary patterns, project trend lines beyond date of settlement 

award income shock using a 95 percent confidence range (for quantifiable data); 

2. Update baseline as new data become available; 

3. Document the nature and timing of the income shock event as its manifests subsequent to 

the settlement; and 

4. Compare projected baseline with actual time-series data. 

Note that observed departures from baseline projections will be evaluated for a range of 

quantifiable variables. Factors and variables better suited to qualitative assessment of change 

will also be examined, as will the interactive effects of factors captured by both forms of data. 

For instance, we will examine decision-making processes about investment in marine fisheries 

and subsistence practices subsequent to settlement, and we will analyze the implications of those 

decisions for the larger social and economic systems that characterize the villages and region. 

In sum, the general approach of this study is to compare measurements for empirically-derived 

time-series variables ex post settlement award disbursement, with baseline projections for those 

indicators. Baseline projections in this case are generated on the basis of conditions prevailing 

prior to settlement. Thus, the modified export-base model serves as a framework for examining 

macro-scale socioeconomic change, and component indicators are chosen for use in the model 

based in part on their capacity for testing the hypotheses of interest. 

3.3 Review of Socioeconomic Conditions for Kodiak Island Borough and its Communities 

Principal Formal Economic Sectors and Milestone Events. The commercial fishing industry is 

the largest sector in the Kodiak Island Borough economy. Public sector activity also plays a 

significant role in the regional economy. Borough government agencies, U.S. Coast Guard and 

other federal government agencies, transportation services, port services, support sector 

businesses, and land-based fish processing firms are all concentrated in Kodiak City. As is the 

case for Barrow, Bethel, Dillingham, Gulkana, King Salmon, Kotzebue, McGrath, and Nome, 
35

Kodiak City is a center of commerce for smaller communities that are located in adjacent rural 

areas. Most residents of the villages and commercial fishermen working in the region 

periodically travel to or use Kodiak City for a range of services. Many also pass through Kodiak 

en route to Anchorage. 

We begin discussion of historic events and trends via Figure 3-1 below, which summarizes per 

capita personal income and population figures for Kodiak Island Borough over the period 1969-

2004. The figure also superimposes important institutional and economic events that have 

affected the course of economic development in the region. Note that numerous other events 

have occurred in more recent years; obviously these will be incorporated into the final analysis. 

Among the most significant events during the period was establishment of the MagnusonStevens Fisheries Management and Conservation Act of 1976. The Act established the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which precluded fishing activity by foreign fleets in U.S. 

waters. It also called for the establishment of regional fishery councils to guide management of 

marine resources in the EEZ. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council interacts with 

NOAA Fisheries to manage fishing activity in the Alaska region. As such, 1976 was the 

beginning of an era of increased federal management of offshore fisheries in Alaska and 

elsewhere in the U.S., with ongoing implications for fleets based on and operating around 

Kodiak Island. 

The American Fisheries Promotion Act of 1980 was also significant for Alaska and Kodiakbased fisheries. The Act led to establishment of joint ventures between domestic harvesters and 

foreign processing interests, with implications for the economic growth of groundfish fleets 

around the region. 

Increases in general fund expenditures by the State of Alaska are associated with expansion of 

onshore and nearshore oil and natural gas production during the late 1970s and early 1980s. The 

oil and gas industry also stimulated spending in the private sector. Although specific local 

effects of the industry are difficult to identify in the Kodiak region, its generalized economic 

effects were significant for the entirety of Alaska throughout the period. 

As noted in Chapter Two of this report, the Kodiak crab fishery began to diminish in significance 

in the early 1980s. A shortage of the resource in the Bering Sea led to especially acute effects 

for Kodiak since much of the fleet was based in Kodiak City. Both harvest and processing 

sectors were negatively affected. 

Worldwide market prices for salmon peaked in 1988. Significant growth of the salmon farming 

industry and widespread availability of pen-reared product appear to have preceded subsequent 

market challenges encountered by Alaska-based harvesters and processors (Gilbertson 2003). 

Market conditions for Kodiak-region wild salmon have recovered somewhat, but they remain 

significantly below those achieved throughout Alaska during the early-to-mid 1980s. 

Meanwhile, the Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 1989 was a highly significant event in the 

Kodiak region. Most Kodiak and Gulf of Alaska fisheries were closed during the months 

following the spill. The closures coincided with the market challenges mentioned above and 

were also associated to some uncertain extent with public perceptions about oil-tainted seafood. 
36

Participation in the Kodiak region halibut fisheries increased throughout the late 1980s and early 

1990s. The Individual Fisheries Quota (IFQ) system was adopted in 1995 to address overcapitalized halibut and sablefish fleets. 

While the implications of these milestone events and processes are not fully understood in the 

specific social and economic context of Kodiak, each did have a discernible effect on the 

region’s economy. When expressed in constant 2004 dollars, per capita income exhibited 

significantly greater variability during the 1970s and 1980s than during the 1990s and early 

2000s. Sharp declines in per capita income during the early 1980s and early 1990s appear to 

have coincided with challenges in the salmon market and with decline of the Bering Sea crab 

stocks. The oil spill led to significant changes during 1989 and the early 1990s. The effects of 

fisheries legislation and state spending are less discernible. With the exception of a modest 

decline in 2003, constant dollar per capita personal income has increased in the Kodiak region 

since 1994. Meanwhile, total population, which previously exhibited two decades of steady 

expansion, has been trending downward since 1994, with the exception of a slight increase in 

2000. 

Figure 3-1 Kodiak Island Borough Population and Per Capita Income: 1969-2004 

Magnuson-Stevens

EVOS

Salmon Price Peak

IFQ Adopted

American Fisheries 

Promotion Act

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

Per Capita PI

Population

State Spending Boom

Crab Crash

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income by Major Source, Regional Economic Information System, 

Table CA05 (SIC and NAICS). 

Income. The personal income indicator depicted in Figure 3-1 above is a “place of residence” 

construct. It incorporates earnings irrespective of where they were generated, and it also 

includes unearned income including dividends, interest and rent, and government subsidies 

(herein referred to as transfer receipts). 

The distinction between place of residence and place of work is significant for all of the income 

and employment data considered in this study. Indeed, a significant portion of total regional Per Capita Income in Constant 2004 $ 
37

earnings are traditionally “exported,” and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) calculates a 

resident adjustment to depict such earnings. This averages to approximately 11 percent of total 

earnings in the region since 1990, as depicted in Figure 3-2 below. Chapter Four of this report 

provides in-depth analysis of the nature of resident versus non-resident earnings and employment 

in the seafood harvest sector, and is further indicative of the relative importance of exported 

earnings and employment. 

Of particular note in the figure is a steady rise in per capita income beginning in 1994. This 

follows from a combination of relatively stable total earnings and a declining population base. 

Figure 3-2 Exported Annual Total Earnings by Place of Work: 1969 – 2003 

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Earnings Exported

Earnings Retained by KIB Residents

Residence Adjustment as a Proportion of

Earnings by Place of Work

Labor Force and Employment Factors. Trends in the size of the labor force and rate of 

employment follow the trend line for total population during the period 1990 to 2004. The labor 

force includes adult working-age persons who are able and willing to work, including those who 

were unemployed at the time of enumeration. As depicted in Figure 3-3 below, both the count of 

persons in the labor force and persons actually employed increase through the period 1990 to 

1994, and decline steadily thereafter. 

It should be noted that as for the population figures depicted in Figure 3-1, the measures of labor 

force and employment in Figures 3-3 and 3-4 address “place of residence” in contrast to “place 

of work” as depicted in Figure 3-2 above. The annual average rate of resident unemployment 

reaches a maximum of 12 percent in 1994 and averages about nine percent during the 15-year 

period 1990 to 2004. 

Significant monthly variation is also noted of the region’s labor force (Figure 3-4), typically 

reaching a maximum in July and a minimum in December (Figure 3-5). As noted later in this Millions of Constant 2004 $ Percent (%) 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income by Major Source, Regional Economic Information 

System, Table CA05 (SIC and NAICS). 
38

report, seasonal variation is typical of many sectors of the Kodiak economy and relates primarily 

to the seasonal nature of the seafood industry. 

Figure 3-3 Annual Averages in Labor Force Participation and Employment Counts: 1990-2004 

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000

6,500

7,000

7,500

8,000 Labor Force

Employment

Labor Force 6,343 6,710 6,927 7,240 7,746 7,464 7,510 7,384 6,973 6,829 6,520 6,860 6,317 5,927 6,112 

Employment 6,014 6,154 6,188 6,523 6,819 6,736 6,798 6,660 6,471 6,336 5,993 6,310 5,753 5,338 5,551 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 3-4 Size of the Kodiak Island Borough Labor Force by Month with Trend Line: 1990-2004 

 

0 

2,000 

4,000 

6,000 

8,000 

10,000 

Jan-90 Jan-92 Jan-94 Jan-96 Jan-98 Jan-00 Jan-02 Jan-04 

Persons in Workforce Count of Persons Employed and in Labor Force 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis, Workforce 

Information, Current Employment Statistics, http://almis.labor.state.ak.us/. 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis, Workforce 

Information, Current Employment Statistics, http://almis.labor.state.ak.us/. 
39

Figure 3-5 Seasonal Index for Kodiak Island Borough Labor Force: January 2000-September 2005 

Sources of Income. The principle components of income for Kodiak residents are illustrated in 

Figures 3-6 and 3-7 below. Here the distinction of note is between earned and unearned income. 

Estimates of income are measured in constant 2004 dollars and are consistent with previous 

measures of personal income and earnings by place of residence (as per Figures 3-1 and 3-2, 

respectively). 

Two sources of unearned income are considered here: (1) interest, dividends and rents, and (2) 

transfer receipts. The latter consist of all forms of public assistance. Unearned income accounts 

for a significant share of total income in this context. Both components have increased steadily 

as a proportion of total personal income until the latter few years of the 25-year time frame. 

Turning points indicative of declining proportions occur in 1998 for interest, dividend, and rental 

income; and in 2000 for transfer receipts. In the case of public assistance, the figure depicts two 

sharp positive increases - in 1973 and in 1982. A trough is noted for 1989. As might be intuited, 

the extent of public assistance during a given period tends to counter earned income for that 

period. These patterns are summarized in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-6 below. 

Table 3-1 Components of Unearned Income as Proportion of Total Personal Income: 1980-2003 

Source 1980s 1990s 2000-03 

Percent Transfer 8.0 11.7 14.9 

Percent Dividends, Interest, Rent 12.4 17.5 16.4 

Percent of Total 20.4 29.2 31.3 

0.985

1.020 1.016

0.987 0.973

1.010

1.092

1.007

0.977

0.947

0.898

1.088

0.600 

0.700 

0.800 

0.900 

1.000 

1.100 

1.200

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Index 1.00 = Average 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis, Workforce 

Information, Current Employment Statistics, http://almis.labor.state.ak.us/. 
40

Figure 3-6 Composition of Personal Income: 1969 to 2003 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Transfer Receipts

Dividends, Interest, and Rent

Net Earnings by Place of Residence

Figure 3-7 Proportional Amounts in Components of Unearned Income 

(Percent of Constant 2004 Dollars) 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Divident, Interest & Rent Income

Transfer Receipts Income

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income by Major Source, Regional Economic Information 

System, Table CA05 (SIC and NAICS). Millions of Constant 2004 $ Percent of Constant 2004 $ 
41

Additional Key Indicators. Additional indicators useful for characterizing economic trends in 

the Kodiak region are available in data generated by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development (ADOLWD). These are summarized in Figures 3-8 and 3-9, and in 

Tables 3-2 and 3-3. 

Of particular note here is the status of real and personal property in the region for the period 

1996 to 2004. Values are relatively stable throughout. 

Construction activity is depicted in Figure 3-8 below. This is indicated by the number of 

building permits issued and the total cost of new construction. Most notable is a recent reversal 

of a strong downward trend occurring during the period 1999 to 2002. 

Figure 3-8 Per Capita Total Real and Personal Property Values in Kodiak Island Borough: 1996-2005 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

Real

Personal

Real $638.7 656.0 653.1 663.2 684.0 677.5 673.3 677.4 678.4 678.3 

Personal $121.7 123.0 123.6 134.3 132.9 123.7 123.0 113.9 105.5 104.0 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Economic Indicators for Kodiak 

Island Borough, Regional Information Report Center, http://almis.labor.state.ak.us/. Millions of Constant 2004 $ 
42

Figure 3-9 Residential Building Permits & Total Construction Cost in Kodiak Island Borough: 1999-2004 

Table 3-2 Residential Building Permits by Types of Units and Cost* of Construction: 1999 to 2004 

Year Measure 

Type of Construction 

Total 

Residential† 

Single Family 

Residential† Five-plex or More† Tri- or Four-plex† Duplex† 

1999 No. Units 74 52 10 8 4 

Cost ($) 13,348,916 11,260,338 660,936 706,327 721,315 

2000 No. Units 72 48 16 8 0 

Cost ($) 11,079,272 8,508,283 1,595,728 975,261 - 

2001 No. Units 62 40 12 10 0 

Cost ($) 9,304,784 6,926,309 1,245,071 1,133,404 - 

2002 No. Units 46 38 4 4 0 

Cost ($) 6,768,626 5,897,880 465,743 405,003 - 

2003 No. Units 54 46 8 0 0 

Cost ($) 7,345,077 6,514,811 830,266 - - 

2004 No. Units 59 43 16 0 0 

Cost ($) 6,794,177 5,630,805 1,163,372 - - 

* Costs expressed in constant 2004 dollars. †All figures represent newly constructed units. Source: Alaska 

Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Economic Indicators for Kodiak Island Borough, Regional 

Information Report Center (see http://almis.labor.state.ak.us/). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

Units Built $16

Total Cost

Units Built 74 72 62 46 54 59

Total Cost $13.3 $11.1 $9.3 $6.8 $7.3 $6.8 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Economic Indicators for Kodiak 

Island Borough, Regional Information Report Center, http://almis.labor.state.ak.us/. Number of Units Built 

Millions of Constant 2004 $ 
43

Table 3-3 Locally Assessed Taxes, Kodiak Island Borough: 1998 to 2004 * 

Year 

Assessed Tax ($) 

Severance Tax Bed Tax Total Per Capita Local Tax 

1998 1,053,639 29,957 1,083,596 79 

1999 1,121,800 44,156 1,165,956 83 

2000 979,274 31,652 1,010,926 73 

2001 910,123 45,291 955,414 70 

2002 758,427 53,059 811,487 59 

2003 720,503 31,212 751,715 54 

2004 799,693 56,177 855,870 63 

* Costs expressed in constant 2004 dollars; Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 

Economic Indicators for Kodiak Island Borough, Regional Information Report Center 

(see http://almis.labor.state.ak.us/). 

Assessing Trends in Subsistence Activities. While not directly relevant or highly significant to 

the export potential of Kodiak’s formal economy, the subjective experience and informal 

economy associated with subsistence-oriented hunting and fishing are critically important 

aspects of life in the region. Indeed, as our interview data and data of observation clearly 

indicate, village life for many residents continues to revolve around seasonal participation in the 

various fish runs, hunts, periods of food gathering, and associated cultural activities, as it has for 

so many centuries. For many participants, money is used primarily as means for meeting 

cultural objectives. While many residents of Kodiak are fully aware of and engage in 

mainstream American culture, the modern culture of the Alutiiq family, village, and larger 

society remains critically important. Subsistence activities may rightfully be seen as central to 

that culture and society. 

But individual and collective capacity to hunt and fish for consumptive and cultural purposes in 

rural Alaska is today often based in part on income derived through jobs in the commercial 

fishing industry, government, or other sectors of the formal economy. Corporate and 

government subsidies also help facilitate these activities and aid in the overall maintenance of the 

household. The benefits of corporate subsidies and public assistance notwithstanding, 

informants often relate that a lack of job opportunities in the villages is associated with a variety 

of social problems, including diminished capacity to engage in hunting and fishing activities. 

A number of researchers have sought to address this issue in Alaska. For instance, Chance 

(1987) and Van Stone (1960) assert that while time applied to wage work brings in income that 

can be applied to meet the operating costs of hunting and fishing, it also reduces the amount of 

time available to actually engage in those activities. Dryzek and Young (1985) maintain that 

intensification of effort to earn money that can be used for subsistence activities constrains 

traditional practices and diminishes cohesion between families and individuals in Native 

communities. Wolfe (1984) suggests that successful harvest of wild food resources by Alaska 

Natives helps offset an inherently cyclical cash economy associated with commercial fishing. 

Jorgenson (1990:198-199) describes the practical rationale used by Inupiat Eskimos who 
44

regularly fish for consumptive purposes with vessels and gear that were originally purchased for 

commercial fishing ventures that in reality are often not cost-effective. 

Based on these varying perspectives, we hypothesize that significant settlement awards will 

serve to heighten long-term participation in subsistence-oriented activities by reducing the 

amount of time that need be undertaken in the commercial fishing industry or in other forms of 

cash- and capital-generating labor. We assert that disbursement of settlement awards in the 

study region has the potential to alleviate the “tension” experienced by subsistence practitioners 

who may desire to hunt and fish for consumptive and cultural purposes, but who often must 

engage in some form of employment to generate income in order to support the household and to 

purchase and maintain materials needed to hunt and fish with success. The extent of this 

hypothesized effect depends, in part, on the amount of the awards ultimately disbursed to 

individuals residing in the villages. As noted in Chapter One of this report, on the order of 2,500 

Alaska Native plaintiffs reside on Kodiak Island, some of whom are involved in multiple claim 

categories.

As for the full range of variables examined during the course of this study, testing hypotheses 

about the effects of settlement awards on subsistence activities in the study region will require 

analytical control of other factors that may also have an influence on individual and collective 

behavior. This will require in-depth and highly focused interaction with informants rather than 

extensive use of secondary data. Use of existing secondary data as a tool for monitoring and 

assessment is challenging in this case. ADF&G Division of Subsistence has systematically 

collected household survey data regarding subsistence practices in the Kodiak region, but 

practical constraints have limited the effort to once per decade since the 1980s. The most recent 

work was conducted on Kodiak Island in 2003. Thus, if the settlement were to occur in the near 

future, extensive periods of time would pass before the data are updated. Hence various events 

and social processes not related to the settlement would likely influence the nature and extent of 

subsistence activities in the region and thereby confuse any analysis based on archival data 

alone. 

Of note, the oil spill itself may ultimately complicate analysis of trends in subsistence practices 

following the settlement. For instance, Short et al. (2007) have detected oil lingering in the 

substrate of cobble and boulder beaches and other areas at study sites in Prince William Sound 

and along the Alaska Peninsula. Findings from the most recent ADF&G household survey 

suggest that the majority of residents in the originally affected communities assert that 

subsistence resources “have not recovered to pre-spill levels” (Fall et al. 2006). The authors 

assert that while harvest levels approximate those documented prior to the spill in 1989, nearly 

40 percent of residents in communities surveyed earlier in this decade report using at least one 

subsistence resource with less frequency due to the detrimental effects of spilled oil. Further, the 

authors report that 72 percent of respondents report that the “traditional way of life” has not 

recovered since the spill, and that confidence in eating shellfish was very low in many Kodiak 

communities. Despite the possible effects of response set and response bias on answers to 

queries about such a calamitous local and regional event, the findings make clear that long-term 

processes may indeed affect subsistence-related behavior – whether that behavior relates to 

actual availability and quality of wild food resources and pursuit thereof, or to the reporting of 

perspectives about the availability and quality of subsistence resources in the affected regions. 
45

Our own data indicate that shellfish are indeed now rarely consumed by residents in the Kodiak 

villages for fear of contamination. Moreover, many residents involved in the current research 

also tend to assert that their communities became less oriented to fishing because of the oil spill. 

But it should be made clear that the latter attribution is often based not on an empirical 

understanding that the spill caused the full range of subsequent problems in Kodiak fisheries and 

fishery-dependent communities, but rather because the oil spill has become linked in concept and 

in explanation with various detrimental changes in community life. 

In fact, many events and processes continually influence the manner and extent of subsistence 

activities on Kodiak Island and elsewhere. Alaska Natives living in spill-affected communities 

attend to various subsistence-related traditions with greater or lesser avidity for reasons that often 

either have little to do with the original spill event or that- in the absence of effective research 

methods and analysis- would be difficult to parse from the effects of the spill event and/or 

lingering oil. The commonality of refusal to collect and/or consume certain shellfish, such as 

clams, is a meaningful exception on Kodiak Island. 

Clearly, demographic factors may bear obvious influence on the collective potential of a 

community to engage in extensive consumptive-oriented hunting and fishing activities. The 

availability of persons who are fit and able to engage in those activities is an obvious and 

undeniably critical factor for success. For instance, the population of Karluk on Kodiak Island 

has diminished significantly over the last three decades, concomitantly diminishing the potential 

scope of subsistence activities in that community. In small Alaska towns and villages such as the 

study communities on Kodiak, the loss of even a small number of fishers, hunters, and gatherers 

can have a dramatic effect on overall levels of production. Tragically, relatively high rates of 

alcohol and substance abuse and suicide diminish participation in traditional subsistence life 

ways in rural Alaska, and this problem has been documented in the Kodiak study communities 

during the course of the current project. 

Knowledge of various cultural and environmental dimensions of the subsistence way of life and 

appreciation of that knowledge and lifestyle are also essential for the perpetuation of tradition. 

Clearly, willingness to engage in hunting and fishing activities and to share labor costs and the 

results of the effort are essential elements of life in small societies whose members enact norms 

that are typically more deeply rooted in cooperation than competition. 

All of these factors and conditions may be positively or negatively influenced by a variety of 

events and social processes of varying scope, complexity, intensity, and duration – rendering 

valid explanation of trends in subsistence practices an analytical challenge. Events and processes 

of particular note include but are not limited to: (a) exposure to and engagement in cultural 

forces or activities that are either supportive of or contrary to the continuity of subsistence 

practices, (b) abundance or lack of abundance of desired natural resources, (c) changes in 

physical access to those resources, (c) changes in the quality of those resources and/or associated 

habitat, (e) availability of money or opportunity to earn money for investment in subsistencerelated activities, and (d) exogenous events that preclude, divert, or support individual or 

collective attention to subsistence activities and/or associated cultural practices. 
46

Interview data make clear that it is likely that each of these factors has played a role in shaping 

the nature and extent of subsistence-oriented fishing, hunting, and gathering on Kodiak Island 

since survey data regarding subsistence activities were collected by ADF&G in 1986. As noted 

in Chapter Nine of this report, it is difficult merely to discern clear patterns of harvest, use, 

and/or consumption of subsistence resources within or across the villages for the years in which 

those data are available. Again, the exception is Karluk. Although harvest data for the most 

recent survey year were not made available to the ADF&G researchers visiting that village, it is 

clear that diminishing participation and production can be attributed in large part to the 

decreasing size of the village population. 

Our data suggest that while subsistence activities continue to occur with avidity in most of the 

Kodiak study communities, two primary challenges confront householders caught within and 

between differing cultures and societies. The first involves the desire of some residents to ensure 

that their children acquire an education that will enable advancement in contemporary American 

society. Some residents, or former residents, perceive that better educational opportunities are 

available in Kodiak City and Anchorage and have left or plan to leave the village to attain them. 

The situation may serve to explain population attrition in the villages as is noted elsewhere in 

this report, and when considered in conjunction with what has happened in Karluk, it is 

indicative of the potential effects of demographic change on the communal endeavor of 

consumptive-oriented hunting and fishing. 

The second challenge relates to diminishing involvement of village residents in local and 

regional commercial fisheries. Our informants report that diminished involvement relates 

primarily to economic constraints including market prices for salmon, rising fuel prices, and the 

cost of skiffs, engines, and gear vis-à-vis a perennial lack of alternative employment 

opportunities. Such challenges can often be overcome through cooperation and pooling of 

resources within and between extended families, but they can also be compounded by a range of 

factors, as described above. In any case, diminished involvement of village residents in 

commercial fisheries has reportedly made it more difficult for many residents to engage in 

subsistence-oriented fishing activities. 

Summary. In sum, the effects of ongoing social and physical environmental change on the 

manner and extent of subsistence practices and the cooperative pooling of labor and resources, 

sharing of harvested foods, and generalized reciprocity that characterize those practices, can be 

profound but difficult to discern. This is especially true in the absence of a research strategy that 

involves the empirical testing of clearly formulated research hypotheses, use of methods capable 

of detecting specific behavioral response to social and environmental changes over time, and 

means for establishing analytical control of intervening variables. 

But we posit that specific exogenous events, especially those that are grand in scope and 

intensity, can indeed lead to clearly discernible effects on subsistence and associated cultural 

practices. As discussed in Chapter Two, this was certainly the case during the months following 

the oil spill itself - as IAI (1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 1990d) and other researchers working in the 

affected region were able to document (e.g., Fall et al. 1997; Picou, Gill, and Cohen 1997). We 

hypothesize that settlement will lead to effects on subsistence hunting and fishing activity, but in 

the reverse. That is, it is hypothesized here that settlement awards will reduce the amount of 
47

time that village residents need to spend in the workforce, or out of the workforce with little 

available capital for investing in hunting and fishing activities, and that subsistence activities and 

related cultural practices such as sharing of resources and food-based traditional celebrations will 

be enhanced and so increase in frequency. The duration of such effects, if they occur as such, 

would also be subject to investigation. 

Again, this form of hypothesis-testing approach requires an appropriate methodology and control 

of potentially intervening variables. For instance, if our hypothesis that the settlement will lead 

residents to emigrate from Kodiak holds true, there will be a smaller pool of persons available to 

maintain a subsistence-oriented culture and society in the villages. In this case, subsistence 

activities would be enabled, but they would be undertaken by fewer people. Thus, it will be 

necessary to examine and control for relevant forms of demographic change. Similarly, it is 

possible that new monies could exacerbate a reported trend of disinterest in subsistence activities 

noted among youth living in some of the villages originally affected by the oil spill.15 

Conversely, settlement monies may lead to re-investment in village-based commercial fisheries, 

with the potential for corollary increases in social and fiscal capital available to invest in and 

practice subsistence hunting and fishing. 

The possibility that factors both related to and distinct from the settlement may tend to obfuscate 

analysis of its effects calls for a methodology that is: (a) highly focused on enabling 

comprehensive understanding of the immediate and longer-term social, cultural, and economic 

effects of the settlement, and (b) capable of identifying ongoing social and physical 

environmental factors that may influence the nature and extent of subsistence practices in the 

villages regardless of the settlement. Our intent is to undertake such an approach by continuing 

work with key informants in the villages to monitor potentially significant changes of relevance 

to participation and/or production in subsistence hunting and fishing prior to settlement. We will 

then re-enter the field after the settlement with a well-formulated and highly directed protocol 

capable of detecting and enabling explanation of potentially dramatic changes in subsistence 

practices, such as might be correlated with significant levels of emigration, extensive investment 

in subsistence gear, or extensive investment in commercial fisheries. The research team will 

observe the nature of social life in the community after settlement, and it will work closely and 

on an ongoing basis with a now well-established group of highly knowledgeable and locallysituated persons who can speak empirically both to the validity of hypotheses about settlement 

monies enhancing subsistence lifestyles, and to the existence and nature of factors that might 

obscure valid analysis of the effects of the settlement over time. 

 

15 Fall et al. (2006: xlvii) report that 47 percent of respondents to the most recent household survey on subsistence 

activities in the spill-affected communities reported that “youth are not learning enough about subsistence skills, 

primarily because of disinterest.” But the authors also report that a majority of respondents in Ouzinkie, Larsen 

Bay, Old Harbor, and Port Lions, among other communities, report that kids are learning sufficient skills. The latter 

finding is in keeping with interview and observational data generated during the course of this project, which in sum 

indicate extensive inter-generational continuity in the learning and practice of consumptive-oriented hunting and 

fishing skills. 
48

4.0 Support Sector Earnings and Employment Trends 

This chapter describes employment and related dimensions of the formal economy of Kodiak 

Island Borough. We focus especially on description of trends in earnings and rates of 

employment across the most significant sectors of the region’s economy, as derived from 

industry-specific employment data compiled by ADOLWD and ADF&G. 

4.1 Economic Sectors Defined 

The export-base model used in this study addresses three economic sectors, each distinct in terms 

of inter-industry relationships and multiplier effects. The traditional export sector is classified 

and defined here as the basic sector. This is sometimes termed the “goods-producing” sector. In 

the case of Kodiak Island Borough, the principal components of the basic sector include the 

harvest and processing components of the seafood industry, tourism, public sector construction, 

mining, agriculture, and forestry. The support sector includes local manufacturing, private sector 

construction, transportation, communications, utilities, trade, finance, insurance, real estate, and 

a range of service activities. Thus, the support sector includes employment in all industries not 

encompassed in the basic sector. Finally, the government sector incorporates federal civilian and 

military governmental activities, and state and local government. 

Earnings by Major Sector. We divide aggregate earnings into the three sectors that conform to 

the export-base model conceptual framework described in Chapter Three. This framework 

provides a particularly convenient method for characterizing interrelated economic activity 

occurring in the Kodiak region over the course of time. The time series evidence depicted in 

Figure 4-1 below is similar to trends in per-capita income and suggests an economy that has 

transitioned from a state of significant volatility prior to 1990 to greater stability and mixed 

sector growth since 1990. The data clearly show that much of the early-period volatility was 

generated in the basic sector. The notable increase in earnings in 1989 captures response and 

cleanup activity associated with the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 

It is important to point out that the industry classification system used for the BEA earnings data 

and for the State of Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADOLWD) 

earnings and employment data underwent an important change in definition after the year 2000. 

The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system was used prior to that year, and the North 

American Identification Classification System (NAICS) was used after 2000. The implications 

of this change are discussed in Appendix A of this report. Note that while the change is 

potentially important for certain applications, it does not have a significant effect on the 

continuity of time-series data applied in the export-base model used for this study. 

Figure 4-2 and Table 4-1 below provide detail about total annual earnings for Kodiak firms since 

1990. Figure 4-2 decomposes basic sector earnings into: (1) fish harvesting and seafood 

manufacturing, (2) basic-sector components not related to the seafood industry, and (3) earnings 

derived from work in the support-sector and government positions. These three broad categories 

of economic activity appear to be approximately equal in terms of the scale of earnings generated 
49

per sector (e.g., roughly $125 million each in 2003). The aggregate situation depicted in Figure 

4-1 suggests considerable inter-industry relationships and a moderate degree of stability across 

all sectors. 

Figure 4-1 Annual Earnings by Place of Work: 1969 to 2003 

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

Basic

Support

Government

Figure 4-2 Annual Earnings by Place of Work: 1990 to 2003 

Export-Base Model Breakdown 

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fishing Harvest

Seafood Mfg

Basic Non-Seafood

Support

Government

Millions of Constant 2004 $ 

Millions of Constant 2004 $ 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income by Major Source, Regional Economic Information 

System, Table CA05 (SIC and NAICS). 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income by Major Source, Regional Economic Information 

System, Table CA05 (SIC and NAICS). 
50

Note that growth in total annual earnings decreased by a modest two-tenths of one percent 

between 1990 and 2003. The recent 2.2 percent increase in basic sector earnings unrelated to the 

seafood industry was insufficient to offset declines in manufacturing earnings and the harvest of 

seafood. Meanwhile, contraction in net earnings in the basic sector was nearly offset by positive 

earnings in the support and government sectors (0.6 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively). In 

short, earnings data for Kodiak Island Borough indicate a stable regional economy in which 

contraction in the seafood industry tends to be counterbalanced by growth in the support and 

government sectors. 

Table 4-1 Descriptive Statistics for Annual Earnings by Sector: 1990-2003 

Year 

Basic Sector 

Support Government Total Total Seafood 

Harvest 

Seafood 

Manufacturing

NonSeafood 

1990 159.9 66.8 65.4 27.7 95.9 113.4 369.1 

1991 144.6 50.5 68.3 26.3 97.8 109.4 351.7 

1992 136.8 39.3 68.1 29.4 94.3 116.1 347.3 

1993 137.8 39.6 73.2 25.0 93.3 119.1 350.3 

1994 129.2 33.9 68.1 27.2 92.9 122.7 344.7 

1995 136.3 31.4 71.5 33.5 94.4 120.2 350.9 

1996 127.7 26.7 68.6 32.4 92.2 121.7 341.6 

1997 129.6 26.8 69.5 33.3 93.1 117.8 340.4 

1998 114.6 24.6 68.6 21.5 100.0 115.8 330.3 

1999 116.9 27.5 68.8 20.6 105.7 116.6 339.2 

2000 122.0 30.1 73.7 18.3 108.1 121.6 351.7 

2001 120.4 25.0 54.7 40.8 103.5 121.1 345.0 

2002 110.5 24.2 50.3 36.0 102.8 129.6 342.9 

2003 118.0 23.3 57.4 37.3 103.6 135.5 357.1 

Annual Growth (%) -2.1 -7.2 -0.9 2.2 0.6 1.35 -0.2 

Statistical 

Variables 

Basic Sector 

Support Government Total Total Seafood 

Harvest 

Seafood 

Manufacturing

NonSeafood 

Mean 128.9 33.5 66.1 29.2 98.4 120.0 347.3 

Median 128.4 28.8 68.4 28.5 96.8 119.6 346.1 

Standard Deviation 13.388 12.220 7.006 6.662 5.428 6.524 9.188 

Sample Variance 179.244 149.330 49.087 44.376 29.462 42.557 84.412 

Standard Error 3.6 3.3 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.7 2.5 

Range 49.4 43.5 23.4 22.5 15.8 26.2 38.8 

Minimum 110.5 23.3 50.3 18.3 92.2 109.4 330.3 

Maximum 159.9 66.8 73.7 40.8 108.1 135.5 369.1 

Ratio: Max/Min 1.4 2.9 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income by Major Source, Regional Economic Information System, 

Table CA05 (SIC and NAICS).
51

4.2 Employment by Major Sector 

The employment data compiled for this project were provided by ADOLWD. The ADOLWD 

ES202 monthly employment series is a reliable source of highly detailed time series employment 

data organized by industry. We apply the original ADOLWD industry groupings to the basic, 

support, and government sectors using the same principles and definitions applied to the BEA 

earnings data considered above. Again, a detailed breakdown of industry groupings and 

definitions is furnished in Appendix A. 

The time series extends from January 1997 through March 2005.16 It is based on job-count data 

reported by firms employing wage-earning workers. The data in this case include workers who 

live outside the Kodiak region, such as certain fishermen and certain employees in the processing 

sectors. The series incorporates all full-time and part-time jobs, but excludes business owners 

and other persons who are self-employed. 17 As such, the data do not incorporate employment in 

the harvest sector of the seafood industry. A customized tabulation was undertaken during the 

course of this study to generate valid information regarding seasonal rates of employment for 

harvesters active in the Kodiak Fisheries Management Area. This was completed via the 

cooperative assistance of ADOLWD and ADF&G. Seasonally sensitive estimates of 

employment in the harvest sector are depicted in Figures 4-8 and 4-9. 

Average monthly counts of active jobs in the basic, support, and government sectors of the 

economy are shown in Figure 4-3 below. These data also cover the period January 1997 through 

March 2005. Employment in the harvest and processing sectors are not included; Table 4-2 

differentiates basic sector employment within and outside of the seafood processing industry. 

The data indicate a fairly stable regional economy in recent years, notwithstanding significant 

seasonal variation in the basic sector and a modest upward trend in employment in the support 

and government sectors. Note that the support sector involved many more jobs during the period 

than did the basic sector. 

Analysis of trends in the seafood processing industry reveals extensive monthly variation in 

employment over the period in question. Overall volatility in that industry has nevertheless 

diminished markedly since 2003. Table 4-2 depicts the absolute range or “swing” between 

extensive and minimal rates of employment during the time series. This is fairly insignificant for 

the support and government sectors - 1.3 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively - but highly 

significant for the basic sector, for which a range of 6.5 percent is indicated. 

 

16 Efforts are underway to obtain the ES202 monthly time series back to January 1990. 

17 As per differences in the NAICS and SIC coding systems, data prior to 2001 are comparable only for Total Nonfarm Wage & Salary. Moreover, the source reports separately two or more wage and salaried jobs in cases where 

they are held by the same person. An alternative ADOLWD dataset based on count of persons rather than a count of 

jobs is described below. 
52

Figure 4-3 Average Monthly Employment: January 1997 – March 2005

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05

Seafood Mfg

Basic, Non-Fish

Support

Government

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ES 202 Employment 

Table 4-2 Summary Statistics for Average Monthly Employment 

Statistical 

Variable 

Support 

Sector 

Government 

Sector 

Basic Sectors 

Combined NonSeafood 

Seafood Processing 

1997 – 2002 2003 - 2005 

Mean 2,492 1,211 2,023 320 1,860 1,285 

Median 2,485 1,199 1,992 326 1,843 1,450 

Standard Deviation 143 113 631 65 588 376 

Sample Variance 20,495 12,679 398,053 4,288 345,826 141,743 

Standard Error 14.4 11.3 63.4 6.5 69.3 72.5 

Range 599 482 3,211 310 2,628 1,376 

Minimum 2,160 940 589 189 694 346 

Maximum 2,759 1,422 3,800 499 3,322 1,722 

Ratio: Max/Min 1.3 1.5 6.5 2.6 4.8 5.0 

Confidence Level (95%) 28.6 22.5 125.8 13.0 138.2 142.0 

Count 99 99 99 99 72 27 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ES 202 Employment Number of Jobs per Month 
53

4.3 Seasonality of Employment 

As depicted in Figure 4-3 below, there is extensive seasonal variation in the rate of employment 

across Kodiak Island Borough. This is indicated most clearly in seafood-related industries. For 

instance, employment in seafood processing firms varies dramatically between the mid-summer 

peak in July and the seasonal trough, which almost invariably occurs in December. Seasonal 

variation in government, support, and non-seafood basic-sector employment is comparatively 

modest. 

Seasonal indices depicted in Figure 4-4 below confirm a summer peak in employment in both the 

basic and support sectors of the Kodiak economy. The government sector is an exception since 

it includes teachers not enumerated as active workers in the summer. 

Figure 4-4 Seasonal Indices for Monthly Employment by Major Sector

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

Basic 0.81 1.04 1.02 0.99 0.93 1.05 1.38 1.38 1.17 0.98 0.72 0.52

No-Fish 0.70 0.82 0.90 1.01 1.10 1.14 1.07 1.14 1.14 1.09 0.99 0.89

Support 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 1.01 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.05 0.99 0.98 0.98

Gov 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.05 0.96 0.88 0.86 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.03

Average 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Depiction of seasonal variation in seafood manufacturing in Figure 4-5 below derives from 

analysis of the periods January 1997 through December 2002, and January 2003 through March 

2005. These were chosen for diachronic analysis based on changes in the typical seasonal 

pattern of activity that began to be observed after 2002 (see Figure 4-3). Note that the data 

indicate a diminishing peak of employment in the summer months and greater off-season activity 

during the most recent period. Sharp declines in employment are noted during early spring and 

late autumn.18 Consistent production in the groundfish and crab fisheries ensures some 

continuity in processing throughout the year. 

 

18 This absolute drop in seafood processing employment after 2002 does not appear to be a consequence of industry 

reclassification discussed in Appendix A. Fish processing is based on SIC code 20 (Food and Kindred Products, 

1997-2001) and NAICS code 311000 (Food, 2002-2005). As discussed below, the number of units reporting 

employment exhibits a sharp decline during this period. Index (1.00 = Average) 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ES 202 Employment 
54

Figure 4-5 Seasonal Indices for Seafood Processing Employment: 1997-2002 and 2003-2005 

Our time-series data are reiterated in Figures 4-6 and 4-7 so as to enable further comparative 

analysis of seasonal and cyclical trends and patterns in regional employment. The data in Figure 

4-6 pertain to non-seafood basic-sector employment and to employment in the support and 

government sectors. The long-term trends exhibited in these sectors are relatively neutral; rates 

of employment in the government and support sectors are trending slightly upward, while 

employment in the basic sector (sans seafood) appears to be slowly diminishing. 

Analysis of monthly employment in seafood processing indicates a downward trend for the 

period 1997 to 2002. The pattern begins to reverse in 2002 (Figure 4-7). The shift is likely 

related to diminishing landings of salmon and groundfish and associated closures of processing 

plants in the region prior to the reversal. The number of processing firms reporting under 

employment security laws fell from 29 in 2002 to 19 in 2004. But improving conditions appear 

to underlay a subsequent increase to 23 firms by the first quarter of 2005. 

Cannery at Larsen Bay, Kodiak Island, 2005

0.40 

0.60 

0.80 

1.00 

1.20 

1.40 

1.60 

Fish Proc 97-02 0.79 1.04 1.01 0.96 0.92 1.04 1.46 1.46 1.19 0.95 0.68 0.49

Fish Proc 03-05 1.16 1.19 1.14 1.07 0.91 1.10 1.27 1.24 1.08 1.01 0.55 0.26

Average 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Index (1.00 = Average) 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ES 202 Employment 
55

Figure 4-6 Reiterated Monthly Employment in Kodiak’s Support, Basic Non-Fish, 

& Government Sectors: 1997-2002 

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05

SUPPORT

GOVERNMENT

BASIC NON-FISH

Figure 4-7 Reiterated Monthly Employment in Kodiak Seafood Manufacturing: 1997-02 and 2003-05 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05

Seafood Mfg (97-02)

Seafood Mfg (03-05)

Trend (1997-02)

Trend (2003-05)

Number of Jobs per Month Number of Jobs per Month 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ES 202 Employment Series. 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ES 202 Employment Series. 
56

4.4 Employment in Seafood Harvesting 

As noted above, our estimates for employment in the seafood harvesting sector of the Kodiakbased commercial fishing industry arise from collaborative work undertaken by ADOLWD and 

ADF&G for purposes of this study. The product of the effort, depicted in summary form in 

Figures 4-8 through 4-10 below, furthers understanding of employment patterns in coastal 

Alaska via time series analysis of a critically important industry that has historically been one of 

the most difficult to describe with precision. The methodology used to generate the data is 

consistent with the job-count definition in the ES202 measure, and is described in the February 

2006 issue of ADOLWD Trends. 

Indication of the existence of a job in the harvest sector during a given month in Alaska is based 

on commercial landings reported by individual permit holders. Particular species, gear types, 

crew size, and area of landing are reported. This enables an estimate of jobs irrespective of the 

job-holder’s residency status. Residency is addressed separately based on a combination of 

landings and permit ownership data furnished by ADF&G and the Alaska Commercial Fisheries 

Entry Commission (CFEC). 

The estimates shown in Figure 4-8 are based on landings for all major species except halibut.19 

Groundfish and salmon account for 55 percent and 38 percent of total harvest-related 

employment, respectively (excluding halibut). Analysis of employment specific to the Kodiak 

area halibut fisheries indicates some 206 jobs, or about 20 percent of all harvest sector jobs 

during the year 2000. 

The timing of employment in the harvest sector is depicted in Figure 4-9. This follows the 

pattern of landings by major species. Groundfish is a year-round fishery with the highest levels 

of employment and production during the winter months and a secondary peak in September. 

Rates of employment in salmon fisheries peak in July, counterbalancing the summertime trough 

in employment in the region’s groundfish fisheries. Harvest-specific employment in the crab 

fishery follows a pattern similar to that of groundfish, with an early winter peak in January and a 

secondary surge in August and September. 

Figure 4-10 depicts employment in the harvest sector for the ADOLWD ES-202 time series. 

Analysis of the data clearly indicates that harvest-specific jobs constitute a critically important 

component of the regional employment base. Moreover, when expressed in monthly units, the 

data accentuate the seasonal nature of employment in the region, as previously demonstrated for 

the seafood processing sector and, to a lesser degree, for other industry sectors around the region. 

 

19 Monthly employment estimates for the halibut fishery are available for 2000 only (206 jobs). These data are not 

depicted in Figures 4-8 through 4-10. Estimates of employment in the Kodiak halibut fisheries for the period 2001 

to 2004 are forthcoming from ADOLWD and ADF&G. 
57

Figure 4-8 Average Monthly Employment Estimates for the Harvest Sector: 2000-2004 (Excludes Halibut) 

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Misc. Shellfish 6 3 7 3 2 

Herring 10 13 15 12 15 

Crab 10 47 63 23 22 

Salmon 349 282 201 228 243 

Groundfish 477 407 350 346 336 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 4-9 Average Monthly Employment in the Harvest Sector 

for the Major Species: 2000 - 2004 (excludes halibut) 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Jan-00 Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05

Herring

Crab & Misc Shellfish

Salmon

Groundfish

 Number of Jobs per Month 

Source: Special Tabulations prepared by Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. (December 2005). Number of Jobs per Month 

Source: Special Tabulations prepared by Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development and 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (December 2005). 
58

Figure 4-10 Monthly Employment by Major Sector: January 2000 – December 2004

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04

Comm Seafood Harvest

Seafood Mfg

Basic, Non-Fish

Support

Government

4.5 Trends in the Entry and Departure of Business Establishments in the Region

Table 4-3 below depicts patterns of business activity for the period 2002 through 2005, as 

indicated by the entry and exit of business establishments in the study region. The total number 

of active firms declined from 484 to 479 during the period. Although this is a one percent net 

decline, the percentage of firms in the basic sector rose by 6.1 percent, and the percentage of 

firms associated with the government sector rose by 13.2 percent during the period. Most of the 

loss occurred in the support sector. 

Regarding the rate of establishment of new businesses in the study region, firms classified under 

the fishing, hunting, and trapping category increased from 12 to 17 units between 2003 and 2004. 

The number of firms in the beverage and tobacco category increased by two units in 2003, and 

firms in the transportation equipment manufacturing category increased by one unit. This 

activity was partially offset by a steep decline in the number of seafood processing firms active 

on the island. A total of 10 of 29 such firms went out of business between 2002 and 2004. Four 

processing firms started operating on Kodiak during the first-quarter of 2005. Number of Jobs per Month 

Sources: Special Tabulations prepared by Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development and 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (December 2005). 
59

A net loss of 23 business establishments in the support sector included 14 firms in the wholesale 

non-durable goods category, and nine membership organizations. The declines were partially 

offset by the entry of five social assistance-related businesses between 2003 and 2005. Other 

entries during this period included two outpatient health care firms, three firms classified under 

the leisure and hospitality category, and two under the maintenance and repair category. In sum, 

the regional pattern of recent business closings and openings suggests a slight downturn of 

business activity in a longer cycle of growth and contraction. The seafood processing sector is 

an exception in that so many firms ended operations during the period. 

 Table 4-3 Entry and Exit of Kodiak Island Borough Business Establishments: 2002-2005 

Employment 

Number of Reporting Business Units 

2002 2003 2004 2005 

Change 

(%) 

2002-2005 

Basic 82 81 84 87 6.1 

Natural Resource 15 15 20 20 33.3 

Mining 1 -- -- -- -100 

Construction 35 40 40 39 11.4 

Manufacturing (Non-fish) 2 5 5 5 150 

Manufacturing (Fish Processing) 29 21 19 23 -20.7 

Commercial Fish Harvesting -- -- -- -- -- 

Support 349 346 333 332 -4.9 

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 143 136 131 128 n/a 

Wholesale Trade 60 55 48 48 -25.0 

Wholesale, Durable Goods 2 2 2 2 0.0 

Wholesale, Non-durable Goods 54 48 42 40 25.9 

Wholesale, Electronic Markets 4 5 4 3 25.0 

Retail 46 45 47 48 4.3 

Transport and Warehousing 31 30 30 29 -6.5 

Utilities 6 6 6 6 0.0 

Financial Activities 29 29 28 28 -3.1 

Services 177 181 174 176 -0.6 

Professional and Business Services 48 43 43 43 -10.4 

Educational and Health Services 24 27 35 34 41.7 

Out-patient Health Care 14 14 17 16 14.3 

Hospitals 1 1 1 1 0.0 

Nursing and Residential Care -- 1 1 1 -- 

Social Assistance 8 9 14 14 75.0 

Leisure and Hospitality 44 47 45 47 6.8 

Other Services 52 53 41 43 -17.3 

Repair and Maintenance 10 11 11 12 20.0 

Personal and Laundry 6 6 6 6 0.0 

Membership Organizations, etc. 29 29 20 20 -31.0 

Private Households 7 7 4 5 -28.6 

Information 9 9 9 9 0.0 

Government 53 55 60 60 13.2 

Federal Government 13 13 15 15 15.4 

State Government 24 25 27 27 12.5 

Local Government 16 17 18 18 12.5 

Total 484 482 477 479 -1.0 

 Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ES 202 Employment Series. 
60

4.6 Support Sector Employment 

It is our assertion that the effects of income generated through EVOS punitive damage awards 

will be most clearly indicated in the support sector of the regional economy. In light of this, IAI 

has prepared a time-series decomposition (TSD) forecast model for support sector employment 

based on the 15-month period prior to January 2007. This will be updated with new data up to 

the point in time when punitive damage awards begin to be distributed in the region (see Figure 

4-11 and Table 4-4). When distribution of settlement monies occurs, employment rates and 

extent of earnings observed over the subsequent 12 to 24 months will be compared with the most 

current forecast. If observed and expected values do not meet within a 95 percent confidence 

interval, this will provide a statistical measure of the impact of the income shock. 

We posit that because revenue generated by the seafood harvest sector is closely associated with 

exogenous market demand, the effects of settlement monies on rates of employment and extent 

of earnings in that sector may be relatively more difficult to detect than for the support sector. 

But the statements of some public officials in the region suggest the situation is worthy of 

monitoring in that some seafood business and vessel owners and prospective owners may use the 

monies or some part thereof to invest in new or expanded operations.20 This is in keeping with 

our second sub-hypothesis and will be addressed via ongoing monitoring of license activity, 

vessel registration data, and ongoing interviews with business owners and other knowledgeable 

persons in the region. Note that we expect punitive damage awards to influence the overall 

residency status of the harvest sector; this issue is addressed in Chapter Five of this report. 

Figure 4-11 Forecast of Average Monthly Support Sector Employment: April 2005 – December 2006 

2000

2250

2500

2750

3000

Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07

Actual Historic

Moving Average

Forecast

Trend

 

20 Note that some leaders in the Kodiak seafood industry argue that advancing age and indebtedness of award 

recipients may preclude widespread and extensive reinvestment in marine fisheries. Although perspectives on this 

issue vary widely, most informants state recognition of the significance of the timing of settlement and disbursement 

and its potential effects on spending and investment decisions. Number of Support Sector Jobs per Month 

 Source: ADOLWD (historic) and Impact Assessment, Inc. (forecast). 
61

Table 4-4 Support Employment Forecast: April 2005 – March 2007 

Year Month Forecast Trend 

95% Confidence Interval 

Upper Lower 

2005 April 2,432 2,480 2,490 2,374 

 May 2,495 2,480 2,553 2,437 

 June 2,570 2,480 2,628 2,512 

 July 2,613 2,480 2,671 2,555 

 August 2,653 2,480 2,711 2,595 

 September 2,598 2,480 2,656 2,540 

 October 2,453 2,480 2,511 2,395 

 November 2,436 2,480 2,494 2,378 

 December 2,426 2,480 2,484 2,368 

2006 January 2,339 2,480 2,397 2,281 

 February 2,347 2,480 2,405 2,289 

 March 2,367 2,480 2,425 2,309 

 April 2,432 2,480 2,490 2,374 

 May 2,495 2,480 2,553 2,437 

 June 2,570 2,480 2,628 2,512 

 July 2,613 2,480 2,671 2,555 

 August 2,653 2,480 2,711 2,595 

 September 2,598 2,480 2,656 2,540 

 October 2,453 2,480 2,511 2,395 

 November 2,436 2,480 2,494 2,378 

2007 December 2,426 2,480 2,484 2,368 

 January 2,339 2,480 2,397 2,281 

 February 2,347 2,480 2,405 2,289 

 March 2,367 2,480 2,425 2,309 

Source: Impact Assessment, Inc. (see Figure 4-8) 

4.7 Wage and Salary Earnings 

Figure 4-12 below depicts average monthly wage and salary earnings by place of work as per 

ADOLWD employment security records. The data are depicted by economic sector for the years 

1997 through 2004. Again, earnings from the seafood harvest sector necessarily are analyzed 

separately. As with the BEA-derived personal income and earnings data depicted elsewhere in 

this report, the following estimates are expressed in constant 2004 dollars. 

When combined across all sectors over the nine year time series, average monthly earnings in 

Kodiak Island Borough were about $2,600. But the figure varies significantly across sectors and 

an overall downward trend is notable. Earnings were highest for the basic sector at $4,255 per 

month, though a sharp decline is noted after 2004. Average earnings in the support sector were 

about $2,243 per month. Inter-annual variation noted in the seafood processing sector 

underscores statements made by processing firm owners about the challenges of maintaining 

operational consistency in an industry that is subject to volatility in global market conditions. 
62

Figure 4-12 Average Monthly Wages on Kodiak, by Sector: 1997-2005 

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Basic Non-Fish

Government

Fish Processing

Support

Basic Non-Fish 4,635 4,247 4,271 3,958 4,213 4,570 4,666 4,436 3,304 

Government 3,284 3,194 3,171 3,179 3,053 3,075 3,111 3,082 2,992 

Fish Processing 1,880 2,261 2,541 2,627 2,160 2,537 3,097 2,822 2,460 

Support 2,237 2,285 2,243 2,363 2,248 2,210 2,232 2,243 2,126 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ES 202 Employment Series. Wages in Constant 2004 $ per Month 
63

5.0 Investment and Participation in the Seafood Industry

As is elucidated throughout this baseline description and analysis, the Kodiak Island Borough 

economy is dominated by the seafood industry. The harvest, processing, and distribution of 

salmon, various groundfish species, halibut, and crab are vitally important. In fact, Kodiakbased fisheries are among the most productive in the world. As previously noted in Figure 4-10, 

average monthly employment in the harvest sector during the period 2000 to 2004 accounted for 

600 direct jobs or about ten percent of monthly employment across all sectors of the economy. 

Harvest and processing employment in total accounted for over 30 percent of jobs on an average 

monthly basis. 

In this chapter we develop and discuss additional indicators of select trends and conditions in the 

region’s commercial fishing industry. Discussion is focused on trends in fishing effort, 

productivity, and gross earnings for major commercial fisheries in the region, with special 

emphasis on clarification of residency factors. The chapter includes a detailed assessment of 

residency factors for active salmon permits and to transfer of salmon permits between residents 

and non-residents. 

5.1 Overview 

An important objective here is development of measures that are capable of characterizing the 

structure and performance of the Kodiak seafood industry over the course of time. The intent is 

development of robust description and analysis of trends and conditions as needed to enable 

valid assessment of future changes. Measures must be capable of contributing to analysis of the 

potential effects of exogenous shock on decision-making processes about investment and effort, 

and of potential changes in overall productivity in the harvesting and processing sectors. 

The industry-specific employment data reported by ADOLWD are particularly useful in that it is 

possible to enumerate both the number of available positions and the number of persons actually 

employed. The measures are also capable of accounting for full- and part-time employment, and 

whether the job is held by a resident or non-resident of Kodiak Island Borough. Although it is 

possible to determine whether the indirect and induced effects of worker’s earnings will be felt in 

areas other than Kodiak, description of remote effects are outside the scope of this study. The 

focus here is on Kodiak residents and Kodiak-specific effects. 

The employment estimates developed in the previous chapter are useful indicators of the 

structure and scale of the region’s seafood industry. Trends of change may be explained by a 

variety of factors, including seasonal and longer-term resource abundance, market factors, and 

investment and effort, among others. 

A Changing Salmon Market. While the perceived quality of Alaska salmon has always been 

such that its purveyors have been able to compete on the global market, the rapid emergence of 

large-scale salmon farming in countries such as Norway, Canada, and Chile has resulted in a 

significant expansion of the supply of salmon, and reduced market prices for salmon caught in 

Alaskan waters. While the apparent trend toward increased appreciation for wild salmon and 
64

other seafood products from Alaska is relatively new (ADOLWD Trends, Oct 2003), it is 

potentially highly significant in economic terms and bears observation as a trend of improvement 

for Alaska-based fleets and processors. 

Rationalization. Fisheries “rationalization” or “rights-based” management involves the 

allocation of rights to commercially harvest seafood21 and the creation of markets for the trading 

of those rights. Access rights typically take the form of individual fishing quotas (IFQs). This 

approach to fisheries management involves the allocation of a percentage of total allowable 

landings in a given commercial fishery to individuals legally possessing the rights to engage in 

that fishery. 

IFQs present an alternative to open access fisheries management, wherein entry into a given 

fishery is open but restricted in terms of the type of gear that may be used, the number and 

duration of openings, seasonal or spatial strictures, and so forth. This strategy eliminates the 

derby-style of commercial fishing, formerly a common means for regulating commercial fishing 

activity in Alaska. This is a significant change in that rather than attempting to land the 

maximum amount of fish during openings of limited duration, commercial harvesters may, under 

the conceptual parameters of a rationalized fishery, distribute effort over a longer period of time 

and undertake operational strategies for minimizing cost to obtain a fixed share of total catch.22 

IFQ programs for halibut and sablefish were implemented in Alaska in 1995.23 An IFQ program 

for crab was implemented in 2004 and stipulates quotas for both permit holders and processors. 

Although impacts are still under evaluation, the program appears to have resulted in significant 

reductions in the overall size of Kodiak’s fleets, and some anticipate that seasonal variation in 

rates of employment and effort will be dampened over time.24 

Others argue that rationalization programs can lead to socioeconomic effects such as loss of jobs 

in certain sectors, loss of bargaining power on the parts of crew and hired captains, increased 

entry costs, and disproportionate loss of fishing rights for crew, small vessel operators, and small 

communities. As such, rationalization programs can incur controversy. Given the potentially 

significant effects of rationalization for fleets in the study region, we are incorporating the 

theoretical perspectives and findings of Knapp (2006), Fina (2005), and Carothers (2008)25 into 

our ongoing efforts to effectively monitor and explain changes in Kodiak area fisheries. 

 

21 And more recently, the rights to process fish, as per crab rationalization in the Bering Sea, initiated in 2005. 

22 Note that a “limited entry” approach to management was first adopted in the late 1970s to regulate effort in the 

Bristol Bay salmon fishery. 

23 A cooperative allocation-based management system was implemented in 1999 to manage landings of Alaska 

pollock. 

24 Rationalization of Alaska crab fisheries involves allocation of landings quotas to fishing vessels rather than 

fishermen. 

25 Doctoral dissertation on this topic in the context of Alaska Native villages on Kodiak Island is available through 

the University of Washington Department of Anthropology. 
65

5.2 Trends in Participation and Production in the Kodiak Salmon Fishery

This section of the report describes broad trends in participation and production in the Kodiak 

area salmon fisheries. Figures are used to summarize and depict trends in landings, ex-vessel 

value of the product, and the number of permits fished per the commercially licensed types of 

gear. We address all species of salmon currently pursued for commercial purposes in the Kodiak 

Management Area (KMA). KMA boundaries encompass state waters surrounding the Kodiak 

Archipelago south of the Cook Inlet Management Area and northeast of the Chignik 

Management Area. 

Figure 5-1 below is accompanied by Table 5-1. These summarize total commercial landings of 

salmon in thousands of fish per year for the period 1979 to 2005. 

Figure 5-1 Total Salmon Landings, Kodiak Management Area: 1979-2005

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

1979

1981 

1983 

1985

1987 

1989 

1991

1993 

1995 

1997

1999 

2001

2003 

2005 

Pink 

Chum 

Coho 

Sockeye 

Table 5-1 Summary of Annual Landings of Salmon by Species, Kodiak Management Area: 1990-2005

Variable Salmon Species 

Chinook Sockeye Coho Pink Chum 

Mean 20.8 3,828.0 349.0 17,057.4 817.5 

Median 18.8 4,103.9 328.9 15,354.2 709.2 

Maximum 41.0 5,702.8 496.1 42,849.3 1,522.8 

Minimum 12.3 1,824.8 201.8 3,310.6 316.1 

Range 28.7 3,877.9 294.2 39,538.7 1,206.7 

Standard Deviation 6.9 1,097.4 78.7 11,177.2 331.4 

Confidence Limits (95 %) 

Upper 24.1 4,365.7 387.5 22,534.2 979.8 

Lower 17.4 3,290.2 310.4 11,580.7 655.1 

Source: Brennan, K., Commercial Salmon Fisheries of the Kodiak Management Area: A Report to the Alaska Board 

of Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fisheries Management Report No. 04-14 (January 2005), Table 

4, p. 41. 

Thousands of Fish 
66

Kodiak area salmon landings have long been dominated by pink or humpback salmon 

(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), which is of relatively low value. Sockeye or red salmon is next in 

terms of landings, followed by chum or dog salmon (Onchorynchus keta), which is of limited 

value, and by coho or silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), which tends to approximate 

sockeye in terms of value. Although the annual volume of chinook or king salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) landed in the region is too small to be depicted on our scaled 

graphic, it is the largest and most valuable salmon landed in Alaska. 

Note that escapement analysis provided in the 2005 ADF&G Fisheries Management Report 

suggests that KMA salmon stocks have been healthy in recent years. It should be emphasized, 

however, that salmon returns vary from year to year across the region as per a wide variety of 

biophysical factors and ecosystemic constraints and opportunities, including anthropogenic 

effects associated with fishing (Finney et al. 2000). 

Although the research described in this report does not directly address biophysical factors 

affecting or associated with participation and production in the region’s marine fisheries, we 

have developed rapport with long-term participants in the region’s salmon fisheries and we are 

documenting their perspectives on patterns of resource availability and related effects on 

continued investment in the industry. Most informants agree that abundance of salmon 

fluctuates over time, and a range of explanations are offered for why that is so. 

But abundance is not typically stated as a major constraint on success. Rather, most fishermen 

agree that the most significant long-term challenge relates to diminishing prices for salmon in the 

marketplace. Generally speaking, KMA salmon resources are said to have been sufficient over 

recent decades, whereas return on investment in harvesting them has not. 

Total annual salmon landings and ex-vessel harvest value are summarized in Figure 5-2. Figure 

5-3 presents the same information by type of gear. The figures include data for Kodiak residents 

and non-resident permit owners alike. Note that values are expressed in constant 2004 dollars 

based on an inflation adjustment using the GDP price deflator.26 

Landings of some 19 million salmon generated nearly $150 million in ex-vessel value in 1988, 

for a record value of $7.87 per fish. By comparison, the average value of KMA salmon during 

the period 1990 to 2005 was $1.38 per fish.27 Note that Kodiak residents landed about 60 

percent of all KMA salmon taken during the period 1970 through 2005. Most landings derive 

from use of purse seine gear. Purse seines are large nets used to surround salmon. Small tender 

vessels are used to deploy and close the nets. These are subsequently loaded onto a larger 

mother vessel. 

 

26 Unless otherwise noted, all price, cost and value information depicted in this chapter is expressed in constant 2004 

dollars as per the Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts, 

(http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/), December, 2005. 

27 These average values do not reflect proceeds for direct market dock deliveries or postseason settlements. 
67

Figure 5-2 Total Salmon Landings and Ex-vessel Value: 1970-2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1970 

1972

1974 

1976 

1978

1980 

1982

1984 

1986 

1988 

1990

1992

1994 

1996 

1998 

2000

2002

2004 

Value ($ 2004 mn)

Catch (mn fish)

Figure 5-3 Annual Salmon Landings per Fished Permit by Gear Type: 1970-2005

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

1970 

1972

1974 

1976

1978

1980 

1982

1984 

1986

1988 

1990

1992

1994 

1996

1998 

2000

2002 

2004

Purse Seine

Gillnet

Beach Seine

Millions of $ (2004) per Year and 

Millions of Fish 

per Year

Thousands of $ (2004) per Fished Permit 

Source for Figures 5-3 and 5-4: ADF&G Annual Management Reports and Commercial Fisheries 

Entry Commission Report (2005). 
68

The number and type of salmon permits active in the KMA between 1975 and 2005 are depicted 

in Figure 5-4. Note that the number of active set gillnet permits is relatively stable, with the 

exceptions of 1989 and 2002. The number of active purse seine and beach seine permits 

decreased steadily after 1990. 

The number of active permits expressed as a proportion of total available permits (Figure 5-5) 

declined during the period. This is in step with a concurrent decline in the average ex-vessel 

value of landings (gray line and right-hand axis in both Figures 5-4 and 5-5). 

Figure 5-4 Active Salmon Permits by Type of Gear: 1975-2005 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987 

1990 

1993 

1996 

1999

2002

2005

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

Purse Seine 

Beach Seine 

Set Gillnet 

Ex-V Value $(2004) per Fish

Number of Permits Fished 

Ex-vessel value (2004 $) per Fish Caught

Source: ADF&G Annual Management Reports and Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Report (2005).
69

Figure 5-5 Active Salmon Permits and Ex-vessel Value across all Type of Gear 

0

20

40

60

80

100

1975 

1978 

1981 

1984

1987 

1990 

1993 

1996 

1999 

2002 

2005 

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

% Permits Fished

Ex-V Value $(2004) per Fish

 Source: Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission records and ADF&G fish ticket summaries. 

The landings, ex-vessel value, and effort data presented in Figures 5-1 through 5-5 above 

incorporate the activities and proceeds received by both non-resident and resident Kodiak salmon 

permit owners who fished in the KMA during the period in question. Before addressing issues 

of residency in more detail, we describe participation and production in the KMA groundfish 

fishery. 

5.3 The Kodiak Groundfish Fishery 

Groundfish fisheries occurring in federal and state waters are managed by NOAA Fisheries per 

guidance established by North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) and ADF&G. 

Openings and closures vary by species and by allowable catch determinations based on yearround monitoring of direct and incidental landings. Most openings for groundfish in state waters 

are concurrent with those in federal waters. 

Pacific cod and walleye pollock are the principal groundfish species harvested across the region. 

Other species include ling cod, sablefish, and black rockfish. Percent (%)

Ex-vessel Value (2004 $) per Fish Caught 
70

Trends in total landings of Pacific cod are depicted for the Western and Central Gulf of Alaska in 

Figure 5-6. The volume of cod landed at the Port of Kodiak is relatively small, constituting 

about 16 percent of total regional landings for the period 1997 to 2004. Landings are serviced 

primarily by offshore factory ships based in Dutch Harbor; only a relatively small amount of 

groundfish is processed at the Port of Kodiak. Moreover, while Kodiak-based firms provide 

some logistical and physical support to vessels active in the regional groundfish fishery, most 

such services are provided from Dutch Harbor. 

Figure 5-7 depicts monthly groundfish landings at the Port of Kodiak for the period 2002 

through 2004. Bi-modal seasonality is notable, with a primary peak occurring during January 

through March and a lesser peak occurring from late summer to early fall. These peak periods of 

productivity tend to occur before and after the principal salmon season in part because of limited 

capacity of processors in the region. Combined capacity of Kodiak Island-based processors is 

estimated at about 4.3 million pounds per day (ADF&G, Dec, 2005, FMR 04-14, p. 6). 

Figure 5-6 Alaska Pacific Cod Landings and Ex-Vessel Value: 1997-2004 

8.5 10.7 8.6 4.9 8.8 8.2 10.0 7.6

$2.1

$4.2

$3.6

$1.6

$4.0

$2.5

$2.9

$2.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

Total Pounds Landed

From State Waters

Landed in Port of Kodiak

Exvessel Value Landed Kodiak ($2004 mn)

Pacific Cod Harvest in Millions of Pounds per Year 

Ex-vessel Value of Kodiak Landings 

Millions 

per Year (2004 $)

Source: ADFG, Fishery Management Report No. 05-68, Tables 6 and 22, (Oct. 2005). 
71

Figure 5-7 Monthly Range of Groundfish Landings for the Port of Kodiak: 2002-2004a

0

10

20

30

40

50

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Range 2002-04

2004

5.4 Effort and Production among Resident Commercial Harvesters 

Figures 5-8 and 5-9 below depict trends in local participation and production for major state- and 

federally-managed Alaska fisheries. The figures depict combined data for: salmon, groundfish, 

herring, halibut, sablefish, crab, and other shellfish fisheries conducted in the KMA and beyond. 

The effort data presented here derive from CFEC tabulations of permit activity. Effort is 

measured and reported in two ways in this analysis: 1) the ratio of the number of fishers to the 

number of permits fished, and 2) the number of permits fished to the number of permits issued in 

a given year. Production or productivity is measured and reported in terms of pounds landed per 

permit fished.28 These data are generated from fish ticket receipts for targeted and incidental 

catch, and they are expressed in round pounds landed. Halibut is based on net pounds landed. 

Gross earnings data derive from CFEC estimates of average ex-vessel price per pound. Again, 

earnings are expressed in constant 2004 dollars per the annual GDP deflator series. 

Note that the following data are specific to Kodiak residents only, but incorporate landings and 

earnings deriving not only from the KMA but also from elsewhere in Alaska. Thus, a Kodiak 

resident who harvests salmon in the Bristol Bay region would be enumerated here, as would his 

or her catch. Conversely, non-residents who fish for salmon in the KMA are not enumerated 

here, nor are their landings. 

 

28 The count of permits held versus permits issued is based on end-of-year tabulations for both limited entry salmon 

permits and open-access fishery permits. Permit revocations are excluded. Permits subject to transfer are counted 

only once. The count of permits held versus permits issued is not always equal because some permit holders do not 

use the permit in a given year. Limited entry permits must be renewed each year even if the permit holders do not 

participate. Permits are considered active only when at least one associated landing was made in a given year. Groundfish Harvest Millions of Pounds 

per Month 

a

 Includes walleye pollock, Pacific cod, arrowtooth flounder, ling cod, black rockfish, and sablefish 

Source: Special Tabulations from ADF&G corresponding to FMR 05-58 (Oct. 2005). 
72

Figure 5-8 Landings and Earnings for Kodiak Residents, All Fisheries: 1980-2004 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

$-

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

$1.80

Total Pounds Landed (lb mn)

Estimated Gross Earnings ($ mn)

Gross Earnings per Pound Landed ($/lb)

Figure 5-9 Effort and Production per Resident Permit, All Fisheries: 1980–2004 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Effort #1: No. Fishermen to Permits Fished (%)

Effort #2: Permits Fished to Permits Issued (%)

Productivity: Lbs Landed per Permits Fished

Millions of Pounds Landed 

and Millions Earned (2004 $)

Gross Earnings (2004 $) per Pound Landed 

Ratio 

Thousand Pounds Landed per Permit Fished 

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations: Permit & Fishing Activity by Year, State, Census Area, or City. 

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations: Permit & Fishing Activity by Year, State, Census Area, or City 
73

Figure 5-8 above reveals that while the total volume of landings (orange line, left-hand axis) 

varies extensively early in the time series, variation dampens after 1989. Significantly, the trend 

in ex-vessel value of landings (gold line and right-hand axis) is toward decreasing value after 

1989. Gross earnings (green line, left-had axis) also diminish during the period. Again, the data 

validate the assertions of participants who report that while resource availability has been fairly 

stable in recent decades, market prices have tended to fall and cost factors have tended to rise. 

Figure 5-9 above depicts measures of harvest effort and production for Kodiak residents across 

all fisheries for the period 1980 through 2004. The objective here is to explore the relationship 

between harvest effort and production on one hand and ex-vessel value and gross earnings on the 

other. 

Note that while overall fishing effort in the Kodiak region has been relatively stable in recent 

decades, production has risen sharply over time. If our assumption that abundance of marine 

resources has not changed dramatically over the period is correct, an increasing level of 

production is, in this case, suggestive of increasing efficiency. Production is also inversely 

correlated with gross earnings.[1] We posit that this indicates a situation of periodic excess 

supply vis-à-vis limited capacity and demand, and this is supported by data from interviews with 

key persons in the harvest and processing sectors. Derby-style openings have tended to 

encourage harvesters to produce en masse. Given limited capacity to process, export, and 

profitably distribute seafood in distant markets, processors and buyers tend to be overwhelmed 

when marine resources are suddenly but predictably particularly abundant in the region. Supply 

exceeds capacity and demand, and buyers reduce prices. Although many do not agree with the 

approach, one intention of fisheries rationalization is to minimize such volatility by distributing 

effort and processing capacity more evenly over the course of the year. 

The following figures summarize trends in effort, earnings, and overall production for resident 

permit holders for the period 1980 through 2004. We depict data for: (a) all species of 

groundfish combined (Figures 10-11), (b) all species of crab (Figures 12-13), (c) halibut (Figures 

14-15), and (d) all species of salmon (Figures 16-17). 

The figures are indicative of variation across the fisheries over the course of time. For example, 

gross earnings have tended to decline for all fisheries except halibut, which exhibits a 

discernable upward trend. Although seafood landings often tend to be cyclical, production of 

crab landed from the KMA has diminished significantly since 2000. Production (gray lines in 

odd-numbered figures) has increased for all fisheries, again with the exception of crab, which 

exhibited marked variability after 1996.29

 

29 Confidentiality restrictions require that at least three persons or permits be represented when expressing landings 

or ex-vessel value information for a given fleet, fishery, set of businesses, or other entity. This is not a significant 

problem for regional-level analysis, but it can challenge reporting and analysis for smaller fisheries and communities 

in the region. 
74

Figure 5-10 Landings and Earnings for Resident Groundfish Permit Holders: 1980-2004 

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004

$0.00

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

$0.30

$0.35

$0.40 Total Pounds Landed (lb mn)

Estimated Gross Earnings ($ mn)

Gross Earnings per Pound Landed ($/lb)

 Source: CFEC Special Tabulations: Permit & Fishing Activity by Year, State, Census Area, or City 

Figure 5-11 Effort and Production per Resident Permit, Groundfish Fisheries: 1980-2004 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

20022004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Effort #1: No. Fishermen to Permits Fished (%)

Effort #2: Permits Fished to Permits Issued (%)

Productivity: Lbs Landed per Permits Fished

 Source: CFEC Special Tabulations: Permit & Fishing Activity by Year, State, Census Area, or City Millions of Pounds Landed and Millions Earned (2004 $)

Gross Earnings (2004 $) per Pound Landed 

Ratio 

Thousand Pounds Landed per Permit Fished 
75

Figure 5-12 Landings and Earnings for Resident Crab Permit Holders: 1980-2004 

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

$-

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

Estimated Gross Earnings ($ mn)

Total Pounds Landed (lb mn)

Gross Earnings per Pound Landed ($/lb)

 Source: CFEC Special Tabulations: Permit & Fishing Activity by Year, State, Census Area, or City 

Figure 5-13 Effort and Production per Resident Permit, Crab Fisheries: 1980-2004 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Effort #1: No. Fishermen to Permits Fished (%)

Effort #2: Permits Fished to Permits Issued (%)

Productivity: Lbs Landed per Permits Fished

 Source: CFEC Special Tabulations: Permit & Fishing Activity by Year, State, Census Area, or City Millions of Pounds Landed and Millions Earned (2004 $)

Gross Earnings (2004 $) per Pound Landed 

Percent (%) 

Thousand Pounds Landed per Permit Fished 
76

Figure 5-14 Landings and Earnings for Resident Halibut Permit Holders: 1980-2004 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

19961998

2000

20022004

$-

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

Total Pounds Landed (lb mn)

Estimated Gross Earnings ($ mn)

Gross Earnings per Pound Landed ($/lb)

 Source: CFEC Special Tabulations: Permit & Fishing Activity by Year, State, Census Area, or City 

 

Figure 5-15 Effort and Production per Resident Permit, Halibut Fisheries: 1980-2004 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Effort #1: No. Fishermen to Permits Fished (%)

Effort #2: Permits Fished to Permits Issued (%)

Productivity: Lbs Landed per Permits Fished

 Source: CFEC Special Tabulations: Permit & Fishing Activity by Year, State, Census Area, or City Millions of Pounds Landed and Millions Earned (2004 $) Gross Earnings $(2004) per Pound Landed Ratio Thousand Pounds Landed per Permit Fished 
77

Figure 5-16 Landings and Earnings for Resident Salmon Permit Holders: 1980-2004 

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

$-

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

Total Pounds Landed

Estimated Gross Earnings

Gross Earnings per Pound Landed

 Source: CFEC Special Tabulations: Permit & Fishing Activity by Year, State, Census Area, or City 

Figure 5-17 Effort and Production per Resident Permit, Salmon Fisheries: 1980-2004 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Effort #1: No. Fishermen to Permits Fished (%)

Effort #2: Permits Fished to Permits Issued (%)

Productivity: Lbs Landed per Permits Fished

 Source: CFEC Special Tabulations: Permit & Fishing Activity by Year, State, Census Area, or City Millions of Pounds Landed and Millions Earned (2004 $) Gross Earnings (2004 $) per Pound Landed Ratio Thousand Pounds Landed per Permit Fished 
78

5.5 Community-Level Effort, Production, and Earnings 

Kodiak Island Borough has thus far been the principal focus of this baseline characterization of 

commercial fishing activity in the study region. But given interest in the potential communitylevel effects of punitive damage awards following from settlement, we are also documenting and 

monitoring localized participation and production in commercial fishing. 

The following figures thus summarize commercial fishing activity for select communities in the 

region. The data are less specific than those presented above in that we combine data across the 

major fisheries to represent basic trends in effort and production. We limit reporting of data to 

three communities for which there is notable variation in the nature and scope of fishing activity. 

These are: Kodiak City (Figures 18 through 20), Larsen Bay (Figures 21 through 23), and 

Akhiok (Figures 24 through 26). Additional data regarding recent activity in the harvest sector 

are provided for the six villages and Kodiak City in Section 8.2 of this report.

Kodiak City. Note that the number of commercial fishing permits used by residents of Kodiak 

City begins to decline in 1990. Given that most persons active in the harvest sector across the 

region are residents of Kodiak City, patterns of effort, production, and ex-vessel value are similar 

for local and regional levels of analysis. 

Figure 5-18 Commercial Permits Issued and Fished by Residents of Kodiak City, All Fisheries: 1980-2004

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Number of Permits Fished

Number of Permits Issued

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations 

Number of Permits Issued or Fished 
79

Figure 5-19 Landings and Earnings for Residents of Kodiak City, All Fisheries: 1980-2004 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

19801982

1984

1986

19881990

1992

19941996

19982000

20022004

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

$1.80

Total Pounds Landed (lb mn)

Estimated Gross Earnings ($ mn)

Gross Earnings per Pound Landed ($/lb)

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations 

Figure 5-20 Effort and Production per Permit for Residents of Kodiak City, All Fisheries: 1980-2004 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Effort #1: No. Fishermen to Permits Fished

Effort #2: Permits Fished to Permits Issued

Productivity: Lbs Landed per Permits Fished

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations 

Millions of Pounds Landed and 

Millions Earned (2004 $)

Gross Earnings (2004 $) per Pound Landed 

Ratio 

Thousand Pounds Landed per Permit Fished 
80

Larsen Bay. A trend of declining participation in the commercial fishing industry is clearly 

indicated for residents of Larsen Bay. This validates interview data regarding local involvement 

in the region’s salmon fishery and the many challenges that have been experienced by residents 

active in that fishery during recent years. Most permits are for salmon; a few residents hold 

permits for groundfish, halibut, and crab. 

Our interview data indicate that 19 percent of all Larsen Bay households currently derive income 

from commercial fishing, down from 57 percent ten years prior. Participants in the study report 

that numerous families departed the village when the fishing economy was severely depressed in 

the early 1990s, and many mark this period with memory of the oil spill and frustration with the 

litigation process. One key informant described the situation in the following way: 

“If it had been just a year or two of waiting for the [punitive] settlement, people could 

have and would have waited it out. But by about 1992 or 1993, when salmon prices 

didn’t recover, people just gave up. People just stopped waiting. That’s when some of 

the big families started leaving.” 

Seven residents currently hold salmon permits and two hold tanner crab permits. Eight were 

issued a total of 18,000 pounds of halibut IFQ in 1995. But by 1997, 97 percent of the quota had 

been transferred out of the community, either through sale or emigration of shareholders. 

The recent upturn in the permit activity is indicative of improving market conditions for Kodiakcaught wild salmon. Although local participation in the region’s commercial fishing industry 

diminished significantly during the time series depicted in the figures, some residents report 

optimism that future years will be more productive, and some are poised to invest in vessels and 

gear should market conditions continue to improve. 

Figure 5-21 Commercial Permits Issued and Fished by Residents of Larsen Bay, All Fisheries: 1980-2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004

Number of Permits Fished - All Fisheries

Number of Permits Issued - All Fisheries

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations:

Number of Permits Issued or Fished 
81

Figure 5-22 Landings and Earnings for Residents of Larsen Bay, All Fisheries: 1980-2004

0

1

2

3

4

5

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

$1.80

Total Pounds Landed (lb mn)

Estimated Gross Earnings ($ mn)

Gross Earnings per Pound Landed ($/lb)

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations 

Figure 5-23 Effort and Production for Residents of Larsen Bay, All Fisheries: 1980-2004

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Effort #1: No. Fishermen to Permits Fished

Effort #2: Permits Fished to Permits Issued

Productivity: Lbs Landed per Permits Fished

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations

Millions of Pounds Landed 

and Millions Earned (2004 $) Ratio 

Gross Earnings (2004 $) per Pound Landed 

Thousand Pounds Landed per Permit Fished 
82

Akhiok. Fisheries trends of interest for residents of Akhiok are unlike those for residents of 

Kodiak City and Larsen Bay. With the exception of an abrupt, single-year drop in activity in 

2002 that is associated with the EVOS land trust settlement, the number of active salmon permits 

held by Akhiok residents increases dramatically after 1989. 30 Salmon is the only fishery in 

which Akhiok residents participate to any significant extent. One halibut permit was issued for 

the period 1990 through 1994, one groundfish permit was issued for 1997 through 2000, and one 

herring permit was issued for 2003 through 2004. Confidentiality restrictions under the rule of 

three obviated more extensive description of local involvement in the region’s marine fisheries. 

Diminished use of commercial fishing permits by Akhiok residents during the year of the EVOS 

land trust liquidation (described in Chapter Two of this report) is indicative of temporary 

distraction from involvement in the industry. Interviews with residents support this explanation: 

many people left the community that year, and typical ways of living were in many cases 

temporarily altered. Conditions began to normalize the following year, and rates of participation 

in subsistence hunting and fishing were reportedly high in 2003 (Davis in Fall et al. 2006:140). 

The case is particularly significant given the focus of this study on assessing the potential social 

and economic effects of punitive damage awards at various levels of analysis across the study 

region. Although the number of permit holders in question is relatively small, and greater 

variation in effect would be expected across a larger population of fishermen, the outcome of the 

Akhiok land trust issue may well be of predictive utility for monitoring the effects of the punitive 

damages settlement in the adjacent communities of Larsen Bay, Ouzinkie, and Karluk. 

Figure 5-24 Commercial Permits Issued and Fished by Residents of Akhiok, All Fisheries: 1980-2004 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004

Number of Salmon Permits Fished

Number of Salmon Permits Issued

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations 

 

30 Note that the number of permits fished is higher than the number of permits issued in certain years. This is 

observed in cases where a permit was revoked or where persons fishing under an interim-use permit eventually 

received permanent status. Number of Permits Issued or Fished 
83

Figure 5-25 Landings and Earnings for Residents of Akhiok, All Fisheries: 1980-2004

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20 Total Pounds Landed (lb Th)

Gross Earnings per Pound Landed ($/lb)

Gross Earnings per Pound Landed ($/lb)

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations 

Figure 5-26 Effort and Production for Residents of Akhiok, All Fisheries: 1980-2004 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Effort #1: No. Fishermen to Permits Fished

Effort #2: Permits Fished to Permits Issued

Productivity: Lbs Landed per Permits Fished

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations 

Thousands of Pounds Landed 

and Millions Earned (2004 $)

Ratio 

Gross Earnings (2004 $) per Pound Landed Thousand Pounds Landed per Permit Fished 
84

Traditional Structure in the Village of Akhiok, Summer 2005 

5.6 Participation of Kodiak Residents in KMA-Specific Salmon Fisheries 

The previous figures depicted participation of Kodiak residents in the major fisheries occurring 

within and beyond the KMA. This section focuses more specifically on the involvement of 

residents in fisheries that are executed wholly within the KMA. The descriptive analysis is 

intended to elucidate residency factors in the harvest sector of Kodiak’s salmon fisheries. 

Figure 5-27 below depicts participation of Kodiak residents as a proportion of the: (a) total 

number of participating fishers, (b) total number of active permits, and (c) total landings of the 

five salmon species pursued within the KMA. The data cover the period 1980 through 2004. 

Significantly, a clear downward trend is indicated for each of the variables through the mid1990s, but with improving trends thereafter. 

Figure 5-27 Proportion of Resident Fishers, Permits, and Landings for KMA Salmon Fisheries: 1980-2004 

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Number of Fishermen Who Fished

Number of Permit Holders

Total Pounds Landed

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations

Percent (%) 
85

Figure 5-28 below depicts trends in gross earnings for resident and non-resident fishery 

participants who harvested salmon resources in the KMA between 1980 and 2004. The figure 

also depicts revenue generated by residents as a proportion of total earnings generated through 

harvest of salmon in the KMA. Note that the figure indicates a greater proportion of resident 

earnings early in the period, followed by a downward trend during the mid-1990s, and a gradual 

return to former conditions late in the period. This validates interview data that is descriptive of 

increasing participation of Seattle-based fishermen in KMA salmon fisheries beginning some 

time after the oil spill. 

Figure 5-28 KMA Salmon Gross Earnings- Kodiak Resident vs. Total Resident and Non-Resident: 1980-2004 

63%

61%

59%

63%

59%

61%

56%

55%

56%

55%

53%

54%54%

57%

58%

56%

58%

59%59%

57%

55%

60%

59%

56%

59%

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

48%

50%

52%

54%

56%

58%

60%

62%

64%

66%

Kodiak Mgt Area - Earnings, All Residents

Kodiak Mgt Area - Earnings, Kodiak Resident

Kodiak Res Earnings as a % of Total

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations 

Gross Earnings in Millions (2004 $) 

Percent (%) 
86

5.7 Residency and Permit Ownership 

Figures 5-29 through 5-39 depict trends in residency status for limited-entry KMA salmon and 

roe herring fisheries during the period 1975 through 2004.31 The data used for the exhibits is 

drawn from CFEC Report No. 05-3N (Tide at al. 2005) and related tabulations prepared by 

CFEC staff for purposes of this study. 

Figure 5-29 summarizes residency status for KMA-specific limited entry permit trends across all 

salmon fisheries and gear types over the period in question. Figures 5-31 through 5-35 provide 

similar data for specific salmon fisheries. 

The system for determining residency status is an important feature of the CFEC permit 

ownership and transfer database. The system defines five types of participants. These are as 

follow: 

1. An Alaska resident of a rural community that is local to the fishery (for example, a 

resident of a village on Kodiak, such as Old Harbor); 

 

2. An Alaska resident of a rural community that is not local to the fishery (for example, a 

resident of Seward, Alaska); 

3. An Alaska resident of an urban community that is local to the fishery (in this case, 

Kodiak City); 

4. An Alaska resident of an urban community that is not local to the fishery (such as 

Anchorage); and 

5. A non-resident (such as a fishery participant from Seattle). 

For purposes of this descriptive analysis, we have combined types (2) and (4) above to form a 

type called “Other Alaska.” We also include a foreclosure category. A total of 29 permits were 

foreclosed during the time period reviewed here. These normally occur when the owner of a 

nontransferable permit passes away or does not renew his or her permit. Administrative 

cancellations are not common but do occur in some instances. The highest number of 

foreclosures occurred in 2004, when eight permits were foreclosed. 

The proportions depicted in Figure 5-30 correspond to the ownership levels exhibited in Figure 

5-29 for resident categories. Rural Kodiak Island Borough resident ownership as a proportion of 

total permits held declined during the first half of the 30-year historic period and then leveled 

off. Permit ownership among Other Alaskans increased sharply from 1985 to 1995 then leveled 

off. Permit ownership is concentrated among residents of Kodiak City and remained stationary 

over the 30-year period. Non-resident ownership dipped in the late 1980s and then recovered 

and leveled off. 

 

31 The five limited-entry fisheries in the KMA include: salmon purse seine, salmon beach seine, salmon set net, roe 

herring seine and roe herring gillnet. 
87

Figure 5-29 Ownership of KMA Limited Entry Salmon Permits by Residence Status: 1975-2004 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

19992002

Foreclosures

Nonresident

Other Alaska

Kodiak City

Kodiak Island - Rural

Figure 5-30 Ownership of KMA Limited Entry Salmon Permits by Residence Status (%) 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Kodiak City (%)

Nonresident %

Other Alaska (%)

Kodiak Island - Rural (%)

Source: Tide et al. (2005) and CFEC Special Tabulations 

Count of Permits Held by Resident Type 

Source: Tide et al. (2005) and CFEC Special Tabulations 

Percent (%) 
88

The data in Figure 5-29 above, and Table 5-2 below, indicate that total KMA salmon permit 

holdings for residents and non-residents increased from less than 500 in the mid-1970s to over 

750 by the early 2000s. This is a 50 percent increase. 

In keeping with interview data regarding diminished participation in commercial fishing in the 

region, permit ownership among residents of rural Kodiak communities declined by about onethird during the period; over 120 permits were held by rural residents in the late 1970s, and less 

than 80 were held in 2004. As expressed elsewhere in this report, this is particularly significant 

in that commercial fishing often provides an important source of livelihood that may be seen as a 

means for enabling subsistence practices and related cultural activities. 

The number of Kodiak City residents holding permits during the period increased from about 

250 in the mid-1970s to over 350 in the late 1990s. The number then dropped slightly. 

Ownership of KMA limited entry permits among other Alaskans doubled during the period. 

Ownership of permits by non-residents increased from about 150 permits in 1975 to about 185 

permits in 2004. 

Table 5-2 Average Number of KMA Salmon Permits Held by Residence Status and Time Period 

Year Residence Status Total Kodiak Island Kodiak City Other Alaska Non-resident Foreclosures 

1975 – 1989 109 295 74 144 1 622 

1990 - 2004 82 349 150 178 3 761 

1975 – 2004 

Maximum 125 356 167 189 8 776 

Minimum 75 206 40 129 0 494 

Std Deviation 15.9 41.8 22.6 19.7 2.3 85.6 

Source: CFEC Special Tabulations 

It should be kept in mind that the number of permits held per type of resident type can change 

because: (1) the permit holder migrates to another location, (2) the permit is transferred to 

another person, and (3) the permit is cancelled or subject to foreclosure. Migration and transfer 

of owners accounts for nearly all changes in ownership. Figure 5-31 below summarizes the 

effects of in- and out-migration on the distribution KMA salmon and roe herring permits among 

the various types of permit holders for the period 1975 through 2004. 
89

Figure 5- 31 In- and Out-Migration and Ownership of 

KMA Salmon and Roe Herring Limited Entry Permits: 1975-2004 

Source: Tide et al. (2005) and CFEC Special Tabulations 

As is indicated in the figure above, out-migration of permit holders from both rural Kodiak 

villages and from Kodiak City was extensive during the period of interest. Some influx of 

permit holders from within Alaska is noted, but most new permit holders were arriving from 

outside the state. 

A different pattern is noted for transfer of permits. The outward rate of transfer is greatest 

among non-residents. This might be expected given the exigencies of seasonal travel to Alaska 

and other challenges associated with working in a distant location. Transfers are also common 

among residents of the rural villages. This is supported by interview data that are suggestive of 

exit from the commercial fishing industry during periods of challenging market conditions. 

Inward-bound transfers are concentrated among residents of Kodiak City and other parts of 

Alaska. 

-300

-200

-100

0 

100 

200 

300 

Out-Migration -73 -111 -22 -5 -211 

In-Migration 24 29 50 108 211 

KIB - Rural Kodiak City Other

Alaska

NonResident All Types

Change in Number of Permits Held 
90

Figure 5-32 Transfer of KMA Salmon and Roe Herring Limited Entry Permits: 1975-2004 

Source: Tide et al. (2005) and CFEC Special Tabulations 

Figure 5-33 Patterns of Ownership of Salmon Purse Seine Fishery Limited Entry Permits: 1975-2004 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

Foreclosures

Nonresident

Other Alaska

Kodiak City

Kodiak Island Rural

Source: Tide et al. (2005) and CFEC Special Tabulations 

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

Transfers-Out -38 -9 -29 -98 -29 -203 

Transfers-In 22 105 58 18 0 203 

KIB-Rural Kodiak

City

Other

Alaska

NonResident

Foreclosures All Types 

Count of Permits Held by Resident Type 

Change in Number of Permits Held 
91

The data conveyed in Figure 5-33 above, and in Figures 5-34 through 5-38 below, are descriptive 

of patterns of permit ownership for specific limited entry fisheries in the KMA. Figures 5-34 

and 5-35 summarize the relationship between landings, earnings, and permit value for the salmon 

purse seine and salmon set gillnet fisheries, respectively, during the period 1995 through 2004. 

Note that for both the seine and set gillnet fisheries, the correlation coefficient between earnings 

and the value of permits is 0.7, indicating a strong linear association. This is intuitive, and in 

keeping with both interview data and theoretical concepts about optimization, in that actual and 

prospective permit holders typically base decisions about transfer and acquisition of commercial 

fishing permits in part on the likelihood that involvement in the fisheries in question will be 

profitable. It is also significant for this study in that decisions to invest or reinvest in the region’s 

commercial fishing industry following disbursement of punitive damage awards will 

hypothetically be based in part on similar rationale. 

Figure 5-34 Landings, Earnings, and the Value of Permits, KMA Salmon Purse Seine Fishery: 1995–2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Harvest

Earnings

Permit Value

Source: Tide et al. (2005) and CFEC Special Tabulations 

Millions of Pounds Landed 

and Earnings per Pound (2004 $)

Permit Value (2004 $) in Thousands 
92

Figure 5-35 Patterns of Ownership of KMA Salmon Set Net Limited Entry Permits: 1975–2004 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

Foreclosures

Nonresident

Other Alaska

Kodiak City

Kodiak Island Rural

Source: Tide et al. (2005) and CFEC Special Tabulations 

Figure 5-36 Landings, Earnings, and the Value of Permits, KMA Salmon Set Gillnet Fishery: 1975–2004 

0

20

40

60

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Harvest 140

Earnings

Permit Value

Source: Tide et al. (2005) and CFEC Special Tabulations 

Count of Permits Held by Resident Type Millions of Pounds Landed 

and Earnings per Pound (2004 $)

Permit Value (2004 $) in Thousands 
93

Figure 5-37 Patterns of Ownership of KMA Limited Entry Salmon Beach Seine Permits: 1975-2004 

0

10

20

30

40

50

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Foreclosures

Nonresident

Other Alaska

Kodiak City

Kodiak Island Rural

Source: Tide et al. (2005) and CFEC Special Tabulations 

Figure 5-38 Patterns of Ownership of KMA Salmon Roe & Herring Seine Permits: 1975-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

Foreclosures

Nonresident

Other Alaska

Kodiak City

Kodiak Island Rural

Count of Permits Held by Resident Type Count of Permits Held by Resident Type 
94

Figure 5-39 Patterns of Ownership of KMA Limited Entry Salmon Roe Gillnet Permits: 1975-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

Foreclosures

Nonresident

Other Alaska

Kodiak City

Kodiak Island Rural

Source: Tide et al. (2005) and CFEC Special Tabulations 

5.8 Forecast of Patterns of Permit Ownership 

Figure 5-40 below presents a forecast for patterns of permit ownership for the period 2005 

through 2010. The forecast was prepared using a Holt exponential smoothing model and data 

regarding historic changes in ownership as presented in Figure 5-30 above for salmon limited 

entry fisheries conducted in the KMA. The forecast assumes that new limited entry permits will 

not be issued by state government and that some foreclosures and forfeitures will occur during 

the period. 

Results of the forecast model suggest that proportions of permit ownership will gradually decline 

for Alaskans. Non-resident proportions are predicted to remain constant at 25 percent. Note that 

the graph depicts 95 percent confidence intervals above and below the forecast data points. Count of Permits Held by Resident Type 
95

Figure 5-40 Forecasts of Ownership Patterns for KMA Limited Entry Permits: 2005-2010 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

Kodiak City (%) Kodiak City FX

Nonresident % Nonresident FX

Other AK (%) Other AK FX

KIB-Rural (%) KIB-Rural FX

Forecast

Source: Tide et al. (2005), CFEC Special Tabulations, and IAI Forecast 

Fishing Vessels in Kodiak Harbor, Summer 2006 

Percent (%) 
96

6.0 Labor Supply Trends and Employment Decisions

This chapter describes recent trends in Kodiak’s supply of labor and the distribution of the labor 

force across the region over time. Given potential for EVOS punitive damage awards to 

influence employment-related decisions of residents around the region, the discussion is relevant 

to understanding the potential macro-economic effects of this unique source of social and 

economic change. Special focus is applied to decision-making processes associated with jobs in 

the formal market sectors of the regional economy. Trends in participation in the subsistence 

sector of the economy, and interaction between formal and informal economic sectors are 

principal topics examined in Chapter 7. The final analysis will control for more recent economic 

changes in the region. 

6.1 Engaging in the Labor Force 

Decision-making. Meaningful analysis of regional and local supply of labor must take into 

account individual decision-making processes regarding employment. Given the importance of 

the family unit, this may best be examined at the level of the household. Household employment 

decisions involve three components. First, the householder or householders in question must 

decide whether it is necessary to engage in labor and, if so, which member or members of the 

family will enter or exit the workforce. Second, if a decision is made to enter the workforce and 

assuming the worker or prospective worker has sufficient qualifications, he or she must decide 

where or in which industry to engage in labor. Finally, prospective workers and those who 

actually enter the labor force must decide on the amount of time that will be dedicated to the job. 

Thus, there are numerous points at which the settlement monies may influence the decisionmaking processes of householders on Kodiak. The awards may be economically significant for 

some families and, as such, the monies have the potential to influence individual behavior, and 

thus collectively affect the region’s workforce. For instance, settlement monies may, among 

other hypothetical outcomes, be: (a) invested in a manner that eventually generates sufficient 

income to preclude engaging in wage labor; (b) invested in a manner that encourages the 

establishment of new businesses, thereby changing the structure of the regional economy and 

workforce; (c) used to enable household members to gain education or acquire work skills for the 

purpose of attaining higher wages than might otherwise be available to them; (d) stimulate the 

support sector of the economy in ways that lead to more and more varied job opportunities 

through which householders may find employment; (e) influence decisions about becoming or 

remaining involved in risky occupations, such as commercial fishing; and (f) lead to spending 

behavior that will later require re-entry into, or more assiduous involvement in the region’s 

workforce. 

Increased Affluence. One outcome of the settlement is that it will at least temporarily render 

Kodiak households receiving settlement monies more affluent. Based on the findings of Knapp 

et al. (1984), who examined the economic effects of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 

Program, an injection of unearned income is likely to lead to increased spending and 

consumption of goods, including those associated with leisure activities. The latter is typically 
97

associated with diminished participation in the workforce, and given that settlement monies 

typically exceed the amount of Permanent Fund checks, we believe this is a reasonable 

hypothesis in the present case. But it should be noted that diminished participation in the 

workforce by those who receive settlements may be offset by an overall increase in employment 

opportunities resulting from a stimulated regional economy. 

Alternatives to and Persistence in the Commercial Fishing Industry. Note that potential 

outcome (e) above is of particular relevance to our hypothesis regarding investment or 

reinvestment in the region’s commercial fishing industry. According to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2005), commercial fishing is the nation’s most dangerous occupation, with a fatality 

rate of 118.4 deaths per 100,000 workers. This is over 30 times greater than the average rate of 

fatality for industrial occupations. High risk coupled with a considerable history of market 

challenges and the wherewithal potentially afforded by settlement monies may well dissuade 

many from persisting in or entering the commercial fishing industry in the region. 

Settlement monies may enable people to engage in activities other than fishing or those 

associated with fishing. For instance, settlement-derived income may enable recipients to invest 

in other businesses, to retire, or to become at least temporarily involved in leisure activities. The 

plans and perspectives of the future recipients vary extensively, and our interview data suggest 

that a wide range of factors will influence spending, investment, and employment-related 

behaviors following distribution of settlement monies. These include, but are by no means 

limited to one’s: (a) philosophy on spending unearned income, (b) socioeconomic status, (c) job 

status, (d) level of existing debt, (e) interest in maintaining or establishing a business, (f) interest 

in staying on Kodiak, or lack thereof, (g) age and station in life, and (h) previous speculative 

investment or spending. 

It should be noted that interview data make clear that not all informants express interest in 

leaving the commercial fishing industry. Many fishermen assert that fishing affords various nonpecuniary benefits. Indeed, many residents and settlement claimants are emotionally attached to 

the sea and to the ocean and fishing lifestyles despite the challenges these present. Moreover, 

many fishermen on Kodiak are highly accomplished at what they do, and some have few other 

job skills or means through which fishing-related loans and debts may be paid off. 

The readiness of many to persist in the commercial fishing industry should not be 

underestimated. This in part underlies our supposition that settlement monies may well be used 

by many to support ongoing participation in the industry, or to enable employment in alternative 

positions that satisfy lifestyle interests. Ways and reasons for persisting in the fishing lifestyle 

were discussed in many interviews conducted for this study, and many fishermen envision that 

settlement money will help them avoid a “land job.” It must be said, however, that some of this 

ongoing interest relates to gradually improving market conditions for salmon, and that 

perspectives on the future can change quickly in concert with fractions of dollars being paid for 

seafood products at the marketplace. 

New Options for Fishermen. It is clear that for many persons active in fishing in the Kodiak 

region, significant amounts of non-earned income would help initiate new business ventures or 

revitalize existing ones. Guiding visitors through fishing and hunting experiences has become a 
98

popular form of enterprise in small rural villages throughout Alaska, including the study villages 

on Kodiak. Such businesses allow operators to continue working in a beloved natural setting 

while avoiding the constraints on freedom that many associate with other forms of employment. 

As was expressed by a key informant and lifelong fisherman in one of Kodiak’s villages, guiding 

can also be seen as a favored alternative to commercial fishing: 

“For some fishermen it’s hard to change. But most realize [guiding] is the only way to 

make it now. I’ve lived by the sea my whole life; I didn’t have to, but I chose to. I went 

to college and had jobs. I chose to operate a lodge rather than stay in town [to work]. I 

realized that I could be doing the same things I used to do as a commercial fisherman – 

on the sea, with wild salmon . . .” 

6.2 Overall Trends in Employment 

Tables 6-1 and 6-2 depict data regarding historic patterns of employment in the study region. 

Because participation in the workforce is inevitably affected by demographic factors such as age 

and gender, such factors are being monitored and will be analytically controlled to facilitate valid 

assessment of the potential effects of the settlement on rates of employment. 

Participation in the workforce is also obviously influenced by the availability of jobs. This is an 

especially significant factor in the villages around Kodiak, where employment opportunities are 

perennially limited. The demographic term for a person who is interested in working but who 

cannot find a job is “discouraged worker.” The presence of such persons in Kodiak’s outlying 

villages is a common situation. While many residents value a subsistence-oriented lifestyle, 

some desire more income both to support that lifestyle and to enjoy amenities common 

elsewhere in Alaska and “Outside.” But interviews with public officials support the view that 

jobs tend to be scarce; though as reported by Tanana Chiefs Planning Director Edward Rutledge 

in Irwin et al. (1994, Volume III, Section 2.b), good data regarding the number of discouraged 

workers is not readily available for the following reason: 

The Alaska Department of Labor's official definition of unemployment, currently in 

place, excludes anyone who has made no attempt to find work in the previous four-week 

period. Most Alaska economists believe that Alaska's rural localities have proportionately 

more of these "discouraged workers." What is not mentioned by the Department of Labor 

is that in most rural, remote areas, discouraged workers do not result from those 

individuals not seeking work, but as a result of no work being available during much of 

the year. Therefore, after a period of four non-working weeks, they drop out of the 

system and no longer register on unemployment statistics.

The rates of employment and unemployment are good indicators of the presence or absence of 

job opportunities in a given area, and a general estimation of the number of discouraged workers 

can be generated through interviews with key public officials. Kodiak officials report that this 

number has risen significantly as the region’s salmon fisheries have undergone various 

challenges. Most recent discussions indicate improving conditions and while the number of 

discouraged workers remains high, it is improving. We posit that settlement monies will lead to 

an increase in the number of jobs available in the support sector, even in the villages, and that the 
99

disbursement of those monies will therefore be associated with a reduction in the number of 

discouraged workers and a concomitant increase in the overall rate of employment. 

Table 6-1 below indicates some temporal variation in regional employment characteristics. 

Although formally collected data are not available for the period prior to 1990, public officials 

report that the regional rate of employment was very high in 1989 and 1990 due to increased 

opportunities associated with oil spill cleanup and restoration. Numerous persons traveled to 

Kodiak to work on the spill during that period, and spill-related opportunities also attracted local 

residents who would not otherwise have been employed. 

Again, interview data suggest that diminishing rates of employment during the early 1990s relate 

in large part to deteriorating conditions in the regional seafood market. The pricing situation 

appears to have affected rates of participation not only in the harvest sector, but also in the 

processing, distribution, and support sectors of the industry. 

 Table 6-1 Employment Trends for Kodiak Island Borough : 1980-2004 

Year Population Number of Persons 

Employed Percent Employed 

1980 9,939 4,642 46.7 

1981 10,132 4,374 43.2 

1982 12,623 4,408 34.9 

1983 12,978 4,883 37.6 

1984 13,207 4,866 36.8 

1985 13,525 4,688 34.7 

1986 13,467 4,981 37.0 

1987 13,469 4,734 35.1 

1988 13,698 4,835 35.3 

1989 13,682 5,616 41.0 

1990 13,309 5,742 43.1 

1991 14,594 5,320 36.5 

1992 15,059 5,811 38.6 

1993 14,847 6,090 41.0 

1994 14,158 6,308 44.6 

1995 13,648 6,193 45.4 

1996 13,716 5,733 41.8 

1999 13,989 5,801 41.5 

2000 13,913 5,701 41.0 

2001 13,555 6,091 44.9 

2002 13,649 5,616 41.1 

2003 13,797 5,240 38.0 

2004 13,466 5,507 40.9 

 Source: Alaska Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development, Alaska Economic Trends, (Feb.1996 and Sept. 1999), 

Alaska Population Overview, (1990 and 1999) and http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/emp_ue/KIBlf.htm. 

Note: A change in the method of estimating labor force statistics makes labor force and unemployment prior to 2000 

not comparable with data after 2000. 
100

Table 6-2 below depicts data for Kodiak Island Borough as per the decennial Census for the 

period 1980 through 2000. Note that the rate of unemployment in the region was considerably 

higher early in the period. Table 6-3 below depicts the most recent Census data available for 

rates of unemployment and participation in the labor force in Kodiak City and the villages. Data 

for Alaska and the United States are provided for sake of comparison. 

Particularly noteworthy in the table are data suggestive of challenging employment conditions in 

the Kodiak villages. The indicators - low rates of participation in the workforce and high rates of 

unemployment – diverge rather significantly from the norm in some cases. But again, it should 

be kept in mind that while many villagers may be considered discouraged workers, valid data 

enumerating such persons are not readily available through archival sources. 

 Table 6-2 Structure of the Kodiak Island Borough Workforce: 1980-2000 

Population Aged 16 and Older Year 

1980 1990 2000 

Total Population 7,206 9,482 9,794 

Military 665 1,040 796 

Civilian 4,707 6,524 6,466 

Employed 4,365 6,178 6,131 

Unemployed 342 346 335 

Civilian Unemployment Rate (%) 7.3 5.3 5.2 

 Source: 1990 and 2000, US Census Bureau, Summary Tape File 3, P43 (2000) and P070 (1990); 1980, US Census, 

General Social and Economic Characteristics, Alaska. 

Table 6-3 Rates of Unemployment and Participation in the Labor Force, Kodiak Island: Year 2000

Community 

Population 

16 Years and Older Unemployment Rate % % in Civilian Labor Force 

Males Females Males Females Avg. Total Avg. Total 

Akhiok 35 22 5.7 13.6 8.8 61.4 

Karluk 9 12 0 0 0 52.4 

Kodiak City 2,498 1,991 4.0 3.0 3.6 75.1 

Larsen Bay 35 25 5.7 8.0 6.7 65.0 

Old Harbor 83 53 15.7 7.5 12.5 54.4 

Ouzinkie 76 71 9.2 4.2 6.8 58.5 

Port Lions 97 94 0 0 2.1 49.7 

Kodiak Island Borough 5,296 4,498 3.5 3.3 3.3 74.1 

State of Alaska 237,360 220,694 7.4 4.7 6.1 71.3 

United States ~105 m ~112 m 4.0 3.3 3.7 63.4 

6.3 Regional Employment Forecast 

One dimension of the labor supply-related effects of the punitive damages settlement could be 

traced using labor force participation rates available from the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development (ADOLWD). Figure 6-1 below depicts a forecast of annual labor force 

participation rates based on ADOLWD data for the period for 2005-2007. The forecast is based 

on an exponential smoothing of historic labor force participation rates for the period 1990 

through 2004. Should significant deviation from the indicated rates of diminishing regional 

participation in the workforce follow distribution of spill settlement awards, labor supply effects 
101

would be indicated. The situation will therefore be monitored immediately prior to and for some 

time following the settlement. 

Figure 6-1 Labor Force Participation Rate Forecast for Kodiak Island Borough: 2005-2007 

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Actual

Forecast

Upper 95% CI

Lower 95% CI

Actual 0.48 0.52 0.47 0.50 0.51 0.50 0.53 0.54 0.51 0.49 0.47 0.51 0.46 0.43 0.45

Forecast 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.42

Upper 95% CI 0.50 0.50 0.50

Lower 95% CI 0.40 0.37 0.33

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

6.4 Temporal Allocation of Labor 

One indicator of utility for understanding employment characteristics in a given region is the 

temporal allocation of labor over the course of a given year, and trends in that distribution over 

the long-term. Table 6-4 below depicts trends in that variable as reported in the 1990 and 2000 

Census years. The data are expressed in terms of persons working less than or more than onehalf year during the year prior to the Census. 

Note that 88 percent of the population reported working during 1989, while 84 percent reported 

working during 1999. This difference likely reflects the increase in spill-related employment 

opportunities available on Kodiak in 1989. The data percentages are otherwise fairly similar 

over the period in question. 

Allocation of work effort is reflective of both the nature of demand for labor and the decisions of 

individuals in households to engage in the labor force. On Kodiak Island, where fishing is a 

mainstay for so many householders, work has long been a seasonal activity. During certain 

years, abundant seafood and good market prices can lead many to truncate the fishing season; 

sufficient monies can be earned during relatively short periods of time. Other years are more 

Sources: Alaska Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development, Alaska Economic Trends, (Sept. 1999 and Feb.1996), 

Alaska Population Overview, (1990 and 1999) and http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/emp_ue/KIBlf.htm. 

Forecast and 95% confidence bands based on Double Holt exponential smoothing prepared by IAI. Ratio of Labor Force to Total Population 
102

challenging and people work for a longer portion of the year. Such patterns vary extensively 

across fleets and sectors, and over the course of time. Fried and Windisch-Cole (1999), assert 

that more people are now engaging in full-time work on Kodiak, and that the trend may relate to: 

(a) the increasingly year-round nature of the fishing industry on Kodiak (see discussion below), 

and (b) an increase in the number of processing workers who are year-round residents of the 

island. 

Note that while the settlement may stimulate a greater number of full-time job opportunities in 

the region, we anticipate that it may also lead some direct recipients to allocate work effort in a 

novel manner. That is, some settlement recipients may well work fewer weeks each year. The 

duration of that behavior will likely be related to the amount of a given award, to initial and 

longer-term spending and investment patterns, and to the persistence of one’s work ethic vis-àvis the arrival of unearned income, among other factors. 

Table 6-4 Annual Allocation of Work Effort in Kodiak Island Borough: 1990 and 2000 Census Years 

Persons 16 Years of 

Age or Older 

% Population Working 1-26 Weeks % Population Working 27-52 Weeks 

1990 2000 1990 2000 

Total Population 20.2 16.8 67.3 66.7 

Total Workers 23.1 20.1 76.9 79.9 

Source: US Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 2000 SF3 P47; 1990 STF3 P076. 

Figure 6-2 below revisits the seasonal nature of employment in the Kodiak region by presenting 

a comparison between monthly and annual wage and salary employment across all sectors. As 

was the case for data specific to the fishing industry, a summer peak is clearly noted for this 

more general employment dataset. 

Figure 6-2 Seasonal Nature of Employment in Kodiak Island Borough: 1990-2004

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

1990

1995

2000

2004

1990 89.2 91.4 92.7 97.3 102.8 109.9 118.5 114.9 99.8 96.9 93.9 92.7

1995 90.3 93.3 94.5 94.7 100 108.7 117.4 114.1 104.4 99.4 93.5 89.7

2000 95.5 102.9 99.5 99 97.5 101.7 115.8 115.6 100.6 97.5 89.3 84.2

2004 103.7 104.9 103.1 102.3 97.8 105.6 104.9 105.3 98.7 98.4 91.7 83.6

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Source: Alaska Deptartment of Labor and Workforce Development, 

http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/emp_ue/kodiaklf.htm Ratio of Monthly to Average Annual Emplo

yment (%)
103

Of particular note in the figure is the significant decline in the seasonality of employment during 

2004. The rate of employment during peak season declines from almost 19 percent above the 

annual average in 1990 to only five percent above that average in 2004. Moreover, employment 

is somewhat more evenly distributed across the year during 2004. 

Finally, we present Table 6-5 below, which further illustrates change in regional employment 

characteristics between 1980 and 2000. We combine figures for sectors that are good proxies for 

gauging employment in the commercial fishing industry. These are: (a) Agriculture, Fishing, 

and Forestry, and (b) Manufacturing. Note that fishing-related employment decreased from 36 

percent in 1980 to 25 percent in 2000. Since the relative percentage rather than absolute number 

of employees in the industry is diminishing, the figures suggest that, in terms of employment, the 

industry is being eclipsed by other sectors of the job market. 

Table 6-5 Distribution of Employment across Sectors in Kodiak Island Borough: 1980-2000 Census Years 

Industry Sector 

Census Reporting Year 

1980 1990 2000 

Count Share (%) Count Share (%) Count Share (%) 

Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry 573 13.1 941 15.2 574 9.4 

Manufacturing 1,005 23.0 873 14.1 1,029 16.8 

Subtotal 1,578 36.2 1,814 29.4 1,603 26.2 

Mining 5 0.1 12 0.2 26 0.4 

Construction 197 4.5 393 6.4 331 5.4 

Wholesale Trade 29 0.7 130 2.1 120 2.0 

Retail Trade 605 13.9 877 14.2 656 10.7 

Transport, Communications, and Utilities 352 8.1 504 8.2 529 8.6 

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 74 1.7 134 2.2 186 3.0 

Services 972 22.3 1,702 27.5 2,005 32.7 

Public Administration 553 12.7 612 9.9 673 11.0 

Total Employment 4,365 64 7,992 70.7 7,732 73.8 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureaus of the Census: 1980 General Social and Economic Characteristics, 

Alaska; 1990: P077. Industry, 1990 STF 3; 2000: P49; Industry, SF3. 
104

7.0 Patterns of Population Change in the Kodiak Region

This chapter focuses on relevant dimensions of population change in the Kodiak study region. 

The issue of out-migration is particularly important in the study context in that punitive damage 

settlement monies may potentially be used by some residents to cover costs associated with 

moving from Kodiak Island. Although interview data suggest that this is but one of many 

spending options for resident claimants, it is a particularly important hypothetical outcome in 

that extensive out-migration would lead to secondary social and economic effects. For instance, 

old social networks and labor capital would potentially be significantly altered, and newlyarriving residents would likely bring differing cultural perspectives, job skills, and so forth. We 

review such issues in this chapter and again in the concluding summary of this report. Again, the 

final analysis will address important recent sources of change in the study communities and 

region. 

7.1 Economic and Demographic Conditions and Patterns of Migration 

Population changes often reflect changes in the health of an economy, and the social and 

economic implications of change in population size and structure tend to be amplified when the 

population in question is relatively small and isolated. This is certainly the case for Kodiak 

villages and to a lesser extent for the region as a whole. For instance, closure of canneries in 

Karluk is associated with extensive out-migration, and without some form of economic 

stimulation that would serve to increase the size of the local population through in-migration, 

natural increase is unlikely to lead to growth of that community. 

Population Structure, Migration, and Population Size. Structural-demographic changes occur 

through both natural increase and migration. Demographers define natural increase as the 

number of births exceeding deaths during a given period of time. This is determined in large part 

by the size and age distribution of a population interacting in a specific location over the course 

of time. Migration and the characteristics of persons who leave the area in question can have a 

dramatic effect on the structure of the remaining population. 

It should be kept in mind that changes in the age distribution of a given population will affect the 

rate of natural increase therein. For instance, the rate of natural increase will be greater in 

relatively younger populations. Thus, when numerous persons of child-bearing age depart from 

a region, population size obviously decreases, with a range of cascading effects on the social and 

economic attributes of that region. Similarly, the characteristics of persons who in-migrate can 

significantly affect the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of the region to which they 

migrate. 

Migration and the Attractions of Economic Opportunity. Significantly, decisions of individuals 

to migrate are often strongly influenced by the relative economic opportunities between places 

(Huskey et al. 2004). Under the conceptual parameters of economic rationality and optimization, 

people are more likely to move out of or into a community if the transition is likely to bear 

economic benefits. By extension, the population of a region is more likely to grow when its 
105

economy is growing and when numerous income and employment opportunities are available 

both for residents and potential migrants. 

Donkersloot (2006) investigated the situation in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska, and found that 

young women are significantly more likely than young men to emigrate for the purpose of 

finding opportunity in other parts of Alaska and “Outside.” The author asserts that this is one 

result of ecological and economic challenges in the region’s commercial fisheries. She argues 

that young women are experiencing more stress than young men and that they tend to aspire 

toward solutions that involve attainment of higher education and economic gain outside the 

village setting. This has obvious implications for the demographic structure of villages in the 

Bristol Bay region, with direct relevance to the situation in villages on Kodiak Island. 

A prominent public official described a similar situation for the Kodiak villages, with the added 

perspective that while various programs provide incentives for youth to leave the communities, 

sufficient incentive to return is often lacking: 

As more and more of them do that and receive scholarships, their draw to come back to 

the villages is prohibited because there are no jobs for them to use their educational 

background . . . So, they remain in the bigger cities or villages, you know, either in town 

or mainly in Anchorage or go outside of Alaska. So, the exodus is . . . people want their 

children to get a better education, the elders or the families, and then there isn’t the 

opportunity for them to come back. So, it’s like the village dies because of the exodus 

eventually. 

Subsistence Practices and Migration. But the decisions of some residents to leave or stay 

during periods of economic challenge may also quite obviously be influenced by attachments to 

various positive aspects of that place. The young men participating in Donkersloot’s study 

undoubtedly had strong reasons for staying in the villages. For instance, non-economic 

dimensions of fishing are often important attractions for persisting in a challenging endeavor. 

The social and cultural context associated with the fishing lifestyle can provide numerous 

incentives, particularly in indigenous settings. Indeed, economic problems can sometimes be 

overlooked in the presence of familial and cultural connections and other attractions to place 

(Glazier 2007). 

As is noted elsewhere in this report, subsistence opportunities available in Kodiak villages can 

influence migration-related decisions. Many Alaska Native residents opt for the benefits of the 

subsistence-oriented way of life and defer moving away from their home communities despite 

the absence of opportunities and amenities available elsewhere. 

Knowledge of natural resources and culturally appropriate hunting and fishing practices and use 

of natural resources are typically nurtured within well-defined social and cultural settings 

specific to the villages. Success in subsistence activities enables sharing and strengthening of 

social bonds in those settings. These factors tend to limit out-migration and can also ultimately 

attract those who previously left the community to return to the subsistence way of life in their 

home community. 
106

7.2 Relevant Baseline Conditions 

The data provided in Table 7-1 below reveal that extensive population growth has occurred on 

Kodiak Island since 1980. The 2004 population estimate of 13,466 persons is over 35 percent 

greater than the population figure for 1980. Most growth occurred in the 1980s and was in large 

part associated with: (a) regional expansion of the groundfish industry (Fried 1988), (b) growth 

in the then highly-profitable salmon fisheries, and (c) the labor force needed to support these 

fisheries. 

Stalled Economic Growth. Economic growth slowed considerably after 1990 and was 

punctuated by only short periods of improvement. The downturn is in part reflective of 

difficulties in the region’s salmon fisheries and associated effects on the larger economy (Fried 

and Windisch-Cole 1999). Note that the 2004 population estimate is accordingly similar to that 

originally achieved in the mid-1980s. The rate of growth on Kodiak Island has been slower than 

for the state as a whole since 1990. The rate of population growth measured between the 1990 

Census and the 2000 Census for persons under the age of 64 was 11.2 percent for Alaska, and 

2.1 percent for Kodiak Island Borough. 

Table 7-1 Kodiak Island Borough Population Figures and Rates of Change: 1980-2004 

Year Population Net Change Rate of Change (%) 

1980 9,939 -- -- 

1981 10,132 193 1.9 

1982 12,623 2,491 24.6 

1983 12,978 355 2.8 

1984 13,207 229 1.8 

1985 13,525 318 2.4 

1986 13,467 -58 -0.4 

1987 13,469 2 0.0 

1988 13,698 229 1.7 

1989 13,682 -16 -0.1 

1990 13,309 -373 -2.7 

1991 13,018 -291 -2.2 

1992 14,635 1,617 12.4 

1993 14,594 -41 -0.3 

1994 15,059 465 3.2 

1995 14,847 -212 -1.4 

1996 14,158 -689 -4.6 

1997 13,648 -510 -3.6 

1998 13,716 68 0.5 

1999 13,989 273 2.0 

2000 13,913 -76 -0.5 

2001 13,555 -358 -2.6 

2002 13,649 94 0.7 

2003 13,797 148 1.1 

2004 13,466 -331 -2.4 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Borough and Census Area Estimates 1990-

2004, http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/pop/estimates/04t2-1.xls. 
107

 Table 7-2 Components of Population Change: Kodiak Island Borough: 1970-2000 

Period Start 

Population 

Total 

Change 

Percent 

Change Births Deaths Natural Increase 

Percent 

Change 

Net 

Migrants 

Percent 

Change 

2002-01 14,167 -315 -2.2 207 41 166 1.2 -481 -3.4 

2001-00 13,980 187 1.3 227 49 178 1.3 9 0.1 

1999-00 * * * * * * * * * 

1999-98 13,716 273 2.0 268 53 215 1.6 58 0.4 

1998-97 13,648 68 0.5 258 47 211 1.5 -143 -1.0 

1997-96 14,158 -510 -3.6 271 44 227 1.6 -737 -5.2 

1996-95 14,847 -689 -4.6 266 63 203 1.4 -892 -6.0 

1995-94 15,059 -212 -1.4 277 58 219 1.5 -431 -2.9 

1994-93 14,594 465 3.2 285 46 239 1.6 226 1.5 

1993-92 14,635 -41 -0.3 285 63 222 1.5 -263 -1.8 

1992-91 13,018 1,617 12.4 271 44 227 1.7 1,390 10.7 

1991-90 13,309 -291 -2.2 428 77 351 2.6 -642 -4.8 

Population Change by Decade 

2000-1990 13,309 671 5.0 2,897 544 2,353 17.7 -1,682 -12.6 

1990-1980 9,939 3,370 33.9 3,042 533 2,509 25.2 861 8.7 

1980-1970 9,409 530 5.6 2,343 470 1,873 19.9 -1,343 -14.3 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Alaska Population Overview, 2001-2002 

Population Estimates and 1990-99 Population Estimates; * data not available 

View of the Remote Village of Larsen Bay, Kodiak Island, 2006 

Table 7-2 above depicts demographic components of population change on Kodiak over the 

period from 1970 through 2000. The data derive from the decennial Census. Of particular note 

in the table, the estimated rate of natural increase was higher during the 1980s than in either the 

preceding or following decades. Also of note is the commonality of net out-migration during the 

period. 
108

Migration and Employment. Net migration in this case indicates the net difference between the 

population moving to and from Kodiak Island. The trend of net migration in the region appears 

to be associated with general economic decline in the fishing industry, as discussed throughout 

this report. During the 1980s, when economic growth was characteristic of the region, net 

migration was positive. The Kodiak population grew by almost nine percent during the period. 

During the 1990s, when the economy began to decline, people began leaving the region. 

Emigration was common during the mid-1990s and the population diminished by almost 13 

percent during the period. 

The relationship between migration and employment can be both direct and indirect in nature. In 

some cases, out-migration can occur if the quality of available employment declines, or if wages 

are insufficient to maintain the requirements of the workforce. Emigration can also occur if 

opportunities do not meet the demands of population growth resulting from natural increase. 

Population Structure and Migration. Population trends can also relate to changes in the 

structure of employment opportunities and, subsequently, to migration behavior. For instance, as 

described above, seasonal peaks in employment opportunities may be insufficient for some 

workers to meet cost of living requirements. This may result in out-migration despite apparent 

stability in overall annual average employment figures. Cyclic or rotational work opportunities, 

such as those provided by the U.S. Coast Guard on Kodiak, can also affect rates of in- and outmigration. 

The full nature of patterns of migration occurring in the Kodiak region over time cannot be 

adequately indicated by net migration. It should be noted that people constantly move in and out 

of the region with little net change in the size of its population. Table 7-3 below illustrates this 

tendency toward population “turnover.” The table presents the results of the Census question, 

“where did you live five years ago?” The gross rate of immigration describes the share of the 

population that moved into Kodiak over the previous five-year period. This rate fell from 41.3 

percent in 1980 to 30 percent in 2000. The rate of gross in-migration was positive even during 

the 1990s when the rate of net migration tended to be negative. Note that rates of population 

turnover tend to be affected by the age structure of a resident population. Younger persons are 

more likely to emigrate; elderly persons tend to be more likely to stay. 

Table 7-3 Population Mobility Figures for Kodiak Island Borough: 1980-2000 

Population Statistic 1980 1990 2000 

Total Population of Kodiak 9,939 13,309 13,913 

Kodiak Population Five Years Earlier 4,854 6,844 8,394 

Number of Persons Who Moved to Kodiak 4,101 5,053 4,173 

From Other Places in Alaska 705 17.2 % 1,112 22.0 % 974 23.3 % 

From Other Places in U.S. 3,066 74.8 % 3,613 71.5 % 2,631 63.0 % 

From Outside U.S. 330 8.0 % 328 6.5 % 568 13.6 % 

Gross Rate of In-migration 0.413 0.380 0.300 

Source: US Census Bureau: Census 2000 Summary File 3, P24; 1990 Summary Tape File 3, P043; 1980 General 

Social and Economic Characteristics, Alaska. 
109

As can be noted in the table, population turnover resulted in almost one-third of the Kodiak 

population being new to the region between 1990 and 2000. The characteristics of these new 

arrivals changed slightly over the period; they were more likely to have migrated from other 

parts of Alaska and from “Outside” in 2000 than in 1980. 

In reiteration, natural increases in the size of the future population of Kodiak will be affected by 

ongoing changes in the demographic structure of the region. Table 7-4 depicts key demographic 

factors in this regard for the Census years of 1980, 1990, and 2000. It is important to note that 

over this time period, the proportion of females in the population increased from 44.2 percent to 

46 percent, which is slightly less than the proportion of females in the state. 

Table7-4 Population Structure in Terms of Age and Gender, Kodiak Island Borough: 1990-2000 

Gender 

1980 1990 2000 

Count Share of 

Total (%) Count Share of Total (%) Count Share of Total (%) 

Male 5,548 n/a 7,395 n/a 7,551 n/a 

Under 5 517 9.3 742 10.0 631 8.4 

5 – 19 1,284 23.1 1,604 21.7 1,844 24.4 

20-44 2,872 51.8 3,844 52.0 3,182 42.1 

45-64 744 13.4 998 13.5 1,538 20.4 

0ver 64 131 2.4 207 2.8 356 4.7 

Female 4,391 n/a 5,914 n/a 6,399 n/a 

Under 5 468 10.7 661 11.2 614 9.6 

5 – 19 1,167 26.6 1,470 24.9 1,614 25.2 

20-44 2,144 48.8 2,836 48.0 2,548 39.8 

45-64 488 11.1 729 12.3 1,306 20.4 

0ver 64 124 2.8 218 3.7 317 5.0 

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Summary Tape File, 100-percent data; 1980 General Social and 

Economic Characteristics, Alaska. 

Note also that the proportion of all persons over the age of 45 increased dramatically during the 

period in question. Meanwhile, the number of women between 5 and 44 years of age declined 

from 72 percent to 65 percent between 1990 and 2000. These changes strongly indicate future 

constraints on natural population increase in the study region. 

 

Ethnic-Racial Ancestry and Demographic Change. Table 7-5 below depicts characteristics of 

the Kodiak population in terms of ethnic ancestry. Because numerous workers come to Kodiak 

from around the world to participate in the seafood processing sector, the resident population has 

changed dramatically in this regard in the last decades. Workers who come to the area 

seasonally, gradually establish relationships to place and family and begin to stay. For instance, 

the percentage of residents who report Asian or Pacific Islander backgrounds more than doubled 

to 19 percent by 2000. There is now a strong historical association between persons of Filipino 

ancestry and the seafood processing industry on Kodiak, and an increasing level of participation 

on the part of Pacific Islanders. For further discussion of these phenomena, see Fried and 

Windisch-Cole (1999). 
110

According to data provided by the decennial Census, the size of the population of Alaska Natives 

resident in the study region has increased over the last two decades. This followed a period of 

net out-migration during the 1980s. Although persons of European ancestry continue to 

comprise the majority of the resident population, the relative percentage of this group has 

dropped significantly over the time period examined here. 

Table 7-5 Ethnic-Racial Composition of the Population in Kodiak Island Borough: 1980-2000 

Population Statistics 

1980 1990 2000 

Count Percent of 

Total Count Percent of Total Count Percent of Total 

Total Population 9,939 100 13,309 100 13,913 100 

Caucasian 7,148 71.9 9,467 71.1 8,805 63.3 

Alaska Native/Native Am. 1,911 19.2 2,162 16.2 2,309 16.6 

African American 73 0.7 138 1.0 153 1.1 

Asian/Pacific Islander 807 8.1 1,542 0.116 2,646 19.0 

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development: 1990 and 2000 estimates: Williams, Race and 

Ethnicity in Alaska, Alaska Economic Trends, Oct. 2001. 1980 estimates: Alaska Population Overview, 1990 

Census and Estimates, 1991. 
111

8.0 Community-Level Factors and Effects 

Previous sections of this report have discussed some of the unique aspects of life in the Kodiak 

villages. These include, among others: (a) the Alutiiq heritage shared by many residents, (b) the 

commonality of reliance on wild foods, (c) geographic isolation and extensive out-migration, and 

(d) the interface between the informal subsistence economy that is so culturally meaningful to 

residents and the formal wage economy, which in the villages is dominated by commercial 

fishing and public sector employment. This chapter continues the discussion by providing data 

for select socioeconomic and demographic variables that are will likely be of utility for gauging 

the effects of the settlement. 

8.1 Economics of Population Change 

As described in Chapter Two of this report, the Kodiak villages share government, transport, and 

service linkages with Kodiak City, but they are not road-connected. Travel to and from the 

villages is accomplished by air or sea transportation and is therefore relatively challenging. This 

renders the communities somewhat isolated and their residents somewhat independent-minded. 

But this is not to say that the residents or the economies of the villages are autonomous. As is 

the case for Kodiak City, numerous village residents are involved in the commercial fishing 

industry, which is, in turn, linked to a market economy that is increasingly global in nature. As 

such, the regional and village economies are subject to exogenous economic trends and 

conditions. Village and regional Native corporations and local government are also important 

sources of income and jobs. 

Somewhat unlike Kodiak City, a significant informal economy also operates in the outlying 

communities. As reviewed here and elsewhere, subsistence-oriented fishing and hunting, sharing 

of subsistence-oriented foods and the labor required to attain them are important dimensions of 

life in the villages. Village societies can be seen as straddling the past and present. Pursuit of 

wild foods and culturally-influenced sharing and reciprocity are as critically important as in 

centuries past. But the subsistence lifestyle and pursuit of mainstream American goals and 

material items requires cash and thus involvement in the larger society and economy of Alaska 

and beyond. 

Diminishing Population Size in the Villages. Demographic data indicate that the traditionalmodern interface has been challenging for residents of the villages. Population loss has been 

highly significant in four of the six villages since 1980. Only Ouzinkie and Port Lions have 

grown over the 24-year period for which data are depicted (see Table 8-1 below). Even in these 

communities, growth has been modest in comparison to that of Kodiak City. The rate of 

population growth in Kodiak City was almost three times that of Port Lions, where the 

population increased by around 11 percent during the period. The proportion of the Kodiak 

Island Borough population included in the village counts diminished from 11 percent in 1980 to 

six percent in 2004. 
112

Table 8-1 Population Figures for the Outlying Communities on Kodiak Island: 1980- 2004 

Place 

1980 1990 2000 2004 1980-

2004 

Persons % of 

Total Persons % of 

Total Persons % of 

Total Persons % of 

Total 

Growth 

Rate % 

Kodiak Is. Borough 9,939 n/a 13,309 n/a 13,913 n/a 13,466 n/a n/a 

Kodiak City 4,756 47.9 6,365 47.8 6,334 45.5 6,199 46.0 30.3 

Kodiak Station 1,370 13.8 2,025 15.2 1,758 12.6 1,750 13.0 27.7 

Akhiok 105 1.1 77 0.6 80 0.6 56 0.4 -46.7 

Karluk 96 1.0 71 0.5 27 0.2 26 0.2 -72.9 

Larsen Bay 168 1.7 147 1.1 115 0.8 96 0.7 -42.9 

Old Harbor 340 3.4 284 2.1 237 1.7 196 1.5 -42.4 

Ouzinkie 173 1.7 209 1.6 225 1.6 187 1.4 8.1 

Port Lions 215 2.2 222 1.7 256 1.8 238 1.8 10.7 

Remainder 2,716 27.3 3,909 29.4 4,881 35.1 4,718 35.0 73.7 

Sources: Alaska Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development, Alaska Population Overview: 1980 Estimates, 1990 

Census and Estimates, Place Estimates 2000-2004; http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/pop. 

Table 8-2 below depicts the relative proportion of Alaska Natives residing in each community at 

the time of the last three Census counts. As has been the case for many centuries, with the 

exception of Kodiak City, most residents of the outlying villages are Alaska Natives. 

Table 8-2 Proportion of Alaska Natives Residing in Kodiak Communities: 1980- 2000

Community 1980 1990 2000 

Akhiok 93.3 96.6 93.8 

Karluk 100.0 91.7 96.3 

Larsen Bay 84.3 87.5 89.2 

Old Harbor 89.9 92.2 86.9 

Ouzinkie 94.2 92.6 88.9 

Port Lions 68.9 n/a 65.3 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 2000 SF1 P7; 1990 STF1P006; 1980 General Social and 

Economic Characteristics, Alaska. Note: Definition for 1990 and 2000 includes American Indian and Alaska Native 

only plus other races to account for change in definition in 2000 Census. 

The pattern of population change indicated in Table 8-1 above makes clear that out-migration 

has been significant in the villages despite the attractions for Alaska Natives of living in a place 

with an often long and intricate cultural history. But it should be noted that net out-migration 

does not mean these quality of life factors are unimportant. Indeed, interviews with local leaders 

and residents of the community clearly indicate that many strongly identify with the village 

setting and appreciate the social and cultural attributes that make each village unique in 

contemporary Alaska. But there are many challenges, economic and otherwise. Lack of 

opportunity coupled with social problems and attraction for amenities available elsewhere can 

override cultural ties to place. 
113

Economic Challenges. We present Tables 8-3 and 8-4 below as means for illustrating key 

indicators of economic challenges that are now often characteristic of life in the villages. The 

data elucidate the fact that the formal economies of the six villages are relatively impoverished 

compared to that of Kodiak City, the Borough as a whole, the State of Alaska, and the United 

States as a whole. 

Note that approximately 20 percent of households in four of the villages reported no earnings 

during the most recent Census. Both per capita income and median household income tended to 

be significantly below the figures reported for all larger units of analysis. Some variation is 

noted across Census years, with conditions tending to worsen over time, in some cases 

dramatically so. 

Table 8-3 Patterns of Income in Kodiak Villages, per the Decennial Census: 1980-2000 

Place Per Capita Income ($) Percent of Households 

with Earnings (%) Median Income ($) 

1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 

Kodiak Island Borough 10,415 19,979 22,195 95 93 92 26,421 44,815 54,636 

Kodiak City 12,030 22,951 21,522 95 92 90 30,512 46,050 55,140 

Kodiak Station n/a 10,924 14,234 n/a 100 100 n/a 34,196 46,189 

Akhiok n/a 14,793 8,473 n/a 100 80 n/a 42,500 33,438 

Karluk n/a 8,052 13,736 n/a 100 83 n/a 31,250 19,167 

Larsen Bay n/a 19,222 16,227 n/a 100 78 n/a 39,750 40,833 

Old Harbor n/a 8,008 14,265 n/a 84 77 n/a 16,875 32,500 

Ouzinkie n/a 16,530 19,324 n/a 84 85 n/a 48,393 32,500 

Port Lions n/a 14,960 17,492 n/a 87 89 n/a 40,938 39,107 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 2000 SF3 P82; 1990 STF3 P114A, 1980 General Social 

and Economic Characteristics Alaska. 

Table 8-4 Families and Individuals Identified as Living below Poverty Level: 1990 and 2000 

Place 1990 2000 

Families (%) Individuals (%) Families (%) Individuals (%) 

United States 10.0 13.0 9.2 12.4 

State of Alaska 6.8 9.0 6.7 9.4 

Kodiak Island Borough 3.7 5.5 4.6 6.6 

Akhiok 0 2.5 5.3 9.9 

Karluk 0 3.7 0 0 

Kodiak City 4.6 6.2 3.7 7.4 

Larsen Bay 3.2 3.1 27.3 20.5 

Old Harbor 24.6 31.5 30.8 29.5 

Ouzinkie 3.6 10.3 6.1 6.0 

Port Lions 2.1 5.3 12.7 12.1 

Source: U.S. Census Data, Tables DP3 (2000) and DP4 (1990); * data not available 
114

8.2 Recent Trends of Participation in the Harvest Sector 

The scope, scale, economic significance, and subjective importance of commercial fishing in the 

Kodiak region have been discussed at length in this report. Local trends in fisheries effort, 

production, earnings, and associated issues were discussed for select communities in Section 5.5. 

This brief section describes recent levels of village-specific participation in the harvest sector, 

depicted in Table 8-5 below. Note that the table indicates the total number of permit holders 

resident in each village. The total number of permits held in each village is depicted for the year 

2000 in Table 2-2 of this report. Of particular note in the following table is the extent to which 

participation in the harvest sector has diminished in each of the villages. 

Table 8-5 KMA Permit Holders, Licensed Crew, and Licensed Guides in the Villages: 2000-2005 

Community Commercial Permits 

2000 / 2003 / 2005 

Licensed Crew 

2000 / 2003/ 2005 

Licensed Guides 

2000 

Akhiok 5 / 5 / 7 12 / 4 / 6 0 

Karluk 0 / 0 / 0 5 / 2 /2 6 

Larsen Bay 17 / 9 / 11 24 / 19 / 20 26 

Old Harbor 31 / 23 /26 52 / 28 /45 17 

Ouzinkie 26 / 23 / 24 28 / 25 /20 46 

Port Lions 24 / 18 /19 24 / 20 / 23 18 

Source: Sepez et al. (2005) for year 2000 data, and CFEC for 2003 and 2005 data. 

8.3 Village-Level Participation in Subsistence Activities 

In analytical terms, the regional economies of Alaska may be seen as variably mixed economies 

that incorporate a market sector, a government sector, and a subsistence sector (Huskey et al. 

2004). Kodiak is no different. The interplay between the informal economic aspects of 

subsistence hunting and fishing, and the formal aspects of the commercial fishing industry and 

other sources of income continue to characterize the village economies of Kodiak Island. 

Subsistence-oriented hunting and fishing are undertaken by many non-Native and Native 

residents of Kodiak City and to residents of the smaller, more isolated communities in the region. 

It can be argued that those practices are particularly important to Alaska Native residents given: 

(a) the cultural meanings that underlay the natural world as perceived by persons of Alutiiq 

ancestry in specific social contexts across the region, and the pursuit of natural resources therein; 

(b) the importance of traditional practices associated with acquisition and sharing subsistence 

foods in such contexts, and (c) culturally-influenced preferences for wild foods, and the dietary 

imperative of consuming them in the absence of other suitably nutritious and readily available 

sources of protein, carbohydrates, and vitamins. 

Recent Trends in Subsistence Participation and Production. According to the ADF&G 

Division of Subsistence (2005), 1,923 permits were issued for subsistence fishing across the 

KMA for the 2004 season. Nearly 85 percent of the permits were issued to Kodiak residents 

and, of these, 76 percent were issued to persons with addresses in Kodiak City.32 The reported 

 

32 Note that some percentage of villagers receives mail at postal facilities in Kodiak City. 
115

level of harvest for the year 2003 subsistence salmon fishery was 40,568 fish, which was higher 

than the 5- and 10-year averages of 37,786 and 40,568 salmon, respectively. Nearly 94 percent 

of the reported harvest was landed by residents of Kodiak Island Borough. Over 80 percent of 

the take was sockeye, 15 percent silver, 3.7 percent pink, 1.2 percent king, and less than one 

percent chum (p. 120). 

There are caveats to interpretation of subsistence fishing data in the region. The ADF&G 

Division of Subsistence (2005:120-121) notes that while acquisition of permits and thus 

reporting of subsistence activities have been problematic in the past, a newly established 

outreach program has the potential to improve the situation. The authors report (p. 121) that a 

total of 100 households in the Kodiak villages participated in the permit program in 2000, 189 

participated in 2001, 167 participated in 2002, and 165 participated in 2003. Based on input 

from households involved in the program, the overall harvest of salmon taken via subsistence 

permits was 6,299 fish in 2000, 9,034 in 2001, 9,386 in 2002, and 8,714 in 2003. 

Table 8-6 below depicts longer-term trends in the region-wide subsistence harvest of salmon. 

We reiterate that the information derives from programs in which landings are self-reported, and 

that the nature of those programs and hence the consistency of the data has varied over time. 

Other factors of significance for monitoring and explaining changes in harvest levels include: (a) 

biophysical parameters of the resource population and rate of return, (b) changes in allowable 

harvest levels in adjacent commercial salmon fisheries, (c) levels of escapement, and (d) changes 

in the size of the pool of residents who qualify for subsistence permits and/or are interested in 

subsistence fishing. As noted earlier in this report, while the study team will remain attentive to 

a wide range of variables and factors that may be useful for explaining changes in subsistence 

activities, the current study is focused on identifying and monitoring social and economic factors 

that may have a bearing on such changes in the region. 

The data depicted below indicate a modest increase in participation in subsistence salmon 

fisheries in the KMA over the course of the study period. While the resident population has been 

relatively stable during this period, the ratio of the number of residents to the number of 

subsistence permits decreased from an average of 12-to-1 during the 1980s to about 7-to-1 after 

1999. This means that an increasing percentage of the resident population has been using 

subsistence permits since permit data have been collected. The ratio of the number of salmon 

landed to the number of residents also increased. These trends are also depicted in Figure 8-1 

below. 

Salmon may be seen as a particularly important resource for residents, but other permitted 

subsistence fisheries are also conducted in the region. For instance, a subsistence fishery for 

halibut was designated in the KMA in 2003. Other permitted subsistence fisheries include: 

Pacific cod, ling cod, flounder, halibut, rockfish, Dolly Varden, king crab, Tanner crab, and 

Dungeness crab. Other marine resources used for consumptive-subsistence purposes in the study 

area include: clams, cockles, mussels, chitons, octopus, and sea urchins (ADF&G, Division of 

Subsistence 2006). 
116

Table 8-6 Reported Subsistence Harvest of Salmon in the Kodiak Management Area: 1980-2004 

Year Permits 

Held 

Salmon 

Harvest 

(# of fish) 

Kodiak 

Island 

Population 

Ratio: 

Harvest/Permits

Ratio: 

Harvest/Population 

Ratio: 

Pop/Permits 

Held 

1980 756 21,541 9,939 28.493 2.167 13.1 

1981 658 19,944 10,132 30.310 1.968 15.4 

1982 993 28,142 12,623 28.340 2.229 12.7 

1983 1,082 25,256 12,978 23.342 1.946 12.0 

1984 1,061 26,290 13,207 24.779 1.991 12.4 

1985 1,196 28,887 13,525 24.153 2.136 11.3 

1986 996 24,455 13,467 .24.553 1.816 13.5 

1987 878 23,482 13,469 26.745 1.743 15.3 

1988 2,066 16,171 13,698 7.827 1.181 6.6 

1989 1,994 18,776 13,682 9.416 1.372 6.9 

1990 2,340 28,977 13,309 12.383 2.177 5.7 

1991 2,660 32,677 13,018 12.285 2.510 4.9 

1992 2,614 31,934 14,635 12.217 2.182 5.6 

1993 1,774 30,424 14,594 17.150 2.085 8.2 

1994 1,518 27,856 15,059 18.350 1.850 9.9 

1995 1,218 27,035 14,847 22.196 1.821 12.2 

1996 1,429 35,163 14,158 24.607 2.484 9.9 

1997 1,648 41,737 13,648 25.326 3.058 8.3 

1998 1,145 27,783 13,716 24.265 2.026 12.0 

1999 1,437 33,522 13,989 23.328 2.396 9.7 

2000 1,679 39,753 13,913 23.677 2.857 8.3 

2001 2,009 41,656 13,555 20.735 3.073 6.7 

2002 2,068 42,622 13,649 20.610 3.123 6.6 

2003 2,052 40,698 13,797 19.833 2.950 6.7 

2004 2,063 38,403 13,466 18.615 2.852 6.5 

Source: ADF&G subsistence permit database and Area Management Reports, Kodiak Management Area 

Village Residents Filet Halibut for Consumption and Sharing, Kodiak Island, 2006 
117

Figure 8-1 Descriptive Ratios Indicating Involvement in KMA Subsistence Salmon Fisheries: 1980-2004 

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ratio: Population/ Permits Held

Ratio: Harvest/ Population

The ADF&G Division of Subsistence conducts household surveys of subsistence hunting, 

fishing, and gathering activities across the State of Alaska on an ongoing basis. Programmatic 

surveys were conducted in Kodiak Island communities during the mid-1980s, at various points 

during the mid-1990s, and during the early 2000s. Tables 8-7 and 8-8 below depict select 

findings from household survey work conducted in eight Kodiak communities during the period 

1886-2003. 

Table 8-7 Consumption, Use, and Harvest of Subsistence Foods in Kodiak Communities: 1986-2003 

Community 

All Subsistence Resources

Consumption per Person (lbs) Households Using % Households Harvesting % 

1986 1990s* 2003 1986 1990s* 2003 1986 1990s* 2003 

Kodiak City n/d 151 n/d n/d 99 n/d n/d 88 n/d 

Akhiok 162 322 n/d 92 100 100 83 100 100 

Karluk 385 269 n/d 100 100 n/d 100 100 n/d 

Larsen Bay 209 371 326 97 96 96 81 89 96 

Old Harbor 423 300 358 100 100 100 98 100 98 

Ouzinkie 403 264 n/d 94 100 100 91 100 80 

Port Lions 333 332 n/d 99 100 100 94 100 98 

*The ADF&G data collection year varied across communities in the 1990s. For Kodiak City it was 1993; for 

Akhiok it was 1992; for Karluk it was 1991; for Larsen Bay it was 1997; for Old Harbor it was 1997; for Ouzinkie it 

was 1997; for Port Lions was 1993; Source: ADF&G, Technical Paper Number 312, August 2006 and Technical 

Paper 193, June 1993; n/d = data not available. Ratio: Population to Permits Held 

Ratio: Fish Caught to Population 

 Source: ADF&G, Divisions of Subsistence, CFEC
118

Table 8-8 Participation in Marine and Terrestrial Subsistence Pursuits, Kodiak Communities: 1986- 2003

Community 

Percent of Households Harvesting 

Fish Salmon Land Mammals Marine Mammals Other Resources 

1986 1990s 2003 1986 1990s 2003 1986 1990s 2003 1986 1990s 2003 1986 1990s 2003 

Kodiak City * 71 * * 69 * * 38 * * 1 * * 76 * 

Akhiok 83 96 100 83 96 100 50 67 73 17 25 18 58 88 100 

Karluk 95 100 * 90 100 * 58 62 * 26 8 * 68 92 * 

Larsen Bay 68 81 48 57 77 56 46 65 28 11 19 4 54 69 72 

Old Harbor 89 84 86 89 81 85 75 54 64 48 35 29 50 93 91 

Ouzinkie 76 87 73 73 81 75 56 49 43 47 28 20 79 100 88 

Port Lions 88 87 82 86 82 78 65 58 52 11 4 17 59 98 96 

*The ADF&G data collection year varied across communities in the 1990s. For Kodiak City it was 1993; for Akhiok it was 1992; for 

Karluk it was 1991; for Larsen Bay it was 1997; for Old Harbor it was 1997; for Ouzinkie it was 1997; for Port Lions was 1993; n/d = data 

not available. Source: Fall et al. (2006); Technical Paper 193, June 1993; and Community Profile Database, Version 3.12; * Data not 

available 

The data depicted in the tables above provide compelling evidence that subsistence activities 

have been very common in households throughout the region during the period in question. 

Although pursuit and/or use of subsistence resources are essentially universal across the Kodiak 

region, variation in the kinds of foods residents have pursued over time is quite extensive. The 

types of food harvested by residents within specific communities also vary over the time series. 

Such variation may be explained by a range of factors, including, but not limited to: (a) the 

relative availability of certain foods in specific areas over time, (b) the relative cost of pursuing 

each type of food from a given location, (c) changing local interests in consuming various types 

of subsistence foods, (d) changing interest in and/or capacity to engage in hunting, fishing, or 

gathering prior to the survey year in question, and (d) changing interest in or availability of storebought foods that are deemed suitable substitutions for wild foods. Some baseline discussion of 

these and other factors is available in Fall et al. (2006), in data gathered through interviews 

conducted for the current study, and in other sources such as Carothers (2008). Phase Two of the 

current project will involve in-depth interviews with regional and community leaders to 

determine whether, to what extent, and how settlement monies have influenced these and other 

factors and the overall nature and extent of subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering within and 

across communities in the region. 

Sharing and Reciprocity. As discussed earlier in this report, sharing of subsistence foods is a 

critically important dimension of life in the villages, and in Kodiak City as well. In fact, it can 

confidently be said that the pursuit and sharing of foods for celebratory purposes and as part of 

informal economic arrangements involving specific and generalized reciprocity in sociological 

terms contributes significantly to the quality of life of many residents. Although our interview 

data and the work of others (e.g., see Fall et al. 2006) suggest that the oil spill disrupted 

subsistence hunting, fishing, gathering, and the sharing of harvest resources over the long-term, 

Table 8-9 below illustrates the ongoing commonality of the sharing of subsistence foods around 

Kodiak Island. Finally, Table 8-10 provides additional information regarding the involvement of 

village residents and households in subsistence-oriented activities during recent years. 
119

Table 8-9 Harvesting and Sharing Subsistence Foods on Kodiak, by Community: 1990’s and 2003 

Place Harvesting (%) Receiving (%) Giving (%) Ratio of Giving: Harvesting (%)

1990s 2003 1990s 2003 1990s 2003 1990s 2003 

Kodiak City 88 * 97 * 84 * 96 * 

Ahkiok 100 100 96 91 83 82 83 82 

Karluk 100 * 100 * 100 * 100 * 

Larsen Bay 89 92 77 92 81 72 91 78 

Old Harbor 100 98 95 100 79 79 79 81 

Ouzinkie 100 96 94 98 92 86 92 90 

Port Lions 100 98 100 98 91 91 91 93 

The ADF&G data collection year varied across communities in the 1990s. For Kodiak City it was 1993; for Akhiok 

it was 1992; for Karluk it was 1991; for Larsen Bay it was 1997; for Old Harbor it was 1997; for Ouzinkie it was 

1997; for Port Lions was 1993; Source: Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division, Community Profile 

Database, Version 3.12, and Fall et al. (2006); *data not available.

Table 8-10 Additional Notes of Relevance to Subsistence Activities in the Villages 

Community Households/Persons 

Per Household Notes 

Ahkiok 15 / 4.7 (2003) 

Small village with relatively young population and nearly 56 % male; 

Long-term data suggest diminishing number of households and population; 

IAI research suggests recent extensive in- and out-migration of the same, 

otherwise permanent residents; Average household subsistence harvest was 

873 lbs. in 2003; Informants report that subsistence hunting and fishing and 

related activities continue to be important, but that youth are not being 

exposed to knowledge as in previous generations. 

Karluk 15 / 2.4 (2003) 

Very small village with no school; Fall et al. (2006:165) report that data 

collection on harvest levels was problematic; Respondents did report that 

abundance of resources had declined in recent years, as had extent of 

sharing between households. The latter was explained in terms of lack of 

available resources and/or interfamilial factors. It was also said that 

subsistence skills were not being handed down because there were so few 

youth in the community (p. 167). 

Larsen Bay 

31 / 2.0 (2003) 

35 / 2.3 (2006) 

35 year-round and 19 summer-only households with summer sport fishing 

increasingly important; Population size diminishing significantly and 

poverty increasing over time; Population relatively aged, with mean age 

nearly 40 years; Average household subsistence harvest was 666 pounds in 

2003; Diminishing size of households may account for diminished harvest 

levels last measured in 1993 (Davis in Fall et al. (2006:177). 

Old Harbor 

76 / 2.5 (2003) 

78 / 2.6 (2006) 

Moderate-size village, but resident population has diminished rapidly; 

Average age 35 years; Involvement in commercial fishing has diminished – 

a household survey conducted by Carothers (2008) suggests only 15% of 

households were earning fishing-related income in significant contrast to 

extensive involvement as recently as 10 years ago; Average household 

subsistence harvest was 948 lbs. in 2003. 

Ouzinkie 69 / 3 (2003) 

Relatively large and affluent village; Average age 34 years; Extensive local 

involvement in commercial fishing has diminished in recent years and an 

increasing number of fishermen are now working as hunting and fishing 

guides; Residents report extensive communication of subsistence-related 

knowledge; Average household subsistence harvest was 972 lbs. in 2003. 

Port Lions 71 / 3 (2003) 

Largest of the villages and largest percentage of resident non-Natives; 

Average age 37 years; Extensive involvement in commercial fishing has 

diminished in recent years; Slightly over half of residents reported that 

elders were exerting less influence than previously; Average household 

subsistence harvest was 559 lbs. in 2003. 

Source: 2003 data derive from Fall et al. (2006); 2006 data derive from IAI’s ongoing work in the region 
120

9.0 Summary and Interim Conclusions

This report describes what is now the second largest oil spill occurring in the United States, and 

one of the most important corporate-level punitive damages cases in the maritime history of the 

nation. The amount of the EVOS punitive damages settlement was contested in the courts for 

many years. The settlement was ultimately significantly reduced by a Supreme Court decision 

relating to what was deemed was an appropriate ratio between compensatory and punitive 

damages in a maritime legal context. 

Despite the reduced settlement, various sums of money have been and are being distributed to 

many households across Southcentral Alaska. Because the amount of punitive damage 

settlement monies disbursed to claimants is based on a formula of relative economic damage 

experienced as a result of the spill, and because many Kodiak residents were extensively affected 

in economic terms, the region, its villages, and its residents comprise an ideal constellation of 

settings and subjects for scientific inquiry into the potential effects of the settlement. 

This report is therefore focused on documentation of regional and village-level trends and 

current socioeconomic and demographic conditions on Kodiak Island. The description and 

preliminary analyses derive from a combination of archival and primary sources and are intended 

to function as a baseline against which the potential effects of the settlement may be measured, 

described, and explained. The report is also intended to be indicative of what kinds of factors 

and variables should be monitored prior to, during, and following the settlement. It should be 

noted, however, that: (a) only select portions of the database compiled for the project are 

presented here and additional trends data are available for use in monitoring and gauging the 

effects of the settlement, and (b) research undertaken following the settlement has indicated the 

need to accommodate important, newly-emerging factors and variables to be discussed in the 

final project report. 

This concluding chapter summarizes key points developed in previous chapters and provides 

additional context for understanding the potential consequences of the settlement for residents of 

the study region. The relevance of various baseline components for the assessment phase of the 

project are discussed in brief, and anticipated methodological and analytical challenges are 

reviewed. The report concludes with brief discussion of select literature of relevance to the 

current case, and implications of the study for planning and environmental policy that is intended 

to mitigate the deleterious effects of large oil spills and associated litigation. 

9.1 Summary Economic Overview 

The formal economy of Kodiak Island Borough is based largely in the commercial extraction, 

processing, and distribution of the region’s rich marine resources. Raw and processed seafood 

products are the principal exports. The proximity of the island to the North Pacific Great Circle 

Route affords opportunities for transportation of seafood and other products to ports around the 

globe. Its location is also favorable in terms of strategic defense. Recreational opportunities are 

significant. As such, the economy of the Kodiak region is based in part on values inherent in 

local resources and geographic location. 
121

But it should be noted that the functioning of the economy also requires extensive interaction 

with exogenous actors and entities. Nearly all of the goods, supplies, and equipment consumed 

or used by residents in the course of their daily lives and in the conduct of commercial industries 

and government must be imported. While reliance on external markets both for export potential 

and for goods and services required locally is common in other regions of Alaska and 

characteristic of Alaska as a whole, the situation is intensified in this remote island setting. 

The Kodiak economy is also noteworthy in terms of earnings generated in the region by persons 

who legally reside elsewhere in Alaska and the United States. Resident adjustment figures 

generated by the Bureau of Economic Affairs reveal that the percentage of exported or “leaked” 

earnings has been increasing in recent years - from eight percent in 1990 to nearly 12 percent in 

2000. Although the figure has begun to decline in association with decline in the ex-vessel value 

of salmon and departure of many non-residents from the fishery, we anticipate that it is likely to 

once again increase in conjunction with what some participants believe is a nascent trend of 

improvement in prices. 

Key economic and demographic indicators are suggestive of extensive demographic and 

economic change in the study region subsequent to 1993. The number of persons living in the 

villages has for the most part declined, as has the overall population of the region. Rates of 

employment and the size of the regional labor force exhibited reversal of a trend of growth noted 

in the 1980s and, as expected, these were accompanied by an increase in unearned income. 

Again, our informants tend to attribute the changes to challenges in the commercial fishing 

industry, including a general loss of profitability associated with salmon prices and, 

subsequently, diminishing interesting in participating. As activity in the harvest sector 

diminished, so it did in the processing and distribution sectors. 

Subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering, and celebratory, ceremonial, and routine use and 

sharing of wild foods are critically important aspects of Kodiak society and its informal 

economy. Some informants assert that problems in the commercial fishing industry have 

affected involvement in subsistence fishing and hunting activities in the villages. It is said by 

some that over the last decade or so, fewer people and less capital have been available to 

maintain operations. 

Some also report a trend of disinterest in tradition among youth in the villages. While this does 

not appear to be universally the case, some informants discuss conflicting values between 

generations. This issue may be worth considering following the settlement as residents make 

decisions about whether they will stay in the villages or seek new experiences elsewhere. 

But many subsistence practitioners remain active on Kodiak Island. Thus, although it is apparent 

that income deriving from commercial fishing and other sources can enable subsistence-oriented 

hunting and fishing practices, certain residents have been able to pool existing resources and 

maintain sufficient interest in traditional ways of living to conduct those activities regardless of 

the observed downward turn in the regional economy. We anticipate that analysis of the 

enabling effects of the settlement may shed light on the nature of modern life in rural Alaska, and 

on the inclination of residents to forego or maintain traditional village life ways during what will 
122

inevitably be another period of change following from the grounding of the supertanker Exxon 

Valdez. 

9.2 Trends in Regional Employment and Earnings 

Data collected by the BEA indicate a fairly stable long-term pattern of earned income across the 

study region. Cyclical contraction in the seafood harvest and processing sectors tend to be offset 

by gains in the government sector and in support sectors unrelated to fishing, and vice-versa. 

Significant short-term earning anomalies have occurred on occasion, such as during the decline 

of the Bering Sea crab fishery in the 1980s, and following the Exxon Valdez oil spill when 

commercial fishing activity was constrained but short-term high-paying clean-up opportunities 

were abundant. 

Cyclical and seasonal variability characterize the basic sector, which is affected by seafood 

harvesting and processing, also cyclical and seasonal in nature. The seasonal range in overall 

employment is 6.5-to-1 in basic-sector seafood manufacturing and 1.3-to-1 in the generalized 

support-sector. When controlling for seasonal variation, an apparent gradual reversal of decline 

in seafood production is noted beginning in 2003. What appears to be a turning point in the 

industry is further indicated through analysis of entry and exit of businesses across the region, 

per ADOLWD data covering the same time period. A net gain in seafood-related businesses is 

indicated in recent data collection years. 

Employment trends in the harvest sector were compiled through a unique collaboration between 

the ADOLWD and ADF&G. Fish ticket data were used in conjunction with ADOLWD ES202 

place-of-work employment data, which traditionally excludes fish harvest enterprises. The 

harvest sector employment data also indicate extensive seasonality effects. When expressed in 

annual average units, sharp declines in employment in the region’s salmon and groundfish 

fisheries are noted, especially for 2001 and 2002. 

Note that these data merely indicate the challenging human realities reported by participants 

active in the harvest and processing sectors during the period under examination. Informants 

report that the successes enjoyed and the profits earned in Kodiak fisheries during previous years 

were being superseded during the late 1990s and early 2000s by the realities of rising fuel prices 

and other trip and fixed costs, and by ever-diminishing return on investment given global 

devaluation of domestic seafood products. While conditions appear to have improved during the 

past few years, study participants continue to report uncertainty about the status and future 

prospects of the commercial fishing industry on Kodiak Island. This, in turn, lends to 

uncertainty in predictions about the potential fisheries-specific effects of the settlement, and 

points to the need for empirical investigation of the outcome. 

Analysis of employment and earnings in the seafood industry clearly indicate seasonal and 

cyclical volatility. But the support sector is relatively stable in these regards, and thus it is 

amenable to forecasting. Our forecast model for monthly support sector employment is 

suggestive of a fairly stable trend with some intra-annual and long-term variation that is 
123

undoubtedly linked to seasonal patterns in the regionally predominate and perennially volatile 

seafood industry. 

This renders the comments of fishery participants regarding job alternatives highly significant. 

Many fishermen, and particularly those in relatively undercapitalized small boat fisheries, report 

that alternative skills and opportunities have enabled them to stay on Kodiak Island during recent 

downturns in the fishing industry. Many such persons appear to be dedicated to staying on 

Kodiak, and they strive to balance the challenges of doing so with the non-monetary benefits of 

fishing and daily life on the island. These benefits reportedly include, among others: the local 

presence of friends and family, solitude, abundant hunting and fishing opportunities, and the 

aesthetic pleasures of the natural surroundings. 

Attractions notwithstanding, economic factors have forced some participants in both the harvest 

and processing sectors to leave the Kodiak region to seek opportunity elsewhere. As discussed 

throughout this report, the most recent downturn in the commercial fishing industry, now 

possibly abating, tested the fortitude of many residents, and it appears to correlate with an 

increased rate of emigration from the region. 

We have thus observed variability in individual capacity for, and dedication to, remaining on 

Kodiak Island amidst the challenges of participation in the region’s commercial fishing industry. 

This understanding underscores the importance of questions about the likely nature of individual 

and collective response to disbursement of EVOS punitive damage monies in the study region, 

and it reinforces our hypotheses about those effects. We continue to hypothesize a split effect, 

wherein: (a) some settlement recipients interested in staying on Kodiak use monies to invest or 

reinvest in the region’s dominant industry and/or in related businesses, and (b) some recipients 

use settlement monies to emigrate and may or may not return. A range of social variables will be 

monitored to enable valid explanation of short- and longer-term patterns of response to the 

settlement. These data will necessarily derive not only from archival sources, but also from 

direct interaction with individuals and groups of study participants across the affected region. 

9.3 Trends in the Seafood Industry 

Overview. When considered in tandem, harvest and processing employment have recently 

accounted for over 30 percent of active jobs in the study region. Baseline measures were used to 

characterize the structure and performance of these important sectors as undertaken by both 

residents and non-residents. We have focused on identifying the contributions of the former. 

The level of effort in fishing employment was measured in two ways: 1) the ratio of the number 

of fishers to the number of active permits, and 2) the number of active permits to the number 

issued in a given year. Production was measured in terms of pounds landed per active permit. 

We have also developed baseline indicators for residency composition of gross earnings. 

While overall fishing effort in the study region has been relatively stable in recent decades, 

production has risen sharply over time. Thus, if it can be assumed that abundance of marine 

resources has not changed dramatically over the time period in question, an increasing level of 

production is suggestive of increasing efficiency. 
124

Production is also inversely correlated with gross earnings. We argue that this is indicative of 

periodic excess supply in a context of limited capacity and demand. Limited duration openings 

have tended to lead to flooded markets. Given limited local capacity to process, export, and 

profitably distribute seafood in distant markets, Kodiak’s processors and buyers tend to be 

periodically overwhelmed with product, and when supply exceeds capacity and demand, buyers 

reduce prices and harvesters suffer. 

One intention of fisheries rationalization, not yet fully analytically demonstrated in the region, is 

to minimize such volatility by distributing effort and processing capacity more evenly over the 

course of the year. Significantly, as indicated by Knapp (2006), this may also lead to fewer jobs 

in the industry and a different overall structure of the fishery. The author notes in his 

preliminary analysis of the effects of rationalization on Kodiak’s participation in the Bristol Bay 

crab fisheries that: (a) the number of Kodiak-based vessels involved in the red king crab fishery 

fell by 53 percent, (b) between 160 and 285 related jobs were lost on Kodiak, and (c) loss of 

overall earning on Kodiak were between one $1 million and $1.6 million. 

Such effects would likely counter anticipated effects under our working hypothesis that the 

settlement would lead to increased investment in the commercial fishing industry. 

Rationalization has profound implications for the future structure of Kodiak fisheries and for 

levels of participation and production therein. This will be taken into account by many fishery 

participants making investment or divestment decisions following the settlement, and thus 

pertinent conditions and variables will need to be monitored and controlled to enable meaningful 

analysis of the effects of the settlement. 

This study has revealed significant temporal variation in effort, earnings, ex-vessel value, and 

landings for individual fisheries across the region. Gross earnings per unit of catch tended to 

decline over the time series for all Kodiak fisheries except halibut, which exhibited a discernable 

upward trend. Landings, while highly cyclical, tended on the whole to be relatively stable. An 

exception is crab, landings of which have dropped significantly since 2000. Productivity 

increased in all fisheries, again with the exception of crab, which exhibited marked variability 

after 1996. 

Under conditions of increased capital available to maintain operational efficiency, such as would 

follow the settlement and under an assumption of constant availability of resources, we would 

expect to see stable or increasing levels of production in the KMA. Earnings levels will 

inevitably relate to exogenous market factors, unless fishermen in the region can, in some 

manner, influence those factors. For instance, application of settlement-related monies to a joint 

marketing effort could potentially enhance pricing conditions for Kodiak seafood products. 

Challenges in Larsen Bay and the Indicative Case of Akhiok. We also examined fishingspecific effort and production at the community level, using Akhiok, Larsen Bay, and Kodiak 

City as case examples. In Larsen Bay, the number of issued and active commercial fishing 

permits follows a clear pattern of decline over time. Approximately half of the permit holders 

residing in Larsen Bay in recent year held permits for salmon. The remainder held permits for 

groundfish, halibut, and/or crab. 
125

Residents explain that market problems have led many to find alternative forms of employment, 

and it is telling that rates of poverty increased dramatically in the village between the 1990 and 

2000 Census years. This may well have worsened during the current economic climate. 

Although the size of the fleet in Akhiok remains relatively small, the absolute increase in 

reported effort has been significant in recent years. For instance, the number of salmon permits 

used by residents increased from one to eight after 1989. This contradicts the situation in Kodiak 

City and Larsen Bay during the same period, where effort has fallen off significantly. The 

salmon fishery is the only fishery in which Akhiok residents participate to any significant extent. 

The case of diminished use of commercial fishing permits following the EVOS land trust 

liquidation in Akhiok in 2002 may well portend an effect of the punitive damages settlement. 

Interviews with local leaders made clear that many residents left Akhiok that year, and all 

permits but one went unused. Rates of participation in commercial fishing and subsistence 

hunting and fishing began to normalize the following year. The words of a prominent public 

official may well be prophetic in this context and in the context of the settlement and its potential 

effects on fishery participants and other residents around Kodiak Island: “Yes, people will leave 

the island, they will try other things, but they will return to what they know.” 

Participation of Residents in Kodiak Limited Entry Salmon Fisheries. The total number of 

permits issued for commercial pursuit of salmon in the KMA increased from less than 500 in the 

mid-1970s to over 750 by the early 2000s. Some 24 percent of the increase resulted from the 

rapidly growing level of participation by non-Alaskans, most from Washington State. While a 

third fewer village residents participated in the fishery during the period, the number of permit 

holders residing in Kodiak City increased by about 40 percent, and the number residing 

elsewhere in Alaska doubled. 

Many non-Alaskans participated in the KMA salmon fishery during our time series, but the 

number of residents with active permits stabilizes after the mid-1990s. When expressed as a 

proportion of earnings for all participants, gross earnings for resident participants appear to be 

cyclically variable, though reversal of a trend of diminishing earnings relative to the whole is 

indicated after the mid-1990s. 

Earnings relate, in large part, to exogenous factors and conditions in the national and 

international seafood marketplaces. Based on the tendency of many seasoned fishermen to 

consider the economic context of potentially significant investment, it can be reasonably 

anticipated that decisions to invest or reinvest in fishing operations following the punitive 

damages settlement will relate in part to historical and then-going market prices for salmon and 

other seafood products. But, as discussed elsewhere in this report, many non-economic factors 

inform the decisions of fishery participants or prospective participants to engage or persist in 

commercial fishing, and these will also be weighed following the settlement. 

Analysis of limited entry salmon permit transfer data indicates that the rate of transfers due to 

emigration from Kodiak City was nearly four times greater than that due to in-migration. 

Similarly, the rate of transfers due to people leaving the villages was nearly three times greater 
126

than that due to people coming to live in the villages. This means that much of the turnover of 

permits is associated with people coming to Kodiak to fish from places outside the region. 

As noted by various public officials during our work on the island, many persons come to 

Kodiak with the intent of staying but, in the end, reside only for short or moderate periods of 

time. Some transfer commercial fishing permits upon departure. A forecast of permit ownership 

using a Holt exponential smoothing model suggests that fewer Kodiak residents and Alaska 

residents will hold KMA limited entry salmon permits in future years, and that the number of 

non-resident permit holders will remain nearly constant. 

The settlement may bear some effects on the empirical reality of future permit ownership. Under 

the study hypothesis of increased local investment in commercial fishing, an increase in the 

number of permits held by current and long-term residents of Kodiak Island would be expected 

in conjunction with a concomitant decrease in the number of permits available for transfer to 

persons from outside the region. This assumes: (a) reasonably stable availability of resources, 

(b) an otherwise fairly stable regulatory regime, and (c) reasonably favorable conditions in the 

market during and for some period after the settlement occurs. As such, monitoring and 

assessment will necessarily involve attention to studies of resource abundance and factors 

associated with regulatory and economic constraints and opportunities in the fisheries of interest. 

9.4 Population Change and other Demographic Factors 

Extensive population growth has occurred on Kodiak Island since 1980. The 2004 population 

estimate of 13,466 persons is more than 35 percent greater than the population figure for 1980. 

But most growth occurred in the 1980s, in association with regional expansion of marine 

fisheries and the work force needed to support them. Population growth has since leveled off 

and the rate of growth on Kodiak Island has been slower than for the state as a whole since 1990. 

This can be explained by naturally decreasing populations and net out-migration. The rate of 

population growth measured between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census was 11.2 percent for 

Alaska, and 2.1 percent for Kodiak Island Borough. 

Net out-migration clearly is limiting growth in the region. Again, in the absence of other 

explanatory factors, the trend of net out-migration appears to be associated with general decline 

in the fishing industry. During the 1980s, when growth typified the economy, the population 

grew by almost nine percent. Conversely, emigration was common through the early 1990s 

when serious challenges were first confronting participants in various sectors of the salmon 

fishery. The population diminished by almost 13 percent during that period. 

Migration to and from Kodiak and its communities presents a variety of significant implications 

for this study. Migration factors relate to the manner and rate of participation in the workforce, 

to extent of participation in marine fisheries, to level of involvement in subsistence activities, and 

to social and cultural aspects of life across the island generally. But household-level decisions to 

move from one place of residence to another clearly involve many variables. We assert that 

these can be understood and documented only through direct interaction with the decisionmakers and/or persons who are highly knowledgeable of the households and factors involved. 
127

Thus, Phase Two of this project has necessarily involved an interview sampling strategy that 

enables understanding of such decisions vis-à-vis acquisition of settlement award monies and 

given the full range of other factors that may or may not be related to those decisions. 

From an analytical perspective, a significant level of net out-migration from Kodiak during a 

period of relative economic stability would potentially indicate that something had occurred to 

inspire or enable many residents to move. Should this occur following the settlement, some 

refutable inference could be made that the monies were causal or associated with the situation. 

But again, empirical data would be needed to make such inference and to control for factors 

associated with migration decisions. Indeed, the recent economic downturn may well surpass 

the constraining or enabling effects of other factors now conditioning life on Kodiak Island. 

The size of the awards in question, the phased manner of their distribution, and timing of their 

distribution within and across the study communities is likely to have some bearing on migration 

and other relevant behavioral phenomena. Alaska Department of Labor yearly population 

estimates, Census information that is indicative of local and regional population structure, field 

observations, and household and local leadership interviews regarding decision-making 

processes are some of the sources we are now using to develop and cross-validate meaningful 

explanation of post-settlement changes. 

9.5 Village-level Factors and Conditions 

U.S. Census and state-generated demographic data indicate that the size of the resident 

populations in the villages has generally declined during the period 1980 through 2004. This 

appears to be closely associated with lack of economic growth and, in fact, some population 

growth has occurred in Port Lions and Ouzinkie, where economic conditions and trends have 

been relatively more encouraging. This suggests that the settlement may potentially lead to 

improved economic conditions in the villages, and hence reversal of the trend of diminishing 

population size. But such an effect would depend, in large part, upon spending behavior. Such 

an outcome is more likely in the event that extensive monies are invested internally; that is, in a 

manner that stimulates local business activity and/or public and private sector spending. If 

extensive monies are spent in a manner that does not stimulate the local economy, and/or if many 

residents emigrate, then the settlement is more likely to exacerbate the observed trend of 

diminishing population size. 

As regards migration decisions specific to the villages, we posit that disbursement of punitive 

damage awards is likely to present widely differing influences that will relate to a range of 

cultural and situational factors and variables. For instance, people with strong preferences for 

the subsistence-oriented lifestyle are less likely to emigrate than persons who have been seeking 

experiences in other parts of the country. Our interview data suggest that participation in 

subsistence hunting, fishing, gathering, and associated cultural activities would be more 

extensive in the communities in the absence of economic constraints. Data also indicate that 

residents have been leaving the villages seeking job opportunities to reduce local economic 

challenges. Depending on the amounts and how they are spent, settlement-derived income has 

the potential to satisfy some of the travel-experiential interests of residents while also mitigating 
128

local economic challenges and tendencies toward migration through increased availability of 

cash and/or enabling educational opportunities, new business ventures, or other long-term 

investments. 

This perspective on potential spending patterns may be simplistic. The interplay between 

traditional culture and ways of life on one hand, and modern American cultural norms and 

capitalist-materialist tendencies on the other may play out in highly complex and unexpected 

ways in the village context following the settlement. There are few empirical studies available to 

guide efforts toward prediction. The case of Akhiok provides some highly relevant and 

empirical indication of effect, and as discussed later in this chapter, may also provide some 

guidance to residents in other communities. 

 

For settlement claimants residing in or maintaining connections to one of the Kodiak villages, 

quality of life and social considerations may potentially bear influence on decisions to move 

back to, stay in, or emigrate from the community in question. Extensive settlement income may 

serve to mitigate the extant economic burdens of staying on Kodiak Island, buffer against 

potential future economic challenges, and enable the continuation of a preferred way of life often 

perceived as exclusive to one’s home and family. But again, interest in remaining on Kodiak 

Island is by no means universal, and significantly-sized settlement awards may enable departure. 

Analysis of the net demographic effects of the punitive damage awards requires clear 

understanding of trends and conditions in the structure and size of populations across the study 

region. These and other categories of demographic data will continue to be monitored and will 

be reassessed after the settlement. Explanation of post-settlement changes requires detailed 

analysis of interview data that reveal variation in the rationale underlying decisions of residents 

to move from or stay on Kodiak Island, and whether these were directly or indirectly related to 

the settlement monies, or altogether unrelated. While planners, demographers, and other public 

officials are able to speak to such issues and have been contacted following the settlement for 

this purpose, we are also working directly with representative groups of award recipients to 

determine the range of empirical outcomes of migration-related decision-making processes 

following the settlement. 

9.6 Subsistence Practices and the Potential Effects of the Settlement 

Perhaps the most compelling data compiled during this study is that relating to ongoing 

involvement in subsistence activities across the study region. Most households across the region 

engage in pursuit of wild foods, and most are involved in the sharing of those resources. The 

value of wild foods as indicated through both secondary and primary source data collected 

during the course of this project both includes and supersedes dietary benefits. Such foods are 

used to eat, they are used for purposes of generalized and specific reciprocal exchange, and they 

are used for ceremony and celebration. 

Given the critically important social, cultural, and dietary dimensions of subsistence-related 

undertakings in the villages, and the potential implications of unearned revenue being distributed 

in villages across the region, we are intent on assessing the effects of the punitive damages 
129

settlement in this setting. We anticipate that the effect of the settlement on participation in 

subsistence activities will be similar to that likely experienced by those involved in commercial 

fishing in the region. 

That is, on one hand, an increase in unearned income has the potential to allow householders to 

increase the amount of time they devote to leisure activities, and potentially to reduce time 

devoted to work, including work related to subsistence hunting, fishing, gathering, and 

processing of subsistence foods. This effect would be stronger in cases where store-bought 

products are viewed as suitable substitutes for subsistence foods. 

But on the other hand, as posited elsewhere in this report, settlement award monies could also 

increase the amount of time and money available for engaging in subsistence activities and 

related cultural practices. From an economic perspective, this argument has three elements. 

First, in households receiving significant settlement awards, it may be possible to substitute nonwage income for wage income. This would avail more time for hunting, fishing, gathering, and 

related activities. 

Second, settlement monies may allow some subsistence practitioners or prospective practitioners 

to purchase gear needed to conduct subsistence activities, and/or to expand both the range of 

their activities and the type of foods that are harvested. Such monies may also enable long-term 

maintenance of existing gear and equipment. 

Third, extensive unearned income may allow some householders to engage in networks of foodrelated reciprocity, thus tightening social bonds in and possibly between villages. That is, 

relatively affluent householders may be able to supply money to others who are relatively more 

capable of engaging in subsistence practices. Such behavior would thereby increase the overall 

extent of community involvement in what is often a way of life that is highly valued in nonmonetary terms - if only vicariously or through sharing of wild foods and other forms of specific 

and generalized reciprocity. 

From sociological and anthropological perspectives, the non-monetary benefits of subsistence 

may be seen as of primary importance to residents. While this phase of the study has not 

involved use of ethnographic methods that would elucidate the full nature of activities associated 

with fishing, hunting, gathering, processing, and preparing subsistence foods and other products, 

it must be emphasized that interview data indicate that these aspects of local life are indeed 

highly valued by many residents. Indeed, local society and culture are in many ways structured 

around subsistence-related activities, as they have been for centuries. It does not seem likely that 

this way of life will be universally abandoned, no matter the size or manner of distribution of the 

settlement awards. Rather, based on what is known about the communities and the cultural 

perspectives of many, we posit that it may ultimately be reified. This remains an empirical 

question of central importance to this study. 
130

9.7 Considerations for Project Phase Two 

The principal intent of this initial phase of the project was to establish a base of understanding 

about social and economic trends and conditions on Kodiak Island. This report describes much 

but not all of the data that have been collected to enable that understanding and it presents some 

of the preliminary analyses that have been generated to date. It should be kept in mind, however, 

that while the data and analyses necessarily relate to our working hypotheses, the settlement may 

lead residents of Kodiak Island to respond in ways that cannot be predicted and in social and 

economic settings that are perennially changing. 

Social and economic conditions in the region are indeed variable and complex. The regional 

economy was internally robust at the outset of this study but in recent years has faltered along 

with other regions in the nation. The Kodiak economy is also related to seasonal, cyclic, and 

volatile forces and factors, such as the availability of migratory fish, and pricing in domestic and 

international seafood markets. Many residents express affection for and deep attachment to 

Kodiak Island, but there is also extensive turnover in the populations of its communities. Village 

residents are often deeply engaged in subsistence pursuits, but the capacity to do so is in part 

dependent on income derived through participation in activities that paradoxically reduce the 

amount of time available to hunt, fish, and gather wild foods. 

The unique and complex social and economic characteristics of the study region and its 

communities, and the need for valid explanation of settlement-specific responses amidst shifting 

baseline conditions that are, of themselves, variable and subject to a range of intervening factors, 

required that an objective, encompassing, and flexible methodological and analytical approach 

was undertaken during Phase Two of this project. This approach and our research findings will 

be described in detail in the forthcoming final project report. 

9.8 Conclusions 

Focus group work conducted with public officials during the course of this project has made 

clear that the lives of many persons in the Kodiak region, including their own, have been 

significantly affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Data from these sessions and from the scores 

of interviews conducted during the course of this project are replete with discussion of the lifealtering nature of the event for residents across the region. Understanding of the scope and 

intensity of the event is furthered by our own work in affected Kodiak communities following 

the spill. 

But the most striking, if obvious, element of such discussions is that the spill event is still 

running its course. The grounding of the Exxon Valdez and the spilling of its cargo have 

preceded a long series of ecological and social outcomes that continue to the present. 

Although the current report has not focused on the economic effects of the spill and clean-up, 

economic analysis and interview data indicate that the effects of the event were not entirely 
131

negative. Extensive capital was infused into the economy, and some of its effects were 

beneficial. 

The physical environmental effects of the spill cannot in any value system be considered 

beneficial, and certain social and economic effects of the event were clearly detrimental (see, for 

example, IAI 2001; Fall et al. 2001; Gill 2007). Various unintended consequences followed 

from efforts to mitigate the event – during, soon after, and in the years following the spill itself. 

For instance, only a limited number of captains were hired to participate in the clean-up. Thus, 

while some fishermen earned extensive profits doing so, others did not and also could not fish 

for some time. Disproportionate effects played out as many lost ground in meeting the 

challenges of commercial fishing in and beyond the region, while others garnered capital for 

more avid participation in future years. 

The deleterious effects of the spill for participants in the harvest sector of commercial fisheries 

across the affected region are at the heart of the rationale for the most significant award category 

in the litigation settlement process. We have sought to develop a case-specific understanding of 

the economic context within which settlement monies continue to be awarded to such persons, 

and a framework for monitoring and assessing the range of potential beneficial and deleterious, 

and intended and unintended consequences of the process. 

Although there has been much speculation about the likely reaction of fishery participants and 

Alaska Natives, it is unfortunate that there is a paucity of literature or other empirically-derived 

understanding to guide those who have been developing plans to address challenges potentially 

resulting from disbursement of settlement monies into the economies of Southcentral Alaska and 

its communities. Study of gaming-related rapid socioeconomic change in Native American 

communities provides some guidance for anticipating effects in the villages in that gamingderived monies were most beneficial when they served to empower tribal needs and interests 

(Taylor and Kalt 2005). The authors assert the benefits and explain why gaming has been 

successful on the reservations: 

The results are remarkable. In all but two [of many] categories, Census-measured 

socioeconomic improvement is greater for gaming reservations than for non-gaming 

reservations . . . The reasons are to be found in the fact that self-rule brings decisionmaking home, and local decision-makers are held more accountable to local needs, 

conditions, and cultures than outsiders . . .” (Taylor and Kalt 2005:xi) 

The difficulties of applying these findings to the current case are obvious, however. Gaming 

involves establishment of a long-term, locally-based, and internally-managed enterprise through 

which Native groups and individuals can find profitable means for integrating with the 

predominant capitalist system. This is somewhat akin to the establishment of Native 

corporations and affiliated enterprises following passage of ANCSA, although the long-term 

benefits and liabilities of that arrangement are still emerging in villages across Alaska. But the 

current case is different in any event, in that the bulk of the punitive damages settlement monies 

will accrue primarily to individuals rather than group entities, and there can be no certainty in an 

outcome that would involve cooperative business investments among individual recipients. One 

public official interviewed during the course of this project envisioned establishment of a fishing 
132

cooperative via collective investment of settlement monies, but of course this outcome and its 

predicted benefits remain speculative. 

Analysis of the economic impact of the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF)33 is to some extent useful 

in elucidating the potential effects of the punitive damages settlement. Goldsmith (2001) 

describes the various ways in which the APF stimulates the Alaska economy and its regions via 

annual distribution of funds to individuals. Some of these effects may well be similar to what 

might occur following distribution of settlement monies, and Goldsmith’s work has to some 

extent informed the monitoring and assessment categories developed for use in the current 

report. 

But Goldsmith also notes (pp. 4-5) that relatively little is known about the full range of effects 

resulting from the APF. Moreover, the APF process is not likely to simulate the settlement 

award process in that APF dividends involve: (a) allocation to all residents of the state, (b) 

annual disbursement, and (c) relatively small amounts of money when considered against the 

probable magnitude of settlement awards. Finally, the APF program is well-established. 

Although the amount of the dividend is not known until it is actually issued, Alaskans can 

anticipate the annual arrival of an amount that can be estimated with some degree of precision 

based on dividends issued during previous years. 

Conversely, EVOS punitive damage claimants waited for settlement in a state of uncertainty for 

many years. The amount was perennially contested and the end date of the disbursement process 

remains uncertain at the time of this writing in November 2010. Although this study has not 

focused on the various social or social-psychological implications of protracted litigation and 

anticipation of the settlement, our interview data underscore the profound effects of the process 

on the perspectives and experiences of claimants. Having waited, speculated, calculated, and 

reiterated for years, many prospective recipients report finally attempting to put the settlement 

out of the realm of thought. It is telling that many have not been able to do so. The settlement 

and now the disbursement process have loomed and persisted. 

But there is at least one important similarity between the settlement process and the APF. The 

APF presents individuals with unearned income, with a source of income that theretofore did not 

exist. This is now also the case for settlement recipients. Much of the settlement planningrelated work undertaken by various public officials and entities in the region has for this reason 

involved dissemination of information intended to help recipients envision the full range of 

options and implications associated with the spending of monies as they finally arrive. 

The issues of spending and investment are at the heart of this project. Upon settlement, these 

began to be expressed as the causal forces for a series of social and economic consequences 

across Kodiak Island and Southcentral Alaska. But the unknowns of spending and investment 

behaviors under unusual conditions challenge our chain of hypotheses, research methods, 

baseline descriptions, and analytical approaches. We have not been able to readily anticipate 

what individuals are doing or will do with monies resulting from settlement of the EVOS 

 

33 The APF involves the distribution of revenue from oil and natural gas development in the State of Alaska to fulltime residents via annual cash payments. Each resident receives an equal share of a total appropriation; in some 

recent years individual shares have approached $2,000. 
133

punitive damages case. As such, we cannot easily predict its regional implications. There is 

little guidance in the literature and the perspectives and plans of the awardees often change, 

depending on the needs and interests of the day or month or year. The concepts of rationality 

and optimization would be more reliably useful if human beings always behaved in keeping with 

reason and established norms. But in fact, the settlement has the potential to present certain 

individuals with a new source of wherewithal and new spending options. Uncertainty remains. 

The intent of this work is not prediction, however. It is scientific inquiry, and the setting 

described in this report is well-suited for empirically-based social scientific investigation into a 

realm of human behavior that is at once little known and of significance for understanding the 

course of history of the State of Alaska and the long-term outcome of maritime accidents in the 

world’s oceans. 

 

 
134

References

Abrahamson, Mark 

1980 Sudden wealth, gratification and attainment: Durkheim’s anomie of affluence 

 reconsidered. American Sociological Review. Volume 45 (February): 49-57. 

Ackerman, R.E. 

1992 Earliest Stone Industries on the North Pacific Coast of North America. Arctic 

 Anthropology 29 (2): 18-27. 

Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development 

2007 Community Database Online. Customized Data Queries. Available online at: 

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_CUSTM.htm

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence 

2005 2003 Annual Report. Juneau. 

Alaska Judicial Council 

1999 A Directory of Dispute Resolution in Alaska Outside Federal and State Courts, March 

 1999. Available online at: http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/Reports/rjdir99frame.htm. 

Anderson, P.J. 

2004 Gulf of Alaska Small Mesh Trawl Survey Trends. In J.L. Boldt (ed.) Ecosystem 

 Considerations for 2005. Appendix C of the BSAI\GOA Stock Assessment and Fishery 

 Evaluation Reports. North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Anchorage, AK. 

Brodeur, R.D., and Ware, D.M. 

1992 Long-term variability in zooplankton biomass in the subarctic Pacific Ocean. 

Fisheries Oceanography 1(1):32-37. 

Carothers, Courtney 

2008 Privatizing the Right to Fish: Challenges to Livelihood and Community in Kodiak, 

 Alaska. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Dept. of Anthropology. Seattle. 

Chaffin, Yule. 1967. Alaska’s Southwest: Koniag to King Crab. Kodiak from sea otter 

 settlement to king crab capitol; history of hunting and fishing industries, island 

 villages, and scenic beauty. Anchorage: Chaffin Incorporated. 

Chance, N. 

1987 Subsistence research in Alaska: premises, practices and prospects. Human Organization, 

46 (1987): 85-89. 

Colt, Steve 

2000 Salmon Fish Traps in Alaska – An Economic History Perspective. Working Paper 

2000.2. Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), University of Alaska at 

Anchorage. 
135

Crowell, Aron L. 

2001 Looking Both Ways. In Looking Both Ways – Heritage and Identity of the Alutiiq 

 People. Aron L. Crowell, Amy F. Steffian, and Gordon l. Pullar (eds.). A project of the 

 Arctic Studies Center, Department of Anthropology. National Museum of Natural 

 History, Smithsonian Institution and The Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological 

 Repository. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. 

Crowell, Aron L. and Jeff Leer 

2001 Ukgwepet – Our Beliefs. Alutiiq Spiritual Life and Traditions. In Looking Both Ways – 

 Heritage and Identity of the Alutiiq People. Aron L. Crowell, Amy F. Steffian, and 

 Gordon l. Pullar (eds.). A project of the Arctic Studies Center, Department of 

 Anthropology. National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution and The 

 Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. 

Crowell, Aron L. and Sonja Luhrmann 

2001 Alutiiq Culture – Views from Archaeology, Anthropology, and History. In Looking Both 

 Ways – Heritage and Identity of the Alutiiq People. Aron L. Crowell, Amy F. Steffian, 

 and Gordon l. Pullar (eds.). A project of the Arctic Studies Center, Department of 

 Anthropology. National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution and The 

 Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. 

Davis, Brian 

2006 Akhiok. Chapter VII in 2006 Update of the Status of Subsistence Uses in Exxon Valdez 

 Oil Spill Area Communities, 2003. James A. Fall (ed.). Technical Paper No. 312. 

 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Juneau. 

Donkersloot, Rachel 

2006 Youth Emigration and Reasons to Stay – Linking Demographic and Ecological 

 Change in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Presentation delivered at the conference titled: Alaska 

 Fishing Communities – Harvesting the Future. September 2006. Sponsored by NOAA 

 Fisheries and University of Alaska Sea Grant. Doctoral Candidate, Department of 

 University of British Columbia. Vancouver. 

ExxonMobil Corporation 

2007 ExxonMobil's Appeal of the Punitive Damages Judgment. Available online at 

http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/Newsroom/NewsReleases/Corp_NR_App eal.asp. 

Fall, J., L. Brown, J. Cohen, G. Jennings, R. Mason, R. Miraglia, C. Mishler, S. Skaggs, 

 and R. Stanek 

1997 Subsistence Harvests and Uses in Seven Gulf of Alaska Communities in the Second Year 

 Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. James A. Fall (Ed.). Technical Paper 218. 

 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Juneau. 
136

Fall, J.A., R. Miraglia, W. Simeone, C. Utermohle, and R.J. Wolfe 

2001 Long-Term Consequences of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill for Coastal Communities 

 of Southcentral Alaska. James A. Fall (ed.).Technical Report No. 163. OCS Study 

 MMS 2001-032. Final Report for: Sociocultural Consequences of Alaska Outer 

 Continental Shelf Activities: Data Analysis and Integration. Anchorage. 

Fall, J.A., R.J. Walker, R.T. Stanek, W.E. Simeone, L. Hutchinson-Scarborough, P.CoileyKenner, L. Williams, B. Davis, T. Krieg, B. Easley, and D. Koster 

2006 Update of the Status of Subsistence Uses in Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Area Communities, 

 2003. James A. Fall (ed.). Technical Paper No. 312. Alaska Department of Fish and 

 Game, Division of Subsistence. Juneau. 

Fina, Mark 

2005 Rationalization of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fisheries. Marine Policy

29(4): 311-322. 

Finney, B.P., I. Gregory-Eaves, J. Sweetman, M.S.V. Douglas, and J.P. Smol 

2000 Impacts of climatic changes and fishing on Pacific salmon abundance over the past 300 

 years. Science. Volume 290, No. 5492, pp. 795-799. October 27. 

Francis, R, S. Hare, A. Hollowed, W. Wooster 

1998 Effects of interdecadal climate variability on the oceanic ecosystems of the Northeast 

 Pacific. Fisheries Oceanography 7(1): 1-21. 

Fried, Neal, and Brigitta Windisch-Cole 

1999 Kodiak – The Big Island where Fishing is King. Alaska Economic Trends. Diane 

 Kelm and Joanne Erskine (Eds.). September. State of Alaska Department of Labor and 

 Workforce Development. Juneau. 

Gilbertson, Neal 

2003 The Global Salmon Industry and its Impacts in Alaska. Alaska Economic Trends. 

 Volume 23, No. 10. October. Juneau. 

Gill, D.A. 

2007 Technological Disaster, Resource Loss and Long-Term Social Change in a Sub-Arctic 

 Community: Alaska Natives and Commercial Fishermen in Cordova, Alaska – 2001-

 2006. Final Report Submitted to the National Science Foundation, Office of Polar 

 Research. Washington, D.C. 

Glazier, Edward W. 

2007 Hawaiian Fishermen. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning. 

Goldsmith, S. 

2001 The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Program. Paper presented at the Conference on 

 Alberta: Government Policies in a Surplus Economy. University of Alaska at Anchorage. 
137

Haines, Anna L. 

1997 Regional Economic Impact Assessments: An Annotated Bibliography of Selected 

 Wisconsin Studies. Staff Paper 97.3, September 1997. Department of Urban and 

 Regional Planning. University of Wisconsin at Madison. Madison, Wisconsin. 

Huskey, Lee 

2004 Alaska's village economies. Journal of Land Resources and Environmental Law. 

 Volume 24, Number 435. 

Impact Assessment, Inc. 

2001 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Cleanup, and Litigation: A Collection of Social Impacts 

 Information and Analysis. Final Report. MMS OCS 2001-058. Prepared for the U.S. 

 Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region. 

 Anchorage. 

1990a Economic, Social, Psychological Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Interim Report 

 One, Analysis of Fiscal Impacts to Local Jurisdictions. Prepared for the Oiled Mayors

Subcommittee of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. La Jolla, CA. 

1990b Economic, Social, Psychological Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Interim Report 

 Two, Public and Private Sector Economic Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. 

 Prepared for the Oiled Mayors Subcommittee of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. La 

 Jolla, CA. 

1990c Economic, Social, Psychological Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Interim Report 

 Three. Social and Psychological Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Prepared for 

 the Oiled Mayors Subcommittee of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. La Jolla, CA. 

1990d Economic, Social, Psychological Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Final Report. 

 Prepared for the Oiled Mayors Subcommittee of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. 

 November 15. La Jolla, CA. 

Irwin, M. (Ed.), E. Deoux, B. Garber, W. Hanable, G. Irvin, A.J. McClanahan, and H. Napoleon 

1992 Alaska Natives Commission, Final Report. Volumes I-III. University of Alaska at 

 Anchorage, Institute for Social and Economic Research. Anchorage.

Johnson, John F.C. 

2001 Repatriation and the Chugach Alaska People. In Looking Both Ways – Heritage and 

 Identity of the Alutiiq People. Aron L. Crowell, Amy F. Steffian, and Gordon l. Pullar 

 (Eds.). A project of the Arctic Studies Center, Department of Anthropology. National 

 Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution and The Alutiiq Museum and 

 Archaeological Repository. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. 

Jorgenson, Joseph G. 

1990 Oil Age Eskimos. Berkeley: University of California Press. 
138

Knapp, Gunnar 

2006 Economic impacts of BSAI crab rationalization on Kodiak fishing employment and 

 earnings and Kodiak businesses: A preliminary analysis. Institute for Social and 

 Economic Research, University of Alaska at Anchorage. 

Knapp, G., S. Goldsmith, J. Kruse, and G. Erickson 

1984 The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Program: Economic Effects and Public 

 Attitudes. Prepared for the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation by the Institute for 

 Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska. Anchorage. 

Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 

2007 Kodiak Community Profile and Economic Indicators – 2007. Prepared by the Kodiak 

 Chamber of Commerce and funded in part by the City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island 

 Borough. Kodiak City. 

2006 Kodiak Island Borough information website. Available online at http://www.kodiak.org 

Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department 

1983 Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program. Progress Report Reprint. June. 

 ACE 6360219. Kodiak City, AK 

Minerals Management Service 

2002 Alaska Annual Studies Plan. Final FY 2003. Alaska OCS Region. Environmental Studies 

Section. U.S. Department of the Interior, MMS, Alaska OCS Region. Anchorage. 

Mishler, Craig, Rachel Mason, and Jeffrey Barnhart 

1995 An Investigation of the Sociocultural Consequences of Outer Continental Shelf 

Development in Alaska: Kodiak Island. OCS Study MMS 95-013, United States 

Department of the Interior, Mineral Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Social 

and Economic Studies Unit. 

Mishler, Craig 

1999 Some Effects of Land Buybacks in Native Communities of the EVOS Region. Presented 

at the symposium Legacy of an Oil Spill: Ten Years After the Exxon Valdez, sponsored by 

the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council and the Alaska Sea Grant College Program. 

Mullan, Kevin 

2003 “Tidal Wave of ’64.” In Iluani, May 2003: 18-19. 

Munoz, Andrew 

2005 Greetings from ISC Kodiak. Coast Guard Magazine. Available online at: 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBY/is_2005_April/ai_n13803322. 
139

North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

2006 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report (SAFE). 2006. Prepared by the Plan 

 Team for the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska. Appendix C: Ecosystem 

 Considerations for 2007. Anchorage, AK. 

NOAA Fisheries 

2007 Fisheries of the United States – 2005. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Marine 

 Fisheries Service. Office of Science and Technology. Fisheries Statistics Division. 

 Silver Spring. 

Northern Economics 

1994 Commercial Fishing Industry of the Gulf of Alaska: Final Technical Report. Prepared for 

 Minerals Management Service, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region Leasing and 

 Environment Office Social and Economic Studies Unit. Technical Report No. 159. 

 September. Anchorage. 

Phillips, Natalie 

1999 Healing Lands: Alaska Invests in Nature. Alaska Geographic, Vol. 26 (1), 1999: 45-59. 

Piatt, J. F., and P. J. Anderson 

1996 Response of Common Murres to the Exxon Valdez oil spill and long-term changes in the 

 Gulf of Alaska ecosystem. American Fisheries Society Symposium.18:720-737. 

Picou, S.J., D.A. Gill, and M.J. Cohen (Eds.) 

1997 The Exxon Valdez Disaster – Readings on a Modern Social Problem. Dubuque, IA: 

 Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. 

Pinart, A. 

1873 Eskimaux et Koloches: Idees Religieuses de Kaniagmioutes. Revenue 

 d’Anthropologie 2: 673-680. 

Pullar, Gordon 

2004 Our History – Native Village of Afognak. Native Village of Afognak. Available online 

 at http://afognak.org/education/history_intro.php. 

Saltonstall, P.G., and A.F. Stefian 

1999 Early Prehistoric Settlement in Chiniak Bay: A View from Zaimka Mound. Presented at 

 the annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association. Fairbanks. 

Schneider, Teri 

2003 Kodiak Island Youth Area Watch. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 2003. 

 General Proposal. Anchorage. Available online at: http://www.evostc.state.ak.us. 
140

Sepez, Jennifer. B.D. Tilt, C.L. Package, H.M. Lazrus, and I. Vaccaro 

2005 Community Profiles for North Pacific Fisheries – Alaska. NOAA Technical 

 Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-160. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National 

 Marine Fisheries Service. Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Seattle. 

Short, J.W., G.V. Irvine, D.H. Mann, J.M. Maselko, J.J. Pella, M.R. Lindeberg, J.R. Payne, W.B. 

Driskell, and S.D. Rice 

2007 Slightly weathered Exxon Valdez oil persists in Gulf of Alaska beach sediments after 16 

 years. Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 41, Number 4, pp. 1245-1250. 

Stabeno, P., N. Bond, A. Herman, N. Kachel, C. Mordy, J. Overland 

2004 Meteorology and oceanography of the Northern Gulf of Alaska. Contintental Shelf 

 Research 24: 859-897. 

Steffian, Amy F. 

2001 Cummillallret – Ancestors. In Looking Both Ways – Heritage and Identity of the Alutiiq 

 People. Aron L. Crowell, Amy F. Steffian, and Gordon l. Pullar (Eds.). A project of the 

 Arctic Studies Center, Department of Anthropology. National Museum of Natural 

 History, Smithsonian Institution and The Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological 

 Repository. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. 

Taylor, Jonathan B., and Joseph P. Kalt 

2005 American Indians on Reservations: a Databook on Socioeconomic Change between the 

 1990 and 2000 Censuses. The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic 

 Development. Malcolm Werner Center for Social Policy. John F. Kennedy School of 

 Government. Harvard, MA. 

Tide, C., N. Free-Sloan, S. M. Carlson, and K. Iverson 

2005 Changes in the Distribution of Alaska’s Commercial Fisheries Entry Permits, 1975-2004. 

Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, Report No, 05-3N, Appendix C. 

 Special Tabulations. Juneau. 

VanStone, J. 

1960 A successful combination of subsistence and wage economies on the village level. 

Economic Development and Cultural Change, 8 (1960): 174-91. 

Wilk, R.R. 

1996 Economies and Cultures – Foundations of Economic Anthropology. Boulder: Westview 

 Press. 

Wolfe, R. 

1984 Subsistence-Based Economies in Coastal Communities of Southwest Alaska. 

 Technical Report No. TR-95. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

 Land Management (CT2-81), and the Minerals Management Service (14-12-0001-

 29076). U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service. Anchorage. 
141

Appendix A

Preliminary Review of the Amoco Cadiz and Prestige Incidents 

and 

International Maritime Transportation Policy 
142

The Amoco Cadiz Accident

Overview. On March 16, 1978, the Amoco Cadiz supertanker ran aground three miles offshore 

of the northern coast of Brittany, France, near Portsall-Kersaint and 25 miles north of Brest 

(Davis 1998). At the time, this was the largest oil spill ever caused by a tanker. The spill still 

ranks as the world’s fourth largest on the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation 

Limited (ITOPF34) ranking scale (ITOPF 2004), or sixth, if considering spills from sources other 

than maritime transportation, such as the IXTOC I blow-out or the sabotage of Kuwait’s oil 

fields during the 1990-1991 Gulf War.35

Background. The Amoco Cadiz was one of four sister ships built by Astilleros Españoles, SA 

(Astilleros), a Spanish shipbuilding firm with extensive experience in civilian shipbuilding. The 

vessel was designed by Amoco International Oil Company (AIOC), with oversight by the 

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Weighing about 109,700 gross registered tonnage (grt) 

with a 233,690 deadweight (dwt) and measuring 1,095.5 ft × 167.6 ft × 85.9 ft (B/L/D: 334 m × 

51.1 m × 26.2 m), the Amoco Cadiz belonged to a new generation of supertankers known as 

“Very Large Crude Carriers,” or VLCC. 

Upon delivery in 1974, the Amoco Cadiz was registered under the Liberian flag as the property 

of another Liberian company, Amoco Transport Company (ATC) of Monrovia. However, 

operations were entirely managed by AIOC, which was then based in Chicago. Both companies 

were, at that time, fully controlled subsidiaries of Standard Oil Company of Indiana (SAI), also 

known as Amoco (Gaskell 1985; Kbaier and Sebek 1985; Cheminsky 1987). Originally a part of 

John Rockefeller’s former Standard Oil trust, SAI merged with British Petroleum in 1998 to 

form BP Amoco, later reorganized as BP (BP 2006). 

On February 7, 1978, the Amoco Cadiz left the Persian Gulf bound for Rotterdam, Netherlands, 

via Lyme Bay in England (Cheminsky 1987). The all-Italian crew of 43 was commanded by 

Captain Pasquale Bardari (Kiechel 1978). The cargo was comprised of 4,000 tons of bunker fuel 

and 219,797 tons (approximately 68 million gallons36) of a mix of light crude oils (121,157 tons 

of Arabian light and 98,640 tons Iranian light). The cargo was the property of Royal Dutch/Shell 

and insured by Petroleum Insurance Limited (PIL) (Kbaier and Sebek 1985; Cheminsky 1987). 

Steering Failure and Underlying Causes. On the morning on March 16, 1978, as the Amoco 

Cadiz entered the English Channel in heavy seas and weather, the steering mechanism failed 

beyond repair. Although steering was ensured by a modern hydraulic system, the vessel had 

been built with no emergency or auxiliary backup system in place (Gaskell 1985) despite 

recommendations for such under the International Maritime Organization Resolution A.210 of 

1971. 

 

34 International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited: www.itopf.com. 

35 As provided in NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration website: 

http://archive.orr.noaa.gov/photos/ships/ships.html. 

36 Although depending on the physical characteristics of the oil, a ton of crude can be taken as 7.3 barrels, or 306.6 

gallons. 
143

It was later determined that design flaws in some components of the steering mechanism, 

coupled with and worsened by improper maintenance, contributed decisively to the sequence of 

events that set the Amoco Cadiz adrift. Complicating factors involved insufficient maintenance 

and servicing, and failure to address acknowledged problems. Apparent inattention to 

maintenance issues was evinced by the decision to dry-dock the Amoco Cadiz only once in four 

years, while two of its sister ships in use by SAI were serviced every year. 

Subsequent investigation revealed that stresses to the steering mechanism caused an irreparable 

leak of hydraulic fluid and resultant loss of maneuverability. The owners were also found 

responsible for not providing satisfactory training and instruction to the crew (Gaskell 1985). 

The Grounding and Subsequent Spill. Around 10:00 AM on March 16, as the Amoco Cadiz

lost its steering and started swinging to the left, the captain ordered for its single engine to be 

silenced and for a radio message to warn other seafarers in the area to stand clear of the tanker. 

The ship was exposed to 60-knot gusts and a 20-foot swell, with most of her hull assaulted by 

wave action. The vessel started drifting south, and about one hour later her position was some 

10 miles north of the island of Ouessant, the westernmost point of France. No emergency or 

“SOS” signal was sent at this time (Kiechel 1979). 

A call for salvage tugs was issued and the German tug Pacific, property of Bugsier, Reederei, 

and Bergungs, AG (Bugsier; Kbaier 1985), promptly started heading towards the Amoco Cadiz

to offer assistance (Gaskell 1985). The Pacific was the only vessel of its kind within 150 miles 

of the drifting tanker. The captain of the tug, Hartmut Weinert, offered assistance under the 

terms of the Lloyd’s Open Form Salvage Agreement (LOF), an internationally recognized 

contract defining Lloyd’s of London as the arbitration location for any later claim and rewarding 

the salvager only if success was met. This is the “no cure, no pay” principle, albeit in more 

advantageous terms than normal towage contracts (Gaskell 1985). According to Kiechel (1979), 

the Amoco Cadiz was insured at $15 million and the oil cargo was worth about $24 million (1979 

values), possibly ensuring some $4 million would be paid to Bugsier if the efforts of the Pacific

were successful. 

Shortly after 1:00 p.m., the Pacific reached the tanker and by 2:00 p.m. a towline had been 

secured to the bow of the Amoco Cadiz. Conditions of the contract were not yet clearly defined 

and Ouessant lay only five miles away. Statements were made in the press and literature about 

delays in initiating rescue operations, as the captains haggled over financial arrangements 

(Kiechel 1979; Gaskell 1985; Davis 1998). Towing attempts were underway two hours prior to 

acceptance of an LOF by AOIC at 4:00 p.m. 

Although the tug was rated at 10,000 horsepower, it was functioning closer to 6,000 and 

according to Kiechel (1979) towing the massive tanker was problematic. By 5:00 p.m., the tow 

line broke apart and by 8:30 p.m. a second line was set and fastened, this time astern. Attempts 

to save the tanker were futile. By 9:04 p.m., the stern of the Amoco Cadiz struck ground on 

Portsall rocks. A second definitive grounding occurred 30 minutes later. The captain and crew 

of the Pacific persevered in attempts to save the foundering vessel until the second towline also 

parted (Kiechel 1979). 
144

The hull and three of its 15 storage tanks were ripped open on initial impact. Oil quickly 

developed into a 15-mile slick. By later that night, three miles of coastline had been blackened 

(Davis 1998). All systems were shut down for fear of an explosion. The crew failed to abandon 

the vessel and at approximately 11:30 p.m. the ship’s radio was powered back on to broadcast 

the first and only emergency message. 

At midnight, a French Navy helicopter hoisted the crew to safety. The Captain and a tankersafety expert who had been on board to conduct crew training remained with the vessel until the 

next morning, when they were lifted to safety by another helicopter. Captains Barsari and 

Weinert were arrested the following day by French authorities (Kiechel 1979). 

Throughout the following days, the grounded tanker lost most of its cargo and finally broke in 

two. The raging storm precluded intervention. By March 25, with some 30,000 tons of oil still 

trapped inside the tanks, French authorities took drastic measures by exploding the battered 

remnants of the hull, which released the remaining oil; this measure was taken to avoid any 

future spills and associated cleanups. At that point the oil slick had contaminated over 200 miles 

(320 km) of Brittany’s irregular shoreline, home to nearly 240,000 persons. The nearby British 

Channel Islands were threatened. 

Initiation of Recovery Efforts. A national emergency response plan was enacted. Army and 

Navy personnel were deployed and were assisted by many hundreds of residents and volunteers. 

Severe weather complicated recovery efforts. The strenuous work of cleaning and removing 

debris lasted for months. A variety of methods were used, including chemical dispersants, 

booms, heavy machinery, and other tools. Exposed rocky areas showed the best results from 

recovery efforts, whereas many estuarine and marsh areas proved more difficult to clean and 

were eventually left to recover on their own (Cheminsky 1987; Davis 1998; ITOPF 2004). 

Brittany’s coastline is characterized by rocky headlands, large embayments, and small estuaries. 

Tides range between 18 and 27 feet (6 to 9 m). The intertidal and subtidal fauna and flora are 

diverse. The area supports extensive finfish, shellfish, and seaweed fisheries. In 1976, fisheries 

in this region accounted for 40 percent of the nation’s landings of seafood products (Gundlach et 

al. 1983). 

The spill led to extensive impacts to these fisheries and the environment generally. The region is 

one of the most favored resort destinations for travelers in France and tourism significantly 

affected by the spill (Grigalunas et al. 1986). 

Fisheries landings and value declined quickly. An estimated 9,000 tons of oyster beds were 

destroyed by authorities for public health reasons and to safeguard the value of French oysters in 

the international market. About 20,000 birds and thousands of benthic marine organisms washed 

ashore during the months following the spill (Davis 1998; ITOPF 2004). 

Persistence of Oil Pollution. The intense wave action at the time of the spill led to a quick 

emulsification and dispersion of the oil through the water column. Some 15,000 km2

 of offshore 

waters indicated surface oiling in weeks following the grounding. Weathering, evaporation, and 
145

biodegradation helped to diminish the physical effects of the spill. The persistence of oil varied 

according to the type of substrate, cleaning efforts, and manner of exposure to wave and tidal 

action. Areas openly exposed to ocean waves indicated rapid decline of hydrocarbons, whereas 

degradation was slower in the estuaries and other sheltered areas. Changes in the populations of 

several taxa and impoverishment of habitat were widely observed in the region. 

Another Spill and Subsequent Challenges. Two years later, on March 7, 1980, the tanker Tanio

broke in two under heavy seas off Brittany, spilling 13,500 tons of oil and contaminating 120 

miles (200 km) of the Brittany coastline (Thébaud et al. 2003). The most visible signs of 

pollution from both incidents were reportedly diminished within a few years – a result of intense 

cleanup and recovery efforts (Gundlach et al. 1983; ITOPF 2004). 

But persistent contamination was a reality and long-term studies detected high amounts of 

weathered oil in salt marsh areas and lower concentrations of hydrocarbons in subsurface 

sediments of other areas as late as 1991 (Mille et al. 1998). The close proximity of several 

French and British marine laboratories and the involvement of the international scientific 

community led to extensive research of the spill and its long-term biophysical effects (Gundlach 

et al. 1983; ITOPF 2004). 

The cleanup and recovery phases of the spills were costly, as were losses to the tourism and 

fishing industries (Grigalunas et al. 1986). Calculation of costs was challenging, and available 

data and methods to estimate losses were contested (Thébaud et al. 2003). 

The Regulatory Arena: International Conventions and Interim Agreements. During the 

aftermath of the Amoco Cadiz spill, ATC set up a fund of $16.7 million, following the limits of 

“strict liability” of a ship owner for oil pollution costs as defined by the Civil Liability 

Convention (CLC) of 1969.37 The CLC was an international treaty set by the InterGovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO)38 in the wake of the Torrey Canyon

accident off the coast of Cornwall in 1967 (Kiechel 1979; Gaskell 1985; Blanco-Bazán 2004). 

The Torrey Canyon grounding and spill was the first such incident involving a supertanker. , 

The spill involved 119,000 tons of Kuwait crude (approximately 35 million gallons). Much of 

the coastline along southwest England, the Channel Islands, and Brittany was affected. 

Extensive ecological damage resulted not only from the spilled oil but also from powerful 

dispersants used to combat it (ITOPF 2004). 

According to Bloodworth (1998), the Torrey Canyon “spill set off a firestorm of activity in the 

international realm,” with IMCO striving to establish an international mechanism for liability 

and compensation that would ensure payment under specified rules and regardless of fault - a 

departure from traditional maritime law. The CLC of 1969 was the outcome. It prescribed rules 

 

37 Also known as the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, Brussels, 1969. 

38 IMCO began operations in 1958 as a global specialized agency of the United Nations, later becoming the 

International Maritime Organization, or IMO (a detailed account of IMO’s evolution and role is given by BlancoBazán 2004). 
146

of strict liability for ship owners, and coupled the limits of their liability to the tonnage of the 

ship. It also required compulsory insurance up to those same limits. 

Two years later, again under the auspices of IMCO, the Fund Convention39 of 1971 would take 

steps to create the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPC Fund or 1971 Fund), 

intended to complement the CLC. It divided responsibility for oil pollution between the shipping 

and oil industries in the countries that ratified the treaties. This way, the CLC would provide a 

first-level of compensation up to certain limits, above which the IOPC Fund would then assist by 

providing additional compensation. By the time of the Amoco Cadiz incident, France had 

ratified the CLC. The U.S. chose not to endorse the CLC based on the Senate’s determination 

that liability limits were too low (Gaskell 1985; Kbaier and Sebek 1985; Bloodworth 1998; Faure 

and Hui 2003). 

Until economic sanctions provided by the Conventions were enacted, representatives of the 

tanker and oil industries stepped forth and voluntarily provided interim financial agreements 

under the guidelines of the treaties. For instance, a private compensation no-fault plan called 

TOVALOP (Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement concerning Liability for Oil Pollution 

damage) was created in 1969 by the ITOPF on behalf of the tanker industry. At the time, the 

CLC and TOVALOP involved specific limits for liability compensation by the owners of the 

vessels, depending on tonnage and up to 14 million Special Drawing Rights (SDR).40 Marine 

underwriters would not provide insurance above that limit. 

A Contract Regarding an Interim Supplement to Tanker Owner Liability for Oil Pollution 

(CRISTAL) accord was signed in 1971 by various shipping companies. It supplemented the 

CLC with up to a combined value of 60 million SDR (Gaskell 1985; Bloodworth 1998). Thus, 

above and beyond the $16.7 million ATC fund approved for the Amoco Cadiz incident, an 

additional $13.3 million was made available from CRISTAL provisions in order to fulfil the $30 

million combined limit of the time (Kiechel 1979). 

The Continuing Legal Process. Claims for compensation from SAI and its subsidiaries were 

not filed in France, but in the United States. France itself brought suit to federal district court in 

Chicago. The move sparked considerable discussion, as it seemed to utterly disregard the 

conventions and limited liability values that France had willingly ratified. Under the CLC, the 

proceedings should have been instituted in France, the place of the accident, or Liberia, where 

the vessel was flagged. 

As litigation proceeded, various questions were raised regarding jurisdiction, convenient forums, 

and applicable laws (Kiechel 1979; Gaskell 1985). The case became known as “the admiralty 

case of the century” (Kiechel, 1979). Kbaier and Sebek (1985: 250) described the proceedings 

as such: “...this was a disaster of just enough magnitude to remind the international community 

 

39 Also known as the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for 

Oil Pollution Damage. 

40 Special Drawing Rights (SDR), as defined by the International Monetary Fund, replaced the original use of the 

French gold franc as the reference unit (Faure and Hui 2003). Given the current (3 April 2006) rate of 1 SDR = US 

$1.438000, the maximum limits are of $20 million for the 1969 CLC and $86 million for the 1971 Fund (Source: 

IOPC Fund, available at: www.iopcfund.org.) 
147

that time had come to turn another page in legislative history, in this case relating to liability and 

compensation.” 

A mass of claims and suits were submitted by the parties involved, as described in the final 

rulings of the process issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, on January 24, 

1992 (U.S. Court of Appeals 1992). According to Kbaier and Sebek (1985), these could be 

grouped into three main categories: 

(1) France filing complaints directly against SAI and AIOC for $300 million, seeking 

 compensation for pollution damages and cleanup costs. The position was that ATC was 

 “no more than a front” (as quoted in Kiechel 1979) for SAI and AIOC, which managed 

 the fleet; 

(2) Several local authorities and private parties, companies or individuals affected by 

 pollution. This mixed group of nearly 150 claimants filed for compensation against all 

 who could possibly be held liable: ATC, as the nominal owner of the vessel; AIOC as the 

 operator; Astilleros, for faulty design and construction; ABS, for certifying the ship with 

 the flawed components; and Bugsier, for negligence in the salvaging process (Gaskell 

 1985; Kbaier and Sebek 1985); and 

 

(3) The insurer of the cargo filed complaints against the Amoco conglomerate for loss of 

 cargo, and against Bugsier for negligence (Kbaier and Sebek 1985). 

The Amoco conglomerate sought for protection under the United States Limitation of Ship 

owner’s Liability Act of 1851 (LSLA), aiming for exoneration from or limitation of liability to 

the value of the vessel and freight had the act occurred without “privity or knowledge” of the 

owner (Gaskell 1985; Bloodworth 1998). Amoco also filed counter claims against France, the 

mixed group of claimants, and Bugsie, and cross-claims against Astilleros. The arguments 

regarding France were that: a) CLC rules were the only legal instruments available, thus 

restricting and limiting liability to the ship owner and precluding any further claims against SAI 

and AIOC; and b) that France should be found guilty of negligence by knowing of the situation 

and not assisting the ship in a timely fashion so as to avoid a spill, and furthermore by not 

handling the spill adequately and aggravating its consequences and damages (Gaskell 1985; 

Kbaier and Sebek 1985). 

Amoco also sued ABS for negligence and breach of contract as supervisors of the construction of 

the vessel. But ABS, after settling with the other claimants, sued Amoco seeking reimbursement 

of expenses incurred with the settlements (U.S. Court of Appeals 1992). 

In accordance with the decision on September 12, 1979, the proceedings, led by Judge Frank J. 

McGarr, were divided into two stages: defining liability limits and determining damages. After 

early examinations, jurisdiction of the Chicago court was considered valid and the adoption of 

the United States as a convenient forum (the forum non conveniens rule) for the process was 

accepted by all parties involved, with the exception of Astilleros. 
148

Decisions regarding which nation’s laws to apply in the case were laborious. French law was 

deemed appropriate unless American law provided differing stipulations, in which case the latter 

would be used. French law would be tied to the CLC provisions- to Amoco’s advantage- but, in 

the end, it was U.S. common law that was adopted. Nevertheless, the Judge did address the CLC 

and French law, its application, and the restriction of liability to the ship owner, while 

dismantling several CLC provisions and considering that CLC terms were not the only legal 

solution for cases of damage by oil pollution (Gaskell 1985; Kbaier and Sebek 1985). According 

to Kbaier and Sebek (1985), this was “... without doubt, one of the most far-reaching 

conclusions arrived at by the judgment and departs from the classical rules of maritime law.” 

Later, British law was also consulted when dealing with claims from Petroleum Insurance 

Limited (PIL; U.S. Court of Appeals 1992). Gaskell (1985) provides a thorough analysis of the 

legal framework and decisions of initial proceedings, which lasted from May 4, 1982 until April 

18, 1984. By then, it was determined that Bugsie could not be held liable for negligence in the 

salvage attempt, whereas Astilleros was deemed negligent by building defective pieces into the 

steering system. 

Regarding the liability of Amoco and its subsidiaries, the court’s decision was that all related 

companies were deemed jointly and strictly liable for negligence in the design, construction, 

maintenance and operation of the vessel. ATC was deemed liable for failure to comply with its 

duty of controlling and supervising for the proper maintenance and care of the ship, and AIOC 

was deemed liable for knowingly failing to ensure the seaworthiness of Amoco Cadiz by not 

taking necessary measures to detect and correct the flawed steering gear and not ensuring proper 

maintenance of the vessel and training of the crew. SAI was recognized as the corporate head of 

the former two companies and, as such, it was held liable for the actions of its subsidiaries 

(Gaskell 1985; Kasoulides 1988). This decision set legal precedent, determining that the 

responsibility for marine pollution ultimately belonged to the owner of the ship and overturning 

several mechanisms of immunity, such as the channelling and limitation of liability which had to 

that point been granted by the traditional rules of maritime law (Kbaier and Sebek 1985; 

Kasoulides 1988). 

The second state of litigation lasted until January 11, 1988, when damages were awarded. 

However, both sides appealed the ruling: SAI appealed the finding of liability and Astilleros 

claimed lack of jurisdiction of the Chicago court, and the remaining claimants questioned the 

amounts of compensation. The case was then taken to the Federal Court of Appeals of the 

Seventh Circuit. Finally, on January 24, 1992, after nearly 14 years of litigation, it was decided 

that the Amoco group was to pay to the claimants and seek compensation from Astilleros. 

Settlement was later reached, by undisclosed conditions (Anonymous 1992a). The value paid by 

SAI amounted to $204 million (Anonymous 1992b), far from the nearly $660 million originally 

claimed by the French parties (Anonymous 1992c; Thébaud et al. 2003). 

Changes to French Policy in National and Transnational Settings. The French strategy for 

addressing offshore spills was reviewed in some depth after the Amoco Cadiz event. The review 

process gave rise to POLMAR (La Pollution des Eaux Marines) and CEDRE (Centre de 
149

Documentation de Recherche et d' Expérimentations sur les Pollutions Accidentelles des 

Eaux41), in anticipation of future situations (Silvestre 1998). 

Changes were also introduced to rules regarding navigation through the English Channel: tankers 

were to signal their entry routinely, navigating on predefined routes seven miles off the coast 

rather than the previous established five miles. Any problems occurring less than 50 miles from 

the French shoreline were to be promptly reported to authorities, as well as any tugs going to the 

aid of tankers (Davis 1998; CEDRE 2006). 

Besides strengthening rules inside territorial waters and ports, France also acted on regional and 

community levels, usually under the guidelines defined by the IMO and international regulations 

or, in some cases, by more stringent directives adopted by the European Union (EU) (Hui 2004; 

Silvestre 2006). Several regional agreements aimed at tackling issues of marine safety and oil 

pollution were developed, such as the Bonn Agreement of 1983 (covering the North Sea) and the 

Lisbon Agreement of 1990 (covering the Mediterranean and Atlantic). 

Other bilateral agreements between national agencies were also reached, such as the Mancheplan 

(France and the UK) or the Biscaye and Lion Plan (between France and Spain, covering both the 

Atlantic and Mediterranean). The focus of these agreements was on regional agreements for 

surveillance networks which allowed for faster exchange of information, and bilateral 

agreements for predefined plans of action with faster joint operational responses to oil spills. An 

underlying principle of these agreements was that all costs resulting from specific situations 

would be borne by the state requiring assistance (Silvestre 2006). 

On December 11, 1999, yet another tanker grounded off the coast of Brittany, leading to a 

20,000 ton spill and 250,000 tons of oily waste that spread over 240 miles (400km) of French 

coastline. The grounding of the 25-year old, Italian-owned and Maltese registered Erika tanker 

sparked intense discussions in the European forum regarding existing regulations and the need 

for widespread changes. Shortly afterwards, the EU approved stricter measures, named after the 

tanker (Faure and Hui 2003; Hui 2004). 

The IMO and the International Forum. Soon after the grounding and spill of the Amoco Cadiz, 

France urged the Legal Committee of IMO to prepare a new set of international rules regarding 

liability and compensation mechanisms for oil spills. In 1984, a few days after the initial ruling 

in the Amoco case, the International Conference on Liability and Compensation for Damage in 

Connection with the Carriage of Certain Substances by Sea was held in London. The outcome, 

also known as the 1984 Protocols, introduced several changes to the agreements of 1969 and 

1971. A crucial change was the setting of higher limits of compensations, as previous limits 

were clearly insufficient to deal with the magnitude of recent spills and related claims. 

Channelling of liability to the ship owner was still seen as the best way to ensure a quick and 

simplified way of directing the claims and so it remained the main vehicle of compensation, 

although the conditions of liability were modified. 

 

41 Literally translated: Center for the Documentation, Research, and Experimentation of Accidental Water Pollution 

(website: www.le-cedre.fr). Set in place to improve the preparation for and intervention mechanisms to cope with 

accidental water pollution events, marine and inland, primarily in France. 
150

The protocols adopted the concept of reasonable costs incurred in the restoration of damaged 

ecosystems. Taking into account the then-recent constitution of the United Nations Convention 

on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, established(December 10, 1982), the geographic reach of the 

CLC was reshaped to include the 200 nautical mile limit of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) 

or equivalent area (Kbaier and Sebek 1985; Faure and Hui 2003). Yet, the 1984 Protocols were 

never implemented because the U.S. representatives, though involved in the discussion process, 

later refused to sign. The main point of discord revolved around limitation of liability, to which 

the U.S. objected, defending instead unlimited liability for damages (Faure and Hui 2003). 

Following the Exxon Valdez spill in March of 1989, the U.S. Congress approved the Ocean 

Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Bloodworth 1998; Hui 2004). Safety and construction 

standards for oil tankers allowed in U.S. waters were set at higher levels than those upheld by the 

IMO. 

For instance, the Act initiated a process whereby single-hulled tankers would eventually be 

banned from plying U.S. waters. This unilateral decision led to some important changes in the 

international regime, as the IMO tried to close the safety gap between new and old tankers (EU 

2000; Zia-Mansoor 2005). However, due to several other provisions set forth by U.S. 

regulations, such as the acceptance of unlimited liability, further involvement with the IMO and 

its international regimes became problematic and led to a separation of both systems (Faure and 

Hui 2003). 

In 1992, the CLC and IOPC Fund Conventions were once more subjected to changes. The 

conditions for implementation were altered, removing the need for U.S. ratification. Limits of 

liability under the CLC and the Fund were thus effectively increased and the definition of 

“pollution damage” broadened as to include damages caused by contamination and the cost of 

“preventive measures” to combat said damage. 

The CLC interval for compensation limits was set between 3 million SDR for vessels of 5,000 

grt or less, and up to a maximum of 59.7 million SDR for ships above 140,000 grt. The IOPC 

Fund was increased to a ceiling of 135 million SDR, including compensation to be paid under 

the 1992 CLC. Less than one year after the Erika spill in 1999, and faced by the inadequacy of 

these limits, the IMO Legal Committee adopted an increase of the compensation limits by 50 

percent (the maximum allowed under a so-called tacit amendment procedure of the 

Conventions), that came into effect in November of 2003. The CLC intervals were then set at 

the 4.5 to 89.8 million SDR range and the combined CLC/IOPC Fund’s ceiling was set at 203 

million SDR42 (Bloodworth 1998; Faure and Hui 2003; Oosterveen 2004). The EU played a 

strong role in this decsion. 

Regarding international adoption of the 1992 Conventions, Jacobsson (2005) points out that 

many of the countries that had signed these treaties had not been parties to the 1969 or 1971 

Conventions, thus suggesting a growing acceptance and recognition of their validity as 

international compensation schemes (Jacobsson 2005). To facilitate further harmonization, a 

 

42 Given the current equivalence SDR/US $ rate (April 3, 2006), these values correspond to a $6.5 to $129 million 

interval for the 1992 CLC and a $292 million limit for the 1992 Fund (including the CLC compensation. 
151

compulsory denunciation mechanism was written into the 1992 treaties wherein the countries 

that had signed both versions of the protocols automatically ceased to be parties to the older 

protocols of May of 1998. Those entities that adhered solely to the original conventions were 

faced with the demise of the 1971 Fund in May of 2002, as its financial basis was eroded by the 

migration of contributors, and were therefore being urged to adhere to the 1992 Protocols as well 

(Faure and Hui 2003). By the end of 2006, the 1992 CLC included 115 member states, 98 of 

which are also part of the 1992 IOPC Fund. The 1969 CLC had 38 participating countries 

remaining43 (IOPC 2006). 

When the 1992 treaties were ratified and came into force in 1997, contracts for TOVALOP and 

CRISTAL - which had been functioning as interim liability and compensation agreements for 

more than 25 years – were not renewed and coverage lapsed (Bloodworth 1998). One of the 

consequences was that countries not participating in the CLC Fund/Conventions and which also 

could not reach voluntary agreement, would have to resort to domestic laws, in many cases 

directing their claims “against a flag-of-convenience company with no assets” (Faure and Hui 

2003). 

The 1971 and 1992 Conventions were widely adopted and have successfully dealt with some 135 

claims amounting to nearly $860 million (Jacobsson 2005). The underlying concepts of these 

systems dates back to 1984 and earlier. Several players, including he EU, have already voiced 

the need to revise and update the system so that it includes advances made in environmental law 

and improves the distribution of costs based on risks and profits, possibly encouraging the 

involved industries to move into higher levels of maritime safety and operation (Faure and Hui 

2003; Oosterveen 2004). 

The (in)adequacy of compensation limits to meet claims from serious oil spills remains a 

pressing matter. The 50 percent increase of limits after the Erika incident was deemed 

insufficient by several members of the IOPC Fund, and a special group was set to address this 

specific point. As a result, a three-layered system was devised and emplaced. 

Adding to the 1992 CLC and 1992 Fund, a Supplementary Fund Protocol (SF 2003) was adopted 

in May 2003 and came into action on March 3, 2005. Its sole purpose was to provide extended 

compensation to claims admitted to the 1992 Fund but which surpassed this fund limits. The 

maximum limit under the SF 2003 was substantially increased to 750 million SDR,44 including 

the amounts due from the 1992 CLC and Fund. 

 An additional organization, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Supplementary Fund 

(IOPCS) 2003, was created to manage SF 2003. Contributions to this new Fund derive from oil 

industries of the countries party to the Conventions (Oosterveen 2004; Jacobsson 2005). This 

has led to renewed discussions regarding the distribution of costs when dealing with increasingly 

higher limits of compensations. The oil industry claimed to be assuming the lion’s share of 

expenses and asked for fair distribution of costs between all parties involved, including ship 

 

43 Detailed information regarding member states and the IOPC Funds is available at www.iopcfund.org. 

44 Given the current equivalence SDR/US $ rate, this value corresponds to a total of $1,079 million. 
152

owners and insurers. The argument is that it is the responsibility of ship owners to keep the 

vessels seaworthy and that imbalanced liability could have a detrimental effect on maritime 

safety. 

 

The International Group of P&I Clubs (a 13-member “club” of insurance underwriters), 

representing ship owners/insurers voluntarily offered to increase liability limits for smaller 

vessels under the 1992 CLC and contended that the goal of these treaties was to provide an 

effective regime to address claims, but not to enhance safety or enforce existing rules. This view 

was supported by several member states of the IOPC Fund that had objected to the 

aforementioned review. A study was therefore commissioned by a Working Group of the 1992 

Fund about the distribution of costs in past situations managed by the 1992 Conventions. 

The findings were open to more than one interpretation. The share assumed by the oil industries 

had been rising over the years and the SF 2003 could indeed accentuate this imbalance. Some 

believed there was still room to improve the contribution of owners/insurers to cover overall 

costs (Faure and Hui 2003; Oosterveen 2004). 

Aside from providing for higher coverage of compensation claims through the creation of the 

SF 2003, other issues such as limitation and channelling of liability, compulsory insurance, and 

the role of “P&I clubs” have been under scrutiny by the IMO as it aims to improve the current 

system. As before, the challenge is to install a system that, while ensuring rapid and adequate 

payment for claims, also promotes the adoption of higher safety standards by all the parties 

involved so as to diminish the likelihood of accidents while establishing fair balance regarding 

the roles and contributions of the various stakeholders (Faure and Hui 2003). 

In addition to its role in setting international laws on liability and compensation for oil pollution 

events, IMO has developed more than 50 treaties and conventions (40 of them in force45) on 

several aspects of maritime safety and management of pollution risks. In some 50 years of 

activity, it became one of the most prolific treaty-making agencies of the United Nations (UN). 

The numerous important contributions made by IMO include treaties such as UNCLOS; SOLAS 

(196046) concerning safety issues in merchant ships; MARPOL (1973/78) and subsequent 

amendments addressing marine pollution; and the STCW 1978 which sets international standards 

for seafarers (Blanco-Bazán 2004; Hui 2004). IMO currently involves 166 member states which 

account for 98.8 percent of the world’s shipped tonnage.47 IMO has become an international 

forum for diverse and at times conflicting interests. 

 

45 Detailed information regarding IMO’s mission and statutes, member states and Conventions is available at 

www.imo.org. 

46 SOLAS – International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea; MARPOL - International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships; STCW– International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and 

Watchkeeping for Seafarers. 

47 Detailed information regarding IMO’s member states is available at www.imo.org. 
153

The Role of the European Union (EU) in Maritime Pollution Policy. Over past decades, the 

course of the IMO and the development of international laws regarding maritime pollution and 

environmental safety have been strongly influenced by the actions of the EU and its member 

states (Faure and Hui 2003). Recognizing and supporting IMO’s legitimacy as a competent body 

and arena to define important international standards in the fields of marine safety and pollution, 

the EU has often based its intra-European legislation on IMO conventions and resolutions (Hui 

2004; Zia-Mansoor 2005). 

The current structure of the EU requires that while each member state retains national 

sovereignty. Each must also conform to the directives of the European Parliament (EP) and 

Commission (EC). Internal differences and conflicting national agendas are common obstacles 

to development of standardized marine policy. However, member states are subject to penalties 

if they fail to meet agreed upon objectives. This ensures a level of cohesion that has granted the 

EU strong political leverage in international affairs. 

IMO, on the other hand, cannot impose rules on states, but rather can only expect them to follow 

the international treaties they have signed and ratified (Hui 2004). Hence, as Zia-Mansoor 

(2005) comments on the matter of preventing marine oil pollution “the EU has stronger 

enforcement mechanism(s) than the IMO.” Moreover, EU states retain full freedom to develop 

national legislation or trans-national agreements in and outside the EU, as long as they do not 

oppose EU legislation (Hui 2004). Thus, there is potential for added measures to ensure safety in 

the world’s oceans. 

EU marine policy has been developing in concert with expansion and development of the EU 

itself. From it’s inception in 1957, under the Treaty of Rome, the European Economic 

Community (EEC)48 grew from the original six member states to the current 25 as of May 1, 

2004. Prior to the entry of maritime nations such as the UK and Denmark, and the occurrence of 

serious oil spills in the late 1960’s and 70’s, there were few measures in place to address issues 

of maritime safety. 

Following the Amoco Cadiz, the Council of the EEC set up an action program addressing oil 

pollution and it took initial measures to improve port control and navigation in European waters. 

It also recommended that its member states ratify international treaties such as MARPOL 73/78 

and SOLAS (Hui 2004). 

The Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MOU) was an administrative agreement 

between signatories aimed at elimination of substandard shipping through coordination of port 

states and under existing and relevant international rules (Hui 2004). It was not an EU-level 

directive, but it did represent a statement of political will to face the problem of lenient flagstates or non-complying ship owners. 

 

48 The “European Union” designation was only adopted after the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which furthered the 

scope of transnational cooperation and integration within the EEC. 
154

The Paris MOU countries enforced international rules in an aggressive and articulated wayinspecting and eventually detaining or refusing entry to substandard ships. Several other flag 

countries and the IMO saw the move as a unilateral show of force and pressure. This “pushing 

forward” inside the system would be translated into several amendments to existing IMO 

protocols in the next years, as the Paris MOU countries enforced the rules and repeatedly 

reviewed their guidelines to fit EU concerns and demands. The approval of OPA 90 was another 

unilateral action taken by an important player which the IMO would have to later accommodate 

(Blanco-Bazán 2004; Hui 2004). 

In 1993, responding to the challenges set by the OPA 90 and changes in the international 

scenario, the EU published the Common Policy on Safe Seas (CPSS).49 This was considered the 

real start of the EU’s maritime safety policy. It aimed at implementing and enforcing 

international rules in a uniform manner throughout the EU and recognized the IMO as the valid 

forum to do so. 

The EU Commission implemented measures and produced numerous directives and rules that 

remain the core of the EU’s policy on maritime safety and established a framework of internal 

technical cooperation (EU 2000a; Hui 2004). As Hui (2005) points out, the actions seemed to be 

guided by an interest in attaining a balance between all parties involved in maritime activity, so 

as to create incentives to share the responsibilities of maritime safety and to prevent oil pollution 

(Hui 2003). 

By the year 2000, the EU oil trade was the largest in the world, with some 800 million tons 

transported trough EU ports every year. Crude oil imports represented 27 percent of the total 

world trade, with the U.S. close behind, accounting for 25 percent of the world total. 

Some 90 percent of EU oil supplies are transported by sea. This puts the English Channel and 

the coast of Brittany in particularly vulnerable position. Concerned with recurring accidents and 

damages involving tankers inside its waters, the EU lead the IMO to adopt higher standards on 

international rules and pressured member states to adopt them (EU 2000a; Hui 2004). 

The EU adopted two sets of legislative proposals - the Erika I and II packages.50 These tightened 

the existing regulatory framework (Hui 2004; Zia-Mansoor 2005). Erika I toughened the action 

of port states to compensate for the failings of flag states and ship operators in respecting the 

IMO safety regulations. Besides strengthening port inspection mechanisms to increase the level 

of mandatory compliance- by targeting ships that likely posed greater risks or risks of infractionit proposed the exchange of information between flag states, port states, and classification 

societies. It also turned some previously optional provisions of European Directives into 

compulsory ones and set a specific timeline for the phasing out of single hull tankers from EU 

waters. 

Erika II planned for the creation of a European Agency for Maritime Safety (ESMA), an 

improved information system to increase monitoring in European waters, and the creation of a 

 

49 COM (93) 66 Final: a Common Policy on Safe Seas, 24 February 1993. 

50 COM(2000) 142 Final and COM(2000) 802 Final, respectively.
155

supplementary fund for oil pollution compensation. Erika I was adopted in March 2000, to take 

effect from July 2003 onwards, while Erika II was adopted in December 2000 and gradually 

adopted over the next years (EU 2000a; EU 2000b; Faure and Hui 2003; Hui 2004). However, 

the EU also went one step further, by pressuring the IMO to change the basic rules or risk 

unilateral action by the European block (Blanco-Bazán 2005). 

The 50 percent increase in the compensation limits of the 1992 CLC and IOPC Fund resulted 

from strong pressure by EU members, especially France (Faure and Hui 2003). Addressing the 

insufficiency and limitations of the existing compensation mechanisms, the EU announced in 

2002 its intention to create a separate third-level supplementary fund of its own, to be called the 

Compensation for Oil Pollution (COPE) Fund, intended to cover up to €1 billion (including the 

1992 CLC and Fund compensations). This proposal was later presented by European member 

states to the IMO, which used it as a model for the creation of the aforementioned SF 2003. 

Upon approval of the SF 2003, the EU Council decided to drop the COPE proposal in favour of 

an IMO treaty (Faure and Hui 2003). 

The phasing out of single hull tankers was another example of challenge to the IMO. Confronted 

by the establishment of the OPA 90, IMO introduced important amendments to the MARPOL 

Convention in 1992, to come into force in July of 1993. Defining design and construction 

standards for new and existing tankers, it included a provision specifying that new tankers 

(delivered after 1996) over 5,000 dwt would have to be fitted with double hulls or other IMOapproved design. Existing tankers (delivered before 1996) over 20,000 dwt would have to be 

converted and would be subjected to enhanced inspections.51 It was accepted that removal or 

conversion of single hull tankers would have to happen over time, due to limitations in the 

world’s shipyards (EU 2000; Blanco-Bazán 2005). 

Concerned that single hull tankers forbidden entry into American waters by the OPA 90 before 

European bans were instituted would then be crossing European waters more frequently and 

increasing the likelihood of accidents, the EU pressured the IMO for a quicker phasing out of the 

vessels (EU 2000). MARPOL was amended once again in 2001, and a strict timeline for 

banning all single hull tankers was set for 2015 (Blanco-Bazán 2005). A few months prior to 

implementation of the Erika I package, the tanker Prestige sunk off the north coast of Spain. 

The Prestige Accident

Overview. The Greek-flagged Aegean Sea ran aground at the entrance of the harbour of La 

Coruña during a severe storm on December 3, 1992. The tanker burst into flames shortly 

afterwards. A large spill followed. Sixty miles (100 km) of coastline were contaminated, 

impacting artisanal fisheries in a region where 20 percent of residents were dependent on fishing. 

Local fisheries were at that time valued at $300 million per year (Davis 1998; Pérez 2003). A 

second accident occurred in the region November 2002, when the Prestige tanker foundered 130 

miles off the coast of Galicia. 

 

51 Detailed information regarding IMO’s Conventions is available at www.imo.org. 
156

Relevant Background Information. The Prestige was a 42,820 grt single hull tanker built in 

Japan in 1976, owned by a limited liability Liberian company (Mare Shipping) with an 

administrative office in Athens (Universe Maritime) and sailing under a Bahamian flag. The 

insurer was the London Protection and Indemnity Club. The crew of 27 was composed of 

persons of Greeks and Filipinos, and the vessel was under the command of Captain Apostolos 

Mangouras. Certification of the ship’s seaworthiness was ensured by the American Bureau of 

Shipping (ABS). The ship had been inspected by ABS in May 2002, with a special survey 

conducted one year prior, when extensive replacement of the steel side plating was conducted in 

dry-dock in Guangzhou, China. 

After serving for several months in the Baltic Sea, the ship was loaded with 77,033 tons of No. 6 

heavy fuel from Russia and Latvia and set off for Singapore via Gibraltar. The fuel the tanker 

carries has a characteristically high density and viscosity, with a low tendency to evaporate and 

disperse naturally (Suárez et al. 2005). 

The ship had been chartered by the Russian company Crown Resources AG, based in 

Switzerland. It was part of the financial group Alpha. Shortly after the Prestige incident, this 

company parted from Alpha and became part of ERC Trading (Pérez 2003; Garcia 2004; Lloyds 

2005; Loureiro et al. 2006; Suárez et al. 2005). 

The Foundering off Galicia and the Ensuing Spill. On the afternoon of November 13, the 

Prestige was sailing around Cape Finisterra in Galicia (northwest Spain), under conditions of 

severe weather. By 2:50 p.m., an emergency signal was emitted, requesting the evacuation of the 

crew. The hull had been damaged, with a 33- to 50-foot gash on the side ballast tank No.3. The 

ship quickly started leaking oil and developed a 30-degree list. The Coast Guard of Galicia and 

the Spanish maritime rescue agency La Sociedad Española de Salvamento (SASEMAR) were 

alerted. Aerial reconnaissance confirmed that oil was being spilled and had formed a 20-mile 

slick. 

Driven by 25-foot waves and force ten winds, the ship started drifting towards the rocky coast of 

Galicia. It was secured by two Spanish tugboats less than ten miles from the shoreline on the 

14th of November. By then, salvage operations had been awarded to the Dutch company SMIT 

Salvage, in partnership with the Spanish Technosub, by means of a Lloyd's Open Form 2000 

contract. After several failed attempts involving parted towlines, and with four tugs on site, a 

towline was finally successfully connected to the Prestige. The ship was boarded by salvage 

technicians and Spanish authorities, who began working with the Captain of the Prestige and two 

crew members. 

The vessel was towed 60 miles (100 km) offshore, as ordered by the Spanish authorities, and 

instructed to remain in that position to await further guidance. The option of transferring oil to 

another container was deemed unfeasible by both SMIT and SASEMAR due to weather 

conditions. Entry into a sheltered place, as requested by the ship and suggested by SMIT, was 

flatly denied by SASEMAR, allegedly based on technical grounds and scientific advice. SMIT 

considered transporting it to the calmer African waters of Cape Verde to allow for the transfer of 

oil, a move criticized by Pérez (2005) as treating “developing countries as waste-disposal areas.” 
157

As the ship was taken further south, Portuguese authorities promptly dispatched a warship and 

denied entry. The Prestige was taken further out into the open Atlantic. 

On November 16th, the gash on the hull was already 160 feet long (53 m); by then, the first oil 

slicks were reaching the shores of Spain. On the 19th, still being towed west under stormy 

conditions, the aft section sunk and the ship started ripping in two. A few hours later, both 

sections of the Prestige were sinking to the bottom of the ocean, with most of the cargo still 

inside. The final resting place of the Prestige would be at a depth of 12,000 feet (3,600 m), 

about 130 miles west of the coast of Galicia, still inside the Spanish EEZ. An estimated 10,000 

to 20,000 tons of oil had already been spilled while the Prestige was afloat, and several smaller 

spills were generated after she sank (Cedre 2003; Pérez 2003; Lloyds 2005). 

Although disputed, it was initially assumed by Spanish authorities and other experts that ocean 

conditions around the spill would contribute to gradual solidification of the remaining fuel, 

preventing its escape from the sunken tanks. If that were so, no further action would be needed. 

However, with fuel initially surfacing at a rate of 125 tons per day and still some two tons per 

day by mid-February 2003 (three months later), more drastic solutions had to be considered. 

Spain’s Recovery Efforts. Spanish officials contracted the French Maritime Research Institution 

(IFREMER) to conduct an assessment at the site of the sunken vessel using the French deepsubmersible “Nautile.” Although operations were conditioned by poor weather at sea, several 

leaks were detected in the hull. These were sealed by technicians during March 2003. Fearing 

that corrosion would lead to release of the remaining cargo, the Spanish government decided that 

measures should be taken to extract the entrapped fuel. 

A contract was awarded to the Spanish oil company Repsol to devise and execute the task. From 

May to September 2004, about 13,000 tons were retrieved from the hull using aluminium shuttle 

containers, which were lowered down to the wreck and filled with oil. When full, these 

containers were brought to subsurface level and emptied with water-injected flexible hoses 

connected to a surface tanker. Operations ended in September, as the oil amounts remaining in 

the wreck were considered minimal; special compounds were injected in the hull to accelerate 

degradation of the residues (Cedre 2003; IOPC 2006). 

An estimated 60,000 tonnes reached the shoreline of Spain in several dense spills, over several 

months (Loureiro et al. 2005). Due to the high viscosity of the fuel which formed a thick 

emulsion with seawater, and the prevailing currents and wind conditions, these multiple spills 

drifted eastward, affecting some 1,200 miles (1,900 km) of coastline (Cedre 2003; IOPC 2006). 

Most of the northern coast of Spain and an expansive section of the French Atlantic coastline up 

to Brittany were polluted. Galicia was the most heavily-impacted area as it was closest to the 

wreck site. The Spanish Autonomous Regions of Asturias, Cantabria and the Basque Country 

were also seriously affected, but with lesser intensity. France deployed extensive means to 

contend with pollution at sea. Shoreline contamination did occur, primarily in the form of tar 

balls. Limited oiling also occurred in Portugal (Cedre 2003; ITOPF 2004). 
158

Response to the spill involved numerous means, both at sea and on land, with an unprecedented 

level of international cooperation (ITOPF 2004). Since the Prestige sunk in Spanish waters, 

response became the responsibility of the Spanish Government. All available means for 

recovery were therefore placed under Spanish jurisdiction, as long as the efforts took place in 

Spanish territory. Under the scope of the French-Spanish Biscay Regional Agreement, two 

specialized vessels for oil retrieval, a POLMAR plane, and other technical and specialized 

human means from France were made immediately available to Spain upon request for help, 

which occurred on November 14. On a higher level, the European Commission ensured quick 

diffusion of information, and supply of technical means and economic assistance during a later 

stage of recovery. Each member state willing to assist Spain was responsible for directly 

contacting Spanish authorities under existing agreements (Silvestre 2006). 

A major offshore cleanup operation was carried out by specialized vessels from Spain and nine 

other countries and although efforts were challenged by bad weather, close to 20,000 tons of oily 

waste was recovered as of December 2002. The response fleet was initially under Spanish 

coordination and charter but, as the pollution entered the French EEZ in late December, 

management was shared by the two countries. By then, the slicks had become too fragmented to 

be efficiently retrieved by vessels and their deployment was cancelled. 

Closer to shore and with improved weather conditions, over a thousand fishing vessels assisted 

in cleanup efforts in hopes of precluding further contamination. An estimated total of 40,000 

tons of oily waste was retrieved. About 13 miles of floating booms were placed along the 

coastline of Galicia to prevent contamination of estuaries and other sensitive locations. But their 

use was impaired by rough weather (Cedre 2003; IOPC 2006). The coast of Galicia was 

eventually impacted by three large episodes of incoming oil (Loureiro et al. 2005). 

The irregular and rocky outline of the shoreline often made access to and cleaning of oiled areas 

a difficult task, having to be conducted mostly in a manual fashion. Re-oiling of previously 

cleaned areas by re-mobilization of the oil was also a serious problem (ITOPF 2004; Pérez 

2005). Some 141,000 tons of oily waste was collected in Spain, of which 97,000 tons were 

removed from Galicia. Efforts in France yielded about 18,300 tons of oily waste (ITOPF 2004; 

Loureiro et al. 2006). 

Mobilization of resources occurred at several levels, corresponding to the political organization 

of Spain. The country is divided into 17 Autonomous Regions (Galicia being one), each with a 

local government that has to respond to the central administration in a system that resembles the 

federal government of the U.S. or Germany (Loureiro et al. 2005). The same structure is found 

in several public organizations that may be dependent on regional or central administration. By 

June of 2003, when cleanup efforts on land were mostly concluded, several thousand soldiers, 

contractors, and volunteers were assisting operations (Suárez et al. 2005). 

Media and Public Reactions. The reaction to the spill generated a strong wave of solidarity, 

with thousands of volunteers and seamen participating in the recovery efforts, amidst strong 

criticism and social tension relating to management of the process by local and central 

authorities. Media coverage was unfavourable, even if often sensationalistic (Pérez 2005). In 

the wake of the spill, a broad political platform called “Nunca Máis!” (Never Again!) was 
159

formed. Comprising more than 40 trade unions, cofradías, and environmental non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs), the group became a strong and persistent social outcry of opposition 

(Garcia 2004; Pérez 2005). Protests extended even to scientists. An open letter signed by over 

400 scientists was published in the journa; Science52 (Freire et al. 2006). 

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts of the Spill. According to Loureiro et al. (2006), 

Galicia has suffered five of the eleven major oils spill in Europe in the last three decades, mainly 

due to its proximity to busy shipping routes and the existence of a major port and refinery in La 

Coruña (where the Aegean Sea spill took place). The coast of Galicia, namely the Costa da 

Morte (Coast of Death), is famed for its dangerous waters. Moreover, the region includes several 

estuaries, called Rias Baixas (Loureiro et al. 2005), which include a variety of wetlands, 

sandbanks, and diverse formations of ecological interest (Garza-Gil et al. 2006a). Much of this 

area is protected as reserves or national parks, and human activities such as fishing and tourism 

are common. 

By the end of 2003, more than 1,000 km of Galician coast, including 745 beaches, had been 

affected by the spill. The impact was especially persistent around rocks, cliffs, and other areas, 

where cleanup was difficult or considered unsafe. In addition to effecting high rates of mortality 

for birds and marine mammals, the spill impacted larvae and juveniles of several commercially 

important species (Garza-Gil et al. 2006a; Loureiro et al. 2006; Pérez 2005). 

The largest and most productive fishing fleet of the EU is based in Spain. Nearly one-third of 

the EU’s total tonnage (grt) is produced is produced by Spain, and Galicia fleets alone account 

for ten percent. Nearly 8,000 vessels are based in the Galicia region (Garza-Gil et al. 2005b). 

Fishing and aquaculture employ nearly 35,000 residents, and generate about two percent of the 

region’s gross added value (Garza-Gil et al. 2006a; 2006b). Activity is concentrated in small 

family businesses. The actual number of persons dependent on the industries is much higher 

(Loureiro et al. 2006). Many fishers belong to groups or guilds called cofradías. Seafood 

processing and distribution businesses and other specialized maritime businesses are common in 

the region (Pérez 2005). 

Fishery participants employ multiple gear types and target more than 50 species of fish, 

crustaceans, or other invertebrates. Aquaculture takes places mostly inside the rias, primarily for 

mussels, other shellfish species, and turbot (Garza-Gil et al. 2006b; Loureiro et al. 2006). 

Fishing and shellfishing bans were established in increasingly larger areas of the Spanish coast 

following the spill. These lasted anywhere from two to ten months. In Galicia, about 90 percent of 

the coast was closed for fishing after mid-November. Although compensation was granted to 

fishermen by the local and central Spanish Government with assistance from the EU, the closures 

and subsequent effects on winter holiday sales led to extensive short-term losses to the local 

economy (ITOPF 2004; Garza-Gil et al. 2008b; Loureiro et al. 2006; Pérez 2005). 

 

52 Consult: Serret, P., X.A. Álvarez-Salgado, and A. Bode (2003): Spain’s earth scientists and the oil spill. Science 

299(5606):511. 
160

Tourism was also affected. Tourism businesses contributed nearly six percent of the gross added 

value in the region, and employed about five percent of the work force. A strong tourism 

marketing campaign was instituted to mitigate the effects of the spill (Garza-Gil et al. 2006a; 

Loureiro et al. 2006). 

Damages and costs incurred by the Prestige oil spill have been addressed by several studies (see 

Garza-Gil et al. 2006a; 2005b; Loureiro et al. 2006). Considering the detrimental impacts to 

fisheries, tourism, and local ecosystems, and the initiation of cleanup and restoration efforts, the 

estimated short-term costs in Galicia amounted to €567 million during the period 2002 to 2004. 

For the entire area affected (including the Autonomous Regions of Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria 

and the Basque Country), the short-term costs for this same period amounted to about €770 

million (Garza-Gil et al. 2006a; Loureiro et al. 2006). The costs of cleanup and restoration 

efforts were evaluated by the Spanish Government at €580 million, or 66 percent of the total 

costs, with the extraction of fuel from the sunken tanker amounting to €100 million (Loureiro et 

al. 2005). 

Claims and Litigation. Spain, France, and Portugal presented claims for damages to the 

CLC/IOPC Fund. As of March 16, 2006, 836 compensation claims totalling €838 million had 

been presented in Spain. The Spanish Government alone presented seven claims corresponding 

to €653.5 million. France filed 468 compensation claims totalling €108 million, and Portugal 

filed two compensation claims relative to cleanup and preventive measures totalling €4.3 million 

(IOPC 2006). 

So as to reduce impacts on the local economy, Spanish authorities made direct payments to 

affected individuals and companies, thereby assuming their right to pursue later reimbursement 

of compensation claims. The EU diverted some €75 million from the European Cohesion Fund 

and other sources to cover some of the losses in specific sectors, such as marine fisheries 

(Loureiro et al. 2005; IMO 2006). Under the limits set by the CLC, the London P&I Club made 

€22.8 million available for compensation claims on behalf of the ship owner. Under the 1992 

Fund, an additional €148.7 million were made available, corresponding to a total of €171.5 

million. The Fund proceeded under the equal treatment rule to give equal priority to claims from 

all states. It also deemed the costs of fuel recovery from the wreck as not being eligible under 

1992 Fund rules. As of March 2006, several claims were still being evaluated by the Fund 

(IOPC 2006). 

It is worth remembering that the Prestige accident occurred about one year before the 

implementation of the 50 percent increase in the 1992 Conventions and more than two years 

before the SF 2003 (Oosterveen 2004). The event was therefore not covered by the higher limits 

(IOPC 2006). Under the rules of the CLC/1992 Fund conventions, the ship owner or insurer 

would not be obliged to provide compensation higher than the set limits unless found guilty of 

negligence. Since claims were higher than the Fund’s limits, Spain and the other claimants 

would have to dismantle the limitation of liability to the ship owner/insurer or pursue other likely 

sources of compensation, either by agreement or litigation (Garcia 2004; Loureiro et al. 2006). 

On November 15, Spanish authorities arrested 67-year old Captain Mangouras, Master of the 

Prestige, on charges of failing to cooperate with the authorities during the accident. This action 
161

and the €2.9 million bail demanded for his release raised strong outcries about Spain’s attitude 

toward what was increasingly seen as a scapegoat situation for the faults committed by several 

actors in the event. 

After nearly three months in a high-security prison, bail was paid by the London P&I Club. But 

the Captain would be retained in Spain for two more years under strict conditions before being 

allowed to leave the country. In the meantime, a Spanish judge required a judicial investigation 

of the accident which led to several questions about the conduct of Spanish authorities at the time 

of the accident. 

In Spain, local and central governments faced intense oppositions, with several political 

casualties. Criminal process was initiated in Galicia courts by the “Nunca máis!” platform. In 

the EU forum, some were calling for strict and immediate measures for reprehensible actions. 

Meanwhile, several actors in the maritime world voiced concerns and staged protests about the 

risks of unilateral reactions by the EC (Lloyds 2005; IMO 2006). Coverage in specialized 

publications was intense and reflected ongoing campaigning of legislators, ship owners, and 

others (IMO 2006). 

Over the next months, the inquiry process was heightened in an often conflicting way. On one 

side, the classification society, ABS, was being accused of negligence in the seaworthiness 

certification of the ship. The main accusations dealt with potential flaws in the ship inspection 

process, namely in assessing the structural integrity of the ballast tank and the quality of repairs 

to the steel plating. A later report by ABS refuted these accusations, and auditing by the 

International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) found no major flaws in ABS 

conduct, although it was deemed that there was room for improvements and changes to rules. 

The exact cause of the original gash was not determined, with a collision at sea or a breaking 

wave posited as possible causes. A loud bang was reportedly heard by the crew before the 

accident; stray containers and 200 51-foot logs had been reported lost on the stormy sea some 

hours before. 

The Bahamas Maritime Authority (BMA) was also accused of failing to uphold IMO standards 

on a vessel sailing their flag, as were the insurer and vessel operator. A lengthy report released 

by the BMA two years after the wreck could not find sufficient evidence to pinpoint the initial 

cause of the structural failure that led to the sinking of the ship. Spain contested the accuracy of 

this report and IACS auditing (Lloyds 2005; IMO 2006). 

On the other hand, Spanish authorities were accused of not providing a port of refuge for the 

stricken vessel. Claims were made that the spill would otherwise have been contained, causing 

less environmental damage, and that Spain had failed in its obligation to comply with European 

legislation regarding ports of refuge. But Garcia (2004) contends that Spain and Portugal were 

allowed to order the ship away from their waters under the INTERVENTION Convention.53 

 

53 Referring to the IMO International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution 

Casualties (INTERVENTION),1969. Detailed information regarding the IMO Conventions is available at 

www.imo.org. 
162

Spanish authorities were also accused of being directly responsible for the breaking and sinking 

of the vessel, when they ordered the Prestige to be towed for six days during inclement weather. 

Technical reports pointed that the mechanical stresses so inflicted on the hull far exceeded 

tolerable limits for a proper vessel, and even more so after Spanish engineers allegedly ordered 

that the ship’s engines remain running while in tow. It later came to light that the technical and 

scientific advice supplied to Spanish authorities to legitimate their decision to send the Prestige 

out to sea possibly never existed at all, with the decision being made just a few hours after the 

initial emergency call (Lloyds 2005; IMO 2006). 

As of March 2006, litigation related to the Prestige was taking place on two fronts, in Spain and 

in the U.S. In Galicia’s court of Corcubión, the responsibility of Spanish authorities and those 

related to the ship was still being evaluated by a Spanish judge. In June 2005, this court had 

found that the shipping company’s manager, Universe Maritime, and the ship owner, could both 

be held directly liable for damages. In a move of contested legality, the judge ordered freezing 

of assets and the deposit of €87 million as a security payment. In 2003, the Spanish central 

government also faced litigation via a group of French authorities seeking compensation under 

Spanish administrative legislation for pollution caused to France (Lloyds 2005; IMO 2006). 

The other case involved ABS and the Spanish central government, representing the Kingdom of 

Spain. In May 2003, the central government had filed suit against ABS in a New York District 

Court under charges of negligence and responsibility for the Prestige spill. It claimed $700 

million in damages; addendum clauses would allow for later increases in the claims, since 

recovery operations were still underway. 

Two months later, Spain addressed a request to the EC, asking that ABS be removed from the 

group of classification societies accepted by the EU. In July 2004, the negligence suit against 

ABS was extended to include two ABS units – ABS Group and ABSG Consulting. Also in May 

2003, the Basque Country regional government filed suit against ABS in a Houston District 

Court, on the same grounds as above, claiming $50 million in compensation. Later, in January 

2004, action was extended with a suit against ABSG Consulting (an ABS subsidiary), 

demanding $300 million. 

In November 2005, the Basque Country case was consolidated with proceedings in New York, 

withdrawing the $50 million claim after the central government paid $60.1 million for cleanup 

costs and compensations to the fishing fleet. ABS had asked for the dismissal from both 

claimants, but lost. In turn, ABS filed counterclaims against the Kingdom of Spain for direct 

responsibility of the sinking of the ship (for reasons described above) and violation of 

international law. As of March 2006, litigation was still underway (Lloyds 2005; IMO 2006). In 

October 2004, facing the potential payout of claims, the IOPC Fund Executive Committee 

considered taking direct action against ABS as well. But it declined to do so when the 

implications and costs of litigation were considered (IOPC 2006). 

Aftermath of the Prestige Incident. In the months that followed the Prestige incident, the 

Spanish Government adopted a series of measures (Royal Decrees) targeted at single hull tankers 

and oil pollution. Similar activity was observed in France and other member states (IMO 2006). 
163

One of the most far-reaching reactions to the sinking of the Prestige was seen at the FrancoSpanish summit held in Malaga in November 2002, where both countries agreed to forbid the 

transit of single hull oil-tankers over 15 years old through their respective EEZs. During 

December of 2002, three vessels were expelled from the French and Spanish EEZs as a result of 

this accord, and a fourth was refused entry into Spanish jurisdiction waters (Vivero and Mateos 

2004). This unilateral measure, whose legality was contested as violating the UNCLOS 

provision that ensures the right to innocent passage and freedom of navigation (Blanco-Bázan 

2005), was also adopted by Portugal and Italy (IMO 2006). The intention of banning single hull 

tankers from EU waters was amplified at the European Commission, whose vice-president at the 

time was Spanish national, Loyola de Palacio. 

After intensive discussions, several actions were proposed in early December 2002. Besides 

speeding up and enforcing the adoption of the Erika I and II measures, it was decided that further 

actions be taken to increase port control and maritime safety, instatement of a system of criminal 

sanctions for parties responsible for marine pollution by gross negligence, and adoption of 

international conventions regarding compensation and liability schemes (EU 2002a). Actions 

were also brought against member states delinquent in transposing EU directives. 

Later that same month, the EC would submit another proposal advancing a new timeline for the 

phasing out of single hull tankers, forbidding the transport of heavy grades of oil in single hull 

tankers to or from European ports, and strengthening inspection regimes for single hull tankers 

older than 15 years (EU 2002b). Several regulations and directives regarding maritime safety 

were instated shortly afterwards. 

 

The phasing out of single hull tankers under a deadline previous to the one set by the IMO was 

one of the most problematic measures. Intended to coincide with the OPA 90 timeline, this 

measure set the EU in direct confrontation with the IMO (Hui 2004; Blanco-Bázan 2005). After 

intensive negotiations, changes were agreed upon at the IMO forum to regulations 13G and 13H 

of the MARPOL Convention, effectively meeting the timelines set forth by the IMO, EU, and 

OPA 90. 

A third set of measures was announced on November 23, 2005 by the EC, tackling issues such as 

the expansion of the EU from 15 to 25 member states, and maintaining a healthy maritime sector 

and simultaneously upholding rules that promote maritime safety and protection of the 

environment. The proposals addressed private sector intervention in the liability and 

compensation mechanisms, standards of navigations, operational frameworks for accidents, 

mitigation and later investigations, reinforcement of port state authority, and monitoring of 

classification societies (EU 2005). 

Summary Remarks. Though 22 years apart, the Amoco Cadiz and Prestige accidents illustrate 

what was once known as “governing by disaster” or as Blanco-Bazán (2004) termed it - the 

problem of “politics versus law.” Although events such as these involve relatively small 

amounts of oil vis-à-vis current amounts being spilled (Zia-Mansoor, 2005), and an even smaller 

fraction of the total amounts entering the ocean every year via other anthropogenic sources, large 

oil spills can bear extensive environmental and social effects, and they clearly capture public 
164

Another point illustrated by these two spills is the dialogue (or confrontation) between national 

and regional regimes on one hand, and an international regime on the other (the IMO) in matters 

of global import. The situation requires management of the often conflicting interests of diverse 

actors from diverse parts of the world: ship owners from Europe vs. ship owners from Asia vs.

ship owners from the U.S.; flag states vs. port states; importers vs. exporters of oil; legislators 

and companies in the environment or/and industry in question; even shipyards protected by 

national interests versus those exposed to competition in the global market. The situation also 

touches on the issue of national sovereignty in changing political and legal landscapes, and 

having to face the problems of wanting to move faster or slower than international regimes. The 

OPA 90 and some of the EU’s decisions regarding oil pollution and maritime safety are 

examples of proactive policymaking. 

Another important point relates to the issue of damages caused by spills and related 

compensatory payment. The current international convention of limited liability (Garcia 2004) 

has been under intense discussion (EU 2002a; Faure and Hui 2003). Besides the role that can be 

played by different entities in ensuring high standards of safety and operation as a precautionary 

perspective, there is also the matter of dealing with accidents as they happen and subsequent 

compensation (Faure and Hui 2003). The current three-layered system enjoined by the IMO 

provides an international framework with a compensation ceiling that may prove adequate 

(Blanco-Bazán 2004; Jacobsson 2005), though its adequacy relates to the frequency and 

magnitude of spills and the range of human and environmental considerations that are included 

in the ensuring costs. 

References

Anonymous 

1992a “Amoco Cadiz Builders Settle.” Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 24(9): 427. 

Anonymous 

1992b “Amoco Cadiz Judgment Upheld.” Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 24(4): 178. 

Anonymous 

1992c “Amoco Cadiz Settlement.” Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 24(6): 279. 

British Petroleum 

2006 Corporate Information Available at: 

www.bp.com/subsection.do?categoryId=10andcontentId=2001674. 

Blanco-Bazán, A. 

2004 IMO – Historical highlights in the life of a UN Agency. Journal of the History of 

International Law, Vol. 6: 259–283. 
165

Bloodworth, S. 

1998 Death on the high seas: the demise of TOVALOP and CRISTAL. In Florida State 

University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, Vol. 13(2). Available 

online at: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/132.html. 

Cheminsky, R. 

1987 Superwreck: Amoco Cadiz - 1st edition. William Morrow and Co. USA. 254p. 

Center for Documentation for Research and Experimentations 

2004 Institutional Information. Available at: www.le-cedre.fr. 

Davis, L. 

1998 Environmental Disasters: A Chronicle of Individual, Industrial and Governmental 

Carelessness. Facts on File. New York, USA. 246 p. 

European Union 

2000a Communication from the Commission of the European Parliament and to the Council 

on the Safety of the Seaborne Oil Trade. COM (2000) 142 Final. Commission of the 

European Communities. 121 p. Available online at: http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0142:FIN:EN:PDF. 

European Union 

2000b Communication from the Commission of the European Parliament and to the Council 

on a Second Set of Community Measures on Maritime Safety Following the Sinking 

of the Oil Tanker Erika. COM (2000) 802 Final. Commission of the European 

Communities. 116 p. Available online at: http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0802:FIN:EN:PDF. 

European Union 

2002a Communication from the Commission of the European Parliament and to the Council 

on Improving Safety at Sea in Response to the Prestige Accident. COM(2002) 681 

Final. Commission of the European Communities. 27p. Available online at: 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/maritime/safety/doc/prestige/com_2002_681_de.

pdf. 

European Union 

2002b Communication from the Commission of the European Parliament and to the Council 

amending Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 on the accelerated phasing in of double hull 

or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers and repealing Council 

Regulation (EC) No 2978/94. COM(2002) 780 Final. Commission of the European 

Communities. 13p. Available online at: 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/maritime/safety/doc/prestige/com_2002_0780_en

.pdf. 
166

European Union 

2005 Communication from the Commission - Third package of Legislative Measures on 

Maritime Safety in the European Union. COM(2005) 585 Final. Commission of the 

European Communities. 8p. Available online at: 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/maritime/safety/doc/package3/en/communication

_en.pdf. 

Freire, J., L. Fernández, and R. Muinõ 

2006 Role of the Spanish scientific community in the initial assessment and management of 

the environmental damages caused by the Prestige oil spill. Marine Policy 30 (4), 

July. 

Faure, M. and W. Hui 

2003 The international regimes for the compensation of oil-pollution damage: are they 

effective? Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 

Vol. 12(3): 242-253. 

Garcia, I.P. 

2004 Comment: “Nunca mais!” How current European environmental liability and 

compensation regimes are addressing the Prestige oil spill of 2002. University of 

Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 25(4): 1395-1439. 

Garza-Gil, M.D., A. Prada-Blanco, and M.X. Vázquez-Rodríguez 

2006 Estimating the short-term economic damages from the Prestige oil spill in the 

Galician fisheries and tourism. Ecological Economics 58 (4), July. 

Garza-Gil, M.D., J.C. Surís-Regueiro, and M.V. Varela-Lafuente 

2006 Assessment of economic damages from the Prestige oil spill. Marine Policy 30 (5), 

September. 

Gaskell, N.J.J. 

1985 The Amoco Cadiz: liability issues. In Journal of Energy and Natural Resources 

Law, Vol. 3(3): 169-94. 

Grigalunas, T.A., R.C. Anderson, G.M. Brown, R. Congar, N.F. Meade, and P.E. Sorensen 

1986 Estimating the cost of oil spills: lessons from the Amoco Cadiz incident. Marine 

Resource Economics, Vol. 2(3): 239-62. 

Gundlach, E.R., P.D. Boehm, M. Marchand, R.M. Atlas, D.M. Ward, and D.A. Wolfe 

1983 The fate of Amoco Cadiz oil. Science, Vol. 221(4606): 122-129. 

Hui, W. 

2004 The EU marine oil pollution prevention regime – recent developments. European 

Environmental Law Review, Vol. 13(11): 293-303. 
167

International Maritime Organization 

2006 Information Resources on the “Prestige.” IMO Library Services External Relations 

Office, Information Sheet No. 35. 72p. Available online at: 

http://www.imo.org/Circulars/mainframe.asp?topic_id=904). 

International Oil Pollution Compensation 

2006 Fund report. Available online at: http://www.iopcfund.org/prestige.htm. 

International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation, Ltd 

2004 Case studies information. Available online at: www.itopf.com/index2.html. 

Jacobsson, M. 

2005 The significance of the third tier supplementary fund and the on-going review of the 

international compensation regime. Presented at the Petroleum Association of Japan 

Oil Spill Symposium 2005, Japan. 9p. 

Kasoulides, G. 

1988 “Amoco Cadiz damages awarded.” Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 19(4): 150- 

 151. 

Kbaier, R. and V. Sebek 

1985 New trends in compensation for oil pollution damage. Marine Policy, Vol. 9(4): 269-

279. 

Kiechel, W. 

1979 “The admiralty Case of the Century.” Fortune, Vol. 99(8): 78-89. 

Loureiro, M.L., A. Ribas, E. López, and E. Ojea 

2006 Estimated costs and admissible claims linked to the Prestige oil spill. Ecological 

Economics 59 (1), August.

Lloyds of London 

2005 Salvage case report: Prestige. Available online at: 

https://www.lloydsagency.com/Agency/Salvage.nsf/vwSalvageCases/952F3D178BA

3850580256C7E00573320?OpenDocument. 

Mille, G., D. Munoz, F. Jacquot, L. Rivet, and J.C. Bertrand 

1991 The Amoco Cadiz oil spill: evolution of petroleum hydrocarbons in the Ile Grande 

salt marshes (Brittany) after a 13-year period. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 

Vol. 47: 547–559. 
168

Oosterveen, W. 

2004 Some recent developments regarding liability for damage resulting from oil pollution 

– from the perspective of an EU Member State. Environmental Law Review, Vol. 

6(4): 223-239. 

Pérez, J. D. G. 

2003 Early socio-political and environmental consequences of the Prestige oil spill in 

Galicia. Disasters, Vol. 27(3): 207–223. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing 

Silvestre, D. 

1998 20 YEARS AFTER THE AMOCO CADIZ. Organisation générale de la prévention et 

de la lutte, Rapport de synthèse de l’Atelier 2 - International Scientific Meetings

Preliminary Synthesis. pp: 47-51. Brest, France. 

Silvestre, D. 

2006 Les accords regionaux de cooperation et leur fonctionnement dans la pollution du 

Prestige. Proceedings of 11eme Journeé de Information du Cedre. CEDRE. 9p. 

Available online at: www.le-cedre.fr. under “Publications.” 

Suárez, B., V. Lope, B. Pérez-Gómez, N. Aragonés, F. Rodríguez-Artalejo, F. Marqués, A. 

Guzmán, L.J. Viloria, J.M. Carrasco, J.M. Martín-Moreno, G. López-Abente, and M. Pollán 

2005 Acute health problems among subjects involved in the cleanup operation following 

the Prestige oil spill in Asturias and Cantabria (Spain). Environmental Research, 

Vol. 99: 413-424. 

Thébaud, O., D. Bailly, J. Hay, and J. Pérez 

2003 The cost of oil pollution at sea: an analysis of the process of damage valuation and 

compensation following oil spills. Service d’Economie Maritime, Institut Francais de 

Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer. Centre de Brest, France. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District 

1992 In The Matter Of: Oil Spill By The Amoco Cadiz Off The Coast Of France On March 

16, 1978. Available online at: 

http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/LawandValuation/chapter%201/Documents/AmocoCadi

z.html. 

Vivero, J. L. S. and J. C. R. Mateos 

2004 New factors in ocean governance. From economic to security-based boundaries. 

Marine Policy, Vol. 28: 185-188. 

Zia-Mansoor, F. 

2005 International regime and the EU developments for preventing and controlling vesselsource oil pollution. European Environmental Law Review, Vol. 14(6): 165-174. 
169

Appendix B

List of Archival Sources for Key Monitoring Variables 
170

Key Economic Principles 

Variable Source 

Kodiak Island Borough Population Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 

Kodiak Island Borough Per Capita Income BEA 

Income Indicators BEA 

Place of Residence; Place of Work BEA 

Exported Annual Total Earnings by Place of Work BEA 

Annual Average of Labor Force Involvement Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development (ADOLWD) 

Annual Rate of Employment ADLWD 

Monthly Average of Labor Force Involvement ADLWD 

Seasonal Indices for Labor Force Involvement ADLWD 

Unearned Income Proportion of Total Personal Income BEA 

Transfer Receipts; Dividends, Interest, and Rent BEA 

Per Capita Total Real ADOLWD 

Personal Property Values ADOLWD 

Residential Building Permits & Total Construction Cost ADOLWD 

Local Taxes ADOLWD 

Support Sector Earnings and Employment 

Variable Source 

Annual Earnings by Place of Work 

Fish Harvest; Seafood Manufacturing; Basic; Support; BEA 

Government 

Average Monthly Employment by Sector ADOLWD Seafood Manufacturing; Basic Non-Fish; Support; Government 

Seasonal Indices for Monthly Employment by Major Sector ADOLWD 

Seafood Harvest Average Monthly Employment Estimates ADOLWD; Alaska Department of Fish 

& Game (ADFG) 

Monthly Seafood Harvest Employment by Major Species ADOLWD Herring; Crab and Miscellaneous Shellfish; Salmon; Groundfish 

Monthly Employment by Major Sector ADOLWD 

Business Entry and Exit ADOLWD 

Wage and Salary Earnings ADOLWD Average Monthly Wages by Sector 
171

Seafood Industry Investment and Participation 

Total Salmon Landings and Ex-vessel Value ADFG 

Summary Statistics for Yearly Salmon Landings by Species K. Brennan; ADFG Chinook; Sockeye; Coho; Pink; Chum 

Annual Salmon Landings per Fished Permit by Gear Type ADFG Purse Seine; Gill Net; Beach Seine 

Alaska Pacific Cod Landings and Ex-Vessel Value 

Total Pounds Landed; Total Pounds Landed from State Waters; ADFG 

Total Pounds Landed and Ex-Vessel Value in Port of Kodiak 

Monthly Range of Groundfish Landings from State and Federal 

Waters (all species) ADFG 

Landings and Earnings: All Fisheries; Groundfish Fisheries; Crab 

Fisheries; Halibut Fisheries; Salmon Stephanie Carlson; CFEC Special 

Total Pounds Landed; Estimated Gross Earnings; Gross Earnings Tabulation 

per Pound Landed 

Productivity and Effort per Permit, All Fisheries; Groundfish 

Fisheries; Crab Fisheries; Halibut Fisheries; Salmon ADFG 

Effort #1: Number of Fishermen to Permits Fished; Effort #2: 

Permits Fished to Permits Issued; Productivity: Pounds Landed 

per Permits Fished 

ADFG 

Kodiak City; Larsen Bay; Akhiok* ADFG 

Permits Issued and Fished, All Fisheries; Landings and Earnings, 

Combined Fisheries; Productivity and Effort per Permit, 

Combined Fisheries; *Salmon Permits Issued and/or Fished 

ADFG 

Kodiak Management Area Salmon Fisheries ADFG 

Number of Fishermen Who Fished (%);Number of Permit 

Holders (%);Total Pounds Landed ADFG 

Kodiak Management Area Salmon Fisheries Gross Earnings ADFG 

Earnings for All Residents; Earnings for Kodiak Residents ADFG 

KMA Limited Entry Permit Ownership by Resident Type, Combined 

Salmon Fisheries Tide et al.; CFEC Special Tabulation Foreclosures; Non-resident; Other Alaska; Kodiak City; Kodiak 

Island – Rural 

KMA Limited Entry Permit Ownership Proportions by Resident 

Type, Combined Salmon Fisheries (%) Tide et al.; CFEC Special Tabulation 

Non-resident; Other Alaska; Kodiak City; Kodiak Island – Rural 

Average Number of Kodiak Management Area Salmon Permits Held 

by Resident Type ADFG 

Foreclosures; Non-resident; Other Alaska; Kodiak City; Kodiak 

Island – Rural ADFG 

Cumulative Changes in Permits Held Salmon and Roe Herring 

Limited Entry Permits ADFG 

Cumulative Transfers In and Out by Resident Type 

Salmon and Roe Herring Permits ADFG 

Salmon: Purse Seine Fishery; Set Net Fishery; Beach Seine Fishery; 

Roe Herring Fishery ADFG 

Limited Entry Permit Ownership by Resident Type ADFG 

Foreclosures; Non-resident; Other Alaska; Kodiak City; 

Kodiak Island – Rural ADFG 

Harvest ADFG 

Earnings ADFG 

Permit Value ADFG 
172

Labor Supply 

Variable Source 

Kodiak Island Borough Labor Force Participation U.S. Census Bureau 

Kodiak Island Borough Work Effort 

Population Working 1-26 Weeks/Year; Population Working 27-52 ADOLWD; U.S. Census Bureau 

Weeks/Year 

Employment Seasonality ADOLWD 

Employment Distribution U.S. Census Bureau 

Patterns of Population Change 

Variable Source 

Kodiak Island Borough Population ADOLWD Year; Population; Net Change; Rate of Change (%) 

Components of Population Change 

Start Population; Total Change; Percent Change; Births; Deaths; ADOLWD 

Natural Increase; Net Migrants 

Population Mobility 

Moved to Kodiak: From Other Places in Alaska; From Other Places U.S. Census Bureau 

in U.S.; From Outside U.S.; Gross Rate of In-migration 

Composition by Age and Gender U.S. Census Bureau 

Composition by Race ADOLWD White; Native American; African American; Asian/Pacific Islander 

Subsistence Participation 

Variable Source 

Kodiak Management Area Subsistence Salmon Harvest ADFG 

Population Ratios: Permits Held and Salmon Harvest ADFG 

Kodiak Community Subsistence Participation ADFG 

Percent of all Households; All Subsistence Resources ADFG Consumption per Person; Percent Using; Percent Harvesting 

Percent of all Households Harvesting 

Fish; Salmon; Land Mammals; Marine Mammals; Other ADFG 

Resources 

Kodiak Subsistence Sharing (%) ADFG Harvesting; Receiving; Giving; Ratio: Giving/Harvesting 

Community Factors 

Variable Source 

Community Population ADOLWD Count; Share of Total; Rate of Growth (%) 

American Indian/Alaska Native Population Proportion U.S. Census Bureau 

Community Income U.S. Census Bureau Per Capita; Percent of Households with Earnings; Median Income 
173

Appendix C:

Project Poster from Alaska Marine Science Symposium 2006