SUBSISTENCE HARVESTS AND USES IN CHENEGA BAY AND TATITLEK IN THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL

By

James A. Fall, Lee Stratton, Philippa Coiley, Louis Brown, Charles J. Utermohle, and Gretchen Jennings

Excerpted from Alaska Department of Fish and Game Technical Paper No. 199, August 1996

SUBSISTENCE USES OF FISH AND WILDLIFE IN THE 1980s

In the 1980s, Tatitlek and Chenega Bay were examples of Alaska communities with "subsistence-based socioeconomic systems" (Wolfe and Walker 1987). Subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering were fundamental parts of the communities' economy, culture, and way of life. For detailed descriptions of contemporary subsistence use patterns in these communities prior to the oil spill, the reader should consult Stratton and Chisum (1986) for Chenega Bay and Stratton (1990) for Tatitlek (cf. The North Pacific Rim 1981). What follows is a brief synopsis of subsistence uses of fish and wildlife in the two communities before the Exxon Valdez spill.

Household participation in subsistence harvesting and use of fish and wildlife was virtually universal in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek in the 1980s. In Tatitlek in 1987/88 and again in 1988/89, every household in the village used wild foods, and every household harvested subsistence resources (Stratton 1990:72). In 1984/85 in Chenega Bay, the first year after the resettlement, 100 percent of the households used subsistence foods and 93.8 percent had successful harvesters. In the following year (1985/86), every household in Chenega Bay used and harvested wild foods (Stratton and Chisum 1986:61).

In the 1980s, the range of resources used for subsistence purposes in Tatitlek and Chenega Bay was among the most diverse in Alaska. During the first year of resettlement (1984/85), Chenega Bay households on average used 16.9 kinds of wild resources and harvested 10.4 kinds. In 1985/86, the first full year that most households lived in the new community, a total of 46 categories of wild resources were used in Chenega Bay. On average, in 1985/86 Chenega Bay households used 20.6 kinds of wild resource in that year, and harvested an average of 13.7 kinds. These are likely a minimum accounting of the diversity of resource uses in Chenega Bay in the early years of the resettlement, in that data were collected for several broad categories such as "other clams" (other than razor clams), "ducks", and "geese" (Stratton and Chisum 1986:61-64).

A more detailed assessment of the range of species used in Tatitlek is available for two pre-spill years, 1987/88 and 1988/89. In the first year, the average household in Tatitlek used 19.6 different kinds of wild resources, and harvested 11.7 kinds. In the following year, the household average was 22.6 kinds used and 13.7 kinds harvested. At least 75 different kinds of subsistence resources were used by at least one household in Tatitlek in at least one of these study years (Stratton 1990:61-65). Using the more limited list of resources used to collect data in Chenega Bay, the range of resources used and harvested in Tatitlek in the two years before the spill was very similar to that of Chenega Bay in the mid 1980s.

As measured in pounds usable weight per person, subsistence harvests in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek in the 1980s were among the highest in southcentral Alaska. In the first full year at the new village (1984/85), the residents of Chenega Bay harvested 316.4 pounds of wild foods per person.1 In the second year (1985/86), the harvest increased to 375.1 pounds per person. It is likely that subsistence harvests in Chenega Bay continued to increase in the years following the resettlement as households "geared up" and familiarity with harvest areas grew (Stratton and Chisum 1986:113).

In Tatitlek, the estimated subsistence harvest was 352.5 pounds per person in 1987/88 and 643.5 pounds per person in 1988/89. This notable increase in the estimated harvest levels between the two years was probably due to several factors, including liberalization of restrictive subsistence salmon harvest regulations for the 1988/89 season, participation of very active harvesting households in the second year's survey who had declined to participate in the first year's research, and the inactivity of several normally active harvesters in 1987/88 because of health and equipment reasons. Stratton (1990:83) concluded that while the estimate for 1987/88 was probably low because several key harvesting families did not participate in the survey, a real increase in harvest levels had occurred between the two years. Compared to non-commercial harvests of other southcentral Alaska communities, the estimated harvest levels for Chenega Bay and Tatitlek are relatively high. Subsistence harvests at Chenega Bay and Tatitlek in the 1980s were consistently higher than those of such mid-sized coastal communities as Cordova (163.8 pounds per person in 1985, 233.8 pounds per person in 1988), Homer (93.8 pounds per person in 1982), Kodiak (city and road-connected area) (147.8 pounds per person in 1982/83), and Kenai (37.8 pounds per person in 1982). Furthermore, their harvest levels were in the same range or exceeded those of most other coastal and riverine Alaska Native communities of southcentral Alaska. Further evidence of the importance of subsistence harvests in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek is provided by a comparison with data on food purchases in American households. The average family in the western United States in the late 1970s purchased about 222 pounds of meat, fish, and poultry per person per year (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1983). With subsistence harvests in the 300 to 600 pound range, it is evident that in the 1980s subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering were providing families in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek with a substantial portion of their food.

Marine mammals (primarily harbor seals and sea lions) were particularly significant, forming about a fifth of Tatitlek's subsistence harvests in 1987/88 and 1988/89. In Chenega Bay, marine mammal harvests made up 37.6 percent of the harvest in 1985/86 and almost half (47.3 percent) in 1984/85. Other resource categories making up relatively large portions of the total harvests in each community were salmon, fish other than salmon (such as halibut, rockfish, and herring spawn), and land mammals (primarily deer, but also mountain goats and black bears).

Another important aspect of subsistence uses in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek in the 1980s was the widespread sharing of wild resources among households and families. For example, in 1987/88 and again in 1988/89, every household in Tatitlek received gifts of wild foods from other households. Every sampled household in 1987/88 also gave away portions of their harvests to others, as did 95.2 percent in 1988/89. On average, Tatitlek households received 12.3 different kinds of wild resources in 1987/88 and 13.4 kinds in 1988/89. Households gave away on average 9.7 kinds of subsistence resources in 1987/88 and 12.8 kinds the following year (Stratton 1990:65,72).

There was a similar pattern in Chenega Bay. In 1984/85, every household received wild foods and 87.5 percent gave away resources. In 1985/86, 93.8 percent of the households received subsistence resources and 87.5 percent gave away portions of their harvests. The average number of resources received per household was 10.4 in 1984/85 and 9.2 in 1985/86, and the average number given away was 8.4 in 1984/85 and 6.5 in the following year.

Subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering structured much of the economic activities in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek in the 1980s. It should be noted that spring (April - May) is a particularly important harvest period for the communities, with renewed harvesting activities for diverse resources such as herring spawn on kelp, clams and other marine invertebrates, birds, seaweed, gull eggs, and salmon.

As with other most other communities in Alaska with a subsistence-based way of life, hunters and fishermen in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek harvested resources in definable territories. For residents of these villages, it was very rare to travel outside the Prince William Sound area for harvesting activities. Tatitlek residents used much of the waters and coastlines of the sound for subsistence purposes.2 Tatitlek's contemporary harvest subsistence area resembles the historic pattern of the Tatitlarmiut regional group from which many of Tatitlek's families are descended (Stratton 1990:87). For both communities, travel to harvest areas was either on foot for areas close to the villages or, more frequently, with small skiffs and outboard motors. The few households which owned commercial fishing vessels used them in support of subsistence activities as well. No households in either community owned planes, and use of airplanes in subsistence harvesting was virtually nonexistent. An exception was for residents of one community to fly to visit relatives and friends in the other; during such visits, some subsistence harvesting might take place. For example, a few Chenega Bay residents participated in herring spawn on kelp fisheries near Tatitlek (Stratton and Chisum 1986:77).

RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION AND EXCHANGE

Several emergency programs to provide residents of Chenega Bay and Tatitlek with subsistence foods were organized after the spill. When conducting the household interviews, researchers asked respondents to distinguish between incidents of sharing that involved these emergency programs, and cases in which they received gifts of wild foods from traditional sources, such as family members or friends, whether in their home community or other communities. This was done in order to collect information more comparable with data from other years. The first two sections below focus on traditional sharing patterns that occurred after the spill, while the third section discusses resources which were received through emergency channels organized because of the spill.

Traditional Sharing of Wild Resources

In the 1989/90 study year, 77.8 percent of the households in Chenega Bay received gifts of wild foods from people living in other households and communities, compared to 100 percent of the households in 1984/85, and 93.8 percent 1985/86. Also, 77.8 percent of the Chenega Bay households gave away wild resources in 1989/90; in 1984/85 and in 1985/86, 87.5 percent shared wild harvests with others. In Tatitlek, 95.5 percent of the households received subsistence resources in 1989/90, compared to 100 percent in both 1987/88 and 1988/89. Additionally, 86.4 percent of the households in Tatitlek gave away subsistence resources. This compares to 100 percent of the households in 1987/88 and 95.2 percent in 1988/89.

The range of resources shared in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek dropped markedly in the 12 months after the spill. In Chenega Bay, households received on average 3.5 kinds of wild foods in 1989/90, compared to 10.4 kinds in 1984/85 and 9.2 kinds in 1985/86 (adjusted values). Similarly, in Tatitlek, the average number of resources received per household was 5.8 in 1989/90, down from 11.7 in 1987/88 and 12.7 in 1988/89 (adjusted values). On average, Chenega Bay households gave away 3.4 kinds of wild resources in 1989/90, notably lower than the 8.4 kinds received in 1984/85 and 6.5 kinds in 1985/86. In Tatitlek, the average number of resources given away was 4.4 per household in 1989/90, compared to 8.9 in 1987/88 and 11.3 in 1988/89.

The oil spill affected traditional resource exchanges in more subtle psychological ways. At Tatitlek in August 1989, a seal hunter told a division researcher that he had recently harvested a seal, part of which he had given to another household. His gift made him uneasy. He felt compelled several times to visit this household for fear that his gift unintentionally might have "poisoned" them. The household was not poisoned. But in fact, this other household used none of the seal organs they had received due to caution -- if the seal had been exposed to oil, they reasoned it would be safest if they discarded the internal organs which under normal circumstances they would have eaten. Because of the oil spill, gifts of food carried an unusual health risk burden which made both giver and receiver feel unsettled and worried about their family's personal health and safety.

Resource Distributions between Communities

Chenega Bay households overall were involved in resource exchanges with 10 other communities in 1989/90. Only about 17 percent of the community's households (three sampled households) were involved in inter-community exchanges in 1989/90. Comparable quantified data for pre-spill years are not available, but it is very likely that inter-community sharing dropped substantially in the spill year, similar to inter-household sharing within the community, because of low harvests. Herring spawn was one shared resource affected in this way. Before the spill, Chenega Bay households regularly received gifts of herring spawn from friends and relatives in Tatitlek, but harvests of spawn were virtually zero in 1989 and the sharing between Tatitlek and Chenega Bay did not occur.

Like Chenega Bay, few Tatitlek households received resources from or gave resources to households living in other communities in 1989/90. This also indicates a disruption of previous sharing patterns, when Tatitlek harvesters provided resources to friends and relatives in Chenega Bay and Cordova (e.g. Reynolds 1993:214-215,219).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

It's been disheartening, not feeling free to go out and enjoy [my] "back yard" like I used to. It's frustrating and disheartening. It has almost made me want to leave. . . A lot of the folks don't want to go out [hunting and fishing]. They don't feel like eating the food. You don't know what to expect if you do eat it. What the oil is doing to the food chain is a big unknown. I don't want to take any chances by eating deer [because of] the fear of the unknown [about] how the oil is affecting the food chain, [the] fish, mammals, [and] everything else. It feels like the environment is unclean right now. There's not as much desire to get out and get everything we have gotten before. I've missed being out in nature. I want to get back out in the water. --Respondent, Chenega Bay, April 1990

This statement by a resident of Chenega Bay summarizes many of the findings of this study concerning the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek during the first year after the spill. The spill caused uncertainty, confusion, fear, sadness, and anger. It brought severe impacts to the area. Thousands of miles of coastline were oiled. Thousands of animals died. Thousands of strangers arrived to work on the cleanup. Few would say with certainty what the long-term effects of the oil would be on the natural resources of the area. Health bulletins advised caution concerning using wild foods.

The Alutiiq people of Chenega Bay and Tatitlek have maintained a close dependence on the fish and wildlife resources of Prince William Sound. They are dependent on them economically, socially, and culturally. As in much of rural Alaska, a mixed subsistence-cash economy has evolved to support each community. Community residents, usually working with groups of kin, normally harvest a diversity of species in substantial quantities each year, providing a large portion of the food in each village. Subsistence resources are shared frequently with relatives, elders, and others who do not harvest foods themselves. Hunters and fishermen travel to traditional harvest areas for subsistence activities, areas that are linked to traditional territories of Alutiiq ancestors. Subsistence activities provide a context in which young people learn the skills and values of adulthood. Opportunities to earn cash are commonly limited from year to year. Commercial fishing has provided a large portion of the jobs and cash income in both communities over the past few decades.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill severely impacted the subsistence-based features of the way of life in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek in the year following the spill

REGIONAL PATTERNS OF SUBSISTENCE USES IN THE YEAR AFTER THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL

In 1989, oil from the Exxon Valdez fouled waters and beaches from Prince William Sound to over 580 miles away along the Alaska Peninsula. The oil spill impacts in Prince William Sound can be compared with effects documented in communities in lower Cook Inlet (Stanek, forthcoming), the Kodiak Island Borough (Mishler and Cohen, forthcoming), and the Alaska Peninsula (Fall et al. 1995). In the year following the oil spill, subsistence harvests dropped compared to pre-spill averages in 10 study communities of Prince William Sound (Chenega Bay and Tatitlek), lower Cook Inlet (Nanwalek and Port Graham), and the Kodiak Island Borough (Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions). Declines ranged from 77 percent in Ouzinkie to 9 percent in Akhiok. In contrast, five Alaska Peninsula communities at the margin of the spill (Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Lake, Ivanof Bay, and Perryville) showed little change (or, in Chignik Lake, a large increase) in harvest levels compared to the single pre-spill harvest estimate. At a regional level, subsistence harvests showed the greatest decline in the two Prince William Sound villages closest to the initial spill itself (56.9 percent), followed by the Kodiak Island Borough communities (49.9 percent decline), and lower Cook Inlet (48.3 percent decline). Harvests in the Alaska Peninsula communities increased by 18.4 percent, due in large part to increased harvests of caribou at Chignik Lake (Fall et al. 1995).

Prince William Sound showed the greatest declines in other measures of subsistence activities compared with other regions. The variety of resources used for subsistence purposes dropped 52.6 percent in 1989/90 in Prince William Sound, compared to 46.7 percent in lower Cook Inlet and 27.3 percent on Kodiak Island. Declines in household participation in subsistence activities were greatest in Prince William Sound (followed by lower Cook Inlet and then Kodiak Island), as demonstrated by the average number of resources attempted to harvest per household and the average number of resources harvested per household. Declines in the number of resources received per household were also greatest in Chenega Bay and Tatitlek (down 57.5 percent) with lower Cook Inlet second (down 46.3 percent), and the Kodiak Island Borough third (down 16.7 percent). For the average number of resources given away per household, again the largest decline was in Prince William Sound (down 56.0 percent), followed by lower Cook Inlet (down 32.1 percent) and the Kodiak Island Borough communities (down 4.0 percent).

Households' assessments of changes and reasons they offered for change are consistent with these regional patterns. Fully 97.4 percent of the Prince William Sound households reduced their uses of at least one subsistence resource because of the spill, similar to the 93.8 percent of lower Cook Inlet households, but notably higher than the 50.6 percent of Kodiak Island Borough households and 41.6 percent of Alaska Peninsula households. 84.2 percent of the interviewed Prince William Sound households reported that their overall uses of subsistence resources had declined because of the oil spill, compared to 84.0 percent for lower Cook Inlet, 39.8 percent for the Kodiak Island Borough, and 22.8 percent for the Alaska Peninsula. Prince William Sound households were also most likely to have reduced their overall subsistence uses (65.8 percent) or their uses of at least one subsistence food (92.1 percent) because of oil contamination concerns.

These findings correspond with the relative intensity of oiling and cleanup activities that took place in each region in 1989. About 47.2 percent of the oiled shorelines in Prince William Sound in 1989 were classified as heavily or moderately oiled, compared to 7.9 percent of the rest of the oil spill area. About 77.5 percent of the oiled areas outside the sound were "very lightly oiled," while in the sound itself, just 18.6 percent of the shorelines were so classified. The sound also was the primary focus of cleanup activities and animal rescues, and remains the focus of oil spill restoration efforts. As the people of Chenega Bay and Tatitlek experienced the worst of the spill and its aftermath, it is not surprising that their subsistence uses show the greatest degree of negative impacts.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of the oil spill on subsistence uses will likely persist well beyond the first year after the Exxon Valdez hit Bligh Reef. It appears that as long as residents of Chenega Bay and Tatitlek believe that significant amounts of oil remain in their environment, many will continue to refrain from using certain subsistence foods. The following report from Gail Evanoff (1990) of Chenega Bay appeared in October 1990, more than 18 months after the spill. The report indicated that people of the village,

Have eaten only a small fraction of the foods they ordinarily live on daily. They reported that indications from wildlife around them make the people very uncomfortable, and they are afraid to harvest subsistence food. An abnormal seal liver, ordinarily firm, was soft and runny. The arm of a starfish fell apart when pulled from the rocks. They have reported several dead eagles and sea gulls, a dead bear and a blind sea lion found during the past month, highly unusual occurrences prior to the spill.

For the people of Chenega Bay and Tatitlek, who had long relied on their observations of the natural environment for survival, these signs more than a year after the spill continued to warn of danger. They continued to respond in a culturally appropriate way -- with caution. As long as these signs last and people are not confident in their own abilities to interpret and understand their environment, recovery from the Exxon Valdez disaster will remain incomplete. 1 For this report, harvest estimates for Chenega Bay for 1984/85 were revised using updated conversion factors in order to be consistent with current methods. Therefore, these estimates differ slightly from those appearing in earlier technical papers and earlier editions of the Community Profile Database. See Appendix D for the revised harvest data. 2 Maps which depict the subsistence harvest areas of Tatitlek residents at a resource category level are available for inspection at the Anchorage office of the Division of Subsistence, ADF&G (333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK, 99518) or at the Tatitlek Village IRA Council office in Tatitlek. These maps have not been published at the request of the Tatitlek Council because of concerns about confidentiality, given the increased attention the Prince William Sound area has received since the oil spill and growing recreational uses in the sound (Stratton 1990:5)