Subsistence. Restoration. By James A. Fall Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Transcription

1 September 1999 n o t e Restoration Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council b o o k Photo by Bill Simeone Subsistence By James A. Fall Alaska Department of Fish and Game Human communities have existed in Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and the Gulf of Alaska for at least 7,000 years. This is the traditional territory of the Alutiiq, whose way of life has always been oriented towards the shorelines and the sea.1 Although they were among the first Alaska Natives to experience Euro-American exploration and colonization, the Alutiiq have maintained a culture based upon subsistence uses of fish and wildlife and other Alaska Native traditions.2 Many other people who have settled in the area also have adopted a subsistence way of life. In Alaska, subsistence refers to noncommercial, customary and traditional uses of fish, game, and wild plants for food, fuel, tools, clothing, handicrafts, and sharing. It is a vital component of the economy in rural Alaska and provides a means for passing on cultural values, traditional knowledge, and key survival skills from one generation to the next. In short, subsistence supports a distinctive, vibrant way of life. The subsistence cycle begins in the spring with harvests of herring and herring spawn as well as halibut, Dolly Varden, rockfish, smelt, and cod. Spring harvests also provide invertebrates (such as clams, octopus, and chitons), birds, eggs, harbor seals, and sea lions. Summer is traditionally the busiest time of year, when people harvest and preserve large quantities of salmon for winter use. Tamuuq, uumatak, and ataneq are products made from dry salmon that are staples in each community s diet. Autumn also is important for salmon fishing, as well as Restoration Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 1

2 On the cover: Mike Totemoff of Tatitlek fleshes a harbor seal skin. The fat will be rendered into oil and the skin used for crafts and clothing. Figure 1. A 1990 survey of subsistence users showed a dramatic decline in subsistence harvests in most subsistence communities within the spill region. Percent Change Compared to Pre-spill Average 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% -100% for hunting, gathering marine invertebrates, and harvesting wild plants. Subsistence activities in winter include hunting, marine fishing, gathering chitons, clams, and other invertebrates along the beaches, and trapping. Participation in subsistence is nearly universal in Alutiiq communities. Most harvesters share their bounty with relatives, elders, and others in need. Extended families work together to harvest and process wild foods. Cultural values and the traditional knowledge about resources, geography, and weather are shared across generations during subsistence activities, which most often take place within definable village harvest areas. Effects of the spill The Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 1989 fouled waters and beaches used for subsistence purposes by residents of 15 Alaska Native villages and by other subsistence users in larger rural communities (see map, page 7). These communities had a combined population of 15,200 in In the 1980s, subsistence harvests in these communities ranged from 200 to 600 pounds per person per year, providing a large portion of each community s food supply. By comparison, a 1970s study showed that families in the western United States purchased annually an average of Figure Changes in Subsistence Harvests after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, 15 Study Communities of the Oil Spill Area -57% -56% -51% -47% -52% CHENEGA BAY 1990 survey TATITLEK NANWALEK PORT GRAHAM -77% OUZINKIE PORT LIONS -32% LARSEN BAY -59% KARLUK Increased caribou harvests account for 57% of this change. -40% OLD HARBOR -9% AKHIOK 9% CHIGNIK BAY -6% CHIGNIK LAGOON about 222 pounds per person of meat, fish, and poultry.3 In the year after the spill, subsistence harvests declined by as much as 77 percent in the 10 villages of Prince William Sound, lower Cook Inlet, and Kodiak Island (Figure 1). As one Ouzinkie man explained, No one s eating anything out of the ocean anymore. In addition, the diversity of resources used for subsistence decreased, the sharing of resources was reduced, and the teaching of skills and knowledge about natural resources was disrupted.4 The primary reason for the decline was fear that oil contamination had rendered the resources unsafe to eat. In a 1990 survey of households throughout the spill region, concern about contamination was expressed by 92 percent of villagers in Prince William Sound, 78 percent in lower Cook Inlet, 51 percent in the Kodiak Island Borough, and 42 percent on the Alaska Peninsula.4 Some animals were obviously oiled and not edible. However, it was uncertain to subsistence users if those without signs of oiling might also cause acute or chronic health problems. Abnormal behaviors in wildlife, such as seals which did not flee when approached by hunters, also raised questions about the spill s effects. Alaska Native traditions taught caution in such situations. Consequently, subsistence users rejected advice from health officials that sight, smell, and taste alone (the organoleptic test ) was sufficient to determine food safety. 5,6 As a 60% person from Chenega explained: CHIGNIK LAKE 5% IVANOF BAY -1% PERRYVILLE 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... It feels like the environment is unclean right now. 2 Restoration Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council

3 Pounds per Person Figure Subsistence Figure 2. Subsistence Harvests in Three Harvests Region by before region and after the before and after Exxon the Valdez Exxon Oil Valdez Spill Oil Spill. Pre-spill Average 89 Pre-spill Average 1989 (spill year) Pre-spill Average Prince William Sound Lower Cook Inlet Kodiak Island Borough Subsistence after the first post-spill year Subsistence uses rebounded somewhat two years after the spill (Figure 2). Harvests, resource diversity, effort, and sharing all increased. Recovery was greatest in communities most distant from Prince William Sound. Renewed confidence in the safety of subsistence resources played a role in this recovery, although many households returned to subsistence uses for economic and cultural reasons despite their misgivings. As one Nanwalek resident explained: In 1989, we had nothing. In 1990, we were scared and confused. We didn t know if we should eat [subsistence foods] or not. This year [1991], we re going to go for it. We don t care if we die or not. We live mainly on subsistence anyway. By 1993, the estimated size of the subsistence harvest and participation in subsistence activities appeared to have returned to prespill levels in some communities, with the harvest rebounding first in the communities of the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island, and the lower Kenai Peninsula and lagging behind a year or more in the Prince William Sound communities. 7 Continuing impacts to subsistence uses included: uncertainty about the wholesomeness of key subsistence resources; reduced availability of many subsistence species (such as seals, octopus, herring, and waterfowl); and reduced efficiency (and therefore increased costs) in subsistence harvesting due to scarcity and lower Pre-spill Average quality. In combination, these resulted in lost opportunities for young people to learn the subsistence way of life. Subsistence 10 years after the spill In 1998, with Trustee Council funding, ADF&G s Subsistence Division and the Chugach Regional Resources Commission collaborated in a study to update information about subsistence in Figure 2. Harvest levels by 1998 had returned to near normal throughout the spill region, although 63 percent of residents interviewed said that subsistence resources have not yet recovered from the spill. The increased harvests reflect increased effort and increasing use of fish to make up for less abundant harbor seals, birds, clams, and crab. the spill area.8 Interviews were conducted with 372 households in eight communities. These interviews indicated that subsistence continues to recover from the effects of the oil spill, but has not fully recovered. The percentage of households who reported that subsistence uses are lower than before the spill declined. Concerns about food safety and effects on the traditional lifestyle lessened. Concerns about resource availability and greater harvest effort remained, but harvest levels in all communities were near prespill levels (Figure 2). Subsistence harvests in 1998 varied among communities from pounds per person usable weight, indicating continued strong dependence on subsistence resources. Overall, 63% of the households said that subsistence resources have not recovered from the effects of the spill. Subsistence users continued to report scarcities of important resources, including harbor seals, herring, clams, and crab. These observations are generally consis A traditional feast of subsistence foods was part of an Elders/Youth Conference on subsistence held in Cordova in The conference was one means in which research scientists and Native subsistence users exchanged information about the ecology of the spill region. Salmon, bear, moose, seal, and berries were just some of the foods served. Photo by Susan Harding Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Restoration 3

4 tent with scientific studies funded by the Trustee Council that continue to find that some subsistence species (e.g., harbor seals, herring, clams) have not recovered from the spill. According to some interviews, the increasing subsistence harvests reflect greater effort (traveling farther, spending more time and money) than was required before the spill. It also reflects increased reliance on fish. For example, in Chenega Bay, marine mammals made up about 40% of the subsistence harvest before the spill, but just 3% in 1998, while fish increased from 34% pre-spill to 76% ten years later. In many communities, shellfish harvests have also declined. In Ouzinkie, for example, harvests of shellfish dropped from 41 pounds per person before the spill to 8 pounds in The cultural and nutritional importance of each resource varies, and these changes in diet composition remain a serious concern to subsistence users. This decline in shellfish consumption reflects food safety concerns as well as reduced availability of shellfish. From , subsistence foods were tested for evidence of hydrocarbon contamination, with no or very low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons found in most foods. However, because some shellfish can readily accumulate hydrocarbons, subsistence users have been advised not to eat shellfish from beaches where oil can be seen or smelled on the surface or subsurface. By 1998, a large majority of those interviewed expressed confidence about The Oil Spill Health Task Force 5,9 In the months following the spill, an Oil Spill Health Task Force (OSHTF) was formed with participation by several state and federal agencies, Native organizations, and Exxon. The task force was formed to help guide subsistence users on what resources were safe for consumption. The OSHTF coordinated research on subsistence food safety, tried to develop a consensus on health issues, and communicated findings and advice to villages. The OSHTF reported that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) come in two basic forms: 1) those with low molecular weights, which cause acute effects but dissipate relatively quickly; and 2) those with high molecular weights, which cause chronic health effects such as cancer, and can persist in the environment for a long time, becoming increasingly difficult to detect with human senses. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ran tests on 312 samples of fish, 1,061 samples of marine invertebrates, and samples from 43 harbor seals and sea lions. Texas A& M University analyzed samples from 19 sea ducks and 15 deer. NOAA convened an expert toxicology committee in early 1990 to review the results and develop health advice. The basic advice was: Levels of hydrocarbons in fish were so low as to not be a health concern. There was no need to restrict consumption, but some collected at oiled beaches had elevated PAH tion of fish. Most marine invertebrates had little to no contaminatence users were advised not to use marine invertebrates levels. While the risk was low, it was avoidable. Subsisfrom beaches with surface or subsurface oiling. Levels of PAHs in marine mammals, ducks, and deer were all deemed safe, although levels in the blubber of oiled seals were elevated; seals tested in later years had very low to nondetectable PAH levels in their fat. To communicate this advice, the OSHTF held village meetings, published newsletters, bulletins, and brochures, and produced an informational video. But, for several reasons, some subsistence users were skeptical about the information and remained cautious. There were no government guidelines concerning safe and unsafe PAH levels. Specific information that villages wanted about particular beaches was lacking. Cultural definitions about food safety advised against eating resources which are sick or injured, even if deemed safe to eat. The embargo due to litigation on the release of data from natural resource damage assessment studies raised questions about whether the OSHTF had access to all the essential information. The involvement of Exxon raised the issue of a conflict of interest. The last OSHTF meeting took place in August When asked what might finally convince all villagers that subsisthe tence foods were safe to eat, the answer was: Get the oil off beaches. Photo by Roy Corral 4 Restoration Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council

5 most foods except certain shellfish, such as clams, and concerns about the presence of PSP (paralytic shellfish poisoning) in clams outweighed concerns about lingering hydrocarbon contamination. Overall, 68% of the people interviewed in 1998 said that the traditional way of life of their communities has not yet recovered from the effects of the spill; 14% said recovery has taken place, and the rest were not sure. Many survey respondents cited a weakened role of elders, the failure of youth to learn subsistence skills, and less sharing as evidence of the incomplete recovery. On the other hand, 91% said that efforts such as spirit camps were doing a good job at teaching subsistence skills and values. When asked what can be done to help restore the traditional way of life, the most frequent suggestions were more educational efforts such as spirit camps and elders/youth conferences, restoration of injured resource populations, and more time for people and resources to heal. Restoration activities In 1994, the Trustee Council adopted a Restoration Plan that contained the following recovery objective for subsistence uses: Subsistence will have recovered when injured resources used for subsistence are healthy and productive and exist at pre-spill levels, and when people are confident that the resources are safe to eat. One indication that recovery has occurred is when the cultural values provided by gathering, preparing, and sharing food are reintegrated into community life. Subsistence restoration has focused on enhancing subsistence resources (such as salmon and clams), restoring confidence in subsistence foods, and involving communities and applying local knowledge in the restoration process. Involvement of subsistence users A comprehensive approach to subsistence restoration centered on community involvement in restoration activities. A state and federal planning team in 1993 and 1994 held three rounds of meetings with representatives of 19 communities. The planning team worked with community representatives to identify and prioritize restoration ideas and develop funding proposals. As a result, the number of projects and the amount of funding for subsistence and community-based restoration increased 10 (Figure 3). Community involvement The Community Involvement project was designed to help develop an effective voice for local communities in the restoration process. The project, started in 1995, created a network of individuals from 10 spill-area communities who stay in touch with restoration activities and improve communication between the Trustee Council and subsistence communities. The program, run by the Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC), includes a full-time community involvement coordinator based in Anchorage. The facilitators inform their communities about the restoration program, assist in developing restoration proposals, and communicate community concerns back to the Trustee Council. Traditional ecological knowledge Another means to enhance local involvement is through the application of traditional and local knowledge ( traditional ecological knowledge or TEK ) in restoration projects. Based on generations of observations and experience, subsistence users can provide important insights about the status of resources and the environment. In 1996, the Trustee Council launched an initiative to encourage researchers to include a TEK component in their research. A TEK specialist was hired through CRRC to assist researchers and communities in collecting and using traditional knowledge. Workshops are being held for researchers and community residents to exchange scientific findings and local knowledge about subsistence resources. Also, ADF&G produced a TEK Handbook with advice on research methods and case examples of the application of TEK, and developed a database of repositories of TEK pertaining to the spill area. 11 Elders/youth conferences As noted, the spill disrupted links between elders and youth, which support the transmission of traditional skills, knowledge, and values. The Trustee Council sponsored two conferences on subsistence and the oil spill to bring together youth and elders from all the spill area communities. The conferences provided an opportunity for people from communities throughout the spill region to meet with each other and with scientists who are conducting restoration studies. In addition to broadening the understanding of all involved, the conferences helped renew commitments to subsistence and cultural traditions. 12 Harbor seal restoration Several restoration strategies merge in this collaborative project Fiscal Year Evolution of Funding for Subsistence Projects Fiscal Years Projects Funded Funding Provided (In thousands) Percentage of Work Plan Budget , , , , * 1,274.8* 14.2 Figure 3. A 1994 planning effort involving subsistence communities resulted in the funding of a Community Involvement program. This program helped keep communities informed of restoration activities and provided assistance for communities that wanted to submit project proposals. The number of projects and amount of funding increased as a result of this effort. * Includes projects under review Several other projects impacting subsistence culture and communities have also been funded, either outside of the Work Plan or as part of the archaeology category. Photo by Susan Harding Project Funding (in thousands) Archaeology $2,027.8 Alutiiq Museum 1,500.0 Community Exhibits 2,800.0 Port Graham Hatchery Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Restoration 5

6 between the Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission and ADF&G. Harbor seals are an important subsistence resource throughout the spill area. The oil spill added stress to an already declining population. Two workshops involving scientists, resource managers, and the Alaska Native community recommended the development of a biosampling makers of the vital role of subsistence in village life. In response, the Trustee Council supported the production of two documentaries that depict seal hunting (Alutiiq Pride) and use of shoreline resources (Changing Tides). Through the documentaries, villagers expressed their concerns about the status of natural resources and the critical value they place on subsistence uses. Photo courtesy Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game Vicki Vanek, ADF&G biologist, trains Michelle Vlassof and Angela Totemoff, both students at Tatitlek, in harbor seal biosampling methods. program, use of traditional knowledge in harbor seal restoration, and continuing dialogue between scientists and harbor seal hunters facilitated through a formal organization of subsistence users. Following the second workshop, the Alaska Native participants formed the Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission (ANHSC). The commission entered into a cooperative agreement with ADF&G to develop a biosampling program, in which subsistence hunters take specific measurements of harvested seals and preserve samples for scientific study. Training workshops took place and a training manual and video have been produced. As of March 1999, samples from 148 subsistence-taken seals from Prince William Sound, lower Cook Inlet, and Kodiak Island had been provided to biologists engaged in harbor seal studies.13 Also as part of this project, ADF&G staff interviewed seal hunters throughout the harbor seal range and included their observations in a database called Whiskers! Subsistence documentaries The community of Tatitlek observed that an impediment to effective subsistence restoration was an incomplete understanding on the part of decision Restoring, enhancing, and replacing subsistence resources Restoration projects have been funded to restore, enhance, or replace injured resources. These projects are providing more coho salmon near Tatitlek, chinook and sockeye salmon near Chenega Bay, pink and coho salmon near Port Graham, and coho salmon near Perryville. Kametolook River The Kametolook River Coho Salmon Enhancement Project is one example of an effective combination of community involvement, traditional knowledge, and science. Residents of the Alaska Peninsula community of Perryville reported that coho salmon available for subsistence harvest in the nearby Kametolook River are depressed. This is a problem not only because of the importance of coho salmon as a subsistence resource, but also due to the reduced populations of other resources such as harbor seals, sea lions, and marine invertebrates. In response, the Trustee Council funded Perryville residents and ADF&G staff to assess the enhancement potential for coho salmon in the Kametolook River, combining on-the-ground observations, scientific measurements, and traditional knowledge about the river s salmon runs. An in-river incubation box was selected as the means to enhance the coho return. Perryville residents were hired as project assistants and received training in salmon fertilization techniques. Also, an aquarium for incubating salmon eggs was installed in the Perryville school so students could learn more about the salmon life cycle.14 Littleneck clams An innovative experiment is underway to replace lost subsistence resources with littleneck clams, to be seeded on beaches in lower Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound through a project run by the Chugach Regional Resources Commission. Littleneck clams have never before been raised successfully in captivity and then planted onto beaches. This project developed a means of raising the clams at a state-owned mariculture facility in Seward and started a multi-year experiment to seed beaches near some communities. 6 Restoration Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council

7 Restoring confidence in food Early restoration efforts responded to lingering questions about subsistence food safety, building on the work of the Oil Spill Health Task Force (see inset). Village meetings identified resources and harvest areas to test. The results supported earlier findings and were communicated in newsletters. To build confidence in the process, village representatives visited the NOAA lab in Seattle to witness sample analysis.15,16 By 1995, a view persisted among some subsistence users that the natural environment had changed in ways that still posed a threat to their health and way of life, a view partly fueled by observed abnormalities in resources. A new project trained volunteers in each of the communities in the spill region to preserve, package, and ship samples of abnormal resources to biologists and pathologists for study, who then reported the findings back to the communities.17 Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs grants In 1991, under a criminal plea agreement, Exxon agreed to pay restitution of $50 million to the United States and $50 million to the State of Alaska. These funds are managed separately by the respective governments and are not under the authority of the Trustee Council. The Alaska Legislature provided $5 million from the criminal settlement to the Department of Community and Regional Affairs to award grants to unincorporated communities in the spill area to restore, replace, or enhance subsistence resources or services. Projects funded by the Trustee Council with civil settlement money had to demonstrate a direct connection to an injured natural resource, but the scope of eligible projects was broadened through these state grants funded by the Exxon Valdez criminal settlement. As of July, 1999, 18 grants had been awarded. Generally, these fell into three categories: 1. Resource enhancement, such as rehabilita- The Restoration Notebook series is published for educational purposes. Persons wishing to cite this material in scientific publications should refer to the technical reports and literature listed at the end of each account. There are 15 subsistencebased Alaska Native villages within the spill region. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Restoration 7

8 tion of salmon runs and development of oyster mariculture in Prince William Sound as an alternative to injured wild resources. 2. Community facilities to improve the efficiency of subsistence harvesting and processing, such as a floating dock at Port Graham and community processing buildings in Chignik Lake, Perryville, and Ivanof Bay. 3. Operation of spirit camps in Prince William Sound at Nuchek (Nuuciq) and in the Kodiak Island Borough on Afognak Island, to encourage teaching of traditional skills, knowledge, and values, and interaction between elders and youth. Conclusions Subsistence uses of fish and wildlife are vital to the health and well being of the communities of the oil spill area. Technological disasters such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill create long-term psychological and social stress that stems from fear, anger, confusion, and uncertainty about the future.18 Recovery of subsistence remains incomplete. Important resources remain scarce. Subsistence restoration has attempted to take a comprehensive approach, recognizing the environmental and human dimensions that must be addressed in recovery. Key to this approach has been a focus on restoring and enhancing natural resources through partnerships with local communities and the linking of scientific methods with traditional and local knowledge. This approach also addresses the cultural and social impacts of the spill by acknowledging, supporting, and utilizing the skills, knowledge, and wisdom that have sustained human communities in the spill area for centuries. James Fall has been a regional program manager for the Division of Subsistence, ADF&G, in Anchorage since As cultural anthropologist, he has conducted ethnographic and ethnohistorical research in Alaska and Canada, and studies of modern subsistence hunting and fishing in southcentral and southwest Alaska. He served on the Oil Spill Health Task Force and has been a co-principal investigator for several subsistence restoration projects. References 1. Clark, DW Pacific Eskimo: Historical Ethnography. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 5, pp Washington: Smithsonian Institution. 2. Davis, N. Contemporary Pacific Eskimo. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 5, pp Washington: Smithsonian Institution. 3. Wolfe R and R Walker Subsistence Economies in Alaska: Productivity, Geography, and Development Impacts. Arctic Anthropology 24(2): Fall, JA and LJ Field Subsistence uses of fish and wildlife before and after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium, S.D. Rice, R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright, editors, pp American Fisheries Society Symposium 18. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society. 5. Walker, AH and LJ Field Subsistence Fisheries and the Exxon Valdez: Human Health Concerns. Proceedings of the 1991 International Oil Spill Conference, pp American Petroleum Institute Publication No ICF Technology Incorporated An Overview of the Ecosystem and Damage to Subsistence Resources in the Area Impacted by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Prepared for: Chugachmiut, Anchorage, Alaska; Fortier and Mikko, Anchorage, Alaska; and Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, & Toll, Washington DC. 7. Fall, JA and CJ Utermohle, editors and compilers An Investigation of the sociocultural consequences of outer continental shelf development in Alaska. Six volumes. US Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, OCS Study MMS , Technical Report No Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska. 8. Fall, JA and CJ Utermohle, compilers Subsistence service update, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project 99471). Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska. 9. Nighswander, TS The Role of the Oil Spill Health Task Force following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. In Evaluating and communicating Subsistence Food Safety in a Cross-Cultural Context: Lessons Learned from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, LJ Field, JA Fall, TS Nighswander, N Bentz-Peacock, and U Varanasi, editors. Pensacola, FL: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 11. Miraglia, R Traditional Ecological Knowledge Handbook: A Training Manual and Reference Guide for Designing, Conducting, and Participating in Research Projects Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Funded by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council as part of Restoration Project 97052B. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska. 12. Braund, Stephen R. and Associates and Jon Isaacs Associates Community Conference on Subsistence and the Oil Spill, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Annual Report (Restoration Project 95138). Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Anchorage, Alaska. 13. Fall, JA, V Vanek, M Riedel, and K Wynne Community-based harbor seal management and biological sampling, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project 98244), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska. 14. Hutchinson-Scarbrough, L and J McCullough Kametolook River coho salmon subsistence project, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Annual Report (Restoration Project 97247), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska, and Division of Commercial Fisheries, Kodiak, Alaska. 15. Miraglia, R Subsistence Restoration Project, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project 93017), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska. 16. Miraglia, R and AW Chartrand Subsistence restoration project: Food safety testing, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project 94279), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska. 17. Shemet, K and RA Miraglia Resource Abnormalities Study, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project 95279), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Anchorage, Alaska. 18. Picou, JS, DA Gill, and MJ Cohen The Exxon Valdez Disaster: Reading on a Modern Social Problem. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 10. Fall, JA Subsistence restoration planning and implementation, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Projects and 95428), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska. 8 Restoration Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council