The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutThe harvest and use of wild resources in selected communites of the copper river basin pub 2015Alaska Resources Library & Information Services Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document ARLIS Uniform Cover Page Title: SuWa 273 The harvest and use of wild resources in selected communities of the Copper River Basin and East Glenn Highway, Alaska, 2013 Author(s) – Personal: Editors: Davin Holen, Sarah M. Hazell, Garrett Zimpelman Contributors: David S. Koster, Eric Schact, Joshua T. Ream, James M. Van Lanen, Hannah Johnson, Robbin La Vine, Bronwyn Jones, Malla Kukkonen, Dustin Murray Author(s) – Corporate: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence AEA-identified category, if specified: May 2015 technical memoranda Series: Technical paper (Alaska. Department of Fish and Game. Division of Subsistence) ; no. 405 Series (ARLIS-assigned report number): Existing numbers on document: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 273 Published by: Date published: [Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2015] April 2015 (original date) Published for: Date or date range of report: Volume and/or Part numbers: Final or Draft status, as indicated: Document type: Pagination: xxvi, 703 pages Related work(s): Pages added/changed by ARLIS: Notes: Reissued online for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project in 2015. Originally published: Anchorage, AK : Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, [2015]. All reports in the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS- produced cover page and an ARLIS-assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-watana/ April 2015 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 405 The Harvest and Use of Wild Resources in Selected Communities of the Copper River Basin and East Glenn Highway, Alaska, 2013 edited by Davin Holen, Sarah M. Hazell, and Garrett Zimpelman Contributors: David S. Koster, Eric Schacht, Joshua T. Ream, James M. Van Lanen, Hannah Johnson, Robbin La Vine, Bronwyn Jones, Malla Kukkonen, and Dustin Murray Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Système International d'Unités (SI), are used without definition in the reports by the Division of Subsistence. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, as well as in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figure or figure captions. Weights and measures (metric) centimeter cm deciliter dL gram g hectare ha kilogram kg kilometer km liter L meter m milliliter mL millimeter mm Weights and measures (English) cubic feet per second ft3/s foot ft gallon gal inch in mile mi nautical mile nmi ounce oz pound lb quart qt yard yd Time and temperature day d degrees Celsius °C degrees Fahrenheit °F degrees kelvin K hour h minute min second s Physics and chemistry all atomic symbols alternating current AC ampere A calorie cal direct current DC hertz Hz horsepower hp hydrogen ion activity (negative log of) pH parts per million ppm parts per thousand ppt, ‰ volts V watts W General Alaska Administrative Code AAC all commonly-accepted abbreviations e.g., Mr., Mrs., AM, PM, etc. all commonly-accepted professional titles e.g., Dr., Ph.D., R.N., etc. at @ compass directions: east E north N south S west W copyright  corporate suffixes: Company Co. Corporation Corp. Incorporated Inc. Limited Ltd. District of Columbia D.C. et alii (and others) et al. et cetera (and so forth) etc. exempli gratia (for example) e.g. Federal Information Code FIC id est (that is) i.e. latitude or longitude lat. or long. monetary symbols (U.S.) $, ¢ months (tables and figures) first three letters (Jan,...,Dec) registered trademark  trademark  United States (adjective) U.S. United States of America (noun) USA U.S.C. United States Code U.S. state two-letter abbreviations (e.g., AK, WA) Measures (fisheries) fork length FL mideye-to-fork MEF mideye-to-tail-fork METF standard length SL total length TL Mathematics, statistics all standard mathematical signs, symbols and abbreviations alternate hypothesis HA base of natural logarithm e catch per unit effort CPUE coefficient of variation CV common test statistics (F, t, χ2, etc.) confidence interval CI confidence interval as a percentage CIP correlation coefficient (multiple) R correlation coefficient (simple) r covariance cov degree (angular ) ° degrees of freedom df expected value E greater than > greater than or equal to ≥ harvest per unit effort HPUE less than < less than or equal to ≤ logarithm (natural) ln logarithm (base 10) log logarithm (specify base) log2, etc. minute (angular) ' not significant NS null hypothesis HO percent % probability P probability of a type I error (rejection of the null hypothesis when true) α probability of a type II error (acceptance of the null hypothesis when false) β second (angular) " standard deviation SD standard error SE variance population Var sample var Technical PaPer no. 405 THE HARVEST AND USE oF WiLD RESoURCES iN SELECTED CoMMUNiTiES oF THE CoPPER RiVER BASiN AND EAST GLENN HiGHWAy, ALASKA, 2013 edited by Davin Holen, Sarah M. Hazell, and Garrett Zimpelman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Anchorage Development and publication of this manuscript were funded by the Alaska Energy Authority, which funded this feasibility study through the Railbelt Energy Fund. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518 April 2015 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) administers all programs and activities free from dis- crimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The department administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. if you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility please write: ADF&G ADA Coordinator, PO Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811-5526. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 300 Webb, Arlington, VA 22203 Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington DC 20240. The department’s ADA Coordinator can be reached via phone at the following numbers: (VOICE) 907-465-6077, (Statewide Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) 1-800-478-3648, (Juneau TDD) 907-465-3646, or (FAX) 907-465-6078. For information on alternative formats and questions on this publication, please contact: ADF&G Division of Subsistence at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=contacts.anchorage. The Division of Subsistence Technical Paper Series was established in 1979 and represents the most com- plete collection of information about customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife resources in Alaska. The papers cover all regions of the state. Some papers were written in response to specific fish and game management issues. Others provide detailed, basic information on the subsistence uses of particular commu- nities which pertain to a large number of scientific and policy questions. Technical Paper series reports are available through the Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS), the Alaska State Library and on the Internet: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/publications/. This publication has undergone editorial and professional review. Davin Holen, Sarah M. Hazell, and Garrett Zimpelman Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 USA This document should be cited as: Holen, D., S. M. Hazell, and G. Zimpelman, editors. 2015. The Harvest and Use of Wild Resources in Selected Communities of the Copper River Basin and East Glenn Highway, Alaska, 2013. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 405. Anchorage. i TABLE oF CoNTENTS Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................................i List of Tables .....................................................................................................................................ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................xvii List of Appendices ..........................................................................................................................xxv Abstract .........................................................................................................................................xxvi 1. introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 Project Background ......................................................................................................................1 Regulatory Context ......................................................................................................................8 Study Objectives ........................................................................................................................10 Research Methods ......................................................................................................................10 Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Research .....................................................................10 Project Planning .....................................................................................................................11 Scoping Meetings ...................................................................................................................11 Glennallen ......................................................................................................................................11 Gulkana ..........................................................................................................................................11 Lake Louise .....................................................................................................................................11 Paxson ............................................................................................................................................15 Tazlina ............................................................................................................................................15 Tonsina ............................................................................................................................................15 Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona .................................................................................................15 Systematic Household Surveys ..............................................................................................15 Mapping Locations of Subsistence Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering ...................................18 Key Respondent Interviews ...................................................................................................19 Household Survey Implementation ........................................................................................19 Glennallen ......................................................................................................................................19 Gulkana ..........................................................................................................................................19 Lake Louise .....................................................................................................................................20 Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona .................................................................................................20 Paxson ............................................................................................................................................20 Tazlina ............................................................................................................................................20 Tonsina ............................................................................................................................................21 Data Analysis and Review .........................................................................................................21 Survey Data Entry and Analysis ............................................................................................21 Population Estimates and Other Demographic Information ..................................................22 Map Data Entry and Analysis ................................................................................................23 Community Review Meetings ...............................................................................................23 Final Report Organization ..........................................................................................................24 ii Table of Contents, continued 2. Glennallen .....................................................................................................................................26 Community Background ............................................................................................................26 Demography ..............................................................................................................................26 Cash Employment and Monetary Income ..................................................................................32 Levels of Individual Participation in the Harvesting and Processing of Wild Resources .........37 Household Resource Harvest and Use Patterns and Sharing of Wild Resources ......................37 Harvest Quantities and Composition .........................................................................................41 Seasonal Round ..........................................................................................................................42 Use and Harvest Characteristics by Resource Category ............................................................52 Salmon ...................................................................................................................................54 Nonsalmon Fish .....................................................................................................................57 Large Land Mammals ............................................................................................................62 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ..........................................................................................65 Birds and Eggs .......................................................................................................................68 Marine Mammals ...................................................................................................................68 Marine Invertebrates ..............................................................................................................71 Vegetation ..............................................................................................................................73 Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years .....................................................75 Harvest Assessments ..............................................................................................................75 Harvest Data ...........................................................................................................................83 Current and Historical Harvest Areas ....................................................................................84 Local Comments and Concerns ................................................................................................85 Salmon ...................................................................................................................................85 Nonsalmon Fish .....................................................................................................................85 Large Land Mammals ............................................................................................................85 Birds .......................................................................................................................................86 Regulations ............................................................................................................................86 Proposed Development ..........................................................................................................86 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................86 3. Gulkana .........................................................................................................................................87 Community Background ............................................................................................................87 Demography ..............................................................................................................................87 Cash Employment and Monetary Income ..................................................................................92 Levels of Individual Participation in the Harvesting and Processing of Wild Resources .........96 Household Resource Harvest and Use Patterns and Sharing of Wild Resources ......................96 Harvest Quantities and Composition .......................................................................................100 Seasonal Round ........................................................................................................................101 Use and Harvest Characteristics by Resource Category ..........................................................110 Salmon .................................................................................................................................110 Nonsalmon Fish ...................................................................................................................115 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................120 iii Table of Contents, continued Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................123 Birds and Eggs .....................................................................................................................126 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................126 Marine Invertebrates ............................................................................................................127 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................127 Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years ...................................................131 Harvest Assessments ............................................................................................................131 Harvest Data .........................................................................................................................139 Current and Historical Harvest Areas ..................................................................................140 Local Comments and Concerns ..............................................................................................141 Fish .......................................................................................................................................141 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................142 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................142 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................142 Other ...................................................................................................................................142 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................143 4. Lake Louise.................................................................................................................................144 Community Background ..........................................................................................................144 Demography ............................................................................................................................145 Cash Employment and Monetary Income ................................................................................149 Levels of Individual Participation in the Harvesting and Processing of Wild Resources .......149 Household Resource Harvest and Use Patterns and Sharing of Wild Resources ....................153 Harvest Quantities and Composition .......................................................................................155 Seasonal Round ........................................................................................................................157 Use and Harvest Characteristics by Resource Category ..........................................................166 Salmon .................................................................................................................................168 Nonsalmon Fish ...................................................................................................................171 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................178 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................181 Birds and Eggs .....................................................................................................................181 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................183 Marine Invertebrates ............................................................................................................183 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................184 Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years ...................................................189 Harvest Assessments ............................................................................................................189 Harvest Data .........................................................................................................................197 Current and Historical Harvest Areas ..................................................................................199 Local Comments and Concerns ..............................................................................................201 Fish .......................................................................................................................................201 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................202 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................202 iv Table of Contents, continued Birds and Eggs .....................................................................................................................202 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................203 Susitna-Watana Dam ............................................................................................................203 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................203 5. Paxson .........................................................................................................................................204 Community Background ..........................................................................................................204 Demography ............................................................................................................................204 Cash Employment and Monetary Income ................................................................................205 Levels of Individual Participation in the Harvesting and Processing of Wild Resources .......210 Household Resource Harvest and Use Patterns and Sharing of Wild Resources ....................213 Harvest Quantities and Composition .......................................................................................218 Seasonal Round ........................................................................................................................218 Use and Harvest Characteristics by Resource Category ..........................................................225 Salmon .................................................................................................................................227 Nonsalmon Fish ...................................................................................................................230 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................235 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................238 Birds and Eggs .....................................................................................................................241 Marine Invertebrates ............................................................................................................241 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................244 Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years ...................................................246 Harvest Assessments ............................................................................................................246 Harvest Data .........................................................................................................................254 Current and Historical Harvest Areas ..................................................................................254 Local Comments and Concerns ...............................................................................................257 Fish .......................................................................................................................................257 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................257 Birds ....................................................................................................................................260 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................260 6. Tazlina .........................................................................................................................................261 Community Background ..........................................................................................................261 Demography .............................................................................................................................262 Cash Employment and Monetary Income ................................................................................267 Levels of Individual Participation in the Harvesting and Processing of Wild Resources .......272 Household Resource Harvest and Use Patterns and Sharing of Wild Resources ....................272 Harvest Quantities and Composition .......................................................................................274 Seasonal Round ........................................................................................................................274 Use and Harvest Characteristics by Resource Category ..........................................................286 Salmon .................................................................................................................................288 Nonsalmon Fish ...................................................................................................................291 v Table of Contents, continued Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................295 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................299 Birds and Eggs .....................................................................................................................302 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................302 Marine Invertebrates ............................................................................................................305 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................307 Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years ...................................................309 Harvest Assessments ............................................................................................................309 Harvest Data .........................................................................................................................317 Current and Historical Harvest Areas ..................................................................................317 Local Comments and Concerns ..............................................................................................318 Fish .......................................................................................................................................319 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................319 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................320 Birds and Eggs .....................................................................................................................320 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................320 Cost of Harvesting ...............................................................................................................320 Energy ..................................................................................................................................320 Climate Change ....................................................................................................................321 Subsistence Opportunity ......................................................................................................321 Resource Availability ...........................................................................................................321 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................321 7. Tonsina ........................................................................................................................................322 Community Background ..........................................................................................................322 Demography ............................................................................................................................323 Cash Employment and Monetary Income ................................................................................327 Levels of Individual Participation in the Harvesting and Processing of Wild Resources .......331 Household Resource Harvest and Use Patterns and Sharing of Wild Resources ....................331 Harvest Quantities and Composition .......................................................................................333 Seasonal Round ........................................................................................................................343 Use and Harvest Characteristics by Resource Category ..........................................................345 Salmon .................................................................................................................................347 Nonsalmon Fish ...................................................................................................................350 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................355 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................358 Birds and Eggs .....................................................................................................................361 Marine Invertebrates ............................................................................................................361 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................364 Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years ...................................................366 Harvest Assessments ............................................................................................................366 Harvest Data .........................................................................................................................374 vi Table of Contents, continued Current and Historical Harvest Areas ..................................................................................375 Local Comments and Concerns ..............................................................................................377 Fish .......................................................................................................................................377 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................377 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................377 Wood ....................................................................................................................................377 Other ....................................................................................................................................377 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................378 8. East Glenn Highway: Mendeltna .............................................................................................379 Introducing The East Glenn Highway Communities ...............................................................379 Mendeltna Community Background ........................................................................................382 Demography ............................................................................................................................383 Cash Employment and Monetary Income ................................................................................388 Levels of Individual Participation in the Harvesting and Processing of Wild Resources .......392 Household Resource Harvest and Use Patterns and Sharing of Wild Resources ....................392 Harvest Quantities and Composition .......................................................................................394 Seasonal Round for East Glenn Highway ................................................................................403 Use and Harvest Characteristics by Resource Category ..........................................................405 Salmon .................................................................................................................................408 Nonsalmon Fish ...................................................................................................................410 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................414 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................415 Birds and Eggs .....................................................................................................................416 Marine Invertebrates ............................................................................................................416 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................418 Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years ...................................................419 Harvest Assessments ............................................................................................................419 Harvest Data .........................................................................................................................427 Current and Historical Harvest Areas ..................................................................................427 Local Comments and Concerns ..............................................................................................427 Fish .......................................................................................................................................427 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................427 Community Boundaries .......................................................................................................427 Cost of Heating Fuel ............................................................................................................428 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................428 9. East Glenn Highway: Nelchina .................................................................................................429 Community Background ..........................................................................................................429 Demography ............................................................................................................................430 Cash Employment and Monetary Income ................................................................................435 Levels of Individual Participation in the Harvesting and Processing of Wild Resources .......439 vii Household Resource Harvest and Use Patterns and Sharing of Wild Resources ....................439 Harvest Quantities and Composition .......................................................................................441 Seasonal Round ........................................................................................................................450 Use and Harvest Characteristics by Resource Category ..........................................................450 Salmon .................................................................................................................................453 Nonsalmon Fish ...................................................................................................................455 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................459 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................460 Birds and Eggs .....................................................................................................................463 Marine Invertebrates ............................................................................................................465 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................466 Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years ...................................................467 Harvest Assessments ............................................................................................................467 Harvest Data .........................................................................................................................475 Current and Historical Harvest Areas ..................................................................................475 Local Comments and Concerns ..............................................................................................475 Fish .......................................................................................................................................475 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................476 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................477 Birds .....................................................................................................................................477 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................477 Community Boundaries .......................................................................................................477 Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC) ....................................................................478 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................478 10. East Glenn Highway: Tolsona .................................................................................................479 Community Background ..........................................................................................................479 Demography .............................................................................................................................479 Cash Employment and Monetary Income ................................................................................484 Levels of Individual Participation in the Harvesting and Processing of Wild Resources .......487 Household Resource Harvest and Use Patterns and Sharing of Wild Resources ....................489 Harvest Quantities and Composition .......................................................................................492 Seasonal Round ........................................................................................................................492 Use and Harvest Characteristics by Resource Category ..........................................................498 Salmon .................................................................................................................................501 Nonsalmon Fish ...................................................................................................................503 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................507 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................508 Birds and Eggs .....................................................................................................................511 Marine Invertebrates ............................................................................................................512 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................512 Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years ...................................................514 Table of Contents, continued viii Harvest Assessments ............................................................................................................514 Harvest Data for East Glenn Highway .................................................................................522 Current and Historical Harvest Areas for East Glenn Highway ..........................................526 Local Comments and Concerns ..............................................................................................537 Community Boundaries .......................................................................................................537 Fish .......................................................................................................................................537 Large Land Mammals ..........................................................................................................539 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers ........................................................................................540 Birds and Eggs .....................................................................................................................540 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................540 Acknowledgemnts ....................................................................................................................540 11. Discussion and Conclusions .....................................................................................................541 Overview of Findings for the Study Communities, 2013 ........................................................541 Harvest Composition and Uses in 2013 ...................................................................................546 Transportation and Portable Motors ....................................................................................553 Copper River Basin Harvest Update ........................................................................................557 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................561 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................561 References .......................................................................................................................................562 Table of Contents, continued ix Table 1-1.–Demographic characteristics, study communities, 2013. ............................................................2 1-2.–Species list, study communities, 2013. ........................................................................................4 1-3.–History of Susitna River and Copper River drainage communities studied. ...............................9 1-4.–Project staff. ...............................................................................................................................12 1-5.–Community scoping meetings/community consultation, study communities, 2013–2014. ......13 1-6.–Sample achievement, study communities, 2013. .......................................................................16 1-7.–Survey length, study communities, 2013. ..................................................................................18 1-8.–Community review meetings, study communities, 2014. .........................................................24 2-1.–Sample achievement, Glennallen, 2013. ...................................................................................28 2-2.–Population estimates, Glennallen, 2010 and 2013. ....................................................................28 2-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Glennallen, 2013. ....................................................30 2-4.–Population profile, Glennallen, 2013. ........................................................................................31 2-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Glennallen, 2013. ...................................................................32 2-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Glennallen, 2013. ............................................................33 2-7.–Employment by industry, Glennallen, 2013. .............................................................................34 2-8.–Employment characteristics, Glennallen, 2013. ........................................................................36 2-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Glennallen, 2013........................................................................................................................................38 2-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Glennallen, 2013. ...............39 2-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Glennallen, 2013. ..................................................40 2-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Glennallen, 2013. .......................44 2-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Glennallen, 2013. ........45 2-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Glennallen, 2013. ................................................52 2-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Glennallen, 2013. ...................................................................................................................55 2-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Glennallen, 2013. ............................................................................58 2-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Glennallen, 2013. .......................63 2-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Glennallen, 2013. ....................66 2-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Glennallen, 2013. .......................................69 2-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Glennallen, 2013. ..........76 2-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Glennallen, 2013. ..78 2-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Glennallen, 2013........................................................................................................................................80 LiST oF TABLES x 2-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Glennallen, 2013. ...................................................................................................82 2-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, Glennallen, 1982, 1987, and 2013. ...............................83 3-1.–Population estimates, Gulkana, 2010 and 2013. ........................................................................88 3-2.–Sample achievement, Gulkana, 2013. .......................................................................................89 3-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Gulkana, 2013. ........................................................90 3-4.–Population profile, Gulkana, 2013. ............................................................................................91 3-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Gulkana, 2013. .......................................................................92 3-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Gulkana, 2013. ................................................................93 3-7.–Employment by industry, Gulkana, 2013. .................................................................................94 3-8.–Employment characteristics, Gulkana, 2013. ............................................................................95 3-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Gulkana, 2013. ..97 3-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Gulkana, 2013. ...................98 3-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Gulkana, 2013. ......................................................99 3-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Gulkana, 2013. .........................103 3-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Gulkana, 2013. ..........104 3-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Gulkana, 2013. ..................................................112 3-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Gulkana, 2013. .....................................................................................................................113 3-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Gulkana, 2013. ..............................................................................116 3-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Gulkana, 2013. .........................121 3-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Gulkana, 2013. ......................123 3-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Gulkana, 2013. .........................................127 3-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Gulkana, 2013. ............132 3-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Gulkana, 2013. ....134 3-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Gulkana, 2013. ..136 3-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Gulkana, 2013. .....................................................................................................138 3-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, Gulkana, 1982, 1987, and 2013. .................................140 4-1.–Population estimates, Lake Louise, 2010 and 2013. ...............................................................145 4-2.–Sample achievement, Lake Louise, 2013. ...............................................................................146 4-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Lake Louise, 2013. ................................................147 4-4.–Population profile, Lake Louise, 2013. ....................................................................................148 4-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Lake Louise, 2013. ..............................................................149 List of Tables, continued xi 4-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Lake Louise, 2013. ........................................................150 4-7.–Employment by industry, Lake Louise, 2013. .........................................................................150 4-8.–Employment characteristics, Lake Louise, 2013. ....................................................................151 4-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Lake Louise, 2013......................................................................................................................................152 4-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Lake Louise, 2013. ...........153 4-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Lake Louise, 2013. ..............................................154 4-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Lake Louise, 2013. ...................158 4-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Lake Louise, 2013. ....159 4-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Lake Louise, 2013. ............................................166 4-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Lake Louise, 2013. ...............................................................................................................169 4-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Lake Louise, 2013. ........................................................................172 4-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Lake Louise, 2013. ...................179 4-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Lake Louise, 2013. ................181 4-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Lake Louise, 2013. ...................................184 4-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Lake Louise, 2013. ......190 4-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Lake Louise, 2013......................................................................................................................................192 4-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Lake Louise, 2013......................................................................................................................................194 4-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Lake Louise, 2013. ...............................................................................................196 4-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, Lake Louise, 1982, 1987, and 2013. ..........................198 5-1.–Population estimates, Paxson, 2010 and 2013. ........................................................................205 5-2.–Sample achievement, Paxson, 2013. .......................................................................................206 5-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Paxson, 2013. ........................................................207 5-4.–Population profile, Paxson, 2013. ............................................................................................208 5-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Paxson, 2013. .......................................................................209 5-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Paxson, 2013. ................................................................209 5-7.–Employment by industry, Paxson, 2013. .................................................................................210 5-8.–Employment characteristics, Paxson, 2013. ............................................................................211 5-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Paxson, 2013. ..212 5-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Paxson, 2013. ...................213 List of Tables, continued xii List of Tables, continued 5-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Paxson, 2013. ......................................................214 5-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Paxson, 2013. ...........................217 5-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Paxson, 2013. ............219 5-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Paxson, 2013. ....................................................225 5-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Paxson, 2013. .......................................................................................................................228 5-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Paxson, 2013. ................................................................................231 5-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Paxson, 2013. ...........................236 5-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Paxson, 2013. ........................239 5-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Paxson, 2013. ...........................................242 5-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Paxson, 2013. ..............247 5-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Paxson, 2013. ......249 5-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Paxson, 2013. ....251 5-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Paxson, 2013. .......................................................................................................253 5-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, Paxson, 1982, 1987, and 2013. ...................................254 6-1.–Population estimates, Tazlina, 2010 and 2013. ........................................................................262 6-2.–Sample achievement, Tazlina, 2013. .......................................................................................264 6-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Tazlina, 2013. ........................................................265 6-4.–Population profile, Tazlina, 2013. ............................................................................................266 6-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Tazlina, 2013. ......................................................................267 6-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Tazlina, 2013. ................................................................268 6-7.–Employment by industry, Tazlina, 2013. .................................................................................269 6-8.–Employment characteristics, Tazlina, 2013. ............................................................................271 6-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Tazlina, 2013. ..273 6-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Tazlina, 2013. ...................274 6-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Tazlina, 2013. ......................................................275 6-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Tazlina, 2013. ...........................278 6-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Tazlina, 2013. ............279 6-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Tazlina, 2013. ....................................................286 6-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Tazlina, 2013. .......................................................................................................................290 6-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Tazlina, 2013. ................................................................................292 xiii 6-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Tazlina, 2013. ...........................296 6-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Tazlina, 2013. ........................300 6-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Tazlina, 2013. ...........................................303 6-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tazlina, 2013. ..............310 6-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tazlina, 2013. ......312 6-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tazlina, 2013. ...314 6-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Tazlina, 2013. .......................................................................................................316 6-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, Tazlina, 1987 and 2013. ..............................................317 7-1.–Population estimates, Tonsina, 2010 and 2013. .......................................................................323 7-2.–Sample achievement, Tonsina, 2013. ......................................................................................324 7-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Tonsina, 2013. .......................................................325 7-4.–Population profile, Tonsina, 2013. ...........................................................................................326 7-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Tonsina, 2013. ......................................................................327 7-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Tonsina, 2013. ...............................................................328 7-7.–Employment by industry, Tonsina, 2013. ................................................................................329 7-8.–Employment characteristics, Tonsina, 2013. ...........................................................................330 7-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Tonsina, 2013......................................................................................................................................332 7-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Tonsina, 2013. ..................333 7-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Tonsina, 2013. .....................................................334 7-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Tonsina, 2013. ..........................337 7-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Tonsina, 2013. ...........338 7-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Tonsina, 2013. ...................................................345 7-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Tonsina, 2013. ......................................................................................................................348 7-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Tonsina, 2013. ...............................................................................351 7-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Tonsina, 2013. ..........................356 7-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Tonsina, 2013. .......................359 7-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Tonsina, 2013. ..........................................362 7-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tonsina, 2013. .............367 7-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tonsina, 2013. .....369 7-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tonsina, 2013. ...371 List of Tables, continued xiv 7-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Tonsina, 2013. ......................................................................................................373 7-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, Tonsina, 1982, 1987, and 2013. ..................................375 8-1.–Population estimates, Mendeltna, 2010 and 2013. ..................................................................383 8-2.–Sample achievement, Mendeltna, 2013. ..................................................................................385 8-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Mendeltna, 2013. ...................................................386 8-4.–Population profile, Mendeltna, 2013. ......................................................................................387 8-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Mendeltna, 2013. .................................................................388 8-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Mendeltna, 2013. ...........................................................389 8-7.–Employment by industry, Mendeltna, 2013. ............................................................................390 8-8.–Employment characteristics, Mendeltna, 2013. .......................................................................391 8-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Mendeltna, 2013......................................................................................................................................393 8-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Mendeltna, 2013. .............394 8-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Mendeltna, 2013. .................................................395 8-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Mendeltna, 2013. ......................398 8-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Mendeltna, 2013. .......399 8-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Mendeltna, 2013. ...............................................406 8-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Mendeltna, 2013. .................................................................................................................409 8-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Mendeltna, 2013. ...........................................................................411 8-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Mendeltna, 2013. ......................414 8-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Mendeltna, 2013. ..................415 8-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Mendeltna, 2013. ......................................417 8-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Mendeltna, 2013. ........420 8-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Mendeltna, 2013......................................................................................................................................422 8-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Mendeltna, 2013......................................................................................................................................424 8-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Mendeltna, 2013. ..................................................................................................426 9-1.–Population estimates, Nelchina, 2010 and 2013. .....................................................................431 9-2.–Sample achievement, Nelchina, 2013. .....................................................................................432 9-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Nelchina, 2013. .....................................................433 List of Tables, continued xv List of Tables, continued 9-4.–Population profile, Nelchina, 2013. .........................................................................................434 9-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Nelchina, 2013. ....................................................................435 9-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Nelchina, 2013. .............................................................436 9-7.–Employment by industry, Nelchina, 2013. ..............................................................................437 9-8.–Employment characteristics, Nelchina, 2013. .........................................................................438 9-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Nelchina, 2013......................................................................................................................................440 9-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Nelchina, 2013. ................441 9-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Nelchina, 2013. ...................................................442 9-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Nelchina, 2013. ........................445 9-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Nelchina, 2013. .........446 9-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Nelchina, 2013. .................................................451 9-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Nelchina, 2013. ....................................................................................................................454 9-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Nelchina, 2013. .............................................................................456 9-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Nelchina, 2013..........................460 9-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Nelchina, 2013. .....................462 9-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Nelchina, 2013. .........................................464 9-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Nelchina, 2013. ...........468 9-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Nelchina, 2013. ...470 9-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Nelchina, 2013......................................................................................................................................472 9-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Nelchina, 2013. .....................................................................................................474 10-1.–Population estimates, Tolsona, 2010 and 2013. .....................................................................480 10-2.–Sample achievement, Tolsona, 2013. ....................................................................................481 10-3.–Population profile, Tolsona, 2013. .........................................................................................482 10-4.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Tolsona, 2013. .....................................................483 10-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Tolsona, 2013. ....................................................................483 10-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Tolsona, 2013. .............................................................485 10-7.–Employment by industry, Tolsona, 2013. ..............................................................................485 10-8.–Employment characteristics, Tolsona, 2013. .........................................................................486 10-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Tolsona, 2013......................................................................................................................................488 xvi 10-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Tolsona, 2013. ................489 10-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Tolsona, 2013. ...................................................490 10-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Tolsona, 2013. ........................493 10-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Tolsona, 2013. .........494 10-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Tolsona, 2013. .................................................499 10-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Tolsona, 2013. ......................................................................................................................502 10-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Tolsona, 2013. ...............................................................................504 10-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Tolsona, 2013. ........................508 10-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Tolsona, 2013. .....................510 10-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Tolsona, 2013. ........................................511 10-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tolsona, 2013. ...........515 10-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tolsona, 2013. ...517 10-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tolsona, 2013......................................................................................................................................519 10-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Tolsona, 2013. ......................................................................................................521 10-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, East Glenn Highway, 1982, 1987, and 2013. ...........523 10-25.–Estimated uses of fish, game, and vegetation resources, East Glenn Highway, 2013. ........524 11-1.–Comparison of selected findings, study communities, 2013. ................................................542 11-2.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, study communities, 2013. ..............................................................................................................544 11-3.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, study communities, 2013......................................................................................................................................545 11-4.–Ranked resource use (by percentage of households using), by study community, 2013. ......548 11-5.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, study communities, 2013. ........550 11-6.–Percentage of households that received (and, by extension, used) resources from the roadkill salvage program, study communities, 2013. ..........................................................551 11-7.–Percentage of households using harvest from a previous year, study communities, 2013. ...552 11-8.–Use of portable motors or motorized equipment when harvesting or attempting to harvest resources, study communities, 2013. ...................................................................................557 11-9.–Selected study findings, Copper River Basin study communities, 2009–2013. ....................558 11-10.–Historical harvest comparison, Copper River Basin study communities, 1982, 1987, and 2000s. ...................................................................................................................................560 List of Tables, continued xvii Figure 1-1.–Map of study communities, Susitna River and Copper River basins. .........................................3 1-2.–Map of study community boundaries, Glenn Highway communities, 2013. ............................14 2-1.–Map of study community and census designated place boundaries. .........................................27 2-2.–Historical population estimates, Glennallen, 1980–2013. .........................................................29 2-3.–Population profile, Glennallen, 2013. ........................................................................................31 2-4.–Household specialization, Glennallen, 2013. ............................................................................41 2-5.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Glennallen, 2013. ...................................................................................................................42 2-6.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Glennallen, 2013. ........................................................................43 2-7.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Glennallen, 2013. .....43 2-8.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. .....50 2-9.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, Glennallen, 2013. .....................................................51 2-10.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013........................................................................................................................................53 2-11.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. .........................54 2-12.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, Glennallen, 2013. .....................................56 2-13.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. ............57 2-14.–Fishing and harvest locations of Arctic grayling, Glennallen, 2013. ......................................61 2-15.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013.......62 2-16.–Hunting locations of moose, Glennallen, 2013. ......................................................................64 2-17.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Glennallen, 2013. ...................................................................................................................65 2-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Glennallen, 2013. ..66 2-19.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, Glennallen, 2013. .........67 2-20.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. .........68 2-21.–Hunting and harvest locations of migratory waterfowl and upland game birds, Glennallen, 2013........................................................................................................................................70 2-22.–Composition of marine invertebrates harvest in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. ....71 2-23.–Fishing and harvest locations of marine invertebrates, Glennallen, 2013. ..............................72 2-24.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. ....73 2-25.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, Glennallen, 2013........................................................................................................................................74 LiST oF FiGURES xviii 2-26.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Glennallen, 2013. ..........77 2-27.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, Glennallen, 1982, 1987, and 2013. ......................................................................................................................84 3-1.–Historical population estimates, Gulkana, 1980–2013. .............................................................88 3-2.–Population profile, Gulkana, 2013. ............................................................................................91 3-3.–Household specialization, Gulkana, 2013. ..............................................................................100 3-4.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Gulkana, 2013. .....................................................................................................................101 3-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Gulkana, 2013. ..........................................................................102 3-6.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Gulkana, 2013. .......102 3-7.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013. .......108 3-8.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, Gulkana, 2013. .......................................................109 3-9.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013......................................................................................................................................111 3-10.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013. ...........................112 3-11.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, Gulkana, 2013. .......................................114 3-12.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013. ..............115 3-13.–Fishing and harvest locations of humpback whitefish, Gulkana, 2013. ................................119 3-14.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013.........120 3-15.–Hunting locations of moose, Gulkana, 2013. ........................................................................122 3-16.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Gulkana, 2013. .....................................................................................................................124 3-17.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Gulkana, 2013. ....124 3-18.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, Gulkana, 2013. ...........125 3-19.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013. ...........126 3-20.–Hunting and harvest locations of upland game birds, Gulkana, 2013. ..................................128 3-21.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013. ......129 3-22.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, Gulkana, 2013......................................................................................................................................130 3-23.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Gulkana, 2013. ............133 3-24.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, Gulkana, 1982, 1987, and 2013. ..............................................................................................................................139 4-1.–Historical population estimates, Lake Louise, 1982–2013. .....................................................146 4-2.–Population profile, Lake Louise, 2013. ....................................................................................148 List of Figures, continued xix 4-3.–Household specialization, Lake Louise, 2013. ........................................................................155 4-4.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Lake Louise, 2013. ...............................................................................................................156 4-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Lake Louise, 2013. ....................................................................156 4-6.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Lake Louise, 2013. .157 4-7.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013. .164 4-8.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, Lake Louise, 2013. .................................................165 4-9.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013......................................................................................................................................167 4-10.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013. ....................168 4-11.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, Lake Louise, 2013. .................................170 4-12.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013. ........171 4-13.–Fishing and harvest locations of Arctic grayling, Lake Louise, 2013. ..................................176 4-14.–Fishing and harvest locations of burbot, Lake Louise, 2013. ................................................177 4-15.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013. .179 4-16.–Hunting locations of moose, Lake Louise, 2013. ..................................................................180 4-17.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, Lake Louise, 2013. .....182 4-18.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013. .....183 4-19.–Hunting and harvest locations of upland game birds, Lake Louise, 2013. ............................185 4-20.–Fishing and harvest locations of marine invertebrates, Lake Louise, 2013. .........................186 4-21.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013......................................................................................................................................187 4-22.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, Lake Louise, 2013. ........................................................................................................................188 4-23.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Lake Louise, 2013. ......191 4-24.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, Lake Louise, 1982, 1987, and 2013. ....................................................................................................................197 5-1.–Historical population estimates, Paxson, 1980–2013. .............................................................206 5-2.–Population profile, Paxson, 2013. ............................................................................................208 5-3.–Household specialization, Paxson, 2013. ................................................................................215 5-4.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Paxson, 2013. .......................................................................................................................215 5-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Paxson, 2013. ............................................................................216 List of Figures, continued xx 5-6.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Paxson, 2013. .........216 5-7.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013. .........223 5-8.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, Paxson, 2013. .........................................................224 5-9.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013......................................................................................................................................226 5-10.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013. .............................227 5-11.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, Paxson, 2013. .........................................229 5-12.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013. ................230 5-13.–Fishing and harvest locations of lake trout, Paxson, 2013. ...................................................234 5-14.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013...........235 5-15.–Hunting locations of caribou, Paxson, 2013. .........................................................................237 5-16.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Paxson, 2013. ......238 5-17.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Paxson, 2013. .......................................................................................................................239 5-18.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, Paxson, 2013. .............240 5-19.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013. .............241 5-20.–Hunting and harvest locations of migratory waterfowl and upland game birds, Paxson, 2013......................................................................................................................................243 5-21.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013. ........244 5-22.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, Paxson, 2013......................................................................................................................................245 5-23.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Paxson, 2013. ..............248 5-24.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, Paxson, 1982, 1987, and 2013. ..............................................................................................................................255 6-1.–Historical population estimates, Tazlina, 1987–2013. .............................................................263 6-2.–Population profile, Tazlina, 2013. ............................................................................................266 6-3.–Household specialization, Tazlina, 2013. ................................................................................276 6-4.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Tazlina, 2013. .......................................................................................................................276 6-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Tazlina, 2013. ............................................................................277 6-6.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Tazlina, 2013. .........277 6-7.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. .........284 6-8.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, Tazlina, 2013. .........................................................285 List of Figures, continued xxi 6-9.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013......................................................................................................................................287 6-10.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. .............................288 6-11.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, Tazlina, 2013. .........................................289 6-12.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. ................291 6-13.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. .........295 6-14.–Hunting locations of moose, Tazlina, 2013. ..........................................................................297 6-15.–Hunting locations of caribou, Tazlina, 2013. .........................................................................298 6-16.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Tazlina, 2013. ......299 6-17.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Tazlina, 2013. .......................................................................................................................300 6-18.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, Tazlina, 2013. .............301 6-19.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. .............302 6-20.–Hunting and harvest locations of migratory waterfowl and upland game birds, Tazlina, 2013......................................................................................................................................304 6-21.–Composition of marine invertebrates harvest in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. .......305 6-22.–Fishing and harvest locations of marine invertebrates, Tazlina, 2013. ..................................306 6-23.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. ........307 6-24.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, Tazlina, 2013......................................................................................................................................308 6-25.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tazlina, 2013. ..............311 6-26.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, Tazlina, 1987 and 2013......................................................................................................................................318 7-1.–Historical population estimates, Tonsina, 1980–2013. ............................................................324 7-2.–Population profile, Tonsina, 2013. ...........................................................................................326 7-3.–Household specialization, Tonsina, 2013. ...............................................................................335 7-4.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Tonsina, 2013. ......................................................................................................................335 7-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Tonsina, 2013. ...........................................................................336 7-6.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Tonsina, 2013. ........336 7-7.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013. ........343 7-8.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, Tonsina, 2013. ........................................................344 7-9.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013......................................................................................................................................346 List of Figures, continued xxii 7-10.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013. ............................347 7-11.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, Tonsina, 2013. ........................................349 7-12.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013. ...............350 7-13.–Fishing and harvest locations of rainbow trout, Tonsina, 2013. ............................................354 7-14.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013. .........355 7-15.–Hunting locations of caribou, Tonsina, 2013. ........................................................................357 7-16.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Tonsina, 2013. .....358 7-17.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Tonsina, 2013. ......................................................................................................................359 7-18.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, Tonsina, 2013. ............360 7-19.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013. ............361 7-20.–Hunting and harvest locations of migratory waterfowl and upland game birds, Tonsina, 2013......................................................................................................................................363 7-21.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013. .......364 7-22.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, Tonsina, 2013......................................................................................................................................365 7-23.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tonsina, 2013. .............368 7-24.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, Tonsina, 1982, 1987, and 2013. ..............................................................................................................................374 8-1.–Map of study community and census designated place boundaries, East Glenn Highway. ....380 8-2.–Historical population estimates, Mendeltna, 1990–2013. .......................................................385 8-3.–Population profile, Mendeltna, 2013. ......................................................................................387 8-4.–Household specialization, Mendeltna, 2013. ...........................................................................396 8-5.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Mendeltna, 2013. .................................................................................................................396 8-6.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Mendeltna, 2013. .......................................................................397 8-7.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Mendeltna, 2013. ...397 8-8.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Mendeltna, 2013. ...403 8-9.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, East Glenn Highway: Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona, 2013. ...............................................................................................................404 8-10.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Mendeltna, 2013......................................................................................................................................407 8-11.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Mendeltna, 2013. .......................408 8-12.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Mendeltna, 2013. ..........410 List of Figures, continued xxiii 8-13.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Mendeltna, 2013. .......416 8-14.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Mendeltna, 2013. ...418 8-15.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Mendeltna, 2013. ........421 9-1.–Historical population estimates, Nelchina, 2000–2013. ..........................................................431 9-2.–Population profile, Nelchina, 2013. .........................................................................................434 9-3.–Household specialization, Nelchina, 2013. .............................................................................443 9-4.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Nelchina, 2013. ....................................................................................................................443 9-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Nelchina, 2013. .........................................................................444 9-6.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Nelchina, 2013. ......444 9-7.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. ......450 9-8.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013......................................................................................................................................452 9-9.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. ............................453 9-10.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. .............455 9-11.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. .......459 9-12.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Nelchina, 2013. ....................................................................................................................461 9-13.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Nelchina, 2013. ...461 9-14.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. ..........463 9-15.–Composition of marine invertebrates harvest in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. .....465 9-16.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. .....466 9-17.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Nelchina, 2013. ...........469 10-1.–Historical population estimates, Tolsona, 2000–2013. ..........................................................481 10-2.–Population profile, Tolsona, 2013. .........................................................................................482 10-3.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Tolsona, 2013. ......................................................................................................................491 10-4.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Tolsona, 2013. ...........................................................................491 10-5.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Tolsona, 2013. ......492 10-6.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013. ......498 10-7.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013......................................................................................................................................500 10-8.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013. ............................501 List of Figures, continued xxiv List of Figures, continued 10-9.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013. ...............503 10-10.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013. .......507 10-12.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Tolsona, 2013. ...509 10-11.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Tolsona, 2013. ......................................................................................................................509 10-13.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013. ..........512 10-14.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013. .....513 10-15.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tolsona, 2013. ...........516 10-16.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, East Glenn Highway, 1982, 1987, and 2013. ..........................................................................................................523 10-17.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, East Glenn Highway, 2013. ...............................527 10-18.–Hunting locations of moose, East Glenn Highway, 2013. ...................................................529 10-19.–Hunting locations of caribou, East Glenn Highway, 2013. .................................................530 10-20.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, East Glenn Highway, 2013. ..................531 10-21.–Fishing and harvest locations of burbot, East Glenn Highway, 2013. .................................532 10-22.–Fishing and harvest locations of rainbow trout, East Glenn Highway, 2013. .....................534 10-23.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, East Glenn Highway, 2013......................................................................................................................................535 10-24.–Hunting and harvest locations of migratory waterfowl and upland game birds, East Glenn Highway, 2013. .........................................................................................................536 10-25.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, East Glenn Highway, 2013. .........................................................................................................538 11-1.–Estimated household participation in harvesting and using resources, study communities, 2013......................................................................................................................................545 11-2.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, study communities, 2013......................................................................................................................................547 11-3.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access resources, study communities, 2013. ..............................................................................................................554 11-4.–Sampled households’ use of owned, borrowed, leased, or chartered modes of alternative transportation to access resources, study communities, 2013. .............................................555 11-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting resources, study communities, 2013. .................................................................556 11-6.–Composition of combined harvests, by resource category, in pounds usable weight, Copper River Basin study communities, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013. ...........................................559 xxv LiST oF APPENDiCES A–Survey instrument....................................................................................................................565 B–Conversion Factors ..................................................................................................................591 C–Key Respondent interview Protocol .......................................................................................599 D–Search and Harvest Area Maps by Community ....................................................................603 E–Additional Tables ......................................................................................................................695 F–Project Summary ......................................................................................................................701 xxvi ABSTRACT This report provides updated information about the harvests of fish, wildlife, and wild plant resources by the communities of Glennallen, Gulkana, Lake Louise, Paxson, Tazlina, Tonsina, Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona. This report details the results of a household survey administered in the study communities between January and April 2014 for harvest and use of wild resources by these communities during calendar year 2013. These communities are located in the Copper River Basin of Southcentral Alaska. During the 2013 study year, many residents of the study communities relied on hunting, fishing, and wild food gathering for nutrition and to support their way of life. They used a variety of resources, including salmon and other fish, large land mammals, small land mammals, migratory waterfowl and upland game birds, and wild plants and berries. This study is part of the effort of the State of Alaska to assess the feasibility of constructing the Susitna- Watana Hydroelectric Project. This information was collected by research staff of the Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Key words: Subsistence, Copper River Basin, Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, Glennallen, Gulkana, Lake Louise, Paxson, Tazlina, Tonsina, Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona 1. iNTRoDUCTioN Sarah M. Hazell, Davin Holen, and David S. Koster This report provides updated information about the harvests of fish, wildlife, and wild plant resources by 9 communities of the Copper River Basin, Southcentral Alaska: Glennallen (population 384), Gulkana (population 104), Lake Louise (population 27), Paxson (population 32), Tazlina (population 352), Tonsina (population 90), Mendeltna (population 34), Nelchina (population 76), and Tolsona (population 24). This report details the results of a household survey administered in these communities between January and March 2014 for the 2013 study year. Population estimates shown above are based on information collected for the 2013 study year (Table 1-1). U.S. Census Bureau boundaries were followed in this survey to determine study community boundaries; more discussion about community boundaries is provided in this report. Project Background This study is part of the effort by the State of Alaska to assess the feasibility of constructing a hydroelectric dam on the Susitna River known as the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. The project proponent, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), is funding the feasibility study through the Railbelt Energy Fund. The feasibility study includes preliminary design work, a data gap analysis of studies conducted for a similar project proposed in the 1980s, and design and implementation of environmental baseline studies to fill identified data gaps. The proposed energy project consists of the construction of a 735-foot high dam at the Susitna-Watana site and creation of a 42-mile long reservoir with a maximum width of 2 miles.1 Access to the dam site will be through a road corridor, of which 3 alternatives are being studied, and the project will also include a power transmission line corridor. Facilities to support this project include, but are not limited to, materials sites, disposal sites, camps, solid waste sites, and access roads. The project is anticipated to have a potential generating capacity of 600 megawatts of power. The potential development of the Susitna-Watana dam necessitates updated baseline information about the full range of wild resource harvests, uses, and areas of harvest, as well as demographic and economic information to understand the role of wild resource harvests in the economy and way of life of community residents in the project area. The communities included in the overall study are located in the Susitna and Copper River basins (Figure 1-1). This report represents the second phase of data collection by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Division of Subsistence for the project and focuses on the Copper River Basin communities; the companion report on research conducted for communities in the Susitna River Basin for 2012 has been published in The Harvest and Use of Wild Resources in Cantwell, Chase, Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, Alexander/Susitna, and Skwentna, Alaska (Holen et al. 2014). An earlier report, Watana Hydroelectric Project Subsistence Data Gap Analysis, which was prepared for AEA by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., identified communities to be potentially affected by the construction of the dam (Simeone et al. 2011). This analysis identified potential gaps in existing data that would be used to inform the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping activities conducted as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing process for the proposed project. Based on this gap analysis, ADF&G prepared a study plan to update information about the harvests and uses of wild resources for communities closest to the areas that could be affected by the construction and operation of the dam and communities located downriver from the project site. The Copper River Basin communities were included because residents from this area regularly access lands surrounding the potential dam site for hunting caribou, harvesting nonsalmon fish, and collecting berries and plants. Table 1-2 presents a list, including the Linnaean taxonomic names, of resources used by the study communities in 2013. 1. Susitna-Watana project description available at: http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/project/project-description/. 1 GlennallenGulkanaLake LouiseTazlinaTonsinaMendeltnaPaxsonNelchinaTolsonaSampled population21191192325324234716Estimated community population384104273529034327624Mean2.73.11.92.92.32.42.92.62.0Minimum111111111Maximum911576457435.534.553.331.841.845.653.539.847.201900000184997291877578857634336128.54553.5573953Total populationMean14.220.318.612.016.117.217.018.023.1Minimuma001001001Maximum649935645055605350Heads of householdMean19.629.522.116.220.118.822.523.625.8Minimuma006005301Maximum649935645055605350Estimated householdsbNumber10.927.30.050.15.10.00.03.20.0Percentage7.8%82.8%0.0%41.8%13.0%0.0%0.0%11.1%0.0%Estimated populationNumber68720138100060Percentage17.8%70.0%0.0%39.2%11.3%0.0%0.0%8.5%0.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.a. A minimum age of 0 (zero) is used for infants who are less than 1 year of age.b. The estimated number of households in which at least 1 head of household is Alaska Native.MeanHousehold sizeAgeCharacteristicsCommunityAlaska NativeMinimumaMaximumMedianLength of residencyTable 1-1.–Demographic characteristics, study communities, 2013.2 Slana/Nabesna RoadCopper CenterMentasta Pass Susitna RiverPaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaNelchinaMendeltnaLake LouiseTazlina/CoppervilleChaseSusitnaCantwellSkwentnaTalkeetnaTrapper CreekAlexander CreekTyonekGakonaChitinaMcCarthyKenny LakeWillow CreekChistochinaYear 1Year 2Surveyed (2010-2012)Susitna-Watana ProjectMajor Roads05025MilesStudy CommunitiesSusitna RiverMentasta LakeGlennallenFigure 1-1.–Map of study communities, Susitna River and Copper River basins.3 Table 1-2.–Species list, study communities, 2013. Common name Scientific name Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Landlocked salmon Oncorhynchus spp. Unknown salmon Oncorhynchus spp. Pacific herring Clupea pallasi Pacific herring sac roe Clupea pallasi Pacific herring spawn on kelp Clupea pallasi Pacific herring roe on hemlock branches Clupea pallasi Smelt Eulachon (hooligan, candlefish)Thaleichthys pacificus Unknown smelt Pacific (gray) cod Gadus macrocephalus Pacific tomcod Microgadus proximus Walleye pollock (whiting)Theragra chalcogramma Unknown cod Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus Unknown flounder Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis Arctic lamprey Lampetra spp. Rockfish Black rockfish Sebastes melanops Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus Unknown rockfish Sablefish (black cod)Anoplopoma fimbria Sculpin Salmon shark Lamna ditropis Burbot Lota lota Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus Northern pike Esox lucius Sheefish Stenodus leucichthys Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead Unknown trout Broad whitefish Coregonus nasus Least cisco Coregonus sardinella Humpback whitefish Coregonus pidschian -continued- 4 Table 1-2.–Page 2 of 4.Common name Scientific nameRound whitefish Prosopium cylindraceumUnknown whitefishesBison Bison bisonBlack bear Ursus americanusBrown bear Ursus arctosCaribouRangifer tarandusDeerOdocoileus hemionusMountain goat Oreamnos americanusMooseAlces alcesDall sheep Ovis dalliBeaverCastor canadensisCoyoteCanis latransArctic fox Vulpes lagopusRed fox Vulpes vulpesRed fox–cross phase Vulpes vulpesRed fox–red phase Vulpes vulpesSnowshoe hare Lepus americanusNorth American river (land) otter Lontra canadensisLynxLynx canadensisMarmotMarmota spp.Marten Martes spp.Mink Neovison visonMuskratOndatra zibethicusPorcupineErethizon dorsatumArctic ground (parka) squirrel Spermophilus parryiiRed (tree) squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicusUnknown squirrelLeast weasel Mustela nivalisGray wolf Canis lupusWolverineGulo guloBuffleheadBucephala albeolaCanvasbackAythya valisineriaKing eider Somateria spectabilisSpectacled eider Somateria fischeriGadwallAnas streperaGoldeneyeBucephala spp.Mallard Anas platyrhynchosMerganserMergus spp.Unknown merganser Mergus spp.Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalisNorthern pintail Anas acutaUnknown scaup Aythya spp.Black scoter Melanitta nigraSurf scoter Melanitta perspicillataWhite-winged scoter Melanitta fuscaNorthern shoveler Anas clypeataGreen-winged teal Anas crecca-continued- Table 1-2.–Page 2 of 4. Common name Scientific name Round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum Unknown whitefishes Bison Bison bison Black bear Ursus americanus Brown bear Ursus arctos Caribou Rangifer tarandus Deer Odocoileus hemionus Mountain goat Oreamnos americanus Moose Alces alces Dall sheep Ovis dalli Beaver Castor canadensis Coyote Canis latrans Arctic fox Vulpes lagopus Red fox Vulpes vulpes Red fox–cross phase Vulpes vulpes Red fox–red phase Vulpes vulpes Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus North American river (land) otter Lontra canadensis Lynx Lynx canadensis Marmot Marmota spp. Marten Martes spp. Mink Neovison vison Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Arctic ground (parka) squirrel Spermophilus parryii Red (tree) squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Unknown squirrel Least weasel Mustela nivalis Gray wolf Canis lupus Wolverine Gulo gulo Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Canvasback Aythya valisineria King eider Somateria spectabilis Spectacled eider Somateria fischeri Gadwall Anas strepera Goldeneye Bucephala spp. Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Merganser Mergus spp. Unknown merganser Mergus spp. Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis Northern pintail Anas acuta Unknown scaup Aythya spp. Black scoter Melanitta nigra Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca Northern shoveler Anas clypeata Green-winged teal Anas crecca -continued- 5 Table 1-2.–Page 3 of 4. Common name Scientific name Wigeon American wigeon Anas americana Unknown wigeon Anas spp. Unknown ducks Brant Branta bernicla Cackling goose Branta hutchinsii minima Canada goose Branta canadensis parvipes Unknown Canada/cackling geese Branta spp. Emperor goose Chen canagica Snow goose Chen caerulescens White-fronted goose Anser albifrons Unknown geese Tundra (whistling) swan Cygnus columbianus Sandhill crane Grus canadensis Murre Uria spp. Spruce grouse Falcipennis canadensis Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus Unknown grouse Ptarmigan Lagopus spp. Unknown ptarmigan Lagopus spp. Duck eggs Unknown duck eggs Goose eggs Unknown goose eggs Gull eggs Unknown gull eggs Unknown eggs Unknown chitons Clams Butter clams Saxidomus gigantea Freshwater clams Razor clams Siliqua spp. Unknown clams Cockles Dungeness crab Cancer magister King crab Unknown king crab Tanner crab Chionoecetes spp. Unknown mussels Mytilus spp. Octopus Octopus vulgaris Shrimp Squid Loligo opalescens Unknown marine invertebrates Berries Blueberry Vaccinium uliginosum alpinum Lowbush cranberry Vaccinum vitis-idaea minus -continued- 6 Table 1-2.–Page 4 of 4. Common name Scientific name Highbush cranberry Viburnum edule Crowberry Empetrum nigrum Elderberry Sambucus racemosa Currants Ribes spp. Cloudberry Rubus chamaemorus Nagoonberry Rubus arcticus spp. Raspberry Rubus idaeus Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis Strawberry Fragaria virginiana Blackberry Empetrum nigrum Twisted stalk berry (watermelon berry)Streptopus amplexifolius Other wild berry Wild rhubarb Polygonum alaskanum Eskimo potato Hedysarum alpinum Devil's club Echinopanax horridum Fiddlehead ferns Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea Ledum palustre Dandelion greens Taraxacum L. Sourdock Rumex fenestratus Spruce tips Picea spp. Wild rose hips Rosa acicularis Yarrow Achillea spp. Other wild greens Unknown mushrooms Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium Plantain Plantago major Stinkweed Artemisia tilesii Unknown greens from land Bladder wrack Fucus Vesiculosus Wood Bark Roots Alder Alnus spp. Wood (unspecified) Other wood Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 7 In order to complete the work in a timely manner, the communities were broken down into a 2-year study plan (see Figure 1-1). As shown in Table 1-3, 2 communities near the Susitna River Basin in Cook Inlet had already been surveyed for another project in 2006 (Stanek et al. 2006). In addition, some Copper River Basin communities were surveyed as part of a joint Division of Subsistence/Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve (WRST) study series (Kukkonen and Zimpelman 2012; La Vine et al. 2013, 2014). The list of communities researched and updated for this project and the history of studies conducted in other communities is shown in Table 1-3. This study was a partnership between ADF&G, Stephen R. Braund and Associates (SRB&A), Newfields, LLC (Newfields), the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), and HDR Alaska, Inc. (HDR). NPS also provided support since this project provided information for their priority need of updating comprehensive survey data for WRST resident zone communities. SRB&A provided assistance with surveying the larger communities of Glennallen and Tazlina, as well as Lake Louise. Newfields conducted the health impact assessment (HIA) for the Susitna-Watana study and participated in administering household surveys in Glennallen and Tazlina. HDR provided organizational support for the social science component of the Susitna-Watana study as well as geographic information system (GIS) support. HDR built an Apple iPad2 application to gather harvest mapping information. regulatory context The upper Copper River is part of the state Upper Copper/Upper Susitna River and federal Prince William Sound fishery management areas. Within these management areas the Copper River contains 5 subsistence or personal use salmon fisheries managed by state or federal permit programs in the Glennallen Subdistrict, the Chitina Subdistrict, and at Batzulnetas. The state provides subsistence salmon fishing opportunities for all Alaska state residents in the Glennallen Subdistrict upstream of the Chitina-McCarthy Bridge. Under state regulations, salmon fishers may use either fish wheels or dip nets but not both gear types during a fishing season that lasts from June 1 through September 30. The state also manages a personal use dip net salmon fishery in the Chitina Subdistrict downstream from the bridge. State residents may not participate in both the state-managed subsistence fishery and the state-managed personal use salmon fishery during the same season. Federal management regulations provide subsistence fishing opportunities for qualified rural residents only in the Glennallen Subdistrict, the Chitina Subdistrict, and at Batzulnetas. Rural resident salmon fishers may use rod and reel in addition to dip nets and fish wheels all during the same season (May 15–September 30), but may not use them at the same time. Other subsistence and sport fishing opportunities are available for harvesting resident freshwater species and salmon during open season using varying types of legal gear. Hunting opportunities within the upper Copper River area are provided in 3 different state/federal game management units (GMUs): 11, 12, and 13 (containing subunits 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D, and 13E). Big game hunts are available for bison, black and brown bears, caribou, Dall sheep, moose, mountain goats, gray wolves, and wolverines, as well as hunting and trapping opportunities for small game and furbearers. Some large game hunts are by draw (lottery) for both residents and nonresidents, and other hunts are by general season that require only a harvest ticket or by registration permit for Alaska residents. In addition, under state regulations, there is a community subsistence hunt for both moose and caribou within all of GMUs 11 and 13, and a portion of GMU 12 for moose. Qualified rural residents are also able to hunt on federal lands in the area under federal subsistence regulations. 2. Product names are given because they are established standards for the State of Alaska or for scientific completeness; they do not constitute product endorsement. 8 1982198319841985198619871999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102013Previous studiesSusitna River Basin–Cook InletBeluga10AllTyonek70AllMMMMMMMMMMAllMMMMCopper River BasinChistochina36AllAllBMWAllChitina52AllAllBMWAllCopper Center/Silver Springs167AllAllBMWAllGakona86AllAllBMWAllKenny Lake/Willow Creek237AllAllAllMcCarthy20AllAllAllMentasta Lake46AllAllAllSlana/Nabesna Road77AllAllAllCommunities updated for current projectSusitna River BasinChase18AllAllCantwell104AllAllBMWAllSkwentna20AllAllAlexander/Susitna10AllAllTalkeetna449AllAllTrapper Creek225AllAllCopper River BasinGlennallen203AllAllAllGulkana36AllAllBMWAllLake Louise25AllAllAllMendeltna19AllAllAllNelchina30AllAllAllPaxson22AllAllAllTazlina/Copperville111AllAllBMWAllTolsona18AllAllAllTonsina39AllAllAllNote The key for the table is:MM = marine mammals. a. Source U.S. Census Bureau (2011).Estimated number of households 2010a2012All = "comprehensive" baseline survey of all resources used for subsistence purposes. BMW = birds and migratory waterfowl.Table 1-3.–History of Susitna River and Copper River drainage communities studied.9 Study oBjectiveS The project had the following objectives: A. Design a survey instrument to produce updated comprehensive baseline information for the 2013 study year about hunting, fishing, and gathering and other topics that is compatible with information collected in past household interviews for the study communities. B. Conduct community scoping meetings. C. Train local research assistants (LRAs) to assist in administering the systematic household survey. D. Conduct household surveys to record the following information: 1. Demographic information; 2. Involvement in the harvest, use, and sharing of fish, wildlife, and wild plants in the study year; 3. Estimated amounts of resources harvested in the study year; 4. Information about employment and cash income; 5. Assessments of changes in wild resource harvest and use patterns in the past 5 years; 6. Household consumption questions related to the HIA; 7. WRST-specific participation and fuel usage; and 8. Location of fishing, hunting, and gathering activities in the study year. E. Collaboratively review and interpret study findings. F. Communicate study findings to the communities. G. Produce a final report. reSearch MethodS Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Research The project was guided by the research principles outlined in the Alaska Federation of Natives Guidelines for Research3 and by the National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs in its Principles for the Conduct of Research in the Arctic4, as well as the Alaska confidentiality statute (AS 16.05.815). These principles stress community approval of research designs, informed consent, anonymity of study participants, community review of draft study findings, and the provision of study findings to each study community upon completion of the research. 3. Alaska Federation of Natives. 2013. “Alaska Federation of Natives Guidelines for Research.” Alaska Native Knowledge Network. Accessed February 25, 2014. http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/IKS/afnguide.html. 4. National Science Foundation Interagency Social Science Task Force. 2012. “Principles for the Conduct of Research in the Arctic.” Accessed February 25, 2014. http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/arctic/conduct.jsp. 10 Project Planning As noted above, AEA funded the Susitna-Watana project feasibility study, which includes a component called “subsistence resources.” The purpose of the subsistence component of the overall environmental study is to “document traditional and contemporary subsistence harvest and use and to collect baseline data to facilitate the assessment of potential impacts of the Project construction and operation on subsistence harvest and use in the Project area” (Alaska Energy Authority 2012). The subsistence component of the overall Susitna-Watana study was accomplished through a partnership between ADF&G and HDR, Newfields, DHSS, WRST, and SRB&A (Table 1-4). The ADF&G Subsistence Program Manager for Southern Alaska, Davin Holen, attended several meetings sponsored by AEA in the spring and summer of 2012 to describe the survey to the planning team. These meetings were open to agencies, contractors, Alaska Native tribal organizations, and community representatives. Holen prepared a study design for AEA that was approved and funded in fall 2012. To avoid duplication of efforts for the HIA component of the Susitna-Watana project, ADF&G included a page of HIA questions in the survey after consultation with Newfields and DHSS (see Appendix A). Because of the constricted research schedule, AEA provided funding to HDR to develop a digital data collection application for mapping search and harvest areas. This reduced the time necessary to enter the map data into a GIS program. Mapping will be discussed in more detail below. Scoping Meetings In advance of survey administration, Division of Subsistence researchers visited communities to advertise for and hold public meetings about the proposed research project. For this project, division staff traveled to the Copper River Basin on a number of occasions between October and December 2012 (Table 1-5). Several communities had formal scoping meetings while in others community leaders and organizations were consulted. Several communities required more extensive “ground truthing” (visual in-person confirmation) of residences, which is described below. This was the case for Glennallen, where a sample was to be used, therefore the known universe of households needed to be identified to create a sample; ground truthing was necessary as well at several communities on the Glenn Highway to understand the relation of households to the U.S. Census Bureau census designated place (CDP) boundaries (see Figure 1-2). Glennallen A team of researchers visited Glennallen in October 2013 to begin ground truthing the number of resident households. Because Glennallen is unincorporated, residential information is not publicly available. Therefore, researchers had to create the sampling universe from a combination of community maps obtained from the WRST and Google Maps. During this ground truthing visit, and in November and early January, researchers posted and re-posted advertisements about the planned Glennallen harvest survey on various community message boards—including at the local ADF&G office, the post office, and the grocery store. Furthermore, project overviews were available at the Glennallen ADF&G office. Information provided indicated the survey would take place January 18–25, 2014. Gulkana Robbin La Vine initiated contact with Gulkana and was invited to conduct a project scoping meeting presentation before the Gulkana Village Council on December 16, 2013. Approval was granted in the beginning of April 2014 and the survey effort began 2 weeks later. lake louise Researchers Bronwyn Jones, Joshua Ream, and Eric Schacht traveled to Lake Louise March 11, 2014. A community scoping meeting was held at the Lake Louise Lodge the evening of March 11 and members from 4 households attended. The survey effort began immediately following the meeting through the next day. ADF&G staff were joined by 3 SRB&A staff: Susan Lukowski, Raena Schraer, and Emily Wood. 11 Table 1-4.–Project staff. Task Name Organization Project design and management Davin Holen ADF&G Division of Subsistence Gap analysis Davin Holen ADF&G Division of Subsistence Project lead Davin Holen ADF&G Division of Subsistence SRB&A lead Stephen R. Braund Stephen R. Braund & Associates HDR Alaska, Inc., lead Tracie Krauthoefer HDR Alaska, Inc. Data management lead David Koster ADF&G Division of Subsistence Glennallen research lead Sarah M. Hazell ADF&G Division of Subsistence Gulkana research lead Robbin La Vine ADF&G Division of Subsistence Lake Louise research lead Joshua Ream ADF&G Division of Subsistence Mendeltna research lead Bronwyn Jones ADF&G Division of Subsistence Nelchina research lead Malla Kukkonen ADF&G Division of Subsistence Paxson research lead James Van Lanen ADF&G Division of Subsistence Tazlina research lead Robbin La Vine ADF&G Division of Subsistence Tolsona research lead Joshua Ream ADF&G Division of Subsistence Tonsina research lead Robbin La Vine ADF&G Division of Subsistence Administrative support Jennifer Bond ADF&G Division of Subsistence Maegan Smith ADF&G Division of Subsistence Programmer Garrett Zimpelman ADF&G Division of Subsistence Data entry Margaret Cunningham ADF&G Division of Subsistence Theresa Quiner ADF&G Division of Subsistence Zayleen Kalalo ADF&G Division of Subsistence Nicholas Jackson ADF&G Division of Subsistence Barbara Dodson ADF&G Division of Subsistence Data cleaning/validation Garrett Zimpelman ADF&G Division of Subsistence Data analysis David S. Koster ADF&G Division of Subsistence Garrett Zimpelman ADF&G Division of Subsistence Cartography Davin Holen ADF&G Division of Subsistence Bronwyn Jones ADF&G Division of Subsistence Joshua Ream ADF&G Division of Subsistence Eric Schacht ADF&G Division of Subsistence Dustin Murray ADF&G Division of Subsistence Mapping application development Bridget Brown HDR Alaska, Inc. Mathew Cooper HDR Alaska, Inc. Michael Davis HDR Alaska, Inc. Editorial review lead Mary Lamb ADF&G Division of Subsistence Field research staff Margaret Cunningham ADF&G Division of Subsistence Sarah Evans ADF&G Division of Subsistence Sarah M. Hazell ADF&G Division of Subsistence Hannah Johnson ADF&G Division of Subsistence Brownwyn Jones ADF&G Division of Subsistence Theodore Krieg ADF&G Division of Subsistence Malla Kukkonen ADF&G Division of Subsistence Dustin Murray ADF&G Division of Subsistence Theresa Quiner ADF&G Division of Subsistence Joshua Ream ADF&G Division of Subsistence Eric Schacht ADF&G Division of Subsistence James Van Lanen ADF&G Division of Subsistence Cameron Welch ADF&G Division of Subsistence Kassie Kirk Newfields, LLC Derek Moss Newfields, LLC Emily Benz Stephen R. Braund & Associates -continued- 12 Field research staff, continued Susan Lukowski Stephen R. Braund & Associates Travis Shinabarger Stephen R. Braund & Associates Raena Schraer Stephen R. Braund & Associates Emily Wood Stephen R. Braund & Associates Local research assistants Cynthia Buchanan Glennallen Betty Goodlataw Glennallen Eric Lutz Glennallen Dale Oja Glennallen Kathy Peter Glennallen Kathy Stratton Glennallen/Tazlina Amber Alexander Gulkana Felicia Ewan Gulkana Samson Frank Gulkana Anthony Delaquito Lake Louise Erin Fingle Mendeltna Teresa Noble Nelchina Stephanie Littleton Nelchina Lee Harper Paxson Claudia Demientieff Tazlina Paul Gardener Tazlina Betty Goodlataw Tazlina Travis Goodlataw Tazlina Kayla Pete Tazlina Shanna Pete Tazlina Kristal Bengtson Tolsona Sarah Dolge Tonsina Sue Moore Tonsina Carla Somerville Tonsina Table 1-4.–Page 2 of 2. Community Date Staff Glennallena 10/24/13–1/18/14 N/A Gulkana 12/16/2013 La Vine Lake Louise 3/11/2014 Jones/Ream/Schacht Mendeltnab 10/23/2013 Hazell/Jones/Kukkonen Nelchinab 10/23/2013 Hazell/Jones/Kukkonen Paxson 1/21/2014 Van Lanen/Ream Tazlina 10/2/2013 La Vine Tolsonab 10/2/2013 Hazell/Jones/Kukkonen Tonsina 11/6/13–3/4/14 La Vine a. Residents were informed about the survey by advertisements that were posted at the Glennallen ADF&G office, the post office, and the local grocery store during a 3- month period. b. A combined community meeting was held for Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona. Table 1-5.–Community scoping meetings/community consultation, study communities, 2013–2014. 13 Glenn HighwayLake Louise RoadRichardson HighwayMP15MP180MP173MP166MP150MP137MendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseTolsonaNelchinaMatanuska-Susitna Borough boundaryCensus designated placeEast Glenn HighwayHighway milepostHighway/roadwaySusitna-Watana Project Year 20105MilesFigure 1-2.–Map of study community boundaries, Glenn Highway communities, 2013.14 Paxson During September 2013 researcher James Van Lanen visited Paxson and consulted with community members about the project. In October 2013 researcher Ream received verbal approval for the project via the unofficial mayor of the community. In December 2013, Ream coordinated with a number of local community members to develop a household list and plan a scoping meeting. Most local residents were informed of the scoping meeting directly through a combination of telephone calls and/or electronic mail. Meier’s Lake Roadhouse hosted the scoping meeting on January 21, 2014. Community members held a potluck for the event and a total of 7 community members attended. Tazlina La Vine met with the Native Village of Tazlina on October 2, 2013 to discuss the survey effort and received a letter of support the following week. La Vine maintained contact with the Native Village of Tazlina and other non-Native community representatives throughout the following months to coordinate logistics and the development of a community sample. Tonsina Tonsina area representatives were briefed about the survey project at the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park Subsistence Resource Commission meeting held in Copper Center on March 4, 2014. Mendeltna, nelchina, and Tolsona Jones contacted the owner of the Mendeltna Lodge and ADF&G Division of Subsistence staff Sarah Hazell, Jones, and Malla Kukkonen, as well as visiting scholar Sean Desjardins, traveled to Mendeltna on October 23, 2013, to host a scoping meeting for community members of Nelchina, Mendeltna, and Tolsona at the Mendeltna Lodge. The meeting was well attended and a total of 14 people from the different communities were present. Systematic Household Surveys The primary method for collecting subsistence harvest and use information in this project was a systematic household survey. Following receipt of comments at the scoping meetings where the project was described to residents, ADF&G finalized the survey instrument in December 2013. Appendix A is an example of the survey instrument used in this project. A key goal was to structure the survey instrument to collect demographic, resource harvest and use, and other economic data that are comparable with information collected in other household surveys in the study communities and with data in the Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS5). In addition to the core data collected, there were questions included in this survey that were requested by the WRST and are consistent with the survey questions added to the first 3 years of data collected in the Copper River Basin for a project that was funded by the WRST. Residents were asked if they built, maintained, or moved fish wheels in trying to understand if the respondent was involved in fish wheel activity in any way. In addition, residents were asked if they worked with skins or made handicrafts from locally available natural resources. Other questions that were asked in the previous 3 Copper River Basin reports funded by the WRST and continued here include the use of alternative modes of transportation (excluding highway vehicles and traveling on foot) and motorized equipment such as chain saws and ice augers to harvest wild resources. Questions were also added to surveys for all Copper River Basin study communities spanning 4 study years regarding the use of wood for home heating. This is in response to observations by division researchers working over the past several years in the Copper River Basin as well as other parts of Alaska, such as Bristol Bay and the Susitna River Basin. There are several programs to install efficient wood stoves in households in response to the high cost of fuel oil for heating. 5. ADF&G CSIS: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sb/CSIS/. 15 GlennallenGulkanaLake LouiseTazlinaTonsinaMendeltnaPaxsonNelchinaTolsonaNumber of dwelling units22335231374614113014Interview goal11235231374614113014Households interviewed7729107923108188Households failed to be contacted413127123392Households declined to be interviewed14131441022Households moved or occupied by nonresident83291770012Total households attempted to be interviewed132301393271182010Refusal rate15.4%3.3%23.1%15.1%14.8%9.1%0.0%10.0%20.0%Final estimate of permanent households14033141203914112912Percentage of total households interviewed55.0%87.9%71.4%65.8%59.0%71.4%72.7%62.1%66.7%Interview weighting factor1.81.11.41.51.71.41.41.61.5Sampled population21191192325324234716Estimated population383.6103.626.6352.489.933.631.675.724.0CommunitySource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Sample informationTable 1-6.–Sample achievement, study communities, 2013.16 A census strategy was employed for all of the communities except Glennallen. Table 1-6 shows the sampling strategy employed in each of the study communities. Census designated place (CDP) boundaries were used to define the limits of each community. Each community was surveyed as a unique CDP; however, for the communities of Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona some analysis was combined to preserve anonymity of respondents, among other reasons (for more detailed information see chapter 8 for Mendeltna) (Figure 1-2). Additionally, an attempt was made by the Paxson research team to survey any possible year-round households existing in the corridor of the Richardson Highway from the boundary of the Paxson CDP south to the boundary of the Gulkana CDP, hereafter referred to as Sourdough. Previous research in the Copper River Basin by the division (study years 1982 and 1987) had included Sourdough. During the 1982 survey period, the Paxson CDP did not exist and for sampling purposes the division defined the study community as Paxson-Sourdough, which included households extending from Paxson south to mile 147 of the Richardson Highway. Sampling efforts by the division for 1987, however, divided Paxson and Sourdough into 2 separate communities. For the current study, it was discovered that no year-round households existed in the Sourdough area, and consequently, it was not surveyed. The objective in Glennallen was to survey 50% of the community’s households (112 households) that were identified based on ground truthing efforts. To estimate the number of households, the division obtained U.S. Geological Survey 1:200-scale quadrangle maps that were printed by the WRST that depicted the core of Glennallen, including all structures—both residential and nonresidential buildings. These maps represent areas from Pilcho Drive (known locally as Old Dump Road) at the far eastern section on the Glenn Highway to one-quarter mile north and south of the Glenn Highway junction on the Richardson Highway. Outside this core area, Google Maps of remaining CDP areas were printed and milepost numbers assigned on them to determine exact locations within the CDP. A division researcher labeled and numbered all of the potential and confirmed residential units on the maps. Researchers visited Glennallen in November 2013 and contracted local research assistant Cynthia Buchanan to evaluate all of the structures on the maps and she confirmed which ones were residential. For many of the residential buildings, Buchanan was able to identify which ones were occupied and those that were vacant. While in Glennallen, 4 division researchers checked the remaining units to determine potential occupancy. These efforts established an estimate of 223 potential occupied dwelling units. During the survey effort in January, ground truthing efforts helped to establish a better estimate of the number of occupied dwellings (e.g., obtaining local information about people/households that had moved out of Glennallen). For each residence that researchers attempted to contact a disposition was applied during the survey process; the disposition categories included: • Contains residents that are eligible to participate in the survey based on length of residency (survey attempted). • Nonresident—occupants or owners not domiciled in CDP (e.g., a weekend cabin) (no survey attempted). • Vacant (no survey attempted). • Not a dwelling (commercial building or no dwelling exists) (no survey attempted). For selected households, researchers attempted to contact the household to conduct a survey. If researchers were initially unsuccessful at making contact, the household was contacted a minimum of 3 different occasions. When a reasonable effort was made to survey the household and no contact could be made, this household was assigned a “no contact” disposition and staff attempted to survey the next household on the sample list. An initial list of 100 randomly selected households was provided to the research lead by the division Information Management lead David Koster. Only when this list was exhausted would new households be made available by 20 households at a time. While working in Glennallen, the division learned that the community had suffered a significant decrease in population coinciding with the outmigration of a number of organizations during 2013. The estimated number of households decreased and differed 17 significantly from the initial estimate (Table 1-6). The initial survey goal was 112 households (50%) of 223 households. Due to the significant population decline (discussed in detail in chapter 2 for Glennallen), which was established through ground truthing and survey efforts, the final estimate of resident households in 2013 was 140 (reduced from 223). A total of 77 households were surveyed, which resulted in a slightly higher sample achievement (55%), although fewer households were surveyed than the originally developed goal (112). For the rest of the communities where a census survey was employed researchers worked with a combination of their LRAs, knowledgeable community members, and tribal administrators to develop a community household list. Each list was refined over the course of survey administration based on new information and subsequent disposition identification of nonresident households that were removed from the list (e.g., households moved). Success rates varied between communities from 88% sample achievement in Gulkana to 59% in Tonsina (Table 1-6). A total of 262 surveys were administered in the Copper River Basin for study year 2013. The average amount of time, in minutes, to administer the survey in each community is available in Table 1-7. Surveys administered in Lake Louise were the shortest and in Paxson the longest on average. Overall, surveys lasted approximately 60 minutes, which included the standard survey form and a mapping component, which is discussed below. Mapping Locations of Subsistence Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering During household interviews, the researchers asked respondents to indicate the locations of their hunting, fishing, and gathering activities during the 2013 study year. Division researchers were guided by a standard mapping protocol. Features included points, polygons (shapes), and lines. Points were used for harvest locations that were specific to a small area; polygons were used for search areas, such as when hunting moose, and harvest areas, such as for migratory waterfowl or small game where respondents might indicate a larger area showing multiple harvests; and lines were used occasionally to depict traplines or trolling on a river. Overall, the protocol for documenting harvests is a guide and researchers were trained to use the feature that best captured the activity that was related by the respondent. Harvest locations and hunting and gathering areas were documented using an application designed on the ArcGIS Runtime SDK for IOS platform. As mentioned previously, the application was developed by HDR, an environmental research firm located in Anchorage. The device used to collect the data was an iPad. The Community Average Minimum Maximum Glennallen 53 15 139 Gulkana 48 14 109 Lake Louise 39 25 60 Tazlina 59 13 208 Tonsina 73 25 175 Mendeltna 64 17 135 Paxson 100 15 260 Nelchina 48 15 86 Tolsona 54 21 107 Average 60 18 142 Interview length (in minutes) Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Table 1-7.–Survey length, study communities, 2013. 18 point, polygon, or line was drawn on a U.S. Geological Survey topographic relief map displayed on the iPad. The iPad allowed the user to zoom in and out to the appropriate scale, and the ability to document search and harvesting activities wherever they occurred in the state of Alaska. Once a feature was accepted, an attribute box was filled out by the researcher that noted the species harvested, amount, method of access to the resource, and month(s) of harvest. The data were uploaded via Wi-Fi to a server. Data uploads to the server were undertaken once daily in the field when cellular networks or Wi-Fi connections were available. This provided a back-up of the spatial harvest data. During the check-in process, the number of successful point, line, and polygon uploads was displayed on the device. Upload failures were also displayed on the device and recorded by the researchers. Data that failed to upload were later downloaded directly from the device and added to an ArcGIS file geodatabase. Researchers periodically conducted quality control checks on uploaded data with a website developed by HDR as a means of validating successful uploads. Once data collection was complete, the data were downloaded into an ArcGIS file database. Paper maps were also available to be used as a reference for respondents as well as by an LRA when an ADF&G researcher was not available for the interview to provide an iPad. These maps were 11x17 inches at a scale of 1:250,000 and 1:500:000 and only documented areas within the Copper River Basin. Key Respondent interviews While researchers visited study communities they consulted with LRAs, knowledgeable community members, and tribal administrators to identify key respondents to interview. The purpose of the key respondent interviews was to provide additional context for the quantitative data, and to provide information for the community background section at the beginning of each chapter, the seasonal round sections, harvest over time analysis, and the community comments and concerns section at the end of each chapter. The number of key respondent interviews varied among communities. Key respondent interviews were semi- structured and directed by a key respondent interview protocol designed by division researchers that has proven successful on other comprehensive survey projects (see Appendix C). Besides gathering qualitative data through the key respondent interview protocol, division researchers took notes during interviews to provide additional context for this report. Researchers analyzed key respondent interviews and interview notes in preparation for this report. Key respondents were informed that, to maintain anonymity, their names would not be included in this report. Household Survey implementation Glennallen Hazell was the research lead for the community of Glennallen. For the survey effort, the following people were involved: division researchers Hazell, Sarah Evans, and Theresa Quiner, and division volunteer Cameron Welch; Derek Moss of Newfields; and SRB&A staff Emily Benz, Lukowski, Travis Shinabarger, Schraer, and Wood. Project staff arrived on January 12, 2014 and trained LRAs Cynthia Buchanan, Betty Goodlataw, Eric Lutz, Dale Oja, Kathy Peter, and Kathy Stratton in the afternoon of the same day (Table 1-4). Survey administration occurred until January 18. Some remaining surveys were left with LRAs Buchanan and Stratton to complete over the ensuing 2 weeks. These surveys were completed by the LRAs and then retrieved by division researcher La Vine. Because of the recent outmigration of a Bible college and other businesses during 2013 from Glennallen, the community population had decreased quite significantly in a short amount of time, which in turn had an effect on the projected sample as described above (see chapter 2 for Glennallen for more details). Gulkana The Gulkana survey was conducted April 13–17, 2014. Training occurred Monday, April 14 at the Gulkana Village Council hall and a final household list was drafted and approved by the LRAs. ADF&G staff included La Vine, Kukkonen, and Schacht, and LRAs included Amber Alexander, Felicia Ewan, and Samson Frank 19 (Table 1-4). All surveys were completed by the end of the week with the exception of 3 no contacts and 1 refusal. lake louise Jones led the research effort for the community of Lake Louise. The LRA training took place before the scoping meeting that was held on March 11, 2014. The survey effort began in the evening on March 11 following the community scoping meeting. At the time of the survey, residents from Lake Louise were being provided an opportunity to buy fuel at the Lake Louise Lodge every Wednesday. The LRA called all residents to inform households about the survey efforts scheduled take place at the lodge and researchers were able to survey residents when they came to the lodge to purchase fuel on March 12. The survey effort was completed at the end of the day on March 12. Mendeltna, nelchina, and Tolsona As previously mentioned, some analysis for these 3 communities—called the East Glenn Highway communities—was combined so they are discussed here as a group. Five division researchers—Jones, Evans, Margaret Cunningham, Ream, and Kukkonen—along with 1 division college intern, Dustin Murray, and 1 volunteer, Welch, traveled to Nelchina, Mendeltna, and Tolsona on Sunday, January 5, 2014. Researchers were prepared to give a second presentation, in addition to the earlier scoping meeting, for local residents at the Mendeltna Lodge on the evening of the January 5, but, despite local advertisement, no residents arrived at the appointed meeting time. Prior to the fieldwork commencing, each community lead had recruited 1 to 2 LRAs to assist with the household surveys. The LRA training took place on Monday, January 6, and the survey efforts in all 3 communities began in earnest on Tuesday, January 7. Murray assisted Kukkonen in Nelchina; Jones, Welch, and Evans worked in Mendeltna; and Ream and Cunningham worked in Tolsona. Surveys in Mendeltna were concluded by Thursday, January 9; Tolsona was finished on January 10; and Nelchina was finished on January 11. Paxson ADF&G staff members Van Lanen and Ream arrived in Paxson on January 21, 2014. A community scoping meeting was held that evening at the Meier’s Lake Roadhouse. Staff conducted comprehensive harvest surveys in the community from January 22–25. Lee Harper acted as the LRA by assisting with contacting community members to set up survey appointments. A trip to Delta Junction was made on January 23 to survey a long-time Paxson household residing seasonally in that community. As a component of the Paxson research, ground truthing was done to determine if any year-round households existed in the Sourdough area. It was determined that no year-round households existed in Sourdough. Two households located along the Denali Highway were not visited because that roadway is not maintained in the winter and conditions were not favorable for navigation and safe travel by snowmachine. One of these households was surveyed by phone following the initial survey effort. No surveys were conducted in-person following the fieldwork effort. Tazlina The survey effort for Tazlina began February 2, 2014, with final surveys completed by March 8. A community mapping session was conducted the afternoon of February 2 and the Tazlina household list was finalized in consultation with LRAs and community representatives. LRA training was conducted on February 3 in the Tazlina Tribal Hall. Tazlina was the second largest community of the project and return trips were anticipated to ensure the census sample goal was achieved. ADF&G staff included La Vine, graduate intern Hannah Johnson, division staff Theodore Krieg, and graduate intern Schacht; staff from SRB&A included Lukowski and Shinabarger; and Kassie Kirk from Newfields attended (Table 1-4). Local research assistants 20 were Claudia Demientieff, Paul Gardener, Betty Goodlataw, Travis Goodlataw, Kayla Pete, Shanna Pete, and Kathy Stratton. Tonsina The survey effort in Tonsina took place the week of March 2–7, 2014. Prior to implementing the survey effort, ADF&G staff Van Lanen arrived early to ground truth the community. Van Lanen learned that a small but growing community of 12 households existed south of the Tonsina CDP boundaries but outside the Valdez CDP. On further investigation, only 4 of the 12 households were permanent, year-round residences. After consultation with community members and ADF&G team members, it was determined that these households would be included in the Tonsina study area. LRA training took place March 3 at the Tonsina River Lodge with most surveys completed by March 7. Staff included La Vine, Schacht, and Van Lanen, with assistance from LRAs Kristal Bengston, Sarah Dolge, Sue Moore, and Carla Somerville (Table 1-4). data analySiS and review Survey Data Entry and Analysis All data were coded for data entry by division staff; project leads for each community coded all surveys for that community for consistency and for the larger community of Glennallen, Information Management staff member Quiner coded the surveys. Responses were coded following standardized conventions used by the division to facilitate data entry. Information Management staff within the division set up database structures within Microsoft SQL Server at ADF&G in Anchorage to hold the survey data. The database structures included rules, constraints, and referential integrity to ensure that data were entered completely and accurately. Data entry screens were available on a secured internet website. Daily incremental backups of the database occurred, and transaction logs were backed up hourly. Full backups of the database occurred twice weekly. This ensured that no more than 1 hour of data entry would be lost in the unlikely event of a catastrophic failure. All survey data were entered twice and each set compared in order to minimize data entry errors. Once data were entered and confirmed, information was processed with the use of Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 19. Initial processing included the performance of standardized logic checks of the data. Logic checks are often needed in complex data sets where rules, constraints, and referential integrity do not capture all of the possible inconsistencies that may appear. Harvest data collected as numbers of animals, or in gallons or buckets, were converted to pounds usable weight using standard factors (see Appendix B for conversion factors). Division analysts also used SPSS for analyzing the survey information. Analysis included review of raw data frequencies, cross tabulations, table generation, estimation of population parameters, and calculation of confidence intervals for the estimates. Missing information was dealt with on a case-by-case basis according to standardized practices, such as minimal value substitution or using an averaged response for similarly-characterized households. Typically, missing data are an uncommon, randomly-occurring phenomenon in household surveys conducted by the division. In unusual cases where a substantial amount of survey information was missing, the household survey was treated as a “non-response” and not included in community estimates. Division researchers documented all adjustments. Harvest estimates and responses to all questions were calculated based upon the application of weighted means (Cochran 1977). These calculations are standard methods for extrapolating sampled data. As an example, the formula for harvest expansion is (1) where: 21 (mean harvest per returned survey) the total harvest (numbers of resource or pounds) for the community I, the total harvest reported in returned surveys, the number of returned surveys, and the number of households in a community. As an interim step, the standard deviation (SD), or variance (V; which is the SD squared), was also calculated with the raw, unexpanded data. The standard error (SE), or SD, of the mean was also calculated for each community. This was used to estimate the relative precision of the mean, or the likelihood that an unknown value would fall within a certain distance from the mean. In this study, the relative precision of the mean is shown in the tables as a confidence limit (CL), expressed as a percentage. Once the standard error was calculated, the CL was determined by multiplying the SE by a constant that reflected the level of significance desired, based on a normal distribution. The constant for 95% confidence limits is 1.96. Though there are numerous ways to express the formula below, it contains the components of an SD, V, and SE. Relative precision of the mean (CL%): (2) where: sample standard deviation, sample size, population size, Student’s t statistic for alpha level (α=.95) with n–1 degrees of freedom, and sample mean. Small CL percentages indicate that an estimate is likely to be very close to the actual mean of the sample. Larger percentages mean that estimates could be further from the mean of the sample. The corrected final data from the household survey will be added to the ADF&G Division of Subsistence CSIS. This publicly-accessible database includes community-level study findings. Population Estimates and other Demographic information As noted above, a goal of the research was to collect demographic information for all year-round households in each study community by surveying a census of each community, with the exception of Glennallen where a sampling strategy was employed. For this study, “year-round” was defined as being domiciled in the 22 community when the surveys took place and for at least 3 months during the study year 2013. Because not all households were interviewed, population estimates for each community were calculated by multiplying the average household size of interviewed households by the total number of year-round households, as identified by division researchers in consultation with community officials and other knowledgeable respondents. There may be several reasons for the differences among the population estimates for each community and other demographic data that are generated from the division’s household survey (as of December 31, 2013), and estimates developed by the 2010 federal census (U.S. Census Bureau 2011), and estimates by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 2014). Observed differences in population estimates may be attributed to a variety of reasons, including differing survey methods, seasonal differences in populations, and rapid outmigration events (i.e., when large businesses or institutions leave small communities). Map Data Entry and Analysis As discussed above, maps were generated based on data collected using an iPad or on 11x17-inch paper maps. All data were entered on the iPad, whether in the field during interviews or by ADF&G or project research staff while coding survey data. Map features were matched to the survey form to ensure that all harvest data were recorded accurately. Once all data were entered, an ArcGIS file geodatabase was downloaded by ADF&G researchers from the server and maps showing harvest locations for each species were created by ArcGIS 10.2 using a standard template for reports. Maps show harvest locations for fish species, harvest areas for plants, berries, wood, and birds, and hunting areas for large land mammals. To ensure confidentiality, harvest locations for large land mammals are not produced for the report. Maps were reviewed at a community review meeting to ensure accuracy as well identify any data the community would like to keep confidential. Community Review Meetings ADF&G staff presented preliminary survey findings and associated search area and harvest maps at a meeting in each community. Table 1-8 shows when a community review meeting occurred in each study community and how many community residents attended. The purposes of the community review meetings were to provide an opportunity for community members to comment on the findings of the study, for researchers to capture concerns that were not documented during the survey but community members feel are important, and to clarify any issues that researchers encountered during analysis. Following is a description of how the meetings were advertised, where meetings took place, and how many community members attended. Community review meetings were held in Glennallen, Mendeltna, and Tolsona on August 5, 2014. The local ADF&G office facilitated the Glennallen meeting by posting advertisements on message boards at their office and at the post office and grocery store. A radio announcement also advertised the Glennallen meeting and the community review meetings in Mendeltna and Tolsona. A total of 6 people attended the Glennallen meeting at the Rustic Resort Bed and Breakfast. Jones communicated with a local Mendeltna community leader about the meeting in addition to advertising the meeting on the local radio. Despite advertising efforts, only 1 person attended the meeting. The Tolsona meeting occurred at Tolsona Lodge; to arrange for the meeting, Ream had been in contact with the owner, who disseminated information about the meeting to community members. Members from 4 households attended the meeting. On the following evening of August 6, 2014, a community data review meeting was conducted in Paxson at Meier’s Lake Roadhouse. Ream contacted the roadhouse owners prior to the meeting and they helped to advertise the event by calling members of the community. Ream also made phone calls to some area residents. The meeting was attended by 10 individuals including 4 full-time residents. Attendees generally agreed that the data appeared correct, and they offered additional insights on wildlife and fishery concerns facing their community. 23 Community residents Staff Glennallen 8/5/2014 6 Hazell Gulkana 10/16/2014 3 Schacht/La Vine Lake Louise 9/23/2014 22 Ream/Kukkonen Mendeltna 8/5/2014 1 Jones Nelchina 9/24/2014 14 Kukkonen/Ream Paxson 8/6/2014 10 Ream/Welch Tazlina 10/16/2014 2 Johnson Tolsona 8/5/2014 5 Ream/Welch Tonsina 10/15/2014 2 La Vine/Van Lanen Community Date Attendance Table 1-8.–Community review meetings, study communities, 2014. The Lake Louise data review meeting was held at Lake Louise Lodge on September 23, 2014. Ream contacted the owners prior to the meeting and they assisted with advertising the event. A community potluck dinner was held to encourage resident attendance, which was high as a result of the potluck with 22 people attending from Lake Louise, as well as the nearby Susitna and Tyone areas.6 On the following evening, the community review meeting in Nelchina took place (September 24). Kukkonen had been in contact with the Nelchina LRA Teresa Noble and she assisted with advertising the meeting. ADF&G staff in Glennallen also assisted by posting flyers on message boards at the office, in the local grocery store, and at the post office. A total of 14 people attended the meeting at the Nelchina chapel. The Tonsina community review meeting was held at Tonsina River Lodge on October 15, 2014. La Vine and Van Lanen organized the time and location of the community review in consultation with several community members and lodge owners. While only 2 members of the community attended the meeting, their local knowledge of the area and its resources was invaluable in evaluating the results of the comprehensive survey. For the meeting in Tazlina, which occurred the following evening on October 16, Johnson organized a paper flier distribution for the homeowner association’s mailing list (which includes most of the Tazlina CDP) that advertised the community review meeting and she also arranged for advertisements on 3 local radio stations and on the Tazlina Village Council’s Facebook page. Despite widespread advertising, only 2 community members attended the meeting. Also, on the evening of October 16, 2014, the Gulkana community review meeting was held at the local community hall. Schacht communicated with the Gulkana Village Council to organize the meeting; a total of 3 people attended. Final rePort organization This report summarizes the results of systematic household surveys and mapping interviews conducted by researchers from the division, Newfields, and SRB&A as well as LRAs, and the report also summarizes resident feedback provided at community review meetings. The findings are organized by study community. Each chapter includes tables and figures that report findings on demographic characteristics, employment characteristics, individual participation in harvesting and processing of wild resources, and characteristics of resource harvests and uses—including the sharing of wild foods—and also harvest and use trends over time. Because of the large number of maps of hunting, fishing, and gathering areas used by each community in 2013, selected maps are included in individual chapters and the remaining maps are published as Appendix D, “Search and Harvest Area Maps by Community.” Additionally, Appendix E contains supplemental tables 6. The communities of Susitna and Tyone were not included in the survey because they are outside the boundary of the Lake Louise CDP. Based on information from Lake Louise community members, it is unlikely that any households from Susitna or Tyone are year-round residences. 24 that are discussed in the community chapters. The final chapter of the report provides a short, general overview of the harvests and uses of wild resources in the study communities. The content, in terms of 2013 harvest data, is consistent in each chapter because it is based on the survey instrument; however, there are differences in terms of documenting historical trends because methods have changed over time, such as earlier studies not including a mapping component, and census boundaries have shifted over time as discussed below. Chapters are organized alphabetically, with the exception of the amalgamated East Glenn Highway communities of Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona, which compose the final report results chapters. This is to provide a method of analysis of historical trends since these communities were analyzed as 1 community on previous surveys for 1982 and 1987 (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). Community chapters begin with background information on each community’s physical, historical, and contemporary settings followed by demographic, employment and income, and subsistence harvest and use sections. Comprehensive subsistence harvest surveys that include all of the study communities were conducted for study years 1982 and 1987 (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). Differences in the delineation of the communities and sample sizes are discussed in the individual chapters in the sections “Demography” and “Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years” with the exception of the East Glenn Highway communities, where changes to community boundaries are described in the Mendeltna results chapter (the first of the 3 communities making up this grouping). While direct comparisons cannot be made because of these differences, overall trends can be assessed to determine if there has been any change over time regarding the harvest of subsistence resources. It is also possible to compare historical spatial harvest data with the 2013 study year to determine changes in the search and harvest areas for wild food resources over time. For the communities in this report, limited spatial data were collected as part of the 1982 and 1987 study years (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). Additionally, during the 1983 and 1984 fieldwork seasons, ADF&G researchers conducted interviews with more than 200 hunters and fishers in 20 communities in or near the Copper River Basin to map areas where hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering of wild resources occurred between 1964 and 1984 (Stratton and Georgette 1985). This effort produced 2 separate publications by 2 different ADF&G divisions; the Division of Habitat published the maps and the Division of Subsistence published a description of the project and mapping methods. The maps depicting the harvest and use areas used by study community residents during this 20-year span are published in Alaska Habitat Management Guide Southcentral Region: Reference Maps—Volume 3. Community Use of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants (Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat 1985).7 Information about the mapping project is available in Copper Basin Resource Use Map Index and Methodology (Stratton and Georgette 1985). Changes in the resource harvest and use/search areas by Copper River Basin residents can be discerned through limited comparisons of the maps published in 1985, which depict harvest and use areas for 20 years, and the maps produced from this study, which only reflect search and harvest areas for the study year 2013. Each chapter concludes with a summary of concerns that residents shared regarding wild resources. These comments were documented during survey administration, key respondent interviews, and at community review meetings. ADF&G provided a draft report to the Alaska Energy Authority who funded this study, to study partners SRB&A, HDR, Newfields, and DHSS, and to the study communities for their review and comment. After receipt of comments, the report was finalized. ADF&G mailed a short (2-page) summary of the study findings to households in the 9 study communities (Appendix F). 7. A complete index of documents published in 1985 and 1986 as part of Alaska Habitat Management Guide is available online: http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/C/AHMG/index.html. 25 2. GLENNALLEN Sarah M. Hazell coMMunity Background Glennallen is a census designated place (CDP) located in the Copper River Basin at the junction of the Glenn and Richardson highways. The Copper River Basin does not have an incorporated borough that provides a local government. This area is characterized by boreal forests and typical subarctic continental climate (Jin and Brewer 2008:28). Glennallen experiences short mild summers, but has high temperatures that can reach 95 °F. Winters are long—lasting between October and April—with low temperatures nearing -65 °F (Jin and Brewer 2008; Reckord 1983a). This area annually averages approximately 11 inches of precipitation— predominately in the form of snowfall (Reckord 1983a). The most prominent geographic feature of this area is the Copper River, which is the most important source for salmon in the area. The Copper River Basin is the traditional homeland of the Ahtna and the area that includes the current community of Glennallen was the traditional territory of the Gulkana-Gakona band, led by Sday’dinaesi Ghaxen (Person of Long Point), referring to the leader of a village located near present-day Glennallen (Holen 2002:45). Glennallen is named after 2 U.S. Army explorers: Capt. Edwin F. Glenn and Lt. Henry Allen (Orth 1971rep.). The contemporary community of Glennallen originated in the 1940s as a camp to support the construction of World War II-era highways, including the Alaska–Canada, the Richardson, and the Glenn highways, which were intended to support military infrastructure (Reckord 1983a; Stratton and Georgette 1984). During that time, SEND International, an evangelical mission, was instrumental in the community’s settlement through the building and maintenance of key services like the hospital, a Bible college, and radio station (Stratton and Georgette 1984). Glennallen is a regional hub where rural residents can access a number of services. Services include a medical center, a post office, a well-stocked and maintained public library, a large grocery store, a hotel and several B&Bs, and a number of gas stations. Tribal, state, and federal agencies maintain offices in the community—for example, there are offices for Ahtna, Inc., ADF&G, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). deMograPhy The boundaries of the Glennallen survey area for this study follow the current federal CDP boundaries that are demarcated in the west by Glennallen’s border with Tolsona at mile 173 on the Glenn Highway to mile 189 to the east, which is the termination of the highway where it meets the Richardson Highway (Figure 2-1). On the Richardson Highway, the northern limit of Glennallen is at mile 117 and the southern border is close to Tazlina at mile 113. Within the survey boundary, a total of 77 households were interviewed of an estimated 140 resident households in Glennallen in 2013 (Table 2-1). Based on survey results, the estimated population of Glennallen for 2013 was 384 residents (Table 2-2). This number is significantly lower than the 2010 estimate by the U.S. Census Bureau of 483 residents and the 5-year American Community Survey (2008–2012) estimate of 531 residents. The decrease in population corresponds with the relocation during the preceding 3 years of 2 long-time resident organizations: SEND International and Alaska Bible College. The relocation of these organizations resulted in a significant depopulation of Glennallen through the outmigration of a large number of households that had family members employed by the mission and Bible college. As a consequence of the outmigration, the local high school was downgraded in 2013 from a 3A status to a 2A status school, which is based on school enrollment of between 60 and 150 students (3A high schools have enrollment of between 151 and 500 students). 26 #####Glenn HighwayLake Louise RoadRichardson HighwayMendeltnaGlennallenGakonaLake LouiseTolsonaChistochinaNelchinaGulkanaTazlinaWillow CreekCopper CenterSilver SpringsEureka RoadhouseMP15MP180MP173MP166MP150Susitna-Watana Project Year 20105Miles#Approximate community centerHighway milepostCensus designated placesHighway/roadwayFigure 2-1.–Map of study community and census designated place boundaries.27 Glennallen Number of dwelling units 223 Interview goal 112 Households interviewed 77 Households failed to be contacted 41 Households declined to be interviewed 14 Households moved or occupied by nonresident 83 Total households attempted to be interviewed 132 Refusal rate 15.4% Final estimate of permanent households 140 Percentage of total households interviewed 55.0% Interview weighting factor 1.8 Sampled population 211 Estimated population 383.6 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Table 2-1.–Sample achievement, Glennallen, 2013. Households 203 213 140.0 Population 483 531 383.6 Population 86 10 68.2 Percentage 17.8%1.9%17.8% Note The term "households" means occupied housing units. Alaska Native population data from the American Community Survey and 2010 census come from the category "race alone or in combination with one or more other races." Total population Alaska Native Sources U.S. Census Bureau (2011) for 2010 estimate; U.S. Census Bureau for American Community Survey 5-year survey estimate; and ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014, for 2013 estimate. Census (2010) 5-year American Community Survey (2008–2012) This study (2013) Table 2-2.–Population estimates, Glennallen, 2010 and 2013. 28 Two previous fish and wildlife harvest studies that include Glennallen have been conducted: one was directed by the Division of Subsistence and the other was implemented in cooperation with the division (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984); population estimates from those surveys are included in Figure 2-2, which shows population estimates by various organizations spanning from 1980–2013. The population had remained fairly stable since 1980 with a slight increase in the mid-2000s. During that time, the NPS built a new visitor’s center in the vicinity near Copper Center (WRST), which could be responsible for the observed increase in population. Two significant deviations from this trend include the population estimate from this study (explained above) and one for 1982 (912 residents). The 1982 estimate is very high in comparison to all other estimates because the community of Tazlina and the Copperville subdivision were grouped with Glennallen for that survey, thus inflating the population estimate. The division surveyed the communities of Tazlina and Copperville with Glennallen in 1982 because those communities were not part of a CDP at the time of survey so the 1982 survey area was expanded beyond the Glennallen CDP boundary to include those households. The report for the 1987 study indicates a population of 469 for 1987, which is consistent with the general population trend (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988). Boundaries used in this study closely mirror those used for the 1987 study. In 2013, the estimated Alaska Native population of Glennallen was 68 individuals, or 18% of the population (Table 2-2). The average length of residency by Glennallen residents was 14 years (Table 2-3). Overall, the population profile does not fit traditional or archetype pyramids since there are a low number of young adults residing in Glennallen with a small age cohort spanning 20–29 years old (Table 2-4). Otherwise, most age cohorts have good representation in terms of membership and the ratio of females versus males (Figure 2-3). Importantly, for the growth and maintenance of any population, there are high numbers of 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Number of peopleAlaska Department of Labor (estimate)This study (estimate) CSIS (estimate)U.S. Census (count) Trendline Note The CSIS estimate for 1982 included the communities of Tazlina and Copperville,which were surveyed separately from Glennallen for the 1987 and 2013 study years. Figure 2-2.–Historical population estimates, Glennallen, 1980–2013. 29 Sampled population 211 Estimated community population 384 Mean 2.7 Minimum 1 Maximum 9 35.5 0 84 34 Total population Mean 14.2 Minimuma 0 Maximum 64 Heads of household Mean 19.6 Minimuma 0 Maximum 64 Estimated householdsb Number 10.9 Percentage 7.8% Estimated population Number 68 Percentage 17.8% Mean Household size Age Characteristics a.A minimum age of 0 (zero) is used for infants who are less than 1 year of age. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. b.The estimated number of households in which at least 1 head of household is Alaska Native. Alaska Native Minimuma Maximum Median Length of residency Table 2-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Glennallen, 2013. 30 Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage 0–4 14.5 7.6%7.6%23.6 12.3%12.3%38.2 10.0%10.0% 5–9 12.7 6.7%14.3%21.8 11.3%23.6%34.5 9.0%19.0% 10–14 25.5 13.3%27.6%10.9 5.7%29.2%36.4 9.5%28.4% 15–19 14.5 7.6%35.2%10.9 5.7%34.9%25.5 6.6%35.1% 20–24 7.3 3.8%39.0%7.3 3.8%38.7%14.5 3.8%38.9% 25–29 3.6 1.9%41.0%9.1 4.7%43.4%12.7 3.3%42.2% 30–34 12.7 6.7%47.6%20.0 10.4%53.8%32.7 8.5%50.7% 35–39 9.1 4.8%52.4%5.5 2.8%56.6%14.5 3.8%54.5% 40–44 10.9 5.7%58.1%14.5 7.5%64.2%25.5 6.6%61.1% 45–49 14.5 7.6%65.7%9.1 4.7%68.9%23.6 6.2%67.3% 50–54 7.3 3.8%69.5%12.7 6.6%75.5%20.0 5.2%72.5% 55–59 16.4 8.6%78.1%10.9 5.7%81.1%27.3 7.1%79.6% 60–64 10.9 5.7%83.8%14.5 7.5%88.7%25.5 6.6%86.3% 65–69 12.7 6.7%90.5%12.7 6.6%95.3%25.5 6.6%92.9% 70–74 9.1 4.8%95.2%1.8 0.9%96.2%10.9 2.8%95.7% 75–79 7.3 3.8%99.0%5.5 2.8%99.1%12.7 3.3%99.1% 80–84 1.8 1.0%100.0%1.8 0.9%100.0%3.6 0.9%100.0% 85–89 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 90–94 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 95–99 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 100–104 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Missing 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Total 190.9 100.0%100.0%192.7 100.0%100.0%383.6 100.0%100.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Age Male Female Total Table 2-4.–Population profile, Glennallen, 2013. 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 0–4 5–9 10–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65–69 70–74 75–79 80–84 85–89 90–94 95–99 100–104 Missing Number of people Female Male Figure 2-3.–Population profile, Glennallen, 2013. 31 children (i.e., residents between 0 and 19 years of age). The relative absence of young adults may be linked to diminished job opportunities related to the recent outmigration of several key organizations. Most household heads were born in other states (80%) (Table 2-5). For the overall population, 55% were born in other states; an estimated 22% were born while their parents were living in Glennallen (Appendix Table E2-1). caSh eMPloyMent and Monetary incoMe The total earned income for Glennallen was $8,171,743, which is significantly higher than other sources of income ($1,097,419) and indicates that residents receive a great portion of their income from the wage economy (Table 2-6). The average household income was $66,208 and the per capita income was $24,161 in 2013. The largest source of other income for the community was Social Security, which contributed a total of $318,134, or a household average of $2,272. Income earned from providing services represented the highest source of income (34%) with a total of $3,179,011 (Table 2-6), or 39% of wage earnings (Table 2-7). Following the services sector, other important industries contributing to wage earnings were retail trade (15%), transportation, communication, and utilities (11%), and federal government (11%). In 2013, 86% of adults were employed an average of 39 weeks of the year (Table 2-8). Almost all households had an employed member (138 out of a possible 140 households) and each household had an average of 2.1 jobs. Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 2.5% Chistochina 0.8% Copper Center 0.8% Fairbanks 1.6% Glennallen 4.1% Juneau 1.6% Kenny Lake 0.8% Ketchikan 0.8% Mentasta Lake 0.8% Soldotna 0.8% Other Alaska 0.8% Other U.S.80.3% Foreign 4.1% Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Table 2-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Glennallen, 2013. 32 Percentage of Number Number Total Mean Per total of of for per capita community Income source people households community household income income Earned income Services 98.2 83.6 $3,179,011 $2,088,451 –$4,624,324 $22,707 34.3% Retail trade 32.7 31.3 $1,182,176 $521,061 –$2,304,552 $8,444 12.8% Transportation, communication, and utilities 21.8 20.9 $928,857 $363,755 –$1,701,749 $6,635 10.0% Federal government 16.4 18.8 $921,863 $330,920 –$1,766,891 $6,585 9.9% Local government, including tribal 30.9 25.1 $836,342 $301,291 –$1,616,251 $5,974 9.0% State government 20.0 20.9 $541,544 $156,668 –$1,051,409 $3,868 5.8% Other employment 9.1 10.4 $260,842 $29,942 –$640,023 $1,863 2.8% Construction 7.3 8.4 $201,159 $17,209 –$499,311 $1,437 2.2% Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 10.9 12.5 $109,633 $12,407 –$290,606 $783 1.2% Finance, insurance, and real estate 1.8 2.1 $10,316 $8,683 –$19,230 $74 0.1% Earned income subtotal 203.6 137.9 $8,171,743 $6,001,258 –$10,264,987 $58,370 $21,301 88.2% other income Social Security 30.9 $318,134 $164,000 –$525,318 $2,272 3.4% Alaska Permanent Fund dividend 130.9 $308,182 $259,636 –$363,818 $2,201 3.3% Pension/retirement 21.8 $291,208 $33,778 –$729,469 $2,080 3.1% Rental income 4.1 $57,534 $98 –$221,053 $411 0.6% Other 7.3 $51,671 $91 –$141,867 $369 0.6% Unemployment 10.9 $17,961 $4,667 –$42,092 $128 0.2% Food stamps 7.3 $17,027 $535 –$53,239 $122 0.2% Child support 5.5 $16,240 $8,932 –$51,465 $116 0.2% Native corporation dividend 12.7 $6,608 $605 –$14,635 $47 0.1% Heating assistance 7.3 $5,711 $818 –$17,452 $41 0.1% Longevity bonus 1.8 $3,818 $2,100 –$7,636 $27 0.04% Veterans assistance 1.8 $1,969 $1,083 –$3,938 $14 0.02% Disability 1.8 $657 $361 –$2,649 $5 0.007% Dividend/interest 2.3 $378 $208 –$778 $3 0.004% CITGO fuel voucher 1.8 $213 $117 –$1,242 $2 0.002% Adult public assistance (OAA, APD)1.8 $54 $30 –$1,224 $0.39 0.001% Supplemental Security income 1.8 $54 $30 –$1,224 $0.39 0.001% Workers' compensation/insurance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Foster care 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Meeting honoraria 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% other income subtotal 136.5 $1,097,419 $731,392 –$1,580,588 $7,839 $2,861 11.8% Community income total $9,269,162 $7,125,920 –$11,377,212 $66,208 $24,161 100.0% -/+ 95% CI Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%–TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Table 2-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Glennallen, 2013. 33 Jobs Households Individuals Percentage of wage earnings 293.7 137.9 231.6 6.8%13.6%8.0%11.3% Executive, administrative, and managerial 2.0%4.5%2.7%6.0% Natural scientists and mathematicians 0.7%1.5%0.9%1.4% Marketing and sales occupations 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.4% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 1.4%3.0%1.8%1.7% Service occupations 1.4%3.0%1.8%1.6% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.2% 8.2%15.2%9.8%6.6% Teachers, librarians, and counselors 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.1% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 2.0%4.5%2.7%2.4% Service occupations 1.4%3.0%1.8%1.2% Agricultural, forestry, and fishing occupations 1.4%3.0%1.8%1.5% Transportation and material moving occupations 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.3% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 1.4%3.0%1.8%0.2% Occupation not indicated 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.9% 11.6%18.2%15.2%10.2% Executive, administrative, and managerial 2.0%3.0%2.7%1.9% Teachers, librarians, and counselors 4.8%7.6%6.3%4.8% Marketing and sales occupations 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.1% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 1.4%3.0%1.8%2.3% Service occupations 1.4%3.0%1.8%1.0% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 1.4%3.0%1.8%0.2% 4.1%9.1%5.4%1.3% Agricultural, forestry, and fishing occupations 3.4%7.6%4.5%1.3% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.0% 2.7%6.1%3.6%2.5% Mechanics and repairers 0.7%1.5%0.9%1.0% Construction and extractive occupations 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.2% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 1.4%3.0%1.8%1.3% 8.2%15.2%10.7%11.4% Executive, administrative, and managerial 2.0%3.0%2.7%3.6% Engineers, surveyors, and architects 0.7%1.5%0.9%1.9% Technologists and technicians, except health 1.4%3.0%1.8%1.6% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 0.7%1.5%0.9%1.1% Transportation and material moving occupations 3.4%7.6%4.5%3.1% 12.9%22.7%16.1%14.5% Executive, administrative, and managerial 5.4%10.6%7.1%9.9% Marketing and sales occupations 4.1%9.1%5.4%1.8% Service occupations 1.4%3.0%1.8%0.1% Mechanics and repairers 0.7%1.5%0.9%1.5% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 1.4%3.0%1.8%1.1% 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.1% Marketing and sales occupations 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.1% -continued- Local government, including tribal State government Retail trade Agriculture, forestry, and fishing Estimated total number Industry Federal government Construction Transportation, communication, and utilities Finance, insurance and real estate Table 2-7.–Employment by industry, Glennallen, 2013. 34 Jobs Households Individuals Percentage of wage earnings 41.5%60.6%48.2%38.9% Executive, administrative, and managerial 8.8%16.7%10.7%13.4% Social scientists, social workers, religious workers, and lawyers 1.4%3.0%1.8%1.3% Teachers, librarians, and counselors 2.7%6.1%3.6%2.2% Registered nurses, pharmacists, dietitians, therapists, and physicians assistants 4.8%9.1%5.4%9.3% Health technologists and technicians 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.9% Technologists and technicians, except health 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.3% Marketing and sales occupations 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.2% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 4.8%10.6%6.3%2.7% Service occupations 8.8%18.2%11.6%5.4% Mechanics and repairers 1.4%3.0%1.8%1.4% Transportation and material moving occupations 1.4%3.0%1.8%0.4% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 4.8%9.1%6.3%0.5% Occupation not indicated 0.7%1.5%0.9%0.9% 3.4%7.6%4.5%3.2% Executive, administrative, and managerial 1.4%3.0%1.8%2.6% Occupation not indicated 2.0%4.5%2.7%0.6% Industry Table 2-7.–Page 2 of 2. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. industry not indicated Services 35 Community Glennallen 270.9 33.5 231.6 85.5% 293.7 1.3 1 6 9.1 0 12 61.2% 39.2 140 137.9 98.5% 2.1 1 8 1.7 1.7 1 4 42.4Mean person-weeks of employment Minimum Maximum Minimum Total households Number Employed Mean Employed households Months employed Maximum Number Mean weeks employed Maximum Employed adults Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs Number Characteristic Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. All adults Number Mean weeks employed Employed adults Number Households Mean Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs per employed household Maximum Percentage employed year-round Table 2-8.–Employment characteristics, Glennallen, 2013. 36 levelS oF individual ParticiPation in the harveSting and ProceSSing oF wild reSourceS Table 2-9 reports the expanded levels of individual participation in the harvest and processing of wild resources by all Glennallen residents in 2013. Many community members participated in gathering plants and berries (81%) and fishing activities (51%). A fewer number of people were involved in hunting large land mammals (28%), birds (14%), or hunting or trapping small land mammals (7%). In terms of processing wild resources, many residents were involved in processing plants and berries (77%) and fish (54%). Although participation in the hunting of large mammals was relatively low, almost one-half (45%) of Glennallen residents participated in processing large land mammals. A smaller percentage of the community was involved in processing birds (11%) and small land mammals (8%). The survey included questions about individual participation in wild resource harvest activities such as working with fish wheels, handicrafts, and cooking wild foods. In Glennallen, 15% of residents built1 fish wheels (Table 2-10). In 2013, 12% of residents sewed skins or cloth and 72% of residents cooked wild foods. According to survey respondents, a number of community members collect diamond willow and other locally available wood to make walking sticks and handicrafts of artwork depicting salmon for gifts and for sale. houSehold reSource harveSt and uSe PatternS and Sharing oF wild reSourceS Table 2-11 summarizes resource harvest and use characteristics for Glennallen in 2013 at the household level. Most households (97%) used wild resources in 2013, while 88% attempted to harvest and 88% harvested resources. The average harvest was 268 lb usable weight per household, or 98 lb per capita. During the study year, community households harvested an average of 6 kinds of resources and used an average of 9 kinds of resources. The maximum number of resources used by any household was 28. In addition, households gave away an average of 3 kinds of resources and 73% of households shared resources with other households. Overall, as many as 134 species were available for households to harvest in the study area; this included species that survey respondents identified but were not asked about in the survey instrument. Previous studies by the Division of Subsistence (Wolfe 1987; Wolfe et al. 2010) have shown that in most rural Alaska communities, a relatively small portion of households produces most of the community’s fish and wildlife harvests, which they share with other households. A recent study of 3,265 households in 66 rural Alaska communities found that about 33% of the households accounted for 76% of subsistence harvests (Wolfe et al. 2010). Although overall the set of very productive households was diverse, factors that were associated with higher levels of subsistence harvests included larger households with a pool of adult male labor, higher wage income, involvement in commercial fishing, and community location. As shown in Figure 2-4, in the 2013 study year in Glennallen, about 69% of the harvest of wild resources as estimated in usable pounds was harvested by 21% of the community’s households. Further analysis of the study findings, beyond the scope of this report, might identify characteristics of the highly productive households in Glennallen and the other study communities. For the community of Glennallen, researchers learned while conducting the search and harvest mapping component of the survey that highway vehicles were often used to access resources. Additional questions were asked about the use of alternative and motorized modes of transportation and other portable motorized equipment to harvest wild resources. Glennallen households used boats (35%), snowmachines (17%), ATVs (34%), and aircraft (9%) (Figure 2-5). Furthermore, Glennallen residents used a number of different types 1. In Glennallen, when surveys were administered, the question asked of respondents focused on a single activity (e.g.: Did this person build a fish wheel?) while in other study communities respondents were asked whether a person built, maintained, or moved a fish wheel. It is difficult to compare the level of individual participation for fish wheel activity to the other study communities because the limited scope of the question asked in Glennallen might have caused fewer positive responses than if the expanded question had been asked. 37 383.6 Number 196.4 Percentage 51.2% Number 207.4 Percentage 54.1% Number 108.3 Percentage 28.2% Number 170.7 Percentage 44.5% Number 27.5 Percentage 7.2% Number 29.4 Percentage 7.7% Number 51.8 Percentage 13.5% Number 43.9 Percentage 11.4% Number 309.2 Percentage 80.6% Number 295.8 Percentage 77.1% Number 310.9 Percentage 81.0% Number 305.5 Percentage 79.6% Process Gather Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Process Total number of people Birds and eggs Fish Large land mammals Hunt Process Attempt harvest Small land mammals Vegetation Any resource Process Fish Process Hunt/gather Process Hunt or trap Table 2-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Glennallen, 2013. 38 Table 2-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Glennallen, 2013. 383.6 Building, maintaining, or moving fish wheelsa Number 56.6 Percentage 14.8% Number 45.7 Percentage 11.9% Number 275.9 Percentage 71.9% a.In Glennallen, when surveys were administered, the question asked of respondents focused on a single activity (e.g.: Did this person build a fish wheel?) while in other study communities respondents were asked whether a person built, maintained, or moved a fish wheel. It is difficult to compare the level of individual participation for fish wheel activity to the other study communities because the limited scope of the question asked in Glennallen might have caused fewer positive responses than if the expanded question had been asked. Total number of people Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Sewing skins or cloth Cooking wild foods 39 8.5 Minimum 0 Maximum 28 95% confidence limit (±)10.4% Median 7 6.8 Minimum 0 Maximum 25 95% confidence limit (±)13.4% Median 6 5.5 Minimum 0 Maximum 21 95% confidence limit (±)14.0% Median 4 3.6 Minimum 0 Maximum 11 95% confidence limit (±)10.9% Median 3 2.7 Minimum 0 Maximum 12 95% confidence limit (±)15.8% Median 2 Minimum 0 Maximum 2,361 Mean 267.5 Median 63 37,447.3 97.6 97.4% 88.3% 88.3% 92.2% 72.7% 77 134 Percentage using any resource Percentage attempting to harvest any resource Percentage harvesting any resource Mean number of resources given away per household Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Percentage receiving any resource Percentage giving away any resource Number of households in sample Number of resources asked about and identified voluntarily by respondents Household harvest (pounds) Total harvest weight (lb) Community per capita harvest (lb) Mean number of resources used per household Mean number of resources attempted to harvest per household Mean number of resources harvested per household Mean number of resources received per household Characteristic Table 2-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Glennallen, 2013. 40 Figure 2-4.–Household specialization, Glennallen, 2013. 21% of households took 69% percent of the harvest 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cumulative percent of pounds harvestedPercentage of households of equipment to harvest resources, including: generator (9%), chain saw (62%), ice auger (22%), and winch (12%) (Figure 2-6). Other unspecified portable motorized equipment was used by 9% of households. Some community members made handicrafts. To manufacture handicrafts, households used bark (5%), antlers (6%), and other natural materials (16%) (quite likely diamond willow or other local types of wood) (Figure 2-7). Wood was also used for heating residences. Wood was not typically used as the only source for heating homes (only 5% of households used wood exclusively for home heating) (Table 2-12). Rather, wood was used in combination with other sources and wood contributed between 1%–99% of home heating for 61% of sampled households. Overall, the estimated average annual cost of home heating was $1,825. harveSt QuantitieS and coMPoSition Table 2-13 reports estimated wild resource harvests and uses by Glennallen residents in 2013 and is organized first by general category and then by species. All edible resources are reported in pounds usable weight (see Appendix C for conversion factors[2]). The “harvest” category includes resources harvested by any member of the surveyed household during the study year. The “use” category includes all resources taken, given away, or used by a household, and resources acquired from other harvesters, either as gifts, by barter or trade, through hunting partnerships, or as meat given by hunting guides and non-local hunters. Purchased foods are not included but resources such as firewood, if not purchased, are included because 2. Resources that are not eaten, such as firewood and some furbearers, are included in the table but are given a conversion factor of zero. 41 35% 17% 34% 9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Boat Snowmachine ATV AircraftPercentage of sampled householdsTransportation type Figure 2-5.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Glennallen, 2013. they are an important part of the subsistence way of life. Differences between harvest and use percentages reflect sharing among households, which results in a wider distribution of wild foods. The total harvest by Glennallen residents was 37,447 lb in 2013. The composition of the harvest is represented by salmon (59% of the total harvest), followed by large land mammals (29%), vegetation (6%), and nonsalmon fish (5%); additionally, contributing 1% or less of the total harvest were birds and eggs, small land mammals, and marine invertebrates (Figure 2-8). The community harvest by wild resource category in order of most to least was: salmon (21, 858 lb total, or 57 lb per capita), large land mammals (10,909 lb total, or 28 lb per capita), vegetation (2,289 lb total, or 6 lb per capita), and nonsalmon fish (1,936 lb total, or 5 lb per capita) (Table 2-13). The harvests of birds and eggs, small land mammals, and marine invertebrates all contributed less than 1 lb per capita. SeaSonal round Glennallen residents harvest wild resources throughout the year and, like most rural Alaska communities, they target specific species at certain seasons of the year following a cyclical harvest pattern. This seasonal harvest pattern is in part defined by seasonal resource availability, and in part by laws, regulations, and land access. A small number of residents from these communities have access to small airplanes or boats and use these modes of transportation to travel to more distant wild resource search and harvest areas. However, the majority of residents’ resource search and harvest activities take place within the Copper 42 Figure 2-7.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Glennallen, 2013. 5% 0% 6% 16% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Birch bark Horns Antlers Other natural materialPercentageof sampled householdsMaterial 9% 62% 22% 12%9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Generator Chain saw Ice auger Winch Other portable motors or motorized equipmentPercentageof sampled householdsEquipment type Figure 2-6.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Glennallen, 2013. 43 Table 2-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Glennallen, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageGlennallen$1,8252633.8%911.7%810.4%1114.3%1924.7%45.2%Average annual cost of home heatingHousehold use of wood for home heating as a percentage of total fuel for heating0%1%–25%26%–50%51%–75%76%–99%100%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Community44 Table 2-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Glennallen, 2013.Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per householdAll resources97.488.388.392.272.737,447.3267.597.622.7 Salmon84.453.245.563.644.221,857.5156.157.028.7 Chum salmon0.01.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Coho salmon23.418.214.311.710.41,536.711.04.0247.3ind1.847.5 Chinook salmon42.937.729.919.524.72,196.815.75.7160.0ind1.133.3 Pink salmon9.13.92.66.50.074.20.50.234.5ind0.2108.8 Sockeye salmon80.551.944.258.442.918,049.7128.947.03,936.4ind28.130.2 Landlocked salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown salmon3.90.00.03.90.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Nonsalmon fish57.145.537.739.019.51,936.013.85.037.1 Pacific herring0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring sac roe0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring spawn on kelp0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown smelt1.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific (gray) cod0.01.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pacific tomcod1.31.31.30.00.05.50.00.010.9ind0.1133.6 Unknown cod2.60.00.02.60.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Starry flounder0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lingcod10.45.23.99.11.348.00.30.120.0ind0.180.6 Pacific halibut37.710.49.128.69.1498.23.61.3498.2lb3.671.3 Arctic lamprey0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black rockfish6.55.25.21.33.9223.61.60.6149.1ind1.1102.9 Red rockfish1.31.31.30.01.3136.41.00.434.1ind0.2133.6 Yelloweye rockfish2.62.62.60.01.343.20.30.116.4ind0.194.4 Copper rockfish1.31.31.30.01.313.50.10.09.1ind0.1133.6 Unknown rockfish7.82.62.65.21.3116.40.80.329.1ind0.293.8 Sablefish (black cod)1.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown sculpin0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Burbot11.77.83.96.51.374.20.50.230.9ind0.298.6 Arctic char1.31.31.30.00.07.60.10.010.9ind0.1133.6 Dolly Varden5.27.85.20.00.029.80.20.133.2ind0.284.6 Lake trout6.57.86.50.00.0116.40.80.358.2ind0.4102.1Percentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amountaResource95% confidence limit (±) -continued-45 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Arctic grayling24.724.722.15.23.9357.02.60.9510.0ind3.650.7 Northern pike0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sheefish1.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Longnose sucker0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cutthroat trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Rainbow trout15.818.214.32.63.9202.61.40.5144.7ind1.050.2 Unknown trout1.31.30.01.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Broad whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Least cisco0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Humpback whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Round whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whitefishes1.31.31.30.01.363.60.50.236.4ind0.3133.6 Large land mammals81.846.822.167.535.110,909.177.928.434.2 Bison3.91.31.32.61.3818.25.82.11.8ind0.0133.6 Black bear7.82.60.05.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brown bear1.30.00.01.31.30.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Caribou58.437.713.039.019.53,545.525.39.227.3ind0.244.0 Deer3.90.00.02.60.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mountain goat0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Moose71.440.310.456.023.46,545.546.817.114.5ind0.145.0 Dall sheep2.63.90.02.60.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Small land mammals9.110.47.81.32.6131.80.90.394.3 Beaver0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Coyote0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red fox–cross phase0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red fox–red phase1.31.31.30.01.30.00.00.01.8ind0.0133.6 Snowshoe hare3.93.92.61.31.390.90.60.245.5ind0.3128.3 North American river (land) otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lynx0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marmot0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marten0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mink0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Table 2-13.–Page 2 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) -continued- Nonsalmon fish, continued46 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Muskrat0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Porcupine2.62.62.60.01.340.90.30.19.1ind0.1109.8 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red (tree) squirrel3.93.93.90.00.00.00.00.047.3ind0.378.0 Weasel1.31.31.30.01.30.00.00.03.6ind0.0133.6 Gray wolf0.01.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Wolverine0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marine mammals2.60.00.02.60.00.00.00.00.0 Fur seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Harbor seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown seal1.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sea otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Steller sea lion0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Bowhead whale1.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whale0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Birds and eggs20.824.719.55.23.9238.21.70.655.2 Canvasback0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spectacled eider0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Goldeneye1.31.31.30.01.35.80.00.07.3ind0.1133.6 Mallard6.55.25.22.62.638.20.30.138.2ind0.383.8 Northern pintail1.31.31.30.01.317.50.10.021.8ind0.2133.6 Black scoter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Green-winged teal2.61.31.31.31.32.20.00.07.3ind0.1133.6 Unknown wigeon3.92.62.61.31.321.60.20.130.9ind0.2125.9 Unknown ducks1.31.31.30.01.32.50.00.03.6ind0.0133.6 Brant0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cackling goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Canada goose1.31.31.30.00.06.50.00.05.5ind0.0133.6 Unknown Canada/ cackling geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Emperor goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snow goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Table 2-13.–Page 3 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) -continued- Small land mammals, continued47 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household White-fronted goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Tundra (whistling) swan0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sandhill crane0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spruce grouse14.316.914.32.62.686.50.60.2123.6ind0.945.8 Ruffed grouse1.32.61.30.00.03.80.00.05.5ind0.0133.6 Unknown ptarmigan10.418.29.10.02.653.50.40.176.4ind0.557.6 Unknown duck eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown goose eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown gull eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marine invertebrates15.67.87.87.82.685.90.60.289.7 Unknown chitons1.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Freshwater clams0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Razor clams5.21.31.32.60.054.50.40.118.2gal0.1133.6 Dungeness crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown king crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown tanner crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Octopus0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown oyster1.31.31.30.00.03.90.00.01.3gal0.0133.6 Shrimp7.85.25.22.62.627.40.20.127.4lb0.295.2 Squid0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Unknown marine invertebrates1.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Vegetation87.081.881.842.945.52,288.916.36.027.0 Blueberry75.370.170.124.724.71,011.87.22.6252.9gal1.825.8 Lowbush cranberry57.151.951.913.018.2534.93.81.4133.7gal1.032.5 Highbush cranberry10.410.410.41.33.9150.91.10.437.7gal0.366.8 Crowberry7.86.56.52.62.634.50.20.18.6gal0.161.8 Elderberry1.31.31.30.00.021.80.20.13.6gal0.0133.6 Currants5.25.25.20.01.358.20.40.214.5gal0.177.3 Nagoonberry5.26.55.20.00.011.60.10.02.9gal0.093.3Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) Table 2-13.–Page 4 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb) Birds and eggs, continued-continued-48 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Vegetation, continued Raspberry26.023.423.46.52.6123.00.90.330.8gal0.245.0 Salmonberry5.25.25.22.60.037.30.30.19.3gal0.171.8 Strawberry1.31.31.30.00.00.90.00.00.2gal0.0133.6 Other wild berry3.92.62.61.31.34.50.00.01.1gal0.0109.8 Wild rhubarb1.31.31.31.31.336.40.30.136.4gal0.3133.6 Devil's club1.31.31.30.00.00.20.00.00.2gal0.0133.6 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea3.92.62.61.31.32.00.00.02.0gal0.0119.5 Dandelion greens2.62.62.60.01.311.10.10.011.1gal0.1130.9 Spruce tips1.31.31.30.00.03.60.00.03.6gal0.0133.6 Wild rose hips14.314.314.30.05.2144.51.00.436.1gal0.374.0 Yarrow1.31.31.30.00.01.80.00.01.8gal0.0133.6 Other wild greens3.93.93.90.02.630.10.20.130.1gal0.2103.0 Unknown mushrooms13.011.711.72.65.234.30.20.134.3gal0.261.7 Fireweed9.17.87.82.62.631.60.20.131.6gal0.282.3 Plantain1.31.31.30.00.03.60.00.03.6gal0.0133.6 Other wood61.061.061.011.720.80.00.00.0647.5cord4.623.7Note For small land mammals, species that are not typically eaten show a non-zero harvest amount with a zero harvest wight. Harvest weight is not calculated for species harvested but not eaten.a. Summary rows that include incompatible units of measure have been left blank.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2013.Note Resources where the percentage using is greater than the combined received and harvest indicate use from resources obtained during a previous year.Table 2-13.–Page 5 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) 49 Figure 2-8.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. Salmon 59% Nonsalmon fish 5% Large land mammals 29% Small land mammals < 1% Birds and eggs 1% Marine invertebrates < 1%Vegetation 6% Note Categories having 0 lb of usable weight are not included. River Basin (Figure 2-9). Besides airplanes and boats, motorized vehicles, such as highway vehicles, ATVs, and snowmachines are modes of transportation commonly used by residents. Nonsalmon freshwater fish are harvested throughout the year near Glennallen and at rivers and streams accessed by local highways and roads. In the spring, residents visit local lakes to ice fish and it is a popular activity on the weekends. Once the ice clears from local lakes and streams residents may target freshwater fish in early May using rod and reel. Many kinds of nonsalmon fish are also harvested during the summer and fall using rod and reel. For many residents of the Copper River Basin, salmon fishing is the most important activity of the year. Beginning in June, Chinook salmon are the first to arrive in the Copper River watershed, and are followed quickly by sockeye salmon. The majority of community members are actively harvesting salmon species in the Copper River by mid-June and this continues through the coho salmon run lasting into September. Most residents harvest their salmon by fish wheel or dip net. Some residents travel to Valdez for rod and reel fishing for coho salmon and pink salmon later in the season. Community residents harvest plants, mushrooms, and berries in summer and fall. Blueberries, raspberries, crowberries, and salmonberries begin to ripen in July and are gathered during late summer; likewise highbush and lowbush cranberries are gathered late summer and early fall. Wild mushrooms are harvested throughout the summer into early fall. Harvesting firewood for home heating is an important year-round activity for Glennallen households. Migratory and upland game birds are harvested at different times throughout the year. Waterfowl are hunted in the spring but are most often harvested in the fall, while upland game birds, such as the different species of ptarmigan and grouse, are locally harvested from early fall through the winter months and are often harvested opportunistically throughout the year while hunting for other resources, such as moose and caribou. 50 Figure 2-9.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, Glennallen, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaLake LouiseHopeKnikEyakKenaiHomerSlanaBelugaValdezGakonaWillowSuttonPalmerSewardPortageKasilofCordovaNabesnaChitinaEklutnaSusitnaHoustonWasillaNikiskiSterlingGirdwoodWhittierSoldotnaTatitlekCantwellBig LakeSkwentnaTalkeetnaNinilchikSalamatofAnchorageClam GulchChickaloonMoose PassKenny LakeNikolaevskEagle RiverChistochinaChenega BayPetersvilleHappy ValleyAnchor PointLower TonsinaCopper CenterMentasta LakeCooper LandingWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve05025MilesGLENNALLEN HARVEST OF WILD RESOURCES, 2013Search and harvest areasHighway/roadPark and preserve boundarySearch and harvest locations All resources Tyonek51 Table 2-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Glennallen, 2013. Ranka Resource Percentage of households using 1.Sockeye salmon 80.5% 2.Blueberry 75.3% 3.Moose 71.4% 4.Caribou 58.4% 5.Lowbush cranberry 57.1% 6.Chinook salmon 42.9% 7.Pacific halibut 37.7% 8.Raspberry 26.0% 9.Arctic grayling 24.7% 10.Coho salmon 23.4% a.Resources used by the same percentage of households share the lowest rank value instead of having sequential rank values. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Large land mammal hunting is an important subsistence activity that commences in August. Hunting effort can extend through the late winter depending on the resource and regulations (i.e., caribou). During the study year most of the harvests took place between August and November, peaking in September, and occurred along the Glenn and Richardson highways. The majority of small land mammals are trapped for their fur during the winter months when snow is on the ground but others are harvested for their meat as well as their fur throughout the year. An average trapping season most commonly extends from November through February depending on the snow conditions and the quality of the fur the trappers are harvesting. uSe and harveSt characteriSticS By reSource category Table 2-13 presents estimated wild resource harvests and uses by Glennallen households in 2013 and is organized first by general category and then by species. This table also reports the sharing of each resource by percentage of households receiving each resource and the percentage of households giving away each resource. With regard to sharing, large mammals were received by 68% of community households, followed by salmon (64%) and vegetation (43%). In contrast, vegetation was the resource category most given away (46%), with salmon coming in second (44%), and large land mammals being third (35%) (Table 2-13). It is interesting to note that of these 3 categories vegetation made up the least portion of the harvest in pounds usable weight (6% of the total harvest) and yet high levels of both receiving and giving away of vegetation were exhibited by Glennallen households. Table 2-14 lists the top resources used by Glennallen households and Figure 2-10 depicts the resources with the largest harvests (1% or more of the total harvest composition as estimated in pounds usable weight per person) during the 2013 study year. In terms of total harvest composition, the top ranked resources harvested were sockeye salmon (48%), moose (18%), and caribou (10%). The top ranked resources used were sockeye salmon (81% of households used), blueberries (75%), and moose (71%), with caribou ranking as the fourth most used resource (58% of households). Whereas salmon species and large land mammals provided the bulk of per capita harvests as depicted in Figure 2-10, it is interesting to note that blueberries was ranked as the second most used resource and ranked higher than any large land mammal resource (Table 2-14). 52 Figure 2-10.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013.Sockeye salmon48%Moose18%Caribou10%Chinook salmon6%Coho salmon4%Blueberry3%Bison2%Lowbush cranberry1%Pacific halibut1%Arctic grayling1%All other resources6%NoteThe "allother resources" category represents all species that contributed less than 1% to the total harvest in pounds usable weight.53 Figure 2-11.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. Salmon The harvest of salmon by Glennallen households, as estimated in usable pounds, was composed of sockeye salmon (83%), Chinook salmon (10%), coho salmon (7%), and pink salmon (less than 1%) (Figure 2-11). The total harvest of salmon in 2013 was 21,858 lb and the per capita harvest of salmon was 57 lb (Table 2-13). Fish wheels operated in the Copper River by Glennallen residents were used to harvest 88% of the salmon harvest in usable weight; sockeye salmon (85% of fish wheel harvest) and Chinook salmon (11% of fish wheel harvest) were the most frequently obtained species with this method (Table 2-15). Residents also used rod and reel gear in the sport fishery to harvest salmon. Coho salmon were mainly harvested by fish wheel (40% of coho salmon harvest weight); however, 38% of the coho salmon harvest was by rod and reel. A much smaller percentage of the sockeye and Chinook salmon harvests were by rod and reel (2% and 4%, respectively). Despite widespread use of salmon in Glennallen (84% of households used salmon), less than one-half of the community harvested salmon (46% of households) (Table 2-13). Many community households received salmon (64%) and gave salmon away (44%), thus accounting for the high use percentage. Sockeye salmon was the most commonly shared type of salmon (43% of households). Sockeye and Chinook salmon were harvested along the Copper River in the vicinity of Gakona and between Glennallen and Copper Center and also along the Klutina River; additional sockeye salmon fishing occurred in the Kenai River (Figure 2-12). Coho salmon were harvested over a much larger distance from Glennallen to Port Valdez. Coho salmon 7% Chinook salmon 10% Pink salmon < 1% Sockeye salmon 83% 54 Table 2-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Glennallen, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsSalmonGear type100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.3%0.3%1.0%1.2%88.1%87.9%3.7%3.4%0.4%0.5%93.3%93.1%6.4%6.6%100.0%100.0%Total0.3%0.3%1.0%1.2%88.1%87.9%3.7%3.4%0.4%0.5%93.3%93.1%6.4%6.6%100.0%100.0%Chum salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Coho salmonGear type0.0%0.0%80.0%84.4%2.6%3.2%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%3.8%4.7%33.3%40.0%5.6%7.0%Resource0.0%0.0%14.7%14.7%40.4%40.4%0.0%0.0%7.4%7.4%62.5%62.5%37.5%37.5%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.8%1.0%2.3%2.8%0.0%0.0%0.4%0.5%3.5%4.4%2.1%2.6%5.6%7.0%Chinook salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.1%11.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.8%10.6%1.3%3.5%3.7%10.1%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%97.7%97.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%97.7%97.7%2.3%2.3%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.6%9.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.6%9.8%0.1%0.2%3.7%10.1%Pink salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.7%0.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.7%0.3%2.6%1.1%0.8%0.3%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%78.9%78.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%78.9%78.9%21.1%21.1%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.6%0.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.6%0.3%0.2%0.1%0.8%0.3%Sockeye salmonGear type100.0%100.0%20.0%15.6%92.6%85.3%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%91.7%84.4%62.7%55.5%89.9%82.6%Resource0.4%0.4%0.2%0.2%90.8%90.8%4.2%4.2%0.0%0.0%95.2%95.2%4.4%4.4%100.0%100.0%Total0.3%0.3%0.2%0.2%81.6%75.0%3.7%3.4%0.0%0.0%85.6%78.6%4.0%3.7%89.9%82.6%Landlocked salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reelSource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Any methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodFish wheelDip net55 Figure 2-12.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, Glennallen, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway Tolsona CreekKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve084MilesSockeye salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryKenaiSoldotnaKenai RiverKenai RiverGlenn Highway-Tok Cutoff56 Figure 2-13.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. Nonsalmon Fish A variety of saltwater and freshwater nonsalmon fish species were harvested: Pacific halibut (26% of nonsalmon fish harvest), Arctic grayling (18%), and black rockfish (12%) were the most heavily harvested in pounds usable weight (Figure 2-13). Glennallen residents harvested a total of 1,936 lb of nonsalmon fish in 2013 (Table 2-13). The nonsalmon fish harvest is equal to 5 lb per capita, which is less than 10% of the contribution of salmon to the community-wide harvest. Virtually all nonsalmon fish (88% of the harvest weight) were harvested by rod and reel (Table 2-16). However, 100% of the burbot harvest and 42% of the rainbow trout harvest were obtained by ice fishing. Pacific halibut was the most widely received nonsalmon fish with 29% of Glennallen households receiving halibut (Table 2-13). Saltwater nonsalmon fish were harvested in Prince William Sound. Arctic grayling were harvested in rivers, streams, and lakes along the highway system from Paxson in the north, Slana in the east, and in the direct vicinity of Glennallen (Figure 2-14). Lingcod 3% Pacific halibut 26% Black rockfish 12% Red rockfish 7%Yelloweye rockfish 2% Unknown rockfish 6% Burbot 4% Dolly Varden 2% Lake trout 6% Arctic grayling 18% Rainbow trout 10% Unknown whitefishes 3% Other 1% 57 Table 2-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Glennallen, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNonsalmon fishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%5.8%8.4%3.4%3.9%9.3%12.3%90.7%87.7%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%5.8%8.4%3.4%3.9%9.3%12.3%90.7%87.7%100.0%100.0%Pacific herringGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring sac roeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown smeltGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific (gray) codGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific tomcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.8%0.3%0.7%0.3%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.7%0.3%0.7%0.3%Unknown codGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Starry flounderGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%LingcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.4%2.8%1.3%2.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.3%2.5%1.3%2.5%Pacific halibutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%34.5%29.3%31.3%25.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%31.3%25.7%31.3%25.7%Arctic lampreyGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Black rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%10.3%13.2%9.4%11.6%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%9.4%11.6%9.4%11.6%Pacific herring spawn on kelpResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reelAny methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodIce fish-continued-58 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsRed rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.4%8.0%2.1%7.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.1%7.0%2.1%7.0%Yelloweye rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.1%2.5%1.0%2.2%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.0%2.2%1.0%2.2%Copper rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.6%0.8%0.6%0.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.6%0.7%0.6%0.7%Unknown rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.0%6.9%1.8%6.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.8%6.0%1.8%6.0%Sablefish (black cod)Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown sculpinGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%BurbotGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%33.3%45.8%0.0%0.0%21.0%31.1%0.0%0.0%1.9%3.8%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.9%3.8%0.0%0.0%1.9%3.8%0.0%0.0%1.9%3.8%Arctic charGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.8%0.4%0.7%0.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.7%0.4%0.7%0.4%Dolly VardenGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.3%1.8%2.1%1.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.1%1.5%2.1%1.5%Lake troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.0%2.2%0.0%0.0%1.2%1.5%3.9%6.6%3.7%6.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.1%3.1%0.0%0.0%3.1%3.1%96.9%96.9%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.1%0.2%0.0%0.0%0.1%0.2%3.5%5.8%3.7%6.0%Arctic graylingGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%33.3%16.7%12.3%5.3%34.1%20.3%32.1%18.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.6%3.6%3.6%3.6%96.4%96.4%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.1%0.7%1.1%0.7%30.9%17.8%32.1%18.4%Northern pikeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%SheefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Any methodTable 2-16.–Page 2 of 3.-continued-Subsistence gear, any methodRod and reelGillnet or seineIce fishOtherResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methods59 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsLongnose suckerGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Cutthroat troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rainbow troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%64.7%51.9%0.0%0.0%40.7%35.3%5.9%7.0%9.1%10.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%41.5%41.5%0.0%0.0%41.5%41.5%58.5%58.5%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.8%4.3%0.0%0.0%3.8%4.3%5.3%6.1%9.1%10.5%Unknown troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Broad whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Least ciscoGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Humpback whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Round whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown whitefishesGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%66.7%83.3%24.7%26.7%0.0%0.0%2.3%3.3%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.3%3.3%2.3%3.3%0.0%0.0%2.3%3.3%Any methodGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodSubsistence methodsRod and reelResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchTable 2-16.–Page 3 of 3.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.60 Figure 2-14.–Fishing and harvest locations of Arctic grayling, Glennallen, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiververCrosswind LakeEwan LakeSummit LakeMankomen LakeCreekMineralLakesTulsona CreekBoulder CreekDrop CreekTangle LakesDeltaRiverSevenmileLakeDenali HighwaySourdoughGlenn HighwayRichardson Hi g h w a y Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffLakeLouiseRoadTolsona CreekFielding LakeKlawasi RiverMoose CreekPaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaGlennallenSlanaGakonaChistochinaMentasta LakeWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesArctic grayling search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryMentasta Lake61 Figure 2-15.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. Large Land Mammals Moose (60%), caribou (33%), and bison (7%) characterized the harvest of large land mammals by Glennallen households in 2013 (Figure 2-15). A total of 10,909 lb of large land mammals (usable harvest weight) were harvested with the highest proportion derived from moose (6,546 lb, or 17 lb per capita) (Table 2-13). Because they are smaller than moose, caribou contributed just 3,546 lb to the harvest of large land mammals despite the higher number of individual caribou harvested (27 caribou compared to 15 moose). It is estimated 2 bison were harvested by Glennallen residents. Glennallen is located near 3 of Alaska’s bison herds. Bison hunting is extremely popular; more than 15,000 hunters from across Alaska and the rest of the United States, as well as other countries, apply for approximately 100 permits.3 Consequently, the chances of obtaining a bison permit are relatively small. The bison were harvested in February and moose were harvested in August and September (Table 2-17). The harvest of caribou occurred over a longer period, between September and March. In general, moose was more commonly used by Glennallen households (71%) and shared (56% receiving and 23% giving away) in comparison to other large mammals (Table 2-13). By a slight margin, however, caribou was harvested by more households of the community (13% compared to 10% of households harvesting moose). Caribou was also widely shared in the community with 39% of households receiving and 20% of households giving away the resource. Glennallen households often hunted for moose and caribou on the highway system along the Glenn, Richardson, and Denali highways and Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff (Figure 2-16). Significant search areas for moose are located east of Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff; these areas were reached by air and using ATVs. Both moose and caribou were hunted off the Denali Highway near Tangle Lakes. Bison were hunted on the east side of the Copper River in the vicinity of Copper Center. 3. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, “Bison Hunting in Alaska: Life History,” http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=bisonhunting.main (accessed September 2014). Bison 7% Caribou 33% Moose 60% 62 Table 2-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Glennallen, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All large land mammals 0.0 1.8 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 23.6 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 43.6 Bison 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 Black bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brown bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Caribou 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 27.3 Caribou, male 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 5.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 23.6 Caribou, female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.6 Deer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mountain goat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Moose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 Moose, bull 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 Moose, cow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dall sheep 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Estimated harvest by month Total 63 Figure 2-16.–Hunting locations of moose, Glennallen, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013SusiPaxson LakeGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverTonsina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeSuOsCopper LakeBoulder Creek CreMentastaLakTanada CreekiverMcCarthy RoadTangle LakesDenali HighwayChakina RiveriverWestFork TanaRiverper Creekina CreekCreekNabesna RiverilSummit LakeTebay LakeLSourdoughO'Brien CreekCopper River CanyonRichardson Hig h w a y Richardson HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffNickoli LakeTolsona CreekMt ShastaFielding LakePaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseSlanaGakonaTetlinNabesnaChitinaMcCarthyKenny LakeChistochinaLower Tonsina111213B13A13C13D13E13EWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve03015MilesMoose search areaMoose search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unitCopper CenterGlenn Highway64 Figure 2-17.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Glennallen, 2013. Small Land Mammals/Furbearers The harvest of small mammals by Glennallen households, as estimated in numbers of animals, was characterized by red (tree) squirrels (44%), snowshoe hares (42%), porcupines (9%), weasels (3%), and red foxes (2%) (Figure 2-17). Only snowshoe hares and porcupines were consumed by Glennallen residents, and combined contributed less than 1 lb per capita (Figure 2-18; Table 2-13); however, a significant number of red squirrels were harvested for their fur (Figure 2-18). Small land mammal harvests occurred between May and August (Table 2-18). Small mammals were not widely given away or received; less than 5% of community households shared these resources. Small land mammals were hunted or trapped in the vicinity of Glennallen (Figure 2-19). Red fox–red phase 2% Snowshoe hare 42% Porcupine 9% Red (tree) squirrel 44% Weasel 3% 65 Figure 2-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Glennallen, 2013. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Individual animals harvestedTotal harvest Fur only Table 2-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Glennallen, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All small land mammals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 29.1 10.9 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.8 107.3 Beaver 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coyote 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red fox–cross phase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red fox–red phase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 Snowshoe hare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.5 45.5 North american river (land) otter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lynx 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marmot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marten 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muskrat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Porcupine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red (tree) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 47.3 Weasel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 3.6 Gray wolf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wolverine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Estimated harvest by month Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Total 66 Figure 2-19.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, Glennallen, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tazlina RiverCopper RIverRiverGlenn HighwayRichardsonHighwayTolsoMoose CreekRichardson HighwayTolsonaTazlinaGlennallen04.52.25MilesHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary Small land mammal and furbearer search and harvest areaRichardson HighwayKlutina River Small land mammal and furbearer search and harvest area67 Birds and Eggs The harvest of birds composed 238 lb of Glennallen’s 2013 harvest (Table 2-13). Upland game birds were the most common birds harvested by Glennallen residents with spruce grouse making up 36% of the bird harvest by weight and unknown ptarmigan composing 23% (Figure 2-20). A variety of migratory waterfowl were also harvested in 2013: mallards (16% of bird harvest), unknown wigeons (9%), and northern pintails (7%) were harvested, as well as others in lesser quantities. No birds were harvested in the summer (Table 2-19). Most birds were harvested in the fall and this included ducks and upland game birds. Birds were rarely shared within the community and no bird eggs were harvested (Table 2-13). Upland game birds were mostly harvested along the Richardson and Denali highways and migratory waterfowl were generally harvested on the Richardson Highway and Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff (Figure 2-21). Marine Mammals No Glennallen households participated in marine mammal hunting in 2013. A few households (1%) received gifts of “unknown seal” (likely seal oil) and bowhead whale. Goldeneye 2%Mallard 16% Northern pintail 7% Unknown wigeon 9% Canada goose 3% Spruce grouse 36% Ruffed grouse 2% Unknown ptarmigan 23% Other 2% Note No bird eggs were harvested. Figure 2-20.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. 68 Table 2-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Glennallen, 2013. Winter Spring Summer Fall Season unknown Total All birds 61.8 34.5 0.0 223.6 0.0 320.0 Canvasback 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spectacled eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Goldeneye 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 Mallard 0.0 7.3 0.0 30.9 0.0 38.2 Northern pintail 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 21.8 Black scoter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Green-winged teal 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 7.3 Unknown wigeon 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.9 0.0 30.9 Unknown ducks 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 Brant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cackling goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Canada goose 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 Unknown Canada/cackling geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Emperor goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snow goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White-fronted goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tundra (whistling) swan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandhill crane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spruce grouse 12.7 10.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 123.6 Ruffed grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 5.5 Unknown ptarmigan 49.1 0.0 0.0 27.3 0.0 76.4 Unknown duck eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown goose eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown gull eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated harvest by season Resource 69 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013TyoneRiverPaxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeAhtellCreekTulsona CreekekTangle LakesLake LouiseSourdoughGlenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y Richardson Highway Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverNickoli LakeSucker LakeTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverMoose CreekTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseerGakonaChistochinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesMigratory waterfowl search and harvest areaMigratory waterfowl search and harvest areaUpland game bird search and harvest areaUpland game bird search and harvest areaUpland game bird search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryPaxsSummit LakeTangle LakesDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Richardson Hi g h w a y Fielding LakePaxsonFigure 2-21.–Hunting and harvest locations of migratory waterfowl and upland game birds, Glennallen, 2013.70 Figure 2-22.–Composition of marine invertebrates harvest in pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. Razor clams 63% Unknown oyster 5% Shrimp 32% Marine invertebrates Marine invertebrates are not available in the Copper River Basin. The harvest of marine invertebrates by Glennallen residents in 2013 was characterized by razor clams (63%), shrimp (32%), and unknown oysters (5%) (Figure 2-22). Overall, the harvest of marine invertebrates contributed less than 1 lb per capita, or a community total of 86 lb (Table 2-13). Marine invertebrates were not widely shared (8% of households received marine invertebrate resources). Chitons and other unknown marine invertebrates were received and used by 1% of Glennallen households. Marine invertebrates were harvested in Port Valdez, Jack Bay, Prince William Sound, and Ninilchik (Figure 2-23). 71 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Prince William SoundHinchinbrook IslandIslandPort ValdezJack BayMt ShastaValdezTatitlek0105MilesMarine invertebrate search and harvest areaMarine invertebrate search and harvest areaHighway/roadNinilchik Kenai PeninsulaSterling HighwayFigure 2-23.–Fishing and harvest locations of marine invertebrates, Glennallen, 2013.72 Figure 2-24.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Glennallen, 2013. Vegetation Glennallen’s harvest of vegetation was composed of berries (87%), plants and greens (11%), and mushrooms (1%) (Figure 2-24). Vegetation accounted for 6 lb per capita, or 2,289 lb of the total harvest for Glennallen in 2013 (Table 2-13). Almost one-half of the total harvest was from blueberries with 1,012 lb collected. Many other types of berries were harvested including, but not limited to, lowbush cranberries, highbush cranberries, raspberries, currants, salmonberries, and crowberries; with the exception of lowbush cranberries, which had a per capita harvest of 1 lb, harvests of all of these other berries were less than 1 lb per capita. Blueberries were the most widely shared vegetation resource with 25% of Glennallen households giving away and receiving blueberries. Other non-berry vegetation harvested included wild rose hips (14% of households harvested), mushrooms (12%), and fireweed (8%), but these resources were not widely shared (5% or fewer households receiving or giving away). Many households used and harvested wood (61%). Community members shared wood with 21% of households giving away wood and 12% of households receiving it (Table 2-13). Berries were harvested near Glennallen and west as far as Lake Louise Road and Mendeltna and as far south as Chitina (Figure 2-25). To the north, berries were mostly harvested along the Richardson and Denali highways with some penetration into neighboring backcountry. Plants were harvested mostly around Glennallen with some harvests occurring in Gakona. Wood was harvested on large tracts of land in and surrounding Glennallen. Berries 87% Plants and greens 11% Mushrooms 1% 73 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013SusitnaRiverPaxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana River a RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeSummit LakeMankomen LakeSuslota CreekesOshetnaRiverTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekaCreekyRoadTangle LakesSevenmile LakeDenali HighwayRichards o n Hi g h w a y Strelna LakeLake LouiseSourdoughHaleyCreekCopperRiverCanyonGlenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y Richardson HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffLake Louise Road NNickoli LakeTwin LakesTolsona CreekFielding LakePaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseGakonaKenny LakeChistochinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve02010MilesBerry harvest areaBerry harvest areaBerry harvest areaPlant harvest areaPlant harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryTonsinaChitinaMentasta LakeFigure 2-25.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, Glennallen, 2013.74 coMParing harveStS and uSeS in 2013 with PreviouS yearS Harvest Assessments For 10 resource categories and for all resources combined, survey respondents were asked to assess whether their uses and harvests in the 2013 study year were less, more, or about the same as other recent years. “Other recent years” was defined as about the last 5 years. Table 2-20 reports the number of valid responses for each category, the number of households that did not respond, and the number of households that did not use a resource category or all resources combined. In Table 2-20, response percentages are based on the number of valid responses for each category to contextualize these assessments within the set of community households that typically use each category. Figure 2-26 depicts responses to the “less, same, more” assessment question. Households that said they did not ordinarily “use” something are not included within the results. This results in fewer responses for less commonly used categories such as bird eggs or marine mammals, and manifests in the chart as a series of very short colored bars compared to categories such as salmon or vegetation, which are ordinarily used by most households. Some households did not respond to the question. Taking all resources into consideration, 36% of surveyed Glennallen households reported less use of wild resource in general in 2013 compared to other recent years (Table 2-20). The same amount (36%) of households said they used about the same level of wild resources, and slightly less (28%) said they used more. Table 2-21 and Table 2-22 depict, by resource category, the reasons Glennallen respondents gave for less or more use, respectively. This was an open-ended question and respondents could provide more than 1 reason for each resource category. Project staff grouped the responses into categories, such as regulations hindering residents from harvesting resources, sharing of harvests, effects of weather on animals and subsistence activities, changes in the animal populations, personal reasons such as work and health, and other outside effects on residents’ opportunities to engage in hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. The top reasons reported by Glennallen residents for using less of all wild resources was working/no time followed by family/personal reasons and that less sharing occurred in 2013 (Table 2-21). The principal reason given by community residents for using more of all resources was increased effort followed by increased availability and that they received more resources (Table 2-22). The resource category having the greatest percentage of households that used the resources and indicate less use in 2013 was nonsalmon fish (Figure 2-26). Valid responses from households indicated that harvesters were too busy or working to fish for nonsalmon fish and that people shared less in 2013 (Table 2-21). The resource category having the greatest percentage of households that used the resources and indicated more use in 2013 was vegetation (Figure 2-26). Top reasons given for increased use were increased effort and increased availability. Some people said 2013 was a good berry year. The impact to households from not getting enough wild resources is reported in Table 2-23. The impact of not getting enough salmon was noted as minor by 11 households, major by 3 households, and severe by 1 household out of 16 households reporting that they did not get enough salmon. For large land mammals the impact was noted as minor by 16 households, major by 8 households, and severe by 1 household out of a total of 27 households that did not get enough. For all resources 37% of households (out of 74) said that they did not get enough resources in 2013 and of those respondents 48% said that the impact from not getting enough resources was minor while 41% said it was major. 75 Table 2-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Glennallen, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource777777100.0%5368.8%6077.9%4254.5%77100.0%All resources77757597.4%2736.0%2736.0%2128.0%00.0%Salmon77776888.3%2228.6%3241.6%1418.2%911.7%Nonsalmon fish77755672.7%2634.7%1925.3%1114.7%1925.3%Large land mammals77766280.5%1823.7%3039.5%1418.4%1418.4%Small land mammals7775810.4%22.7%45.3%22.7%6789.3%Marine mammals777622.6%00.0%11.3%11.3%7497.4%Migratory waterfowl7776810.4%45.3%33.9%11.3%6889.5%Other birds77772329.9%1722.1%45.2%22.6%5470.1%Bird eggs777700.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%77100.0%Marine invertebrates77771316.9%45.2%67.8%33.9%6483.1%Vegetation77756787.0%1621.3%2736.0%2432.0%810.7%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.a. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response.Households not usingSampled householdsResource categoryMoreSameLessValid responsesaTotal householdsHouseholds reporting use76 Figure 2-26.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Glennallen, 2013.29%35%24%5%22%5%21%42%25%39%5%5%8%36%18%15%18%32%12%25%18%89%97%89%70%100%83%11%SalmonNonsalmon fishLarge land mammalsSmall land mammalsMarine mammalsMigratory waterfowlOther birdsBird eggsMarine invertebratesVegetationPercentage of surveyed households providing a valid response. Unlabeled percentages are less than 5%.Households used LESS in 2013Households used SAME in 2013Households used MORE in 2013Households normally do not use77 Table 2-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Glennallen, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource77511325.5%1325%23.9%510%1733%1020%All resources7527725.9%27%00.0%14%622%27%Salmon7722313.6%29%00.0%418%418%15%Nonsalmon fish7525520.0%00%00.0%14%728%520%Large land mammals761715.9%318%15.9%00%635%00%Small land mammals75200.0%150%00.0%00%00%150%Marine mammals76000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Migratory waterfowl76400.0%00%00.0%00%00%250%Other birds7716212.5%638%00.0%00%00%425%Bird eggs77000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Marine invertebrates77400.0%125%125.0%00%125%125%Vegetation7516637.5%00%00.0%00%00%00%Table 2-21.–Continued.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource77511019.6%815.7%35.9%1529.4%47.8%00.0%All resources752713.7%414.8%14%933.3%27.4%00.0%Salmon772200.0%418.2%00%522.7%14.5%00.0%Nonsalmon fish752514.0%00.0%00%832.0%14.0%00.0%Large land mammals7617635.3%00.0%00%211.8%15.9%00.0%Small land mammals75200.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals76000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl76400.0%00.0%00%125.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds7716318.8%16.3%16%212.5%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs77000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates77400.0%00.0%00%00.0%125.0%00.0%Vegetation751616.3%212.5%213%531.3%00.0%00.0%Resource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useUnsuccessfulWeather/environmentLack of equipmentLess sharingLack of effortResource categoryHouseholds reporting reasons for less useFamily/personalResources less availableToo far to travelValid responsesa-continued--continued-Small/diseased animalsOther reasonsWorking/no timeRegulations78 Table 2-21.–Page 2 of 2.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource775123.9%1223.5%47.8%00.0%00.0%All resources752700.0%311.1%13.7%00.0%00.0%Salmon772200.0%627.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish752514.0%14.0%312.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals761700.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals75200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals76000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl764125.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds771600.0%00.0%16.3%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs77000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates77400.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation751600.0%212.5%16.3%00.0%00.0%Resource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useEquipment/fuel expenseUsed other resourcesLess competitionDid not get enoughDid not needa. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never using the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.79 Table 2-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Glennallen, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource7742921.4%00.0%24.8%1740.5%819.0%All resources7520525.0%00.0%00.0%525.0%210.0%Salmon7714214.3%00.0%00.0%535.7%321.4%Nonsalmon fish751100.0%00.0%00.0%327.3%00.0%Large land mammals761417.1%00.0%00.0%857.1%214.3%Small land mammals75200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals76100.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl76100.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%Other birds77200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs77000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates77300.0%00.0%00.0%133.3%00.0%Vegetation7523521.7%00.0%28.7%28.7%313.0%NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource77421638.1%24.8%614.3%12.4%00.0%All resources7520630.0%00.0%420.0%15.0%00.0%Salmon7714214.3%00.0%214.3%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish7511545.5%00.0%218.2%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals7614214.3%00.0%214.3%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals752150.0%00.0%150.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals76100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl76100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds772150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs77000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates77300.0%00.0%133.3%00.0%00.0%Vegetation7523834.8%28.7%417.4%00.0%00.0%Needed moreUsed other resourcesFavorable weatherReceived moreTable 2-22.–Continued.Households reporting reasons for more useIncreased availabilityResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more useIncreased effortHad more helpOtherRegulationsTraveled farther-continued--continued-Resource categoryValid responsesa80 NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource7742511.9%12.4%12.4%00.0%24.8%All resources7520315.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon771400.0%17.1%00.0%00.0%17.1%Nonsalmon fish751119.1%00.0%00.0%00.0%19.1%Large land mammals761400.0%00.0%17.1%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals75200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals76100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl76100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds772150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs77000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates773133.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation752314.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Store-bought expenseGot/fixed equipmentSubstituted resourcesMore successNeeded lessa. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never use.Table 2-22.–Page 2 of 2.Resource categorySource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Valid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more use81 Table 2-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Glennallen, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageSalmon776685.7%1624.2%16.3%00.0%1168.8%318.8%16.3%Nonsalmon fish775470.1%2138.9%00.0%00.0%1885.7%314.3%00.0%Marine invertebrates771316.9%753.8%00.0%00.0%7100.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals775774.0%2747.4%27.4%00.0%1659.3%829.6%13.7%Marine mammals7722.6%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals77810.4%450.0%00.0%00.0%4100.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl77911.7%444.4%00.0%00.0%4100.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds772228.6%1359.1%00.0%00.0%1184.6%17.7%17.7%Bird eggs7700.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation776787.0%2029.9%00.0%00.0%1890.0%210.0%00.0%All resources777496.1%2736.5%13.7%27.4%1348.1%1140.7%00.0%a. Does not includes households failing to respond to the question or those households that never used the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Resource categorySample householdsHouseholds not getting enough _______ .Impact to those not getting enough ______ .Valid responsesaDid not get enoughNo responseNot noticeableMinorMajorSevere82 Table 2-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, Glennallen, 1982, 1987, and 2013. Harvest Data Changes in the harvest of resources by Glennallen residents can also be discerned through comparisons with findings from other study years. Comprehensive subsistence harvest surveys that include Glennallen were conducted for study years 1982 and 1987 (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). As mentioned in the demographic section, Glennallen was grouped with Tazlina and the Copperville subdivision in the 1982 study (Stratton and Georgette 1984:73–74). While direct comparisons cannot be made across the 3 study years because of this sampling difference, overall trends can be assessed to determine if there has been any change over time regarding the harvest of wild resources. Table 2-24 includes harvest information (in per capita values) from the 1982 and 1987 study years and the current year. Overall, the composition of Glennallen’s wild resource harvest has not changed dramatically over the past 30 years. Salmon and large land mammals have always had principal roles in the harvest by residents in this area (Figure 2-27). To a lesser degree, nonsalmon fish and vegetation are also important resources harvested. The 1987 study sample is more comparable to the current study because only the community of Glennallen was surveyed. Comparison of the total per capita harvest indicates a very close relationship between study years; despite a 26-year study gap, both years demonstrate a harvest of approximately 100 lb per person. Comparing the 1987 and 2013 study years, the importance of nonsalmon fish appears to have diminished over time. However, the change in the nonsalmon fish proportion of the harvest composition could be related to flooding events and local construction that several community members mentioned occurred in 2013. Vegetation as a resource category appears to have increased in significance in 2013 but this could be an isolated event brought about by good berry weather according to residents. Between 1987 and 2013, the large land mammal per capita harvest declined by 14 lb per capita, which may not be fully attributable to the smaller sample size in 2013 compared to 1987. Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP All resources 61,157.0 67.0 33.0%46,684.0 99.5 20.0%37,447.3 97.6 22.7% Salmon 27,018.0 29.6 19,136.0 40.8 21,857.5 57.0 Nonsalmon fish 6,009.0 6.6 6,152.0 13.1 1,936.0 5.0 Large land mammals 24,345.0 26.7 20,053.0 42.7 10,909.1 28.4 Small land mammals 912.0 1.0 366.0 0.8 131.8 0.3 Birds and eggs 484.0 0.5 174.0 0.4 238.2 0.6 Marine invertebrates ––26.0 0.1 85.9 0.2 Vegetation 2,389.0 2.6 778.0 1.7 2,288.9 6.0 Note The 1982 survey included the communities of Tazlina and Copperville, which were surveyed separately from Glennallen for the 1987 and 2013 study years. Note "–" indicates no harvest. Sources For 2013, ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014; for previous study years, ADF&G Division of Subsistence Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS), accessed 2014. 1982 1987 2013 Estimated harvest in pounds usable weight Resource 83 Figure 2-27.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, Glennallen, 1982, 1987, and 2013. 0 50 100 150 1982 1987 2013Estimated per capita harvestStudy year Vegetation Marine invertebrates Birds and eggs Small land mammals Large land mammals Nonsalmon fish Salmon Note Error bars represent the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval. Note The 1982 survey included the communities of Tazlina and Copperville, which were surveyed separately from Glennallen for the 1987 and 2013 study years. Current and Historical Harvest Areas It is possible to compare historical spatial harvest data with the 2013 study year to identify changes in the search and harvest areas for wild food resources over time. For Glennallen, limited spatial data were collected as part of the 1982 and 1987 study years (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). Additionally, during the 1983 and 1984 fieldwork seasons, ADF&G researchers conducted interviews with more than 200 hunters and fishers in 20 communities in or near the Copper River Basin to map areas where hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering of wild resources occurred between 1964 and 1984 (Stratton and Georgette 1985). This effort produced 2 separate publications by 2 different ADF&G divisions; the Division of Habitat published the maps and the Division of Subsistence published a description of the project and mapping methods. The maps depicting the harvest and use areas used by study community residents during this 20-year span are published in Alaska Habitat Management Guide Southcentral Region: Reference Maps—Volume 3. Community Use of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants (Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat 1985).4 Information about the mapping project is available in Copper Basin Resource Use Map Index and Methodology (Stratton and Georgette 1985). Changes in the resource harvest and use/ search areas by Glennallen residents can be discerned through limited comparisons of the maps published in 4. A complete index of documents published in 1985 and 1986 as part of Alaska Habitat Management Guide is available online: http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/C/AHMG/index.html. 84 1985, which depict harvest and use areas for 20 years, and the maps produced from this study, which only reflect search and harvest areas for the study year 2013. The most prominent comparison between the 20-year mapping project and documented harvest areas for the 2013 study year is the change from using the vast areas that were once used by Glennallen residents for hunting mammals—both small and large. In the past, residents traveled west to Chickaloon and Cantwell for moose, caribou, and Dall sheep. In the past, lands that now constitute the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park played a more integral role in the harvest of resources by Glennallen residents; especially for Dall sheep and other large mammals that were hunted along Nabesna Road. Unlike the current study year where small mammals/furbearers were only harvested near the community, Glennallen residents in the past trapped and harvested them from along the Glenn and Richardson highways and Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff. Furthermore, nonsalmon fish were previously harvested from many lakes and streams to the south of Glennallen. The harvest locations of salmon have remained constant over time. local coMMentS and concernS Following is a summary of local observations of wild resource populations and trends that were recorded by researchers during the surveys in Glennallen. Some households did not offer any additional comments or concerns during the survey interviews, so not all households are represented in the summary. In addition, respondents expressed their concerns about wild resources during the community review meeting of preliminary data. These concerns have been included in the summary. In general, Glennallen community members valued wild resources and their access to wild resources. Residents were concerned about the expense of obtaining resources, however, and some commented that it is expensive to harvest resources because of the direct costs of equipment and supplies (i.e., snowmachines, ATVs, and gas) and indirect costs such as taking time off from work. Community members were concerned about the amount of people that visit the area from other Alaska municipalities and other states that were not respectful of the land (i.e., leaving garbage) and the wildlife (i.e., wanton waste of animals). One household suggested that it would be beneficial to have local classes and/or workshops about how to harvest and use wild resources correctly. Salmon Many community members said that 2013 was a poor fishing year because of high waters which washed away, moved, or altered fish wheels; fish wheel use is a common method of obtaining fish in this area from the Copper River. Some community members expressed concern about fish wheel permits; specifically some residents believed that subsistence permits, once issued, could only be used for the wheel indicated on the permit.5 Some community members were concerned about the health of Chinook salmon and requested that more research be conducted on the Gulkana and Copper rivers’ Chinook salmon. Nonsalmon Fish Some community members said 2013 was a bad year to obtain nonsalmon fish because of flooding and road construction that obstructed access points. Large Land Mammals Some residents are concerned that Dall sheep, moose, and caribou populations are declining. (See also comments on community subsistence hunts, which is provided below.) 5. Note, according to regulations, permit holders are allowed to use other fish wheels, with consent from the owner, and the alternate fish wheel number should be reported under the location column on the daily log of fishing dates and harvest. 85 Birds Community members commented on diminished upland game bird sightings, such as spruce grouse, over the past couple of years. Regulations Glennallen is located in the Copper River Basin, where lands are managed by a number of tribal, state, and federal agencies. Many residents said that it is very difficult to navigate all of the different regulations, especially because the regulations are constantly changing. For some, this has become an impediment to hunting and fishing. The recent introduction of the “Copper Basin Moose Community Subsistence Harvest Permit Program”6 by the Alaska Board of Game has caused some community members concern. Some residents feel that the community hunt should only be available to local residents. The opening of the community hunt to residents from other areas of Alaska has, according to local residents, diminished large land mammal populations and increased competition over resources, which is exacerbated because this area is road-connected and easy to access. Some residents prefer the previous Tier II7 management system, which provided a harvest quota to those who could show a customary and direct dependence on caribou and moose in GMU 13. Proposed Development Some Glennallen residents opposed the development of the Susitna-Watana hydroelectric dam because of the potential effects they believe it would have on wild resources, including the interruption of large mammal migration routes and corresponding feeding and breeding grounds. On the other hand, a number of community members supported the development of hydroelectric power at the proposed dam site because, in their view, it would create jobs and reduce energy costs. ACKNoWLEDGMENTS Division of Subsistence researchers would like to thank the residents of Glennallen for their participation and support of the project. We would also like to thank our exceptional local research assistants: Kathy Stratton, Cynthia Buchanan, Eric Lutz, Betty Goodlataw, Kathy Peter, and Dale Oja. We are also very appreciative to our key respondents who provided significant temporal context to fish and wildlife resource changes over time. 6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, “Cultural and Subsistence Harvest Permits” http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index. cfm?adfg=huntlicense.cultural (accessed December 2014). 7. State Tier II hunts are held when there is not enough of a game population with customary and traditional uses to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses. Hunters must answer questions on an application concerning their dependence on the game for their livelihood and availability of alternative resources. Applications are scored based on responses to the questionnaire and permits are issued to those with the highest scores. 86 3. GULKANA Eric Schacht coMMunity Background The village of Gulkana is located on the east bank of the Gulkana River at its confluence with the Copper River. It lies at mile 127 of the Richardson Highway and is 14 miles north of Glennallen. Although the Gulkana census designated place (CDP) runs along the Richardson Highway south toward Glennallen from the community, most households are located in a central area at the north end of the Gulkana CDP boundary (Figure 2-1). Gulkana is located in the continental climate zone, which is characterized with long, cold winters and relatively warm summers. Temperature extremes range from -65 °F to 91 °F. Annual snowfall averages 47 inches, with 11 inches of precipitation. The history of Gulkana is similar in many ways to other communities in the Copper River Basin. Located on the Valdez–Fairbanks Trail, the permanent community was founded in 1902 when the U.S. Army Signal Corps established a telegraph station (Stratton and Georgette 1984). A roadhouse, post office, and stage station soon followed. The area was traditionally the territory of the Gulkana-Gakona band led by C’ecae’e Dene (Person of the River Mouth), referring to the leader of a village site near the mouth of the Gulkana River (Holen 2002:45; Reckord 1983b). The contact experience for the people living in Gulkana differs significantly from that of their relatives to the south in Copper Center and Chitina. The number of Euro-Americans who came to settle in the immediate vicinity was comparatively small. No railroad or large settlement was established to become a focus for Western culture. As a result, few opportunities for wage labor and other types of wage employment were available in the area near Gulkana. Schools and amenities developed slowly in this area of the Ahtna region and in general the people of Gulkana entered and participated in the Western economy primarily through trapping (Reckord 1983b). Only after 1950 did people begin to spend most winters living in Gulkana and to send their children to school. Previously, most summers had been spent at fish camps around Gulkana and much of each winter was dedicated to trapping. Originally the historical village was located on the south bank of the river, but when this village was bisected by the construction of the Richardson Highway, the residents moved to the present location. The present village site has only been occupied since the late 1950s (Stratton and Georgette 1984). Requirements for school attendance further supported the settlement of the village in the 1950s and the end of seasonal migration for hunting and fishing activities; settlement also started drawing families from Tyone, Ewan, and Crosswind lakes. As noted above, today Gulkana is composed of 2 separate sub-communities: a cohesive Native village located a short distance from the highway north of the confluence of the Gulkana and Copper rivers, and a non-Native settlement dispersed along the Richardson Highway between miles 125 and 130. Services in the Gulkana CDP include a landfill, airport, campground, and shooting range. Services offered in Gulkana village include a health clinic and church. Children attend school in neighboring Glennallen. deMograPhy According to the federal census, Gulkana CDP had 119 residents in 2010 (Table 3-1). The household survey conducted for 2013 found an estimated Gulkana population of 104 residents, of which 70% (72 residents) were Alaska Native. Figure 3-1 shows the population of the community over time based on U.S. Census Bureau data, Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development estimates, and data in the CSIS that are based on Division of Subsistence household surveys. The chart demonstrates a decline in population from 1991 to 2000 with some recent fluctuations and slight rebound in population since 2001. The population increased to a high of 134 in 2011 from its lowest point of 67 residents in 1987. 87 Households 36 46 33.0 Population 119 148 103.6 Population 91 93 72.5 Percentage 76.5%62.8%70.0% Sources U.S. Census Bureau (2011) for 2010 estimate; U.S. Census Bureau for American Community Survey 5-year survey estimate; and ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014, for 2013 estimate. Total population Alaska Native Note The term "households" means occupied housing units. Alaska Native population data from the American Community Survey and 2010 census come from the category "race alone or in combination with one or more other races." Census (2010) 5-year American Community Survey (2008–2012) This study (2013) Table 3-1.–Population estimates, Gulkana, 2010 and 2013. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Number of peopleAlaska Department of Labor (estimate)This study (estimate) CSIS (estimate)U.S. Census (count) Trendline Figure 3-1.–Historical population estimates, Gulkana, 1980–2013. 88 Prior to the study, the Division of Subsistence researchers, in consultation with community officials and other knowledgeable respondents, estimated and confirmed 35 year-round households in Gulkana in 2013 (Table 3-2). Two households were occupied by a nonresident or were vacant, leaving 33 households considered eligible for the survey. Of these, 29 households (88%) were interviewed. The following data are expanded to cover the remaining households not surveyed. The mean length of residency in Gulkana was 20 years, with the maximum length 99 years (Table 3-3). In general, the population was evenly distributed between males and females. The largest age cohorts of the entire population were females between the ages 30–34 and 10–14, and males between the ages of 10–14 (Table 3-4; Figure 3-2). There were no females represented in the 40–44, 75–84, and older than 89 age ranges. There were no males represented in the 70–74 and 80–94 age ranges. Interestingly there were 2 males between the ages of 95 and 99. In the Gulkana community, approximately 44% of the household heads were born in various communities across Alaska, with another 34% claiming Gulkana as their place of birth (Table 3-5). Fewer household heads (approximately 17%) were born somewhere else in the United States. Approximately 4% of the household head birthplaces are unknown. Appendix Table E3-1, which represents the birthplaces of the overall population, has similar data to the birthplaces of household heads. These tables indicate strong kinship ties to the community. Table 3-2.–Sample achievement, Gulkana, 2013. Gulkana Number of dwelling units 35 Interview goal 35 Households interviewed 29 Households failed to be contacted 3 Households declined to be interviewed 1 Households moved or occupied by nonresident 2 Total households attempted to be interviewed 30 Refusal rate 3.3% Final estimate of permanent households 33 Percentage of total households interviewed 87.9% Interview weighting factor 1.1 Sampled population 91 Estimated population 103.6 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 89 Characteristics Sampled population 91 Estimated community population 104 Mean 3.1 Minimum 1 Maximum 11 34.5 1 99 33 Total population Mean 20.3 Minimuma 0 Maximum 99 Heads of household Mean 29.5 Minimuma 0 Maximum 99 Estimated householdsb Number 27.3 Percentage 82.8% Estimated population Number 72.5 Percentage 70.0% Mean Household size Age b. The estimated number of households in which at least 1 head of household is Alaska Native. Alaska Native Minimuma Maximum Median Length of residency a. A minimum age of 0 (zero) is used for infants who are less than 1 year of age. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Table 3-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Gulkana, 2013. 90 Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage 0–4 4.6 8.9%8.9%2.3 4.4%4.4%6.9 6.7%6.7% 5–9 3.5 6.7%15.6%4.6 8.9%13.3%8.1 7.8%14.4% 10–14 6.9 13.3%28.9%8.1 15.6%28.9%15.0 14.4%28.9% 15–19 2.3 4.4%33.3%2.3 4.4%33.3%4.6 4.4%33.3% 20–24 4.6 8.9%42.2%1.2 2.2%35.6%5.8 5.6%38.9% 25–29 3.5 6.7%48.9%2.3 4.4%40.0%5.8 5.6%44.4% 30–34 3.5 6.7%55.6%9.2 17.8%57.8%12.7 12.2%56.7% 35–39 2.3 4.4%60.0%3.5 6.7%64.4%5.8 5.6%62.2% 40–44 4.6 8.9%68.9%0.0 0.0%64.4%4.6 4.4%66.7% 45–49 2.3 4.4%73.3%4.6 8.9%73.3%6.9 6.7%73.3% 50–54 3.5 6.7%80.0%2.3 4.4%77.8%5.8 5.6%78.9% 55–59 3.5 6.7%86.7%2.3 4.4%82.2%5.8 5.6%84.4% 60–64 1.2 2.2%88.9%2.3 4.4%86.7%3.5 3.3%87.8% 65–69 1.2 2.2%91.1%2.3 4.4%91.1%3.5 3.3%91.1% 70–74 0.0 0.0%91.1%2.3 4.4%95.6%2.3 2.2%93.3% 75–79 2.3 4.4%95.6%0.0 0.0%95.6%2.3 2.2%95.6% 80–84 0.0 0.0%95.6%0.0 0.0%95.6%0.0 0.0%95.6% 85–89 0.0 0.0%95.6%1.2 2.2%97.8%1.2 1.1%96.7% 90–94 0.0 0.0%95.6%0.0 0.0%97.8%0.0 0.0%96.7% 95–99 2.3 4.4%100.0%0.0 0.0%97.8%2.3 2.2%98.9% 100–104 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%97.8%0.0 0.0%98.9% Missing 0.0 0.0%100.0%1.2 2.2%100.0%1.2 1.1%100.0% Total 51.8 100.0%100.0%51.8 100.0%100.0%103.6 100.0%100.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Age Male Female Total Table 3-4.–Population profile, Gulkana, 2013. 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0–4 5–9 10–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65–69 70–74 75–79 80–84 85–89 90–94 95–99 100–104 Missing Number of people Female Male Figure 3-2.–Population profile, Gulkana, 2013. 91 Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 2.1% Bethel 2.1% Bristol Bay 2.1% Copper Center 8.5% Crosswind Lake 2.1% Cube Cove 2.1% Eureka Roadhouse 2.1% Ewan Lake 2.1% Fairbanks 4.3% Gakona 2.1% Glennallen 2.1% Gulkana 34.0% Kodiak City 2.1% Northway 2.1% Paxson 2.1% Pedro Bay 2.1% Tazlina 2.1% Valdez 2.1% Other U.S.17.0% Missing 4.3% Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Table 3-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Gulkana, 2013. caSh eMPloyMent and Monetary incoMe As noted above, Gulkana is located approximately 14 miles from the nearest hub community—Glennallen— and about 191 miles from Anchorage. The Gulkana CDP is a recreation destination for out-of-state visitors and Alaskans alike who use the Richardson Highway Bridge for access to the Gulkana River for fishing and as a take-out location for rafting. Also found within the Gulkana CDP is an airport, located at mile 118 on the Richardson Highway. However, seasonal employment in support of local recreation and tourism has a minimal influence on wage-earning opportunities. Gulkana’s monetary economy is closely connected with that of Glennallen. Much of the Gulkana community located on the highway was employed in the Glennallen area, particularly with government agencies. Most of the remaining highway households were self-employed as guides, miners, and small business owners. In contrast, a second group of households who mostly resided in the predominately Ahtna village was generally employed seasonally as laborers on construction projects for either local contractors or the Gulkana village. In addition, a complex in the village, which houses the dental clinic, alcohol treatment center, and low-income apartments, provided additional part-time and full-time positions for local village residents. Table 3-6 is a summary of the estimated earned income as well as other sources of income for residents of Gulkana in 2013. This table shows that in 2013 earned income accounted for an average of $44,076 per household, or approximately 80% of the total community income, compared to other income sources that accounted for an average of $10,839 per household, or about 20% of the total community income. The greatest contributing earned income sectors were local and tribal government (30% of total community income) and services (23% of total community income). The largest sources of other income were pension/ 92 Percentage of Number Number Total Mean Per total of of for per capita community Income source people households community household income income Earned income Local government, including tribal 20.5 20.8 $541,896 $247,899 –$999,065 $16,421 29.9% Services 13.7 17.4 $412,216 $179,449 –$844,152 $12,491 22.7% Construction 1.1 1.7 $138,276 $132,225 –$526,320 $4,190 7.6% State government 3.4 5.2 $114,769 $14,737 –$326,601 $3,478 6.3% Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 3.4 5.2 $87,293 $6,679 –$273,102 $2,645 4.8% Federal government 1.1 1.7 $86,423 $82,369 –$330,734 $2,619 4.8% Retail trade 2.3 1.7 $30,986 $15,859 –$60,878 $939 1.7% Mining 2.3 3.5 $29,960 $11,100 –$79,647 $908 1.7% Other employment 1.1 1.7 $12,675 $12,097 –$48,440 $384 0.7% Earned income subtotal 42.1 33.0 $1,454,495 $976,242 –$2,149,949 $44,076 $14,046 80.3% other income Pension/retirement 2.3 $109,583 $96,300 –$270,941 $3,321 6.0% Social Security 5.7 $92,278 $2,318 –$242,786 $2,796 5.1% Alaska Permanent Fund dividend 28.4 $77,834 $54,279 –$105,486 $2,359 4.3% Native corporation dividend 21.6 $40,013 $21,810 –$67,330 $1,213 2.2% Unemployment 5.7 $32,717 $3,983 –$93,107 $991 1.8% Heating assistance 3.4 $1,899 $423 –$6,065 $58 0.1% Adult public assistance (OAA, APD)1.1 $633 $556 –$2,945 $19 0.0% Supplemental Security income 1.1 $633 $556 –$2,783 $19 0.0% Food stamps 1.1 $633 $556 –$2,945 $19 0.0% Longevity bonus 1.1 $633 $556 –$2,945 $19 0.0% Disability 1.1 $633 $556 –$2,945 $19 0.0% CITGO fuel voucher 1.1 $197 $173 –$795 $6 0.0% 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Workers' compensation/insurance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Veterans assistance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Child support 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Other 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Foster care 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Meeting honoraria 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% other income subtotal 29.6 $357,686 $170,220 –$676,316 $10,839 $3,454 19.7% Community income total $1,812,181 $1,289,478 –$2,542,092 $54,915 $17,500 100.0% -/+ 95% CI Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Table 3-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Gulkana, 2013. retirement (6% of total community income) and Social Security (5% of total community income) in 2013. The estimated per capita earned income was $17,500. In 2013, the largest number of jobs (39%) in Gulkana were with the local (including the education system) and tribal government sector (Table 3-7). Other important employment sectors during the study year provided jobs in services (28%); agriculture, forestry, and mining (9%); retail trade (7%); and state government (7%). The income generated by local and tribal government jobs provided the most income by industry category (37% of wage earnings). The income generated by the services sector in Gulkana during 2013 was 28% of the wage income by industry. The remaining wage income by industry category was contributed by jobs for construction (10%); state government (8%); agriculture, forestry, and fishing (6%); federal government (6%); mining (2%); and retail trade (2%). The study found 69 adults over the working age of 16 in Gulkana in 2013 and the average length of employment during the year was 25 weeks (Table 3-8). Of the 69 working-age adults in Gulkana, the study found an estimated 60, or 86%, were employed. For the employed adults, the mean length of employment was approximately 7 months; 46% of employed adults were employed year-round. On the household level, 33 households (100%) had an adult household member employed at some point during the study year. The average number of jobs during the study year per employed household was 2.3, and on average there were 1.8 employed adults per household. 93 Jobs Households Individuals Percentage of wage earnings 74.3 33.0 59.7 2.2%5.3%2.7%5.9% Natural scientists and mathematicians 2.2%5.3%2.7%5.9% 6.5%15.8%8.1%7.9% Executive, administrative, and managerial 2.2%5.3%2.7%5.4% Service occupations 4.3%10.5%5.4%2.5% 39.1%63.2%48.6%37.3% Executive, administrative, and managerial 2.2%5.3%2.7%5.9% Teachers, librarians, and counselors 2.2%5.3%2.7%5.1% Health technologists and technicians 2.2%5.3%2.7%0.5% Technologists and technicians, except health 2.2%5.3%2.7%2.5% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 6.5%15.8%8.1%11.2% Service occupations 4.3%5.3%5.4%0.9% Transportation and material moving occupations 6.5%15.8%8.1%6.7% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 10.9%21.1%13.5%4.0% Occupation not indicated 2.2%5.3%2.7%0.5% 8.7%15.8%8.1%6.0% Agricultural, forestry, and fishing occupations 8.7%15.8%8.1%6.0% 4.3%10.5%5.4%2.1% Construction and extractive occupations 2.2%5.3%2.7%1.3% Transportation and material moving occupations 2.2%5.3%2.7%0.8% 2.2%5.3%2.7%9.5% Construction and extractive occupations 2.2%5.3%2.7%9.5% 6.5%5.3%5.4%2.1% Marketing and sales occupations 4.3%5.3%5.4%1.7% Service occupations 2.2%5.3%2.7%0.5% 28.3%52.6%32.4%28.3% Executive, administrative, and managerial 4.3%10.5%5.4%12.2% Registered nurses, pharmacists, dietitians, therapists, and physicians assistants 2.2%5.3%2.7%2.3% Health technologists and technicians 2.2%5.3%2.7%0.6% Technologists and technicians, except health 2.2%5.3%2.7%2.5% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 4.3%10.5%5.4%4.1% Service occupations 8.7%15.8%10.8%5.5% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 4.3%10.5%5.4%1.2% 2.2%5.3%2.7%0.9% Technologists and technicians, except health 2.2%5.3%2.7%0.9% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated total number Industry Federal government Construction Local government, including tribal State government industry not indicated Services Retail trade Mining Agriculture, forestry, and fishing Table 3-7.–Employment by industry, Gulkana, 2013. 94 Community Gulkana 69.4 25.4 59.7 86.0% 74.3 1.2 1 5 6.8 0 12 45.7% 29.5 33 33.0 100.0% 2.3 1 8 1.8 1.8 1 3 33.0 Characteristic Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. All adults Number Mean weeks employed Employed adults Number Households Mean Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs per employed household Maximum Percentage employed year-round Maximum Employed adults Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs Number Mean person-weeks of employment Minimum Maximum Minimum Total households Number Employed Mean Employed households Months employed Maximum Number Mean weeks employed Table 3-8.–Employment characteristics, Gulkana, 2013. 95 levelS oF individual ParticiPation in the harveSting and ProceSSing oF wild reSourceS Table 3-9 reports the expanded levels of individual participation in the harvest and processing of wild resources by all Gulkana residents in 2013. Approximately 78% of residents attempted to harvest resources in 2013. With reference to specific resource categories, 68% of all residents gathered vegetation, 58% fished, 55% hunted for large land mammals, and 30% of residents both hunted for birds and hunted or trapped small land mammals/furbearers. Slightly more residents participated in processing any resource (79%) than attempted to harvest any resource. More residents participated in gathering vegetation than the percentage of residents that processed them (65%). Conversely, more residents processed fish (65%) than attempted to harvest fish. This indicates that there was more of a group effort to process fish once it was harvested and returned to camp or home. For large land mammals, birds, and small land mammals/ furbearers, approximately the same percentage of people processed these resources as hunted or trapped them. The survey included questions about individual participation in wild harvest activities such as working with fish wheels, handicrafts, and cooking wild foods. In Gulkana, 34% of residents built or repaired fish wheels or helped to place or remove a fish wheel (Table 3-10). In 2013, about 20% of residents sewed skins or cloth and 75% of residents cooked wild foods. houSehold reSource harveSt and uSe PatternS and Sharing oF wild reSourceS Table 3-11 summarizes resource harvest and use characteristics for Gulkana in 2013 at the household level. Most households (97%) used wild resources in 2013 and households that attempted to harvest wild resources (79%) were all successful in harvesting at least 1 type of resource. The average harvest was 453 lb usable weight per household, or 144 lb per capita. During the study year, community households harvested an average of 5 kinds of resources and used an average of 10 kinds of resources. The maximum number of resources used by any household was 30. In addition, households gave away an average of 4 kinds of resources and 83% of households shared resources with other households. Overall, as many as 114 species were available for households to harvest in the study area; this included species that survey respondents identified but were not asked about in the survey instrument. Previous studies by the Division of Subsistence (Wolfe 1987; Wolfe et al. 2010) have shown that in most rural Alaska communities, a relatively small portion of households produces most of the community’s fish and wildlife harvests, which they share with other households. A recent study of 3,265 households in 66 rural Alaska communities found that about 33% of the households accounted for 76% of subsistence harvests (Wolfe et al. 2010). Although overall the set of very productive households was diverse, factors that were associated with higher levels of subsistence harvests included larger households with a pool of adult male labor, higher wage income, involvement in commercial fishing, and community location. As shown in Figure 3-3, in the 2013 study year in Gulkana, about 71% of the harvested wild resources as estimated in usable pounds were harvested by 21% of the community’s households. Further analysis of the study findings, beyond the scope of this report, might identify characteristics of the highly productive households in Gulkana and the other study communities. The survey included questions about residents’ use of alternative and motorized modes of transportation to access wild food harvest areas and the use of portable motors. Figure 3-4 shows the percentage of community households that used an alternate means of transportation (besides highway vehicles and foot travel). Approximately 21% of the Gulkana households used an ATV when harvesting wild foods. About 17% of households used snowmachines, 14% used boats, and 7% used aircraft. Forty-one percent of households used a chain saw, 17% used a winch, and both ice augers and generators were used by 7% of households (Figure 3-5). Figure 3-6 shows the percentage of households that used natural materials for handicrafts; 3% used antlers and 3% used horns. More significantly, 7% of households used other natural materials, most of which 96 103.6 Number 60.3 Percentage 58.2% Number 67.1 Percentage 64.8% Number 56.9 Percentage 54.9% Number 55.8 Percentage 53.8% Number 30.7 Percentage 29.7% Number 28.4 Percentage 27.5% Number 30.7 Percentage 29.7% Number 31.9 Percentage 30.8% Number 70.6 Percentage 68.1% Number 67.1 Percentage 64.8% Number 80.8 Percentage 78.0% Number 81.9 Percentage 79.1% Fish Process Hunt/gather Process Hunt or trap Process Gather Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Process Total number of people Birds and eggs Fish Large land mammals Hunt Process Attempt harvest Small land mammals Vegetation Any resource Process Table 3-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Gulkana, 2013. 97 Table 3-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Gulkana, 2013. 103.6 Building, maintaining, or moving fish wheels Number 35.3 Percentage 34.1% Number 20.5 Percentage 19.8% Number 77.4 Percentage 74.7% Total number of people Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Sewing skins or cloth Cooking wild foods 98 9.7 Minimum 0 Maximum 30 95% confidence limit (±)8.9% Median 8 5.5 Minimum 0 Maximum 25 95% confidence limit (±)14.7% Median 4 4.7 Minimum 0 Maximum 25 95% confidence limit (±)16.3% Median 3 5.9 Minimum 0 Maximum 14 95% confidence limit (±)8.5% Median 5 4.3 Minimum 0 Maximum 23 95% confidence limit (±)15.1% Median 3 Minimum 0 Maximum 2,641 Mean 452.5 Median 55 14,932.7 144.2 96.6% 79.3% 79.3% 96.6% 82.8% 29 114 Percentage using any resource Percentage attempting to harvest any resource Percentage harvesting any resource Mean number of resources given away per household Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Percentage receiving any resource Percentage giving away any resource Number of households in sample Number of resources asked about and identified voluntarily by respondents Household harvest (pounds) Total harvest weight (lb) Community per capita harvest (lb) Mean number of resources used per household Mean number of resources attempted to harvest per household Mean number of resources harvested per household Mean number of resources received per household Characteristic Table 3-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Gulkana, 2013. 99 Figure 3-3.–Household specialization, Gulkana, 2013. 21% of households took 71% percent of the harvest 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cumulative percent of pounds harvestedPercentage of households were fur, skins, and porcupine quills. In Gulkana, approximately 65% of the households used some wood for heating homes and the average annual cost of home heating in the 2013 study year was $2,563 (Table 3-12). The 35% of households reporting no use of firewood to heat their homes were primarily in village apartments that had heat provided by the Gulkana village wood biomass boiler. harveSt QuantitieS and coMPoSition Table 3-13 reports estimated wild resource harvests and uses by Gulkana residents in 2013 and is organized first by general category and then by species. All edible resources are reported in pounds usable weight (see Appendix B for conversion factors[1]). The “harvest” category includes resources harvested by any member of the surveyed household during the study year. The “use” category includes all resources taken, given away, or used by a household, and resources acquired from other harvesters, either as gifts, by barter or trade, through hunting partnerships, or as meat given by hunting guides and non-local hunters. Purchased foods are not included but resources such as firewood, if not purchased, are included because they are an important part of the subsistence way of life. Differences between harvest and use percentages reflect sharing among households, which results in a wider distribution of wild foods. The total estimated edible harvest for all fish, wildlife, and wild plant resources during 2013 for Gulkana was 14,933 lb, or 144 lb per capita (Table 3-13). Salmon provided the majority (63%, or 9,494 lb, providing 1. Resources that are not eaten, such as firewood and some furbearers, are included in the table but are given a conversion factor of zero. 100 14%17%21% 7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Boat Snowmachine ATV AircraftPercentage of sampled householdsTransportation type Figure 3-4.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Gulkana, 2013. 92 lb per capita) of the total pounds of harvested wild resources (Figure 3-7; Table 3-13). The remaining composition of the total harvest included large land mammals, which provided 22% (3,239 lb, or 31 lb per capita); nonsalmon fish, which provided 10% (1,526 lb, or 15 lb per capita); vegetation, which provided 3% (419 lb, or 4 lb per capita); small land mammals, which provided 1% (143 lb, or 1 lb per capita); and birds and eggs, which also provided 1% (112 lb, or 1 lb per capita). The remaining resource categories used (marine invertebrates and marine mammals) were only received by community members and therefore not a part of the total harvest. SeaSonal round Residents of Gulkana harvest a wide variety of species throughout the year and like most rural Alaska communities they often target specific species during certain seasons of the year, following a cyclical harvest pattern that is in part defined by seasonal availability, and in part by laws, regulations, and land access. Many Gulkana subsistence harvest activities occur in the middle to upper Copper River drainage where most of the critical resources can be found, but residents also travel up the Richardson Highway to the Denali Highway in pursuit of moose, caribou, plants and berries, and birds (Figure 3-8). Residents will travel even farther for deep-sea fishing opportunities occurring primarily out of Valdez. While harvest activities are ongoing throughout the year, this discussion begins with the most harvested resource in the community—salmon. In early June, Chinook salmon are the first salmon to arrive in the Copper River watershed, followed quickly by sockeye salmon. Salmon fishing starts in earnest by mid- 101 Figure 3-6.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Gulkana, 2013. 0%3%3%7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Birch bark Horns Antlers Other natural materialPercentage of sampled householdsMaterial 7% 41% 7% 17% 0%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Generator Chain saw Ice auger Winch Other portable motors or motorized equipmentPercentage of sampled householdsEquipment type Figure 3-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Gulkana, 2013. 102 Table 3-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Gulkana, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageGulkana$2,5631034.5%517.2%827.6%13.4%310.3%26.9%Average annual cost of home heatingHousehold use of wood for home heating as a percentage of total fuel for heating0%1%–25%26%–50%51%–75%76%–99%100%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Community103 Table 3-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Gulkana, 2013.Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per householdAll resources96.679.379.396.682.814,932.7452.5144.220.1 Salmon89.744.844.875.965.59,494.4287.791.721.5 Chum salmon3.40.00.03.43.40.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Coho salmon27.63.43.424.117.284.92.60.813.7ind0.471.3 Chinook salmon65.537.934.551.731.01,763.853.417.0128.5ind3.930.0 Pink salmon3.43.43.40.03.4366.811.13.5170.7ind5.271.3 Sockeye salmon82.844.844.858.655.27,278.9220.670.31,587.4ind48.121.1 Landlocked salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown salmon6.90.00.06.93.40.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Nonsalmon fish69.034.534.562.134.51,525.646.214.742.3 Pacific herring0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring sac roe0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring spawn on kelp0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Eulachon (hooligan, candlefish)3.40.00.03.40.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Unknown smelt0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific (gray) cod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pacific tomcod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Starry flounder0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lingcod13.83.43.410.33.413.70.40.15.7ind0.271.3 Pacific halibut51.76.96.944.810.3375.511.43.6375.5lb11.450.7 Arctic lamprey3.40.00.03.40.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown rockfish10.33.43.46.93.491.02.80.922.8ind0.771.3 Unknown sculpin0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Burbot6.93.43.43.43.4136.64.11.356.9ind1.771.3 Dolly Varden3.43.43.40.03.441.01.20.445.5ind1.471.3 Lake trout3.43.43.40.03.468.32.10.734.1ind1.071.3 Arctic grayling55.227.627.641.427.6219.16.62.1312.9ind9.525.1 Northern pike0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Longnose sucker3.43.40.03.40.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cutthroat trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Rainbow trout13.813.810.33.43.468.52.10.748.9ind1.546.3 Unknown trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Percentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amountaResource95%confidence limit (±)-continued-104 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Broad whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Least cisco0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Humpback whitefish3.43.43.40.03.4398.312.13.8227.6ind6.971.3 Round whitefish13.83.43.410.33.4113.83.41.1113.8ind3.471.3 Unknown whitefishes13.83.40.013.83.40.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Large land mammals89.751.720.779.341.43,238.698.131.327.5 Bison0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black bear0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brown bear3.43.43.40.03.4160.44.91.51.1ind0.071.3 Caribou48.313.86.944.820.7443.813.44.33.4ind0.152.4 Deer0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mountain goat0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Moose89.751.717.279.327.62,560.377.624.75.7ind0.229.5 Dall sheep10.36.93.46.96.974.02.20.71.1ind0.071.3 Small land mammals37.927.620.717.213.8143.44.31.438.8 Beaver13.813.810.33.47.137.81.10.47.1ind0.265.6 Coyote0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red fox–cross phase0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red fox–red phase0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snowshoe hare10.310.310.30.06.961.41.90.630.7ind0.942.0 North American river (land) otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lynx3.43.43.40.00.00.00.00.02.3ind0.171.3 Marmot0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marten0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mink0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Muskrat20.713.813.86.910.322.50.70.219.3ind0.645.2 Porcupine24.117.210.313.83.615.90.50.23.5ind0.151.5 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel3.43.43.40.00.05.70.20.111.4ind0.371.3 Red (tree) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Least weasel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Gray wolf0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Wolverine0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Nonsalmon fish, continuedHarvest amounta95%confidence limit (±)-continued-ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Table 3-13.–Page 2 of 4.105 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Marine mammals20.70.00.020.76.90.00.00.00.0 Fur seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Harbor seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown seal6.90.00.06.93.40.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sea otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Steller sea lion0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whale17.20.00.017.26.90.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Birds and eggs34.520.717.217.213.8111.93.41.153.7 Canvasback0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spectacled eider0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Goldeneye0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mallard10.33.43.46.93.49.10.30.19.1ind0.371.3 Northern pintail0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black scoter3.40.00.03.40.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Green-winged teal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown ducks0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brant0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cackling goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Canada goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown Canada/ cackling geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Emperor goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snow goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 White-fronted goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Tundra (whistling) swan0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sandhill crane0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spruce grouse17.213.810.36.910.320.70.60.229.6ind0.956.0 Ruffed grouse6.96.96.90.06.98.00.20.111.4ind0.349.5 Unknown ptarmigan17.213.813.83.410.374.12.20.7105.8ind3.261.3 Unknown duck eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown goose eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown gull eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Harvest amounta95%confidence limit (±)-continued-Table 3-13.–Page 3 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)106 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Marine invertebrates6.90.00.06.90.00.00.00.00.0 Freshwater clams0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Razor clams3.40.00.03.40.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Dungeness crab3.40.00.03.40.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown king crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown tanner crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Octopus0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Shrimp3.40.00.03.40.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Squid0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Vegetation89.779.379.351.751.7418.912.74.021.0 Blueberry75.955.255.237.924.1210.16.42.052.5gal1.618.9 Lowbush cranberry20.710.310.310.36.931.91.00.38.0gal0.239.9 Highbush cranberry34.524.124.117.210.354.61.70.513.7gal0.443.6 Crowberry3.43.43.40.00.00.60.00.00.1gal0.071.3 Raspberry17.217.217.23.413.845.51.40.411.4gal0.333.3 Salmonberry3.43.43.40.03.44.60.10.01.1gal0.071.3 Other wild berry3.40.00.03.40.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea6.96.96.90.06.95.70.20.15.7gal0.250.6 Wild rose hips3.43.43.40.03.454.61.70.513.7gal0.471.3 Other wild greens3.43.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Unknown mushrooms6.96.96.90.06.910.80.30.110.8gal0.351.3 Stinkweed3.43.43.40.03.40.60.00.00.6gal0.071.3 Bark3.43.43.40.03.40.00.00.00.6gal0.071.3 Roots3.43.40.00.03.40.00.00.00.0qt0.00.0 Other wood55.244.844.817.227.60.00.00.089.9cord2.724.2Harvest amounta95%confidence limit (±)Table 3-13.–Page 4 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Note Resources where the percentage using is greater than the combined received and harvest indicate use from resources obtained during a previous year.Note For small land mammals, species that are not typically eaten show a non-zero harvest amount with a zero harvest wight. Harvest weight is not calculated for species harvested but not eaten.a. Summary rows that include incompatible units of measure have been left blank.107 Figure 3-7.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013. Salmon 63%Nonsalmon fish 10% Large land mammals 22% Small land mammals 1% Birds and eggs 1%Vegetation 3% Note Categories having 0 lb of usable weight are not included. June and continues through the coho run lasting into September. Most residents harvest their salmon by fish wheel. Some residents may travel to Valdez for rod and reel fishing for coho and pink salmon later in the season. Nonsalmon freshwater fish are harvested all throughout the year and across a large area extending from Chitina to as far north as the Slana area along Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff. For some families, freshwater fish precedes salmon as the first resource harvested for the summer season. Once the ice clears from local lakes and streams, residents may target freshwater fish as early as May using rod and reel. Harvest locations for this type of fishing include the Gulkana River, Moose Creek, and Pippen Lake. Many kinds of nonsalmon fish are also harvested during the fall, winter, and spring months by jigging through the ice and spear fishing. Large land mammal hunting is an important fall activity that starts in August; depending on the resource and regulations, hunting effort can stretch through November with some opportunities existing for a spring harvest. During the study year most of the harvests took place between August and October with much of the effort taking place along the Richardson and Denali highways. The majority of small land mammals are trapped for their fur during the winter months when snow is on the ground but others are harvested for their meat as well as their fur all throughout the year. An average trapping season most commonly extends from November through February depending on the snow conditions and the quality of the fur the trappers are harvesting. Migratory birds and upland game birds are both harvested at different times throughout the year. Waterfowl are hunted in the spring but are most often harvested in the fall, while upland game birds are harvested opportunistically throughout the year while hunting for other resources. 108 Figure 3-8.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, Gulkana, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OF WILD RESOURCES, 2013PaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaLake LouiseTokHopeKnikEyakSlanaValdezGakonaWillowSuttonPalmerSewardTetlinPortageCordovaNabesnaChitinaEklutnaHoustonWasillaGirdwoodNorthwayWhittierTatitlekMcCarthyCantwellBig LakeTanacrossTalkeetnaAnchorageChickaloonMoose PassKenny LakeEagle RiverChistochinaChenega BayLower TonsinaCopper CenterMentasta LakeMcKinley ParkCape YakatagaCooper Landing111213A13B13C13D13EWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve05025MilesDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Search and harvest areasHighway/roadPark and preserve boundarySearch and harvest locations All resources 109 Gulkana residents harvest plants, mushrooms, and berries during spring, summer, and fall. For example, stinkweed or wormwood is sought during the spring; mushrooms, rose hips, and yarrow are sought during the summer; blueberries, raspberries, currants, and salmonberries are gathered during late summer; and highbush and lowbush cranberries are gathered during fall. Harvesting firewood for home heating is an important year-round activity for Gulkana residents. uSe and harveSt characteriSticS By reSource category Estimates of sharing indicate that 97% of Gulkana households received wild resources from other households and 83% of households gave resources away (Table 3-13). Salmon, large land mammals, and vegetation were the most commonly shared resources. Salmon were used by 90% of households, were given away by 66% of households, and received by 76% of households. Large land mammals were used by 90% of households, were given away by 41%, and received by 79% of households. Vegetation was used by 90% and vegetation resources were given away and received by 52% of households. Figure 3-9 depicts the resources with the largest harvests (1% or more of the total harvest composition as estimated in pounds usable weight per person), by Gulkana households during the 2013 study year and Table 3-14 lists the top resources used by Gulkana households. Sockeye salmon made the largest contribution to Gulkana’s 2013 wild resource harvest (49%), followed by moose (17%),Chinook salmon (12%), and caribou (3%) (Figure 3-9). Of all the available resources, moose was the most used by Gulkana residents (used by 90% of households), followed by sockeye salmon (83%), blueberries (76%), Chinook salmon (66%), Arctic grayling (55%), and Pacific halibut (52%). Of note, fish species were 6 of the top 10 most harvested resources (sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, humpback whitefish, pink salmon, Pacific halibut, and Arctic grayling), but only 4 of these species made the most used list (sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, Arctic grayling, and Pacific halibut). Pacific halibut contributed nearly the same amount to the community harvest as pink salmon (both at 4 lb per capita); however, Pacific halibut were used in more households (52% of households used halibut) than pink salmon (3% of households used pink salmon), which did not make the list of most used resources. This greater level of use is due in part to a sharing network for Pacific halibut. Salmon For Gulkana residents, salmon composed 63% of the wild resource harvest in pounds usable weight in 2013 (Figure 3-7). The composition of the salmon harvest was as follows: 77% sockeye salmon (7,279 lb, or 70 lb per capita); 18% Chinook salmon (1,764 lb, or 17 lb per capita); 4% pink salmon (367 lb, or 4 lb per capita); and 1% coho salmon (85 lb, or 1 lb per capita) (Figure 3-10; Table 3-13). In 2013, Gulkana households harvested a majority (91% of pounds usable weight) of their salmon with fish wheels; the remaining harvest was largely harvested with rod and reel (6% of pounds usable weight) (Table 3-15). In addition, a smaller amount of salmon (2% of usable weight) was taken with dip nets. The species of salmon harvested with fish wheels were sockeye and Chinook salmon. In comparison, all the coho and pink salmon harvested by Gulkana households in 2013 were taken with rod and reel. Sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon were the primary salmon species used by Gulkana residents in 2013 (Table 3-13). During 2013, 83% of households used sockeye salmon, 66% of households used Chinook salmon, and 28% of households used coho salmon. While the pink salmon harvest (367 lb) was more than the coho salmon harvest (85 lb), more households used coho salmon while only approximately 3% of households harvested and used pink salmon. During the 2013 study year, Gulkana residents reported harvesting sockeye salmon in the Copper River east of the village of Gulkana, east of the Gulkana airport, southeast of Tazlina, northeast of Copper Center, and near the confluence of the Chitina and Copper rivers (Figure 3-11). Chinook salmon were reportedly harvested in the same locations as sockeye salmon except for the reported harvest near the confluence of the Chitina and Copper rivers. Coho and pink salmon were harvested by rod and reel in the Valdez inlet area. 110 Figure 3-9.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013.Sockeye salmon49%Moose17%Chinook salmon12%Caribou3%Humpback whitefish3%Pacific halibut3%Pink salmon2%Arctic grayling1%Blueberry1%Brown bear1%All other resources8%NoteThe "allother resources" category represents all species that contributed less than 1% to the total harvest in pounds usable weight.111 Figure 3-10.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013. Coho salmon 1%Chinook salmon 18% Pink salmon 4% Sockeye salmon 77% Table 3-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Gulkana, 2013. Ranka Resource Percentage of households using 1.Moose 89.7% 2.Sockeye salmon 82.8% 3.Blueberry 75.9% 4.Chinook salmon 65.5% 5.Arctic grayling 55.2% 6.Pacific halibut 51.7% 7.Caribou 48.3% 8.Highbush cranberry 34.5% 9.Coho salmon 27.6% 10.Porcupine 24.1% a.Resources used by the same percentage of households share the lowest rank value instead of having sequential rank values. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 112 Table 3-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Gulkana, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsSalmonGear type100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource1.8%1.6%0.0%0.0%85.9%90.7%1.9%2.0%0.0%0.0%87.8%92.7%10.4%5.6%100.0%100.0%Total1.8%1.6%0.0%0.0%85.9%90.7%1.9%2.0%0.0%0.0%87.8%92.7%10.4%5.6%100.0%100.0%Chum salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Coho salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%6.9%15.8%0.7%0.9%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.7%0.9%0.7%0.9%Chinook salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%7.6%19.7%6.5%17.1%0.0%0.0%7.6%19.7%1.2%6.0%6.8%18.6%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%96.3%96.3%1.8%1.8%0.0%0.0%98.2%98.2%1.8%1.8%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%6.5%17.9%0.1%0.3%0.0%0.0%6.6%18.2%0.1%0.3%6.8%18.6%Pink salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%86.2%68.4%9.0%3.9%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%9.0%3.9%9.0%3.9%Sockeye salmonGear type100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%92.4%80.3%93.5%82.9%0.0%0.0%92.4%80.3%5.7%9.7%83.5%76.7%Resource2.2%2.2%0.0%0.0%95.0%95.0%2.2%2.2%0.0%0.0%97.1%97.1%0.7%0.7%100.0%100.0%Total1.8%1.6%0.0%0.0%79.3%72.8%1.8%1.6%0.0%0.0%81.1%74.5%0.6%0.5%83.5%76.7%Landlocked salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Any methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodFish wheelDip netResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reel113 Figure 3-11.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, Gulkana, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GulkanaRiver TazliCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverTonsina RiververLakeStrelnaLakeO'Brien CreekHaleyCreekEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson HighwayKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaChitinaKenny LakeLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesGULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Sockeye salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryKlutina River114 Figure 3-12.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013. Lingcod 1% Pacific halibut 25% Unknown rockfish 6% Burbot 9% Dolly Varden 3%Lake trout 4% Arctic grayling 14% Rainbow trout 5% Humpback whitefish 26% Round whitefish 7% Nonsalmon Fish In 2013, Gulkana residents harvested an estimated total of 1,526 lb, or 15 lb per capita, of nonsalmon fish (Table 3-13). Nonsalmon fish composed 10% of the wild resource harvest in pounds in 2013 (Figure 3-7). In terms of total pounds and percentages harvested, most of the nonsalmon fish harvest was humpback whitefish (398 lb, or 4 lb per capita), Pacific halibut (376 lb, or 4 lb per capita), Arctic grayling (219 lb, or 2 lb per capita), burbot (137 lb, or 1 lb per capita), and round whitefish (114 lb, or 1 lb per capita); combined these 5 species composed 81% of the nonsalmon fish harvest (Table 3-13; Figure 3-12). The remaining composition of nonsalmon harvests by Gulkana residents included unknown rockfish (6%), rainbow trout (5%), lake trout (4%), Dolly Varden (3%), and lingcod (1%). Table 3-16 lists the percentage of the number and pounds of each nonsalmon fish species harvested by Gulkana residents in 2013 by gear type. Gulkana residents harvested most of their nonsalmon fish with rod and reel (57% of usable weight). Other harvests of nonsalmon fish were accomplished by spearfishing for species such as humpback and round whitefishes (100% of harvests for those species) and by jigging through the ice for species such as burbot and rainbow trout (9% of the rainbow trout usable weight harvested). During 2013, 69% of Gulkana households used nonsalmon fish, 35% harvested nonsalmon fish, 35% shared nonsalmon fish, and 62% received nonsalmon fish (Table 3-13). As noted, above Pacific halibut was the primary nonsalmon fish shared with an estimated 45% of Gulkana households receiving halibut from other households. During the 2013 study year, Gulkana respondents reported harvesting humpback and round whitefishes near the confluence of Suslota Creek and Slana River (Figure 3-13). Arctic grayling were reportedly harvested in the Gulkana River and in Moose Creek near Glennallen. In addition, Gulkana residents traveled to Valdez to 115 Table 3-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Gulkana, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNonsalmon fishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.9%9.4%27.4%33.6%32.4%42.9%67.6%57.1%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.9%9.4%27.4%33.6%32.4%42.9%67.6%57.1%100.0%100.0%Pacific herringGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring sac roeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown smeltGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific (gray) codGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific tomcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Starry flounderGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%LingcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.7%1.6%0.5%0.9%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.5%0.9%0.5%0.9%Pacific halibutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%44.7%43.1%30.2%24.6%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%30.2%24.6%30.2%24.6%Arctic lampreyGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.7%10.5%1.8%6.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.8%6.0%1.8%6.0%ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reelAny methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodIce fish-continued-Pacific herring spawn on kelpEulachon (hooligan, candlefish)116 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsUnknown sculpinGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%BurbotGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%92.6%95.5%0.0%0.0%14.1%20.8%0.0%0.0%4.6%9.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.6%9.0%0.0%0.0%4.6%9.0%0.0%0.0%4.6%9.0%Dolly VardenGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%5.4%4.7%3.7%2.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.7%2.7%3.7%2.7%Lake troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.1%7.8%2.7%4.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.7%4.5%2.7%4.5%Arctic graylingGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%37.2%25.2%25.2%14.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%25.2%14.4%25.2%14.4%Northern pikeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Longnose suckerGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Cutthroat troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rainbow troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%7.4%4.5%0.0%0.0%1.1%1.0%5.3%7.1%3.9%4.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%9.3%9.3%0.0%0.0%9.3%9.3%90.7%90.7%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.4%0.4%0.0%0.0%0.4%0.4%3.6%4.1%3.9%4.5%Unknown troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Broad whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Least ciscoGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Humpback whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%66.7%77.8%56.5%60.8%0.0%0.0%18.3%26.1%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%18.3%26.1%18.3%26.1%0.0%0.0%18.3%26.1%Table 3-16.–Page 2 of 3.-continued-ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodRod and reelAny method117 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsRound whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%33.3%22.2%28.2%17.4%0.0%0.0%9.1%7.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%9.1%7.5%9.1%7.5%0.0%0.0%9.1%7.5%Unknown whitefishesGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Table 3-16.–Page 3 of 3.ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchAny methodGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodSubsistence methodsRod and reel118 Figure 3-13.–Fishing and harvest locations of humpback whitefish, Gulkana, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCrosswindLakeEwan LakeSummit LakeMankomen LakeSuslota CreekTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekMentastaLakeTanada CreekSourdoughenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffFielKlawasi RiverMoose CreekPaxsonGulkanaGlennallenSlanaGakonaChistochinaMentasta LakeWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesHumpback whitefish search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary.Slana River119 Figure 3-14.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013. Brown bear 5%Caribou 14% Moose 79% Dall sheep 2% harvest Pacific halibut, lingcod, and unknown rockfish along with coho salmon and pink salmon, mentioned previously, in Prince William Sound. Large Land Mammals In 2013, large land mammals, predominately moose, made up 22% of the total Gulkana wild resource harvest by weight (Figure 3-7). Moose, caribou, brown bears, and Dall sheep made up the composition of the large land mammal harvest for the community (Figure 3-14). Moose provided 79% of the usable pounds of large land mammals harvested by Gulkana households. Moose were used by 90% of Gulkana households (52% of households hunted moose and 17% of community households were successful harvesters) (Table 3-13). According to the study, the majority of the successful moose hunting took place during August and September. An estimated 3 moose were harvested in August, 1 in September, and 1 moose was harvested during an unknown month (Table 3-17). Moose were received almost twice as much compared to caribou among Gulkana households (79% of households received moose from other households and in comparison 45% received caribou) (Table 3-13). This may point to the fact that moose are larger animals so there is more usable meat to share and that it is common for hunters to cooperatively hunt and share the harvest among their family and community members. In addition, few caribou were harvested—3 caribou compared to an estimated 5–6 moose. In 2013, caribou made up 14% of the usable harvest of large land mammals for Gulkana households (Table 3-13; Figure 3-14). An estimated 2 caribou were harvested by Gulkana households in November and 1 was harvested in an unknown month (Table 3-17). Many Gulkana households that hunt caribou reported a lack of opportunity to harvest the migrating Nelchina herd as it crossed the Richardson Highway. In 2013, the lack of opportunity stemmed from the yearly quota of 2,500 Nelchina caribou being reached in the fall season (season ends September 20), which resulted in the winter season not opening. As a general rule, the Nelchina herd migrates across the Richardson Highway around the third week of October and the state and federal winter hunts are opened during this time. Because there was no winter season in regulatory year 2013, hunters missed the opportunity to hunt during the period when caribou were actively crossing the Richardson Highway. 120 Table 3-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Gulkana, 2013. During the 2013 study year, Gulkana households harvested an estimated 1 brown bear, which made up 5% of the usable harvest of large land mammals (Table 3-13; Figure 3-14). Brown bears were used by only 3% of households (Table 3-13). The single brown bear was harvested in April (Table 3-17). In 2013, Gulkana households harvested approximately 1 Dall sheep, which made up 2% of the usable harvest of large land mammals (Table 3-13; Figure 3-14). Dall sheep were used by 10% of Gulkana households (Table 3-13). The single Dall sheep was harvested in September (Table 3-17). During the 2013 study year, Gulkana households reported searching for moose west of Gulkana village as well as along the Richardson Highway in between Gulkana village and Paxson (Figure 3-15). In addition, moose were sought and harvests occurred along the Denali Highway west of Paxson. Residents of Gulkana traveled in search of caribou along the Richardson Highway between Sourdough and Paxson. Brown bears were hunted north of Gakona village within the Gakona River drainage. Dall sheep were hunted in the mountains north and west of Slana. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All large land mammals 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3 11.4 Bison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brown bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Caribou 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.1 3.4 Caribou, male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 Caribou, female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Deer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mountain goat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Moose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 5.7 Moose, bull 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 Moose, cow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dall sheep 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Estimated harvest by month Total 121 Figure 3-15.–Hunting locations of moose, Gulkana, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013TyoneRiverPaxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeSummit LakeMankomen LakeTulsona CreekBoulderCreekTangle LakesDeltaRiverSevenmile LakeDenali HighwayLake LouiseSourdoughRichardson Hi g h w a y Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffRoadTwin LakesTolsona CreekFielding LakePaxsonGulkanaLake LouiseGakonaChistochina111213B13A13C0105MilesMoose search areaMoose search areaHighway/roadGame management unit122 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers The harvest and use of small land mammals is a traditional activity for Gulkana residents; harvests are made to gather both food and fur. There are a handful of active trappers among Gulkana residents today and some households actively pursue small land mammals primarily for food, particularly snowshoe hares. As listed in Table 3-13, the total harvest of small land mammals by Gulkana residents in 2013 for food was 143 lb (1 lb per capita). The harvest of small land mammals composed approximately 1% of Gulkana’s total harvest of wild food resources in 2013 (Figure 3-7). Gulkana’s small land mammal food harvest came from snowshoe hares (61 lb), beavers (38 lb), muskrats (23 lb), porcupines (16 lb), and Arctic ground squirrels (6 lb) (Table 3-13); these species were harvested mostly in the colder months, including January through May and August through November (Table 3-18). The composition of the small land mammal harvest by individual animals harvested, including species harvested for both food and fur, was made up of snowshoe hares (41%), muskrats (26%), Arctic ground squirrels (15%), beavers (10%), porcupines (5%), and lynx (3%) (Figure 3-16). Furbearers such as lynx were harvested—mostly for sale in the fur market—along with a portion of the beavers and muskrats harvested (Figure 3-17). The search and harvest areas for small land mammals in 2013 included areas along Richardson Highway between the Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff and Paxson (Figure 3-18). Additional search and harvest areas for small land mammals went undocumented and/or respondents declined to designate such areas. Table 3-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Gulkana, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All small land mammals 2.3 2.4 6.8 5.9 5.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 19.4 22.8 6.8 0.0 0.0 74.3 Beaver 0.0 2.4 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 Coyote 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red fox–cross phase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red fox–red phase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snowshoe hare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 9.1 13.7 5.7 0.0 0.0 30.7 North american river (land) otter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lynx 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 Marmot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marten 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muskrat 0.0 0.0 6.8 1.1 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 19.3 Porcupine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 Red (tree) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Least weasel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gray wolf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wolverine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Estimated harvest by month Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Total 123 Figure 3-17.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Gulkana, 2013. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Individual animalsharvestedTotal harvest Fur only Figure 3-16.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Gulkana, 2013. Beaver 10% Snowshoe hare 41% Lynx 3% Muskrat 26% Porcupine 5% Arctic ground (parka) squirrel 15% 124 Figure 3-18.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, Gulkana, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Small land mammal and furbearersearch and harvest areaTyoneRiverPaxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeSummit LakeMankomen LakeTulsona CreekTangle LakesltaRiverSevenmile LakeDenali HighwayLake LouiseSourdoughRichardson Hi g h w a y Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffRoadTwin LakesTolsona CreekFielding LakePaxsonGulkanaLake LouiseGakonaChistochina0105MilesHighway/road125 Mallard 8% Spruce grouse 19% Ruffed grouse 7%Unknown ptarmigan 66% Note No bird eggs were harvested. Figure 3-19.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013. Birds and Eggs Birds were used by 35% of Gulkana households (Table 3-13). The total harvest of upland game birds, which includes grouses and ptarmigan, was approximately 103 lb, or 1 lb per capita. Upland game birds composed 92% of the total bird harvest (Figure 3-19). The total estimated harvest of migratory birds—all of which were mallard ducks—composed 8% of the bird harvest. No bird eggs were harvested or used by Gulkana households in 2013 (Table 3-13). Unknown ptarmigan accounted for most of the bird harvest by the community (74 lb), followed by spruce grouse (21 lb), mallards (9 lb), and ruffed grouse (8 lb) (Table 3-13). These birds were harvested primarily in the spring and fall months (Table 3-19). In 2013, Gulkana residents harvested upland birds in several spots along the Richardson Highway between Gulkana and Paxson and north of Paxson near Summit Lake (Figure 3-20). Migratory bird search and harvest areas were not documented in maps. Marine Mammals As listed in Table 3-13, Gulkana households did not harvest or attempt to harvest marine mammals in 2013. However, approximately 21% of households used and received marine mammals. Marine mammals were received by Gulkana households from households located outside of Gulkana and they were shared by 7% of households within the community. The species of marine mammals that were received and used included unknown seal (most likely seal oil) and unknown whale. 126 Table 3-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Gulkana, 2013. Winter Spring Summer Fall Season unknown All birds 1.1 60.3 2.3 92.2 0.0 155.9 Canvasback 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spectacled eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Goldeneye 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mallard 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 9.1 Northern pintail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black scoter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Green-winged teal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown ducks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cackling goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Canada goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown Canada/cackling geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Emperor goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snow goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White-fronted goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tundra (whistling) swan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandhill crane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spruce grouse 0.0 11.4 1.1 17.1 0.0 29.6 Ruffed grouse 0.0 3.4 0.0 8.0 0.0 11.4 Unknown ptarmigan 1.1 45.5 1.1 58.0 0.0 105.8 Unknown duck eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown goose eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown gull eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated harvest by season TotalResource Marine invertebrates As listed in Table 3-13, Gulkana households did not harvest or attempt to harvest marine invertebrates in 2013. However, approximately 7% of households used and received marine invertebrates. Three species of marine invertebrates received by Gulkana households from households located outside of Gulkana included razor clams, Dungeness crab, and shrimp. Vegetation The majority (90%) of households in Gulkana used vegetation during the 2013 study year (Table 3-13). Harvested edible vegetation consisted of a total of 419 lb, or 4 lb per capita. The primary harvest of edible vegetation was composed of berries (83%), followed by plants and greens (14%), and mushrooms (3%) (Figure 3-21). 127 Figure 3-20.–Hunting and harvest locations of upland game birds, Gulkana, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverEwan LakeTulsona CreekGlenn HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayGulkanaGlennallenGakonaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve063MilesUpland game bird search and harvest areaUpland game bird search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundarySummit LakeTangleLakesDelta RiverDenali HighwayRichar ds o n Hi g h w a y Fielding LakePaxson128 In 2013, 7 different kinds of berries were used and 6 were harvested by Gulkana households (Table 3-13). The largest portion of the berry harvest came from blueberries (210 lb); highbush cranberries (55 lb); raspberries (46 lb); and lowbush cranberries (32 lb). Blueberries were received by 38% and shared by 24% of households; highbush cranberries were received by 17% and shared by 10% of households; raspberries were received by 3% and shared by 14% of households; and lowbush cranberries were received by 10% and shared by 7% of households. Additionally, 3% of households received and used other wild berries. During the 2013 study year, 6 different kinds of plants and greens were used (including bark and roots) and 4 kinds were harvested by Gulkana households; 3 kinds contributed to the harvest weight (61 lb) (Table 3-13). The largest portion of the plants and greens harvest came from wild rose hips (55 lb). In addition, unknown mushroom species were harvested and used in 2013 by Gulkana households. The harvest of the unknown mushrooms was 11 lb and the harvest was shared by 7% of households. This study also collected information on the harvest of wood, but a usable harvest weight is not calculated. Wood is often considered an important resource and can play a critical role in the seasonal round of communities. As mentioned in previous sections, firewood is also often an important source of fuel for heating homes. Table 3-13 includes “other wood,” which consists of all wood harvested for firewood, handicrafts, smoke houses, and other purposes. Fifty-five percent of Gulkana households used and 45% harvested other wood in 2013 (Table 3-13). A total of approximately 90 cords of wood were harvested by the community as a whole. This harvest of wood does not include wood that was purchased or harvested commercially to be sold. Berries were harvested in and around Gulkana village, west of the village, north of the junction between the Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff along the Richardson Highway, east of Paxson Lake, and east of Tangle Lakes on the Denali Highway (Figure 3-22). Firewood was harvested primarily around Gulkana village. There are no data on the search and harvest areas for plants, greens, and mushrooms. Figure 3-21.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Gulkana, 2013. Berries 83% Plants and greens 14% Mushrooms 3% 129 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.Paxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana River Copper RiverSanford RiverCrosswind LakeTySusitna LakeEwan LakeankomenLakeTulsona CreekTangle LakesDenali HighwayLake LouiseSourdoughRichardson Hi g h w a y Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffLakeLouiseRoadTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverRichardsonPaxsonGulkanaLake Louise0105MilesBerry harvest areaBerry harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013.Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve GakonaFigure 3-22.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, Gulkana, 2013.130 coMParing harveStS and uSeS in 2013 with PreviouS yearS Harvest Assessments For 10 resource categories and for all resources combined, survey respondents were asked to assess whether their uses and harvests in the 2013 study year were less, more, or about the same as other recent years. “Other recent years” was defined as about the last 5 years. Table 3-20 reports the number of valid responses for each category, the number of households that did not respond, and the number of households that did not use a resource category or all resources combined. In Table 3-20, response percentages are based on the number of valid responses for each category to contextualize these assessments within the set of community households that typically use each category. Figure 3-23 depicts responses to the “less, same, more” assessment question. Households that said they did not ordinarily “use” something are not included within the results. This results in fewer responses for less commonly used categories such as bird eggs or marine invertebrates, and manifests in the chart as a very short set of colored bars (or none in the case of bird eggs) compared to categories such as salmon or large land mammals, which are ordinarily used by most households. Some households did not respond to the question. Taking all resources into consideration, a little more than one-half of Gulkana households, 52%, said they used less wild resources in general over the previous 12 months compared to recent years (Table 3-20). A smaller number, 26% of households, said they used about the same amount, and 22% said they used more. Of note 48% of households reported that they used less salmon and large land mammals during the study year and 38% reported less use of vegetation and small land mammals. Table 3-21 and Table 3-22 depict, by resource category, the reasons Gulkana respondents gave for less or more use, respectively. This was an open-ended question and respondents could provide more than 1 reason for each resource category. Project staff grouped the responses into categories, such as regulations hindering residents from harvesting resources, sharing of harvests, effects of weather on animals and subsistence activities, changes in the animal populations, personal reasons such as work and health, and other outside effects on residents’ opportunities to engage in hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. Of the surveyed households that provided assessments for less use of any resources during the 2013 study year, the reasons most cited were fewer resources available (45%), less sharing (36%), working/no time (32%), weather/environment (32%), and unsuccessful efforts (28%) (Table 3-21). Weather/environment was the main reason cited for less use of salmon (43% of responding households). Resources being less available was the main reason cited for less use of large land mammals (29% of responding households) and small land mammals (64% of responding households). Of those households that reported their use of any resource was more during the study year as compared to recent years (17 households of 29), 71% cited more sharing (received more) as the main reason for more use of any resource (Table 3-22). The impact to households from not getting enough wild resources is reported in Table 3-23. Salmon and large land mammals were among the resources noted in Figure 3-23 that households used less. The impact from not getting enough salmon was noted as minor by 7 households and major by 4 households out of 12 households reporting that they did not get enough salmon. For large land mammals the impact was noted as minor by 7 households and major by 8 households out of 15 that did not get enough. For all resources 62% of households (out of 26) said that they did not get enough resources in 2013 and of those respondents 50% said that the impact from not getting enough resources was major. 131 Table 3-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Gulkana, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource292929100.0%2275.9%2482.8%1758.6%29100.0%All resources29272793.1%1451.9%725.9%622.2%00.0%Salmon292929100.0%1448.3%1034.5%517.2%00.0%Nonsalmon fish29282172.4%621.4%1035.7%517.9%725.0%Large land mammals29292689.7%1448.3%724.1%517.2%310.3%Small land mammals29291344.8%1137.9%13.4%13.4%1655.2%Marine mammals2929620.7%26.9%310.3%13.4%2379.3%Migratory waterfowl2927517.2%311.1%27.4%00.0%2281.5%Other birds2929931.0%517.2%413.8%00.0%2069.0%Bird eggs292900.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%29100.0%Marine invertebrates292926.9%00.0%13.4%13.4%2793.1%Vegetation29292689.7%1137.9%1034.5%517.2%310.3%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.a.Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response.Households not usingSampled householdsResource categoryMoreSameLessValid responsesaTotal householdsHouseholds reporting use132 Figure 3-23.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Gulkana, 2013.48%21%48%38%7%11%17%38%34%36%24%10%7%14%34%17%18%17%17%25%10%55%79%81%69%100%93%10%SalmonNonsalmon fishLarge land mammalsSmall land mammalsMarine mammalsMigratory waterfowlOther birdsBird eggsMarine invertebratesVegetationPercentage of surveyed households providing a valid response. Unlabeled percentages are less than 5%.Households used LESS in 2013Households used SAME in 2013Households used MORE in 2013Households normally do not use133 Table 3-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Gulkana, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource2922313.6%1045%14.5%523%836%732%All resources271417.1%429%00.0%17%214%429%Salmon291400.0%17%00.0%429%429%17%Nonsalmon fish286116.7%117%00.0%117%117%117%Large land mammals291400.0%429%00.0%00%214%214%Small land mammals291100.0%764%19.1%00%00%19%Marine mammals29200.0%00%00.0%00%2100%00%Migratory waterfowl27300.0%133%00.0%00%00%133%Other birds29500.0%480%00.0%00%00%00%Bird eggs29000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Marine invertebrates29000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Vegetation2911218.2%19%00.0%00%19%545%Table 3-21.–Continued.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource2922627.3%731.8%00.0%731.8%00.0%29.1%All resources271417.1%214.3%00%321.4%00.0%00.0%Salmon291417.1%642.9%00%321.4%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish286116.7%00.0%00%116.7%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals2914214.3%17.1%00%17.1%00.0%17.1%Small land mammals2911218.2%218.2%00%19.1%00.0%19.1%Marine mammals29200.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl27300.0%133.3%00%133.3%00.0%00.0%Other birds29500.0%120.0%00%120.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs29000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates29000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation291100.0%00.0%00%327.3%00.0%00.0%Resource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useUnsuccessfulWeather/environmentLack of equipmentLess sharingLack of effortResource categoryHouseholds reporting reasons for less useFamily/personalResources less availableToo far to travelValid responsesa-continued--continued-Small/diseased animalsOther reasonsWorking/no timeRegulations134 Table 3-21.–Page 2 of 2.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource292214.5%418.2%29.1%14.5%29.1%All resources271400.0%17.1%17.1%00.0%17.1%Salmon291400.0%17.1%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish28600.0%116.7%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals291417.1%214.3%00.0%17.1%17.1%Small land mammals291100.0%00.0%19.1%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals29200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl27300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds29500.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs29000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates29000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation291100.0%19.1%19.1%00.0%00.0%Resource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useEquipment/fuel expenseUsed other resourcesLess competitionDid not get enoughDid not needa. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never using the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.135 Table 3-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Gulkana, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource2917211.8%00.0%00.0%1270.6%211.8%All resources27600.0%00.0%00.0%466.7%00.0%Salmon295120.0%00.0%00.0%360.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish28500.0%00.0%00.0%360.0%120.0%Large land mammals295120.0%00.0%00.0%5100.0%00.0%Small land mammals29100.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%Marine mammals29100.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl27000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds29000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs29000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates29100.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%Vegetation29500.0%00.0%00.0%120.0%120.0%NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource2917317.6%211.8%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources27600.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon295120.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish285120.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals29500.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals29100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals29100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl27000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds29000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs29000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates29100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation295240.0%240.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Needed moreUsed other resourcesFavorable weatherReceived moreTable 3-22.–Continued.Households reporting reasons for more useIncreased availabilityResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more useIncreased effortHad more helpOtherRegulationsTraveled farther-continued--continued-Resource categoryValid responsesa136 NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource291715.9%15.9%00.0%15.9%00.0%All resources276116.7%116.7%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon29500.0%00.0%00.0%120.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish28500.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals29500.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals29100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals29100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl27000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds29000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs29000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates29100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation29500.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Store-bought expenseGot/fixed equipmentSubstituted resourcesMore successNeeded lessa. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never use.Table 3-22.–Page 2 of 2.Resource categorySource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Valid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more use137 Table 3-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Gulkana, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageSalmon2929100.0%1241.4%18.3%00.0%758.3%433.3%00.0%Nonsalmon fish292172.4%29.5%00.0%00.0%150.0%150.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates2926.9%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals292689.7%1557.7%00.0%00.0%746.7%853.3%00.0%Marine mammals29620.7%116.7%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals291344.8%861.5%00.0%00.0%675.0%225.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl29620.7%116.7%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds29931.0%444.4%00.0%00.0%375.0%125.0%00.0%Bird eggs2900.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation292586.2%1248.0%00.0%00.0%758.3%541.7%00.0%All resources292689.7%1661.5%00.0%00.0%743.8%850.0%16.3%a. Does not includes households failing to respond to the question or those households that never used the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Resource categorySample householdsHouseholds not getting enough _______ .Impact to those not getting enough ______ .Valid responsesaDid not get enoughNo responseNot noticeableMinorMajorSevere138 Harvest Data Changes in the harvest of resources by Gulkana residents can also be discerned through comparisons with findings from other study years. Comprehensive subsistence harvest surveys were conducted in Gulkana for the 1982 study year (spanning June 1982 through May 1983) and 1987 study year (spanning June 1987 through May 1988) (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). Figure 3-24 and Table 3-24 highlights the per capita harvest of resource categories for all 3 study years (1982, 1987, and 2013). Gulkana experienced the most notable fluctuation in per capita harvests between study years 1982 and 1987. In 1982, the per capita harvest of wild resources by Gulkana households was 111 lb (Table 3-24). In 1987, the harvest increased by 42 lb to a high of 153 lb per capita. In 2013, the per capita harvest of wild resources decreased slightly by 9 lb to 144 lb per capita. The majority of the change from study year to study year can be tracked through the changes in per capita salmon and large land mammal harvests, but harvest trends for other resources contributed to the overall per capita fluctuation as well, which is discussed below. Salmon per capita harvests increased most significantly between 1982 and 1987 (57 lb per capita to 86 lb per capita) then increased slightly again between 1987 and 2013 to 92 lb per capita (a 6 lb per capita increase). Between 1982 and 1987 there was a 12 lb increase in the per capita harvest of large land mammals (from 33 lb to 45 lb per capita) then a 14 lb decline between 1987 and 2013 to 31 lb per capita. Nonsalmon fish harvests followed a different trajectory than salmon and large land mammal per capita harvests—the 1987 per capita value was less than the 1982 per capita value. The nonsalmon fish per capita harvest decreased from 1982 to 1987 from 12 lb to 9 lb per capita and then increased in 2013 to 15 lb per capita; this value was approximately 3 lb more than the 1982 per capita harvest. The small land mammal per capita harvest Figure 3-24.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, Gulkana, 1982, 1987, and 2013. 0 50 100 150 200 250 1982 1987 2013Estimated per capita harvestStudy year Vegetation Marine invertebrates Birds and eggs Small land mammals Large land mammals Nonsalmon fish Salmon Note Error bars represent the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval. 139 Table 3-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, Gulkana, 1982, 1987, and 2013. Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP All resources 13,524.0 111.0 14.0%10,237.0 152.6 25.0%14,932.7 144.2 20.1% Salmon 6,971.0 57.2 5,777.0 86.1 9,494.4 91.7 Nonsalmon fish 1,408.0 11.6 629.0 9.4 1,525.6 14.7 Large land mammals 3,996.0 32.8 3,036.0 45.3 3,238.6 31.3 Small land mammals 352.0 2.9 527.0 7.9 143.4 1.4 Birds and eggs 138.0 1.1 92.0 1.4 111.9 1.1 Marine invertebrates –––––– Vegetation 659.0 5.4 176.0 2.6 418.9 4.0 Note "–" indicates no harvest. Sources For 2013, ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014; for previous study years, ADF&G Division of Subsistence Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS), accessed 2014. 1982 1987 2013 Estimated harvest in pounds usable weight Resource increased from 3 lb per capita in 1982 to 8 lb in 1987 and then decreased to 1 lb per capita in 2013. Birds and eggs and vegetation per capita harvests stayed relatively constant for the 3 study years. Current and Historical Harvest Areas During the 1983 and 1984 fieldwork seasons, ADF&G researchers conducted interviews with more than 200 hunters and fishers in 20 communities in or near the Copper River Basin to map areas where hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering of wild resources occurred between 1964 and 1984 (Stratton and Georgette 1985). This effort produced 2 separate publications by 2 different ADF&G divisions; the Division of Habitat published the maps and the Division of Subsistence published a description of the project and mapping methods. The maps depicting the harvest and use areas used by study community residents during this 20-year span are published in Alaska Habitat Management Guide Southcentral Region: Reference Maps— Volume 3. Community Use of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants (Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat 1985).2 Information about the mapping project is available in Copper Basin Resource Use Map Index and Methodology (Stratton and Georgette 1985). A total of 8 harvest and use (referred to in this report as “search”) maps were produced that show activities for Gulkana residents for 1964–1984. These maps cover harvest and use areas for select large land mammal species (moose, caribou, and Dall sheep), waterfowl, furbearers (small land mammals), fish (salmon and freshwater fish), and vegetation. Absent from these maps are harvest and use areas for upland game birds, and black and brown bears. Changes in the resource harvest and use/search areas by Gulkana area residents can be discerned through limited comparisons of the maps published in 1985, which depict harvest and use areas for 20 years, and the maps produced from this study, which only reflect search and harvest areas for the study year 2013. While there are some similarities between the harvest and use/search areas in the historical and the 2013 maps, there also are noticeable differences. In the historical maps, the harvest and use areas cover a wide expanse of land in the middle and upper Copper River watershed, but also follow along a number of tributaries to the Gulkana River on both the east and west sides of the Richardson Highway, along the Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff, Nabesna Road, and north of McCarthy Road on the western slope of Mount Wrangell. During the study year 2013, the harvest and search areas were more concentrated along the Richardson and Denali highways and reached farther south—as far as Valdez—in comparison to the historical maps. At the same time, the Nabesna Road was not as much of an important harvest and search area for a variety of resources for Gulkana households in 2013 in comparison to the apparent trend shown in the historical harvest and use maps. 2. A complete index of documents published in 1985 and 1986 as part of Alaska Habitat Management Guide is available online: http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/C/AHMG/index.html. 140 With regard to specific species, the most noticeable differences between the harvest and use/search areas shown in the 2 map sets were visible with moose, caribou, Dall sheep, small land mammals/furbearers, and nonsalmon fish. The first noticeable difference is that the historical maps depict caribou harvest and use areas along the Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff and Nabesna Road; in 2013, nonsalmon fish were the only resource Gulkana residents reported to have searched for and harvested in those areas. In the historical maps, the harvest and use areas for moose extended substantially farther south toward Valdez along the Richardson Highway, along the Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff and Nabesna Road, north and south of Chitina, and north and east of the confluence of the Chitina and Copper rivers. Another important observation is that the historical maps, which demonstrated harvest patterns prior to the formation of WRST in 1980, illustrate harvest and use areas for moose extending deeper into the area of the park than those of this study; the 2013 maps show no search areas within WRST boundaries. Similar change has taken place with Dall sheep use/ search areas; in the historical maps Gulkana residents reported using 4 remote areas off of the road system in the area of WRST and in the mountains west of Chitina. In the 2013 map there is only 1 Dall sheep search area, which was located north of Slana. As for small land mammals/furbearers, there were several large harvest and use areas off the road system in the vicinity of Lake Louise and Crosswind, Tyone, and Ewan Lakes. In 2013, the harvest and search areas for small land mammal harvests were reduced primarily to the road system; primarily along the Richardson Highway north of the Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff. The 2013 study found Gulkana residents’ nonsalmon fish harvest and search areas were similar to those depicted in the historical maps. For both sets of harvest and use/search area maps, Gulkana residents reported fishing both at the confluence of the Gulkana and Copper rivers and north of the confluence on the Gulkana River, along the Glenn Highway and its intersection with Moose Creek, and along the Slana River along the Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff. In the historical maps, Gulkana residents reported traveling off the road system in search of nonsalmon fish. Residents visited lake systems west of Gulkana village and east of Lake Louise. As shown in the historical maps, Gulkana residents reported harvest and use areas for salmon that were substantially more concentrated in the vicinity of Gulkana. Harvest and use locations included areas just north of the Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff and Richardson Highway junction north to Paxson. In 2013, the harvest and search areas for salmon were similar to those depicted in the historical maps with additional locations, which included areas north and south of Copper Center, near the confluence of the Chitina and Copper rivers, and in the Valdez Port/Prince William Sound area. According to the 2013 study, Gulkana residents harvested vegetation in areas east and west of the village and north of the village along the Richardson and Denali highways. The harvest and search areas were primarily on the road system; in some areas along the Richardson Highway they extend off the highway. Both the historical and 2013 maps show vegetation harvest and use/search areas very close to the community, along McCarthy Road, and near the intersection of the Richardson and Denali highways. In addition, both map sets depict harvest and use/search area patterns that show that Gulkana residents likely harvest vegetation resources while looking for other wild resources such as large land mammals or nonsalmon fish. local coMMentS and concernS Following is a summary of local observations of wild resource populations and trends that were recorded by researchers during the surveys in Gulkana. Some households did not offer any additional comments or concerns during the survey interviews, so not all households are represented in the summary. In addition, respondents expressed their concerns about wild resources during the community review meeting of preliminary data. These concerns have been included in the summary. Fish Most households commented on the flooding of the Copper River in 2013, as well as drastic changes in temperature and late precipitation. A couple of families talked about how their fish wheels were destroyed in the flood. Other respondents discussed how the channels in the river were altered and they had to move 141 their fish wheels and camps because their previous location was no longer at a main channel or a good place to harvest salmon on the Copper River. Large Land Mammals Many residents of Gulkana commented that the mild fall weather impacted their harvest opportunity of moose. According to 1 local hunter, the bulls hide in higher elevations until cows go into estrus. Due to the mild temperatures, cow moose went into estrus late and bulls did not become active until later in the fall. This impacted the harvest opportunity for many local hunters. One hunter suggested possible solutions that included longer open harvest seasons. Nearly every household that was surveyed mentioned the increasing hunting pressure that large land mammals experience in the fall. Several local hunters said that while stalking a moose they encountered other hunters competing for the kill. Others talked about the increased traffic and prevalence of hunters in the area around hunting season. One elder hunter in particular noted that the pressure from hunters impacts the migration of caribou. He hypothesized that the increasing use of snowmachines north of Eureka altered the herd’s migration in 2013. Many Gulkana households also commented on the warmer weather and its influence on caribou migration during the study year. Several households talked about caribou herds crossing highways in unusual locations and the increased amount of road-killed animals as a result. Comments also noted the high mortality of caribou calves due to the late snow and cold temperatures in May 2013. Lastly, most hunters in Gulkana households spoke of cultural hunting practices including respecting the animal (e.g., not bragging about hunting), using the entire animal (e.g., making moose head soup), sharing certain parts of the animal with elders and others, efficiency in harvest (e.g., “Shoot once and only when you have to”), harvesting “any bull” moose, and teaching children to hunt. Small Land Mammals/Furbearers A number of households commented about the decline in small land mammal trapping due to disinterest in the trade and a lack of animals. In addition, the households that searched for and harvested snowshoe hares said that the population was down and had been for a while. One elder head of household suggested that there should be more research on the cycle of the snowshoe hare population because it has been down for more than 7 years. Vegetation Several households commented on the hot and dry summer influencing berry harvests. In particular, they complained that the weather negatively influenced the production of blueberries. other Most Gulkana residents that were surveyed commented about the weather and its influence on the previous year’s harvest. The Copper River Basin had unseasonably warm weather in March and early April but it turned colder in late April and early May. This region also received a substantial amount of snow in early to mid-May. Late spring and summer in the basin were reportedly hot and dry. This warm weather lead to considerable snowmelt in higher elevations, which increased water levels in rivers. Fall was characterized as mild and winter arrived late. Many participating households expressed concern about the mapping process and requests for specific locations and were reluctant to share harvest area details. This was partly because community hunting and fishing areas are accessible via the road system and many state residents living in the nonsubsistence areas of Fairbanks, Anchorage, and the Matanuska–Susitna Valley communities come to recreate, fish, and hunt 142 in the Copper River Basin. Some local respondents see the opportunity for nonlocal residents to harvest fish and game in their community’s area as placing greater burden on the local resources and increasing competition for successful harvests. Some Gulkana residents feared that mapped resource use areas would serve as a guide to productive hunting and fishing spots in the region. Lastly, several households commented on the negative influence regulations have on their opportunity to harvest fish and game in the Copper River Basin. For example, they said, the Copper Basin community subsistence harvest program was shut down by emergency order in 2013 because urban hunters took too many “any bulls” from the quota in GMU 13A. One elder resident commented that the Gulkana community normally gets around 10 moose a year and last year they only harvested 6. ACKNoWLEDGMENTS ADF&G Division of Subsistence would like to thank local research assistants (Samson Frank, Amber Alexander, and Felicia Ewan) for their valuable help in facilitating the Gulkana portion of this research. Local knowledge and relationships help to guide researchers through communities and provide context and insight to the survey process. 143 4. LAKE LoUiSE Joshua T. Ream coMMunity Background The unincorporated community of Lake Louise is located in the Copper River Basin of Alaska and is approximately 18 miles north of the Glenn Highway.1 It is 32 miles northwest of Glennallen and lies on the westernmost border of the Matanuska–Susitna (Mat–Su) Borough. Lake Louise Road begins at mile 159.8 of the Glenn Highway. The community sits on the southwest edge of the lake and is accessible via paved road or by plane. There is a state-owned gravel airstrip and float plane site as well as 2 private airstrips. Other nearby communities to the south include Nelchina, Mendeltna, and Tolsona—together those 3 communities are referred to as East Glenn Highway in this report. Lake Louise is on the western edge of what was historically Ahtna Athabascan territory. Several archaeological sites are located in the area and some are thought to be 3,000 to 4,000 years old (Stratton and Georgette 1984). Lake Louise was originally named “Sasnuu’ Bene” in Ahtna, meaning “sand island lake” (Kari and Tuttle 2005). Ahtna villages existed in the 1800s on the northern shore of Lake Louise and at the outlet of Tyone Lake (de Laguna and McClellan 1981; Stratton and Georgette 1984), but they are no longer in existence. Lake Louise was later named “Adah” after the girlfriend of an early explorer to the region—Lt. Joseph C. Castner.2 The first published account of the modern name is from 1889 when it was named by Capt. E.F. Glenn of the U.S. Geological Survey, in honor of his wife (Glenn 1900). Land disposals conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in the 1940s initiated homesteading for many residents. Lake Louise Road was originally built in 1953 to provide access to U.S. Air Force and Army recreation areas (Stratton and Georgette 1984). The area was later designated as a state recreation area. It has become a popular location for boating and fishing, which in turn has led to the construction of many homes that are used seasonally, as well as facilities catering to visitors. In addition to 2 state-run campgrounds, there are 5 businesses offering lodging and food in the community, and all but 1 of these sell gas and propane. One of the businesses includes a general store and offers mechanical repairs while another includes a package liquor store. Lodges have individual wells and septic systems, but most homes haul or filter lake water and use outhouses. Generators and solar cells are used for electricity in the community, and the Mat–Su Borough operates a waste transfer station nearby. Lake Louise residents are organized as the Lake Louise Community Non-Profit Corporation. The nearest medical clinic to Lake Louise is in Glennallen, and major hospitals are located in Palmer and Anchorage.3 Emergency health services are provided by local residents organized as the Lake Louise First Responders. There are no schools in Lake Louise and students are either home-schooled or they commute to Glennallen. Public safety is managed by the Palmer and Mat-Su West Alaska State Trooper posts. There is no village public safety officer or nearby Alaska State Trooper post. The lake itself is fed by small streams and precipitation runoff. It drains into Lake Susitna, which itself drains into Lake Tyone, followed by the Tyone River, the Susitna River, and finally Cook Inlet. Lake Louise is surrounded by boreal forest and relatively flat lands to rolling hills in the immediate area. It has an Interior 1. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (ADCCED) Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau. n.d. “Alaska Community Database Online: Community Information.” Accessed August 2014. http://commerce.alaska.gov/cra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/2d4016fb-5349-4acd-be15-f86a91216bc1 2. Lake Louise Community. n.d. “Lake Louise Community: About Us.” Accessed August 2014. http://www.lakelouisecommunity.info/About_Us.html 3. Lake Louise Community. n.d. “Lake Louise Community: About Us.” Accessed August 2014. http://www.lakelouisecommunity.info/About_Us.html 144 Households 25 7 14.0 Population 46 34 26.6 Population 1 7 0.0 Percentage 2.2%20.6%0.0% Note The term "households" means occupied housing units. Alaska Native population data from the American Community Survey and 2010 census come from the category "race alone or in combination with one or more other races." Census (2010) 5-year American Community Survey (2008–2012) This study (2013) Sources U.S. Census Bureau (2011) for 2010 estimate; U.S. Census Bureau for American Community Survey 5-year survey estimate; and ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014, for 2013 estimate. Total population Alaska Native Table 4-1.–Population estimates, Lake Louise, 2010 and 2013. Alaska climate and temperature range from -9 °F to 34 °F in January and from 38 °F to 62 °F in July.4 Annual precipitation is approximately 17 inches. deMograPhy This study found an estimated population for Lake Louise in 2013 of 27 individuals, represented by 14 households (Table 4-1). This is much lower than the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau estimate of 46 individuals represented by 25 households, and the American Community Survey 5-year (2008–2012) average estimate of 34 individuals5 represented by 7 households. The reasons for these differing estimates may include differences in agency parameters for determining full-time residency. This study required at least 3 consecutive months of occupancy in the community for the study year (2013) and self-identification as a full-time resident. There are many recreational cabins in the Lake Louise area, and it is possible that some of the owners and occupants of these reported Lake Louise as their home during the other studies. The division’s 1982 study also found that the majority of cabins in the area are used for weekend or seasonal recreational activities (Stratton and Georgette 1984). For all 3 study years for which subsistence harvest surveys were completed in Lake Louise (1982, 1987, and 2013), the division found fewer individuals than is suggested by the trendline on Figure 4-1, which includes estimates from the Alaska Department of Labor and counts from the U.S. Census Bureau (Figure 4-1). Of the 14 qualifying households found in 2013, 10 were successfully surveyed resulting in a sample achievement of 71% (Table 4-2). Three households declined to participate and 1 household could not be contacted. The average size of Lake Louise households was 2 individuals; no households contained Alaska Native residents (Table 4-3). The overall population of Lake Louise has declined slightly since 1982, the study year of the first division survey (Figure 4-1). 4. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (ADCCED) Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau. n.d. “Alaska Community Database Online: Community Information.” Accessed August 2014. Accessed August 2014. http://commerce.alaska.gov/cra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/2d4016fb-5349-4acd-be15-f86a91216bc1 5. The American Community Survey 5-year average had a margin of error of ±49 for the population.* * American Community Survey. 2012. “Table DP05: ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates, 2008–2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” Accessed December 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_5YR_DP05&prod- Type=table 145 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Number of peopleAlaska Department of Labor (estimate)This study (estimate) CSIS (estimate)U.S. Census (count) Trendline Figure 4-1.–Historical population estimates, Lake Louise, 1982–2013. Table 4-2.–Sample achievement, Lake Louise, 2013. Lake Louise Number of dwelling units 23 Interview goal 23 Households interviewed 10 Households failed to be contacted 1 Households declined to be interviewed 3 Households moved or occupied by nonresident 9 Total households attempted to be interviewed 13 Refusal rate 23.1% Final estimate of permanent households 14 Percentage of total households interviewed 71.4% Interview weighting factor 1.4 Sampled population 19 Estimated population 26.6 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 146 Characteristics Sampled population 19 Estimated community population 27 Mean 1.9 Minimum 1 Maximum 5 53.3 9 72 61 Total population Mean 18.6 Minimuma 1 Maximum 35 Heads of household Mean 22.1 Minimuma 6 Maximum 35 Estimated householdsb Number 0.0 Percentage 0.0% Estimated population Number 0 Percentage 0.0% b. The estimated number of households in which at least 1 head of household is Alaska Native. Alaska Native Minimuma Maximum Median Length of residency a. A minimum age of 0 (zero) is used for infants who are less than 1 year of age. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Mean Household size Age Table 4-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Lake Louise, 2013. This study found the average age of Lake Louise residents to be 53 years old with the youngest individual being 9 years old and the oldest individual being 72 years old (Table 4-3). The largest age cohorts were both males and females between the ages of 60–64, representing 53% of the population (Table 4-4). All adult residents were between the ages of 45 and 74 and these individuals were relatively evenly distributed between males and females (Figure 4-2). There were also several male children between the ages of 5 and 19 in the community; the survey estimated that there was no one in their 20s or 30s. No Lake Louise household heads reported having parents that were living in the Lake Louise area when they were born (Table 4-5), and this is also true for all other residents of the community (Appendix Table E4-1). Only 7% of household heads reported that their parents were living in Alaska when they were born; 87% reported that their parents were living elsewhere in the United States and 7% reported that their parents 147 Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage 0–4 0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%0.0% 5–9 1.4 9.1%9.1%0.0 0.0%0.0%1.4 5.3%5.3% 10–14 1.4 9.1%18.2%0.0 0.0%0.0%1.4 5.3%10.5% 15–19 1.4 9.1%27.3%0.0 0.0%0.0%1.4 5.3%15.8% 20–24 0.0 0.0%27.3%0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%15.8% 25–29 0.0 0.0%27.3%0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%15.8% 30–34 0.0 0.0%27.3%0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%15.8% 35–39 0.0 0.0%27.3%0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%15.8% 40–44 0.0 0.0%27.3%0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%15.8% 45–49 0.0 0.0%27.3%1.4 12.5%12.5%1.4 5.3%21.1% 50–54 1.4 9.1%36.4%1.4 12.5%25.0%2.8 10.5%31.6% 55–59 0.0 0.0%36.4%0.0 0.0%25.0%0.0 0.0%31.6% 60–64 7.0 45.5%81.8%7.0 62.5%87.5%14.0 52.6%84.2% 65–69 2.8 18.2%100.0%0.0 0.0%87.5%2.8 10.5%94.7% 70–74 0.0 0.0%100.0%1.4 12.5%100.0%1.4 5.3%100.0% 75–79 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 80–84 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 85–89 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 90–94 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 95–99 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 100–104 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Missing 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Total 15.4 100.0%100.0%11.2 100.0%100.0%26.6 100.0%100.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Age Male Female Total Table 4-4.–Population profile, Lake Louise, 2013. 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 0–4 5–9 10–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65–69 70–74 75–79 80–84 85–89 90–94 95–99 100–104 Missing Number of people Female Male Figure 4-2.–Population profile, Lake Louise, 2013. 148 Birthplace Percentage Palmer 6.7% Other U.S.86.7% Foreign 6.7% Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Table 4-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Lake Louise, 2013. were living in a foreign country (Table 4-4). Considering all residents combined, 21% reported having parents that were living in Alaska when they were born (Appendix Table E4-1). caSh eMPloyMent and Monetary incoMe The total income for the community of Lake Louise in 2013 was $1,556,516 (Table 4-6). This total comprises both earned income ($979,600; 63% of the total) and other income ($575,916; 37% of the total). For Lake Louise, approximately 70% of the other income was composed of pension/retirement pay, and this made up approximately 26% of the total community income (Table 4-6). The mean household income for Lake Louise in 2013 was $111,180 and the per capita income was $58,516 (Table 4-6). In Lake Louise, 50% of the earned income came from the services industry, 37% from mining, and 12% from finance, insurance, and real estate jobs (Table 4-7). Considering earned income and other income combined, services made up 32% of the total community income, followed by mining (24%) and finance, insurance, and real estate (8%) (Table 4-6). Service jobs made up 67% of the jobs in the community; executive, administrative, and managerial jobs in the services industry composed 50% of wage earnings (Table 4-7). Mining jobs and finance, insurance, and real estate jobs each made up 17% of jobs in the community. All adults age 16 or older in Lake Louise were employed in 2013 (Table 4-8). The mean duration of employment was 3.5 months for each employed individual and 29% of employed adults were employed year-round. The average number of jobs that each employed individual held in 2013 was 1.2. The mean number of jobs held by members of each employed household was 2. levelS oF individual ParticiPation in the harveSting and ProceSSing oF wild reSourceS Table 4-9 reports the expanded levels of individual participation in the harvest and processing of wild resources by all Lake Louise residents in 2013. Everyone in the community participated in harvesting some resource and nearly everyone (95%) participated in processing some resource. Interestingly, all community members participated in gathering vegetation, and 95% participated in processing vegetation. For fish, specifically, 79% of Lake Louise residents fished, and 84% assisted in processing fish. For large land mammals, 53% of residents hunted for these species, but only 11% assisted with processing meat from successful harvests. Relatively few individuals participated in harvesting small land mammals in 2013— 11%. The percentage of individuals processing small land mammals was slightly higher—16%. For birds and eggs, 37% of individuals participated in both harvesting and processing these species. 149 Table 4-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Lake Louise, 2013. Percentage of Number Number Total Mean Per total of of for per capita community Income source people households community household income income Earned income Services 5.6 9.3 $493,798 $4,051 –$1,598,345 $35,271 31.7% Mining 1.4 4.7 $365,851 $185,371 –$1,097,003 $26,132 23.5% Finance, insurance, and real estate 1.4 4.7 $119,951 $61,787 –$336,000 $8,568 7.7% Earned income subtotal 7.0 14.0 $979,600 $512,400 –$3,084,600 $69,971 $36,827 62.9% other income Pension/retirement 7.0 $401,333 $117,600 –$764,400 $28,667 25.8% Social Security 4.2 $130,517 $1,433 –$393,750 $9,323 8.4% Alaska Permanent Fund dividend 14.0 $22,680 $15,120 –$32,760 $1,620 1.5% Disability 1.4 $19,600 $14,000 –$39,200 $1,400 1.3% Veterans assistance 1.4 $2,786 $1,990 –$12,971 $199 0.2% 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Adult public assistance (UAA, APD)0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Supplemental Security income 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Food stamps 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Longevity bonus 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Heating assistance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Workers' compensation/insurance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Unemployment 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Native corporation dividend 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Child support 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Other 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Foster care 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% CITGO fuel voucher 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Meeting honoraria 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% other income subtotal 14.0 $576,916 $248,229 –$920,703 $41,208 $21,689 37.1% Community income total $1,556,516 $1,160,629 –$3,375,933 $111,180 $58,516 100.0% -/+ 95% CI Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Table 4-7.–Employment by industry, Lake Louise, 2013. Jobs Households Individuals Percentage of wage earnings 28.6 14.0 23.8 16.7%33.3%20.0%37.3% Natural scientists and mathematicians 16.7%33.3%20.0%37.3% 16.7%33.3%20.0%12.2% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 16.7%33.3%20.0%12.2% 66.7%66.7%80.0%50.4% Executive, administrative, and managerial 33.3%33.3%40.0%49.6% Service occupations 33.3%66.7%40.0%0.8% Finance, insurance and real estate Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated total number Industry Mining Services 150 Community Lake Louise 23.8 15.3 23.8 100.0% 28.6 1.2 1 2 3.5 12 12 29.4% 15.3 14 14.0 100.0% 2.0 1 4 1.7 1.7 1 3 15.6 Characteristic Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. All adults Number Mean weeks employed Employed adults Number Households Mean Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs per employed household Maximum Percentage employed year-round Maximum Employed adults Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs Number Mean person-weeks of employment Minimum Maximum Minimum Total households Number Employed Mean Employed households Months employed Maximum Number Mean weeks employed Table 4-8.–Employment characteristics, Lake Louise, 2013. 151 26.6 Number 21.0 Percentage 78.9% Number 22.4 Percentage 84.2% Number 14.0 Percentage 52.6% Number 2.8 Percentage 10.5% Number 2.8 Percentage 10.5% Number 4.2 Percentage 15.8% Number 9.8 Percentage 36.8% Number 9.8 Percentage 36.8% Number 26.6 Percentage 100.0% Number 25.2 Percentage 94.7% Number 26.6 Percentage 100.0% Number 25.2 Percentage 94.7% Fish Process Hunt/gather Process Hunt or trap Process Gather Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Process Total number of people Birds and eggs Fish Large land mammals Hunt Process Attempt harvest Small land mammals Vegetation Any resource Process Table 4-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Lake Louise, 2013. 152 The survey included questions about individual participation in wild resource harvest activities such as working with fish wheels, handicrafts, and cooking wild foods. In Lake Louise, no residents worked with fish wheels, no residents sewed skins or cloth, and 84% of residents cooked wild foods (Table 4-10). houSehold reSource harveSt and uSe PatternS and Sharing oF wild reSourceS Table 4-11 summarizes resource harvest and use characteristics for Lake Louise in 2013 at the household level. The average harvest was 139 lb usable weight per household, or 73 lb per capita. During the study year, community households harvested an average of 7 kinds of resources and used an average of 10 kinds of resources. The maximum number of resources used by any household was 23. In addition, households gave away an average of 2 kinds of resources and 70% of households shared resources with other households. Overall, as many as 120 species were available for households to harvest in the study area; this included species that survey respondents identified but were not asked about in the survey instrument. Previous studies by the Division of Subsistence (Wolfe 1987; Wolfe et al. 2010) have shown that in most rural Alaska communities, a relatively small portion of households produces most of the community’s fish and wildlife harvests, which they share with other households. A recent study of 3,265 households in 66 rural Alaska communities found that about 33% of the households accounted for 76% of subsistence harvests (Wolfe et al. 2010). Although overall the set of very productive households was diverse, factors that were associated with higher levels of subsistence harvests included larger households with a pool of adult male labor, higher wage income, involvement in commercial fishing, and community location. As shown in Figure 4-3, in the 2013 study year in Lake Louise, about 74% of the harvests of wild resources as estimated in usable pounds were harvested by 30% of the community’s households. Further analysis of the study findings, beyond the scope of this report, might identify characteristics of the highly productive households in Lake Louise and the other study communities. The survey included questions about residents’ use of alternative and motorized modes of transportation to access wild food harvest areas and the use of portable motors. Figure 4-4 demonstrates the percentage of community households that used an alternate means of transportation (in addition to or aside from using cars, trucks, or traveling on foot). Approximately 70% of the Lake Louise households used a boat or a snowmachine when harvesting wild foods. About 60% of households used ATVs. No households used an airplane or a dog sled when harvesting wild resources. Seventy percent of households used a generator, 60% used a chain saw, 50% used an ice auger, 30% used a winch, and 10% used other portable motors or motorized equipment (Figure 4-5). Table 4-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Lake Louise, 2013. 26.6 Building, maintaining, or moving fish wheels Number 0.0 Percentage 0.0% Number 0.0 Percentage 0.0% Number 22.4 Percentage 84.2% Total number of people Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Sewing skins or cloth Cooking wild foods 153 10.1 Minimum 2 Maximum 23 95% confidence limit (±)21.3% Median 10 8.4 Minimum 1 Maximum 20 95% confidence limit (±)24.9% Median 9 6.6 Minimum 1 Maximum 16 95% confidence limit (±)26.1% Median 7 3.9 Minimum 1 Maximum 8 95% confidence limit (±)21.9% Median 3.5 1.6 Minimum 0 Maximum 7 95% confidence limit (±)49.4% Median 1 Minimum 2 Maximum 604 Mean 138.7 Median 68 1,942.1 73.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 10 120 Percentage using any resource Percentage attempting to harvest any resource Percentage harvesting any resource Mean number of resources given away per household Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Percentage receiving any resource Percentage giving away any resource Number of households in sample Number of resources asked about and identified voluntarily by respondents Household harvest (pounds) Total harvest weight (lb) Community per capita harvest (lb) Mean number of resources used per household Mean number of resources attempted to harvest per household Mean number of resources harvested per household Mean number of resources received per household Characteristic Table 4-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Lake Louise, 2013. 154 Figure 4-3.–Household specialization, Lake Louise, 2013. 30% of households took 74% percent of the harvest 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cumulative percent of pounds harvestedPercentage of households Figure 4-6 demonstrates the percentage of households that used natural materials for handicrafts: 40% used antlers, 20% used horns, and 10% used bark. Significantly, 10% of households used other natural materials, most of which were fur, skins, and diamond willow. Firewood is very important for heating homes in many rural communities. Lake Louise residents reported an average annual cost of heating their homes of $1,060 (Table 4-12). Thirty percent of households reported that 26–50% of their home heating was from firewood, 10% reported 51–75% of their home heating came from firewood, and 20% reported that 76–99% of their home heating came from firewood. Though 40% of households reported that 0% of their household heat came from firewood, the remaining 60% of households reported that greater than 25% of their household heat came from firewood. harveSt QuantitieS and coMPoSition Table 4-13 reports estimated wild resource harvests and uses by Lake Louise residents in 2013 and is organized first by general category and then by species. All edible resources are reported in pounds usable weight (see Appendix C for conversion factors[6]). The “harvest” category includes resources harvested by any member of the surveyed household during the study year. The “use” category includes all resources taken, given away, or used by a household, and resources acquired from other harvesters, either as gifts, by barter or trade, through hunting partnerships, or as meat given by hunting guides and non-local hunters. 6. Resources that are not eaten, such as firewood and some furbearers, are included in the table but are given a conversion factor of zero. 155 70%70% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Boat Snowmachine ATVPercentage of sampled householdsTransportation type Figure 4-4.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Lake Louise, 2013. 70% 60% 50% 30% 10% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Generator Chain saw Ice auger Winch Other portable motors or motorized equipmentPercentage of sampled householdsEquipment type Figure 4-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Lake Louise, 2013. 156 Figure 4-6.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Lake Louise, 2013. 10% 20% 40% 10% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Birch bark Horns Antlers Other natural materialPercentage of sampled householdsMaterial Purchased foods are not included but resources such as firewood are included because they are an important part of the subsistence way of life. Differences between harvest and use percentages reflect sharing among households, which results in a wider distribution of wild foods. The total harvest for Lake Louise in 2013 as recorded in pounds usable weight was 1,942 lb (Table 4-13). This equals a total harvest of approximately 139 lb per household and 73 lb per capita for all resources combined. Large land mammals made up the greatest proportion of this harvest, 42% of the total harvest (Figure 4-7), and approximately 31 lb of large land mammals were harvested per capita (Table 4-13). Nonsalmon fish were also a significant proportion of the total harvest, representing 29%, followed by vegetation (14%), salmon (12%), birds and eggs (2%) and small land mammals (1%) (Figure 4-7). The per capita harvest of vegetation, salmon, and birds and eggs was 11 lb, 9 lb, and 1 lb, respectively. A per capita harvest of only 0.3 lb of small land mammals was estimated. It is interesting that salmon ranked only fourth in the overall composition of harvest but this is likely due to the distance that must be traveled to access this resource in comparison to that of other study communities. SeaSonal round Lake Louise residents harvest wild food resources throughout the year. Like many rural Alaska communities, certain species are targeted in different seasons and this leads to a cyclical harvest pattern. These patterns are defined by seasonal resource availability, laws, regulations, and land access. In Lake Louise, most residents harvested wild foods primarily within the community or in other parts of the Copper River Basin (Figure 4-8), except some households traveled occasionally for marine resources like Pacific halibut and rockfish in Prince William Sound. Boats, highway vehicles, ATVs, and snowmachines are common modes of transportation used for harvesting wild food resources. Residents also commonly accessed wild food resources by foot, especially resources available near their homes. According to a key informant in the community, harvest activities typically start in the winter months and early spring of the year when ice fishing for burbot and trout is undertaken. One household also catches whitefishes with a net at this time. Once much of the snow has melted and ice break-up has occurred on 157 Table 4-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Lake Louise, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageLake Louise$1,060440.0%00.0%330.0%110.0%220.0%00.0%Average annual cost of home heatingHousehold use of wood for home heating as a percentage of total fuel for heating0%1%–25%26%–50%51%–75%76%–99%100%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Community158 Table 4-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Lake Louise, 2013.Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per householdAll resources100.0100.0100.0100.070.01,942.1138.773.050.4 Salmon90.040.040.080.030.0236.816.98.966.8 Chum salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Coho salmon20.010.010.010.00.017.41.20.72.8ind0.2120.9 Chinook salmon30.00.00.030.010.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pink salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sockeye salmon90.030.030.080.020.0205.414.77.744.8ind3.276.6 Landlocked salmon10.010.010.00.00.014.01.00.514.0ind1.0120.9 Unknown salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Nonsalmon fish90.070.070.070.020.0570.640.821.552.9 Pacific herring0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring sac roe0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring spawn on kelp0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown smelt0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific (gray) cod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pacific tomcod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Starry flounder0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lingcod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pacific halibut40.010.010.030.00.0154.011.05.8154.0lb11.0120.9 Arctic lamprey0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black rockfish10.010.010.00.00.021.01.50.814.0ind1.0120.9 Unknown rockfish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown sculpin0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Burbot60.050.050.050.00.0127.79.14.853.2ind3.850.4 Arctic char10.010.010.00.00.02.00.10.12.8ind0.2120.9 Dolly Varden0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lake trout30.020.020.010.00.019.61.40.79.8ind0.7103.2 Arctic grayling50.050.050.00.010.0144.110.35.4205.8ind14.796.8 Northern pike0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sheefish0.010.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Longnose sucker0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cutthroat trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Percentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amountaResource95% confidence limit (±) -continued-159 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Rainbow trout20.020.020.00.00.027.42.01.019.6ind1.484.6 Unknown trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Broad whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Least cisco0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Humpback whitefish10.010.010.00.00.04.90.40.22.8ind0.2120.9 Round whitefish10.010.010.00.010.070.05.02.670.0ind5.0120.9 Unknown whitefishes10.00.00.010.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Large land mammals70.070.010.060.020.0812.058.030.5120.9 Bison0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black bear0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brown bear0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Caribou50.070.010.020.010.0182.013.06.81.4ind0.1120.9 Deer0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mountain goat0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Moose70.050.010.060.020.0630.045.023.71.4ind0.1120.9 Dall sheep0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Small land mammals10.020.010.00.00.08.40.60.3120.9 Beaver0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Coyote0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red fox–cross phase0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red fox–red phase0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snowshoe hare10.020.010.00.00.08.40.60.34.2ind0.3120.9 North American river (land) otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lynx0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marmot0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marten0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mink0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Muskrat0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Porcupine0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red (tree) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Table 4-13.–Page 2 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) -continued- Nonsalmon fish, continued160 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Least weasel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Gray wolf0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Wolverine0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marine mammals20.00.00.020.00.00.00.00.00.0 Fur seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Harbor seal10.00.00.010.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sea otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Steller sea lion0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Walrus10.00.00.010.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Beluga whale10.00.00.010.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Bowhead whale10.00.00.010.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whale0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Birds and eggs40.050.040.010.00.033.22.41.280.5 Canvasback0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 King eider10.00.00.010.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spectacled eider0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Goldeneye0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mallard0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Northern pintail0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black scoter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Green-winged teal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown ducks0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brant0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cackling goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Canada goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown Canada/ cackling geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Emperor goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snow goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 White-fronted goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Table 4-13.–Page 3 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) -continued- Small land mammals, continued161 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Tundra (whistling) swan0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sandhill crane0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spruce grouse30.040.030.00.00.010.80.80.415.4ind1.170.4 Sharp-tailed grouse0.020.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Ruffed grouse0.010.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown grouse10.010.010.00.00.02.80.20.15.6ind0.4120.9 Unknown ptarmigan10.030.010.00.00.019.61.40.728.0ind2.0120.9 Unknown duck eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown goose eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown gull eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marine invertebrates40.010.010.030.00.01.10.10.0120.9 Freshwater clams0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Razor clams20.00.00.020.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Dungeness crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown king crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown tanner crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown mussels10.010.010.00.00.01.10.10.00.7gal0.1120.9 Octopus0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Shrimp10.00.00.010.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Squid0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Vegetation100.0100.0100.010.030.0280.020.010.544.1 Blueberry100.0100.0100.00.030.0176.412.66.644.1gal3.252.8 Lowbush cranberry60.060.060.00.00.028.02.01.17.0gal0.536.1 Highbush cranberry30.030.030.00.010.08.50.60.32.1gal0.280.2 Crowberry10.010.010.00.00.02.80.20.10.7gal0.1120.9 Raspberry10.010.010.00.00.056.04.02.114.0gal1.0120.9 Salmonberry20.020.020.00.010.04.20.30.21.1gal0.186.0 Other wild berry0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea10.010.010.00.010.00.70.10.00.7gal0.1120.9Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) Table 4-13.–Page 4 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb) Birds and eggs, continued-continued-162 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per householdVegetation, continued Wild rose hips10.010.010.00.010.02.80.20.10.7gal0.1120.9 Other wild greens0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Unknown mushrooms30.020.020.010.010.00.60.00.00.6gal0.0114.7 Other wood60.060.060.00.00.00.00.00.028.0cord2.041.3Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Note Resources where the percentage using is greater than the combined received and harvest indicate use from resources obtained during a previous year.Note For small land mammals, species that are not typically eaten show a non-zero harvest amount with a zero harvest wight. Harvest weight is not calculated for species harvested but not eaten.a. Summary rows that include incompatible units of measure have been left blank.Table 4-13.–Page 5 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) 163 Figure 4-7.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013. Salmon 12% Nonsalmon fish 29% Large land mammals 42% Small land mammals 1% Birds and eggs 2% Marine invertebrates < 1% Vegetation 14% Note Categories having 0 lb of usable weight are not included. local lakes, rod and reel fishing takes place from shore on smaller ponds and often from a boat on Lake Louise itself. Some households will also harvest fresh vegetation and mushrooms at this time. For the households that participate in the harvest of salmon, preparations begin in May and early June for sockeye salmon fishing. Residents travel to distant areas to access salmon; in the case of sockeye salmon, harvests from the Kenai River by 1 household in 2013 were opportunistic and fishing occurred while traveling for other purposes. The harvest of both salmon and nonsalmon fish often continues throughout the summer months as regulations permit. Nonsalmon fish are particularly important to the community, and given the dependency of the local economy on tourism, the activity is often promoted during the summer. As berries begin to ripen later in the summer, many Lake Louise residents make an effort to harvest these, especially blueberries and cranberries. Many individuals that do not harvest berries in bulk do take advantage of picking and eating berries while engaging in other activities. Moose hunting begins in August and extends through late September when the regulatory season closes. Regulations also allow the hunting of an antlerless moose in October and March, and those residents that were unsuccessful in the earlier hunt sometimes take advantage of the additional opportunity. Caribou are also hunted in August and September under subsistence regulations, but they are also sought throughout much of the winter under general permit regulations. With the arrival of winter and the freeze-up of ponds and lakes, some residents resume their ice fishing activities. Snowshoe hares may be harvested throughout the year but are often harvested in the winter months. Upland game birds are harvested from August through March. Winter is also a popular time for harvesting firewood. 164 Figure 4-8.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, Lake Louise, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaLake LouiseHopeKnikEyakSlanaValdezGakonaWillowSuttonPalmerSewardPortageCordovaChitinaEklutnaSusitnaHoustonWasillaSterlingGirdwoodWhittierTatitlekBig LakeTalkeetnaAnchorageChickaloonMoose PassKenny LakeEagle RiverChistochinaChenega BayLower TonsinaCopper CenterCooper LandingWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve04020MilesSearch and harvest areasHighway/roadPark and preserve boundarySearch and harvest locations All resources LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OF WILD RESOURCES, 2013165 uSe and harveSt characteriSticS By reSource category Table 4-13 also reports the sharing of each resource by percentage of households receiving each resource and the percentage of households giving away each resource. Considering all resources combined, sharing appears to have been an important activity for Lake Louise residents in 2013. All households received at least 1 resource in 2013, and 70% of households gave away at least 1 resource. Salmon was the resource category most frequently received by Lake Louise households in 2013 (Table 4-13). An estimated 80% of community households received salmon in 2013; this was followed by receipt of nonsalmon fish (70% of households) and receipt of large land mammals (60% of households). Interestingly, there was no reported attempt to harvest marine mammals, but 20% of households received 1 or more marine mammal species. Salmon and vegetation were the resource categories most frequently given away by households (30% of households gave away resources from each category). Twenty percent of households gave away nonsalmon fish and 20% gave away large land mammals. No households gave away marine mammals, birds and eggs, small land mammals, or marine invertebrates. Table 4-14 lists the top resources used by Lake Louise households during the 2013 study year. Interestingly blueberries were used by every household in the community. Use of blueberries was followed closely by use of sockeye salmon (90% of households) and moose (70% of households). Importantly, 4 species of nonsalmon fish received a top use rank, including burbot (60% of households), Arctic grayling (50% of households), Pacific halibut (40% of households), and lake trout (30% of households). Figure 4-9 depicts the resources with the largest harvests. Importantly, the number of households using a resource is not always directly proportional to the top resources harvested by pounds usable weight. For instance, burbot and Arctic grayling each contributed about 7% to the overall harvest even though those species were both used by a large proportion of households (Figure 4-9; Table 4-14). This suggests that certain resources are important to households despite being harvested in relatively small quantities. Also, while 4 nonsalmon fish species contributed higher ranked percentages of pounds usable weight to the total harvest, the species do not coincide with those that were used by the most households; round whitefish contributed 4% of the overall harvest but was not used by enough households to be included in the list of top used resources. The species that made up the largest percentage of the harvest in pounds usable weight were moose (32%), sockeye salmon (11%), and caribou (9%). Table 4-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Lake Louise, 2013. Ranka Resource Percentage of households using 1.Blueberry 100.0% 2.Sockeye salmon 90.0% 3.Moose 70.0% 4.Burbot 60.0% 4.Lowbush cranberry 60.0% 6.Arctic grayling 50.0% 6.Caribou 50.0% 8.Pacific halibut 40.0% 9.Chinook salmon 30.0% 9.Lake trout 30.0% a.Resources used by the same percentage of households share the lowest rank value instead of having sequential rank values. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 166 Moose32%Sockeye salmon11%Caribou9%Blueberry9%Pacific halibut8%Arctic grayling7%Burbot7%Round whitefish4%Raspberry3%Lowbush cranberry1%All other resources9%NoteThe "allother resources" category represents all species that contributed less than 1% to the total harvest in pounds usable weight.Figure 4-9.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013.167 Figure 4-10.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013. Coho salmon 7% Sockeye salmon 87% Landlocked salmon 6% Salmon In 2013, the community of Lake Louise harvested a total of 237 lb of salmon, or 9 lb of salmon per capita (Table 4-13). Of the total harvest of salmon, 87% was sockeye salmon, followed by coho salmon (7%), and landlocked salmon (6%) (Figure 4-10). The per capita harvest of sockeye salmon, coho salmon, and landlocked salmon was 8 lb, 1 lb, and less than 1 lb, respectively (Table 4-13). All salmon harvested in 2013 were caught using rod and reel (Table 4-15). Sockeye salmon were used by 90% of Lake Louise households in 2013, but only 30% of households attempted to harvest this species; of those 30%, all were successful in harvesting sockeye salmon (Table 4-13). Only 20% of households used coho salmon and only 10% of households used landlocked salmon. Of the 10% of households that attempted to harvest both coho salmon and landlocked salmon, all were successful. Interestingly, 30% of households used Chinook salmon but no households attempted to harvest this species. Sharing of salmon was common in this community in 2013. Eighty percent of households received sockeye salmon and 20% gave this resource away (Table 4-13). Chinook salmon was the only other species given away, even though it was not harvested by community households. Coho salmon were received by 10% of Lake Louise households. The search and harvest areas for the 3 salmon species harvested by Lake Louise households are represented spatially within this report. The sockeye salmon map is included here and the maps for coho salmon and landlocked salmon fishing and harvest locations can be found in Appendix D. In 2013, sockeye salmon were harvested from 3 main areas (Figure 4-11). The first and most prominent search and harvest area was in the Gulkana River near the community of Gulkana—just north of this river’s confluence with the Copper River. The second search and harvest area for the species was in the Kenai River immediately downstream of Skilak Lake. The third search and harvest area was along a stretch of Montana Creek in the Susitna River Basin. The coho salmon search and harvest areas were in the marine waters of Prince William Sound. This area was south of Elrington and Latouche islands and west of Montague Island. Search and harvest areas for 168 Table 4-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Lake Louise, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsSalmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Chum salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Coho salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.5%7.3%4.5%7.3%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.5%7.3%4.5%7.3%Chinook salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pink salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Sockeye salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%72.7%86.7%72.7%86.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%72.7%86.7%72.7%86.7%Landlocked salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%22.7%5.9%22.7%5.9%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%22.7%5.9%22.7%5.9%Unknown salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reelSource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Any methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodFish wheelDip net169 Figure 4-11.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, Lake Louise, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana RiverTazlina RiverCopperRiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeTSusitna LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekLake LouiseGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway Lake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverSucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesCopper RiverRichardso n Hi g h way TolsonaGulkanaTazlinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseGakonaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesKenaiNikiskiSterlingSoldotnaSkilak LakeKenai RiverSeward HighwaySockeye salmon search and harvest areaSockeye salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryTolsona CreekMontana CreekTalkeetna Spur RoadSusitna RiverGeorge Parks HighwayBuddy Creek170 Figure 4-12.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013. Pacific halibut 27% Black rockfish 4% Burbot 22%Lake trout 4% Arctic grayling 25% Rainbow trout 5% Round whitefish 12% Other 1% landlocked salmon were only reported in Bonnie Lake along the Glenn Highway near the community of Chickaloon. Nonsalmon Fish Nonsalmon fish appear to be an important resource for Lake Louise since they make up 29% of the overall harvest and nonsalmon fish is the second most harvested resource category (Figure 4-7). A total of approximately 571 lb of nonsalmon fish were harvested in Lake Louise in 2013, equating to a per capita harvest of 22 lb (Table 4-13). This harvest comprises a variety of species with no one species composing a majority of the nonsalmon fish harvest (Figure 4-12). Pacific halibut, Arctic grayling, and burbot represented the greatest proportions of the nonsalmon fish harvest (27%, 25%, and 22%, respectively). Round whitefish made up 12% of the nonsalmon fish harvest followed by rainbow trout (5%), lake trout and black rockfish (each at 4%), and other nonsalmon fish (1%). All households that attempted to harvest individual species of nonsalmon fish were successful, except for the 10% of households that attempted unsuccessfully to harvest sheefish (Table 4-13). Burbot and Arctic grayling may be particularly important to the community because they are available locally in freshwater systems; these 2 species were used by a 60% and 50% of households, respectively (Table 4-13). Fifty percent of households attempted to harvest and were successful at harvesting burbot and Arctic grayling. Sharing was minimal for Arctic grayling; 10% of households gave away this species. A total of 154 lb of Pacific halibut was harvested by only 10% of community households (Table 4-13). Given that no households gave away this resource, the 30% of households that received this resource likely obtained it from households outside of the community. While Pacific halibut made up the greatest percentage of the nonsalmon harvest in 2013 (Figure 4-12), the distribution of this harvest was minimal. Whitefishes were shared and used minimally in the community. Humpback whitefish, round whitefish, and unknown whitefishes were each used by 10% of the community households (Table 4-13). Ten percent of households gave away round whitefish and 10% of households received unknown whitefishes. With regard 171 Table 4-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Lake Louise, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNonsalmon fishGear type0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%13.7%13.1%12.4%24.6%0.0%0.0%26.1%37.7%73.9%62.3%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%13.7%13.1%12.4%24.6%0.0%0.0%26.1%37.7%73.9%62.3%100.0%100.0%Pacific herringGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring sac roeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown smeltGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific (gray) codGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific tomcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Starry flounderGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%LingcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific halibutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%39.1%43.3%28.9%27.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%28.9%27.0%28.9%27.0%Arctic lampreyGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Black rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.6%5.9%2.6%3.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.6%3.7%2.6%3.7%Unknown rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring spawn on kelpResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reelAny methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodIce fish-continued-172 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsUnknown sculpinGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%BurbotGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%80.9%90.9%0.0%0.0%38.4%59.3%0.0%0.0%10.0%22.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%10.0%22.4%0.0%0.0%10.0%22.4%0.0%0.0%10.0%22.4%Arctic charGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.7%0.6%0.5%0.3%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.5%0.3%0.5%0.3%Dolly VardenGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Lake troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.5%5.5%1.8%3.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.8%3.4%1.8%3.4%Arctic graylingGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%10.6%3.5%0.0%0.0%5.1%2.3%50.5%39.2%38.7%25.2%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.4%3.4%0.0%0.0%3.4%3.4%96.6%96.6%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.3%0.9%0.0%0.0%1.3%0.9%37.4%24.4%38.7%25.2%Northern pikeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%SheefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Longnose suckerGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Cutthroat troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rainbow troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%8.5%5.6%0.0%0.0%4.0%3.6%3.6%5.5%3.7%4.8%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%28.6%28.6%0.0%0.0%28.6%28.6%71.4%71.4%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.1%1.4%0.0%0.0%1.1%1.4%2.6%3.4%3.7%4.8%Unknown troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Broad whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rod and reelAny methodPercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodTable 4-16.–Page 2 of 3.-continued-Resource173 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsLeast ciscoGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Humpback whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%3.8%6.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.0%2.3%0.0%0.0%0.5%0.9%Resource0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.5%0.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.5%0.9%0.0%0.0%0.5%0.9%Round whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%96.2%93.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%50.5%32.5%0.0%0.0%13.2%12.3%Resource0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%13.2%12.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%13.2%12.3%0.0%0.0%13.2%12.3%Unknown whitefishesGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Any methodGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodSubsistence methodsRod and reelResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchTable 4-16.–Page 3 of 3.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.174 to the other nonsalmon fish species used, no households gave away black rockfish, rainbow trout, lake trout, or Arctic char, and just 10% of households received lake trout. Nonsalmon fish were harvested using a variety of gear types. Pacific halibut, black rockfish, lake trout, and Arctic char were harvested entirely with rod and reel (Table 4-16). Humpback whitefish and round whitefish were harvested entirely with gillnets or seines, and all burbot harvested were caught while ice fishing. Arctic grayling and rainbow trout were harvested with both ice fishing gear and by rod and reel, though most of the Arctic grayling harvest (97%) was with rod and reel. Seventy-one percent of the rainbow trout harvest was by rod and reel. The search and harvest areas for nonsalmon fish harvested by Lake Louise households are represented spatially within this report. The Arctic grayling and burbot fishing and harvest location maps are included here and the maps for all other nonsalmon species can be found in Appendix D. All freshwater fish species were harvested near the community of Lake Louise in 2013, and all marine nonsalmon fish (Pacific halibut and black rockfish) were harvested in Prince William Sound. The search and harvest areas for Pacific halibut and black rockfish were identical and included an area of Prince William Sound south of Elrington and Latouche islands and to the west of Montague Island. Arctic grayling search and harvest areas included the southern end of Lake Louise, the northwestern end of Susitna Lake, a small pond along Lake Louise Road, a stretch of Mendeltna Creek upstream of Nickoli Lake, and a stretch of Tolsona Creek near its headwaters (Figure 4-13). Burbot search and harvest areas included the southern end of Lake Louise and a small unnamed lake just south of Lake Louise (Figure 4-14). Burbot were also sought from Bell Lake, Dog Lake, and 2 unnamed lakes to the north of Lake Louise and to the east of Susitna Lake. The search and harvest areas for rainbow trout in 2013 included Round Lake and Old Road Lake. These are small bodies of water to the east of Lake Louise Road near milepost 5. Rainbow trout were also sought in North Jans and South Jans lakes located to the southeast of Lake Louise. Lake trout were only sought from the southwestern portion of Lake Louise, and Arctic char were only sought along a stretch of Mendeltna Creek located north of Nickoli Lake. The search and harvest area for both humpback whitefish and round whitefish was the southeastern portion of Lake Louise. 175 Figure 4-13.–Fishing and harvest locations of Arctic grayling, Lake Louise, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiverTazlina RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchinaRiverSucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesTolsonaMendeltnaLake Louise0105MilesArctic grayling search and harvest areaArctic grayling search and harvest areaArctic grayling search and harvest areaHighway/roadRound Lake and Old Road LakeTolsona CreekNickoli Lake176 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiverTazlina RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchinaRiverSucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesTolsonaMendeltnaLake Louise0105MilesBurbot search and harvest areaBurbot search and harvest areaHighway/roadTolsona CreekFigure 4-14.–Fishing and harvest locations of burbot, Lake Louise, 2013.177 Large Land Mammals Two species of large land mammals were harvested by Lake Louise households in 2013—moose and caribou (Table 4-13). Combined, the large land mammal harvest for the community was 812 lb, or 31 lb per capita. Moose made up 78% of the large land mammal harvest, while caribou made up 22% (Figure 4-15). Interestingly, approximately 1 animal of each of these species were harvested in 2013, but moose provide a larger quantity of usable meat and raw materials per animal. Both animals were harvested in September, and both were male (Table 4-17). Seventy percent of households used moose in 2013 (Table 4-13). Fifty percent of community households hunted for moose and only 10% of community households were successful. A total of 630 lb of moose was harvested, equaling 24 lb per capita. Moose was shared widely within the community with 60% of households having received this resource and 20% of households having given this resource away. This shows that moose that was received was further distributed to other households. Fifty percent of households used caribou in 2013. Seventy percent of households attempted to harvest caribou, which was 20% more households than how many attempted to harvest moose. Only 10% of Lake Louise households successfully harvested a caribou. Sharing of caribou was less frequent than that of moose with 20% of households having received this resource and 10% having given this resource away. Moose and caribou search areas included several locations throughout the Copper River Basin in 2013. Moose were sought along the Lake Louise Road, primarily to the west of the road, in Game Management Unit (GMU) 13A (Figure 4-16). They were also sought in a small area to the west of the Gakona River and east of the Richardson Highway in GMU 13B. Caribou were sought in the same areas as moose, with the addition of a relatively large area to the south of Lake Louise in GMU 13A. 178 Table 4-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Lake Louise, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All large land mammals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Bison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brown bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Caribou 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Caribou, male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Caribou, female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Deer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mountain goat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Moose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Moose, bull 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Moose, cow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dall sheep 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Estimated harvest by month Total Figure 4-15.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013. Caribou 22% Moose 78% 179 Figure 4-16.–Hunting locations of moose, Lake Louise, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiversonLakeGakona RiverGulkana RiverTazlina RivernfordRiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekangleLakesLake LouiseSourdoughGlenn HighwayichardsonHighway Lake Louise Road Old Man LakeSucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesCopper RiverRichardso n Hi g h way TolsonaGulkanaTazlinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseGakonaCopper Center1113A13B13C13DWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesMoose search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit.Tolsona Creek180 Table 4-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Lake Louise, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All small land mammals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.8 0.0 4.2 Beaver 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coyote 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red fox–cross phase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red fox–red phase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snowshoe hare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.8 0.0 4.2 North American river (land) otter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lynx 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marmot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marten 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muskrat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Porcupine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red (tree) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Least weasel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gray wolf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wolverine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Estimated harvest by month Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Total Small Land Mammals/Furbearers Small land mammals were not frequently used or harvested by Lake Louise households in 2013. Only 10% of households used small land mammals, and snowshoe hare was the single species used (Table 4-13). Twenty percent of households attempted to harvest snowshoe hares, but only 10% were successful. No household reported receiving or giving away any species of small land mammal. Approximately 4 snowshoe hares were harvested in 2013 equating to approximately 8 lb usable weight harvested (less than 1 lb per capita). All of these animals were harvested between November and December (Table 4-18). The search and harvest areas for snowshoe hares included the entire length of the Lake Louise Road. This species was also sought from a larger area around the community of Lake Louise and along the southernmost shore of the lake (Figure 4-17). Birds and Eggs Birds and eggs as a category was used by 40% of Lake Louise households in 2013, but this was made up entirely of birds and no eggs were harvested (Table 4-13). Four species of birds were used including king eider, spruce grouse, unspecified types of grouse, and ptarmigan. The king eiders were used by 10% of households and this was a received, not harvested, resource. No household gave away king eiders and no sharing occurred for any other bird species in 2013. Thirty percent of households used spruce grouse; 10% of households used either other grouse or ptarmigan. While 40% of households attempted to harvest spruce grouse, only 30% of community households were successful. For ptarmigan, 30% of households attempted to harvest this resource, but only 10% of community households were successful. Upland game birds made up the entirety of the bird harvest in Lake Louise since no waterfowl were harvested (Table 4-13). Ptarmigan made up 59% of the bird harvest, followed by spruce grouse (33%), 181 Figure 4-17.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, Lake Louise, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiverTazlina RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeSucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesTolsonaMendeltnaLake Louise0105MilesHighway/roadSmall land mammal and furbearersearch and harvest areaTolsona Creek182 Spruce grouse 33% Unknown grouse 8% Unknown ptarmigan 59% Note No bird eggs were harvested. Figure 4-18.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013. and other grouse (8%) (Figure 4-18). For ptarmigan, spruce grouse, and other grouse, the per capita usable weight was less than 1 lb for each of the 3 species of birds harvested by Lake Louise households (Table 4-13). Most birds (74%) were harvested during the winter months (Table 4-19). Only spruce grouse were harvested in the fall, though 18% of these birds were harvested in the winter. All ptarmigan and other grouse were harvested in the winter. Upland game birds were sought from a relatively large area surround the community of Lake Louise—usually opportunistically while traveling for other purposes. The search and harvest areas include the entirety of Lake Louise Road and a larger area near the community of Lake Louise and along the southernmost edge of the lake (Figure 4-19). They were sought in an area between Lake Louise Road and Mendeltna Creek, from the western edge of Susitna Lake west to Moore Lake, from the eastern shore of Susitna Lake eastbound to Second Hill Lake, and in a large are between Second Hill Lake and Crosswind Lake. Additionally, these species were sought in a small area between North Jans and South Jans lakes and Tolsona Creek. Marine Mammals In spite of being located far from marine mammal habitat, 20% of Lake Louise households used marine mammals in 2013 (Table 4-13). All of the marine mammals were received by these households and no household hunted marine mammals. The species received include harbor seals, walrus, beluga whale, and bowhead whale. No marine mammals were given away by Lake Louise households. Marine invertebrates Marine invertebrates were used by 40% of Lake Louise households in 2013 (Table 4-13). Razor clams were used by 20% of households, and unknown mussels and shrimp were each used by 10% of households. Only unknown mussels were actively harvested and by only 10% of households, all of which were successful. 183 Table 4-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Lake Louise, 2013. Winter Spring Summer Fall Season unknown All birds 36.4 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 49.0 Canvasback 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 King eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spectacled eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Goldeneye 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mallard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Northern pintail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black scoter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Green-winged teal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown ducks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cackling goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Canada goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown Canada/cackling geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Emperor goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snow goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White-fronted goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tundra (whistling) swan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandhill crane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spruce grouse 2.8 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 15.4 Sharp-tailed grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ruffed grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown grouse 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 Unknown ptarmigan 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 Unknown duck eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown goose eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown gull eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated harvest by season TotalResource These mussels were sought and harvested near Whittier in Prince William Sound (Figure 4-20). Razor clams and shrimp were received by 20% and 10% of households, respectively, and no marine invertebrates were given away in the study year. Vegetation Vegetation was used by all Lake Louise households in 2013 (Table 4-13). All households that attempted to harvest individual species were successful. The vast majority of the harvest in this category was composed of berries (99%) (Figure 4-21). Plants and greens made up only 1% of the harvest for this category, and while mushrooms were harvested by 20% of households, the proportion of this harvest was negligible (Figure 4-21; Table 4-13). Six species of berries were reportedly used by Lake Louise households (Table 4-13). Blueberries were used and harvested by all households. Sixty percent of households used and harvested lowbush cranberries, 30% used and harvested highbush cranberries, 20% used and harvested salmonberries, and 10% used and 184 Figure 4-19.–Hunting and harvest locations of upland game birds, Lake Louise, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiverTazlina RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Sucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesTolsonaMendeltnaLake Louise0105MilesUpland game bird search and harvest areaUpland game bird search and harvest areaHighway/roadTolsona CreekOld Man LakeMendeltna185 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.Whittier063Mileste search and harvest areaMarine invertebrate search and harvest areaLAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Passage CanalBlackstone BayCulross IslandPort WellsPerry IslandPrince William SoundFigure 4-20.–Fishing and harvest locations of marine invertebrates, Lake Louise, 2013.186 Figure 4-21.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Lake Louise, 2013. Berries 99% Plants and greens 1% Mushrooms < 1% harvested both crowberries and raspberries. A total of 69 gal of berries were harvested by the community. The per capita harvest of blueberries was 7 lb; of raspberries it was 2 lb, and of lowbush cranberries it was 1 lb. The per capita harvest for highbush cranberries, crowberries, and salmonberries was less than 1 lb each. Sharing of berries and berry products was minimal in Lake Louise. Thirty percent of households gave away blueberries, and 10% of households gave away highbush cranberries and salmonberries. No other type of berry was given away and no species of berry was received by any household. Plants were used and shared far less frequently than berries. Ten percent of households used and harvested Hudson’s Bay (Labrador) tea and wild rose hips. Both of these resources were given away by 10% of households, but none of these kinds of plants were received by Lake Louise households. A total of 4 lb of plants were harvested by Lake Louise residents. Unknown mushrooms were used by 30% of Lake Louise households. Of the 20% of community households that attempted to harvest unknown mushrooms all were successful. Mushrooms were both received and given away by 10% of Lake Louise households. It should be noted that “unknown mushrooms” means that researchers did not record the species, not that those residents who harvested the mushrooms did not differentiate the type of mushrooms collected. This study also collected information on the harvest of wood, but the harvest amount is not included in estimated usable harvest weight calculations. Wood is often considered an important resource and can play a critical role in the seasonal round of communities. As mentioned in previous sections, firewood is also often an important source of fuel for heating homes. In Table 4-13, “other wood” includes all wood harvested for firewood, handicrafts, smoke houses, and other purposes. Sixty percent of Lake Louise households used and harvested other wood in 2013. No households received or gave away other wood. A total estimated 28 cords of firewood were harvested by the community as a whole. This harvest of wood does not include wood that was purchased or harvested commercially. 187 Figure 4-22.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, Lake Louise, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiverTazlina RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeSucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesTolsonaMendeltnaLake Louise0105MilesBerry harvest areaPlant harvest areaHighway/roadTolsona Creek188 Vegetation was harvested from several areas near the Lake Louise community. Plants and berries were harvested within an area between Lake Louise Road and Mendeltna Creek, near the community of Lake Louise proper, in an area to the east of Lake Louise, and in a small area between North Jans Lake and Tolsona Creek (Figure 4-22). Other wood was harvested between Lake Louise Road and Mendeltna Creek, near the southeast corner of Lake Louise, between South Jans Lake and Tolsona Creek, and in an area to the southeast of South Jans Lake. coMParing harveStS and uSeS in 2013 with PreviouS yearS Harvest Assessments For 10 resource categories and for all resources combined, survey respondents were asked to assess whether their uses and harvests in the 2013 study year were less, more, or about the same as other recent years. “Other recent years” was defined as about the last 5 years. Table 4-20 reports the number of valid responses for each category, the number of households that did not respond, and the number of households that did not use a resource category or all resources combined. In Table 4-20, response percentages are based on the number of valid responses for each category to contextualize these assessments within the set of community households that typically use each category. Figure 4-23 depicts responses to the “less, same, more” assessment question. Households that said they did not ordinarily “use” something are not included within the results. This results in fewer responses for less commonly used categories such as birds and eggs and also small land mammals, which manifests in the chart as a very short set of colored bars compared to categories such as large land mammals and vegetation, which are ordinarily used by most households. Some households did not respond to the question. Taking all the resource categories into consideration, most households (70%) said they used less subsistence resources in general over the previous 12 months compared to recent years (Table 4-20). A smaller number, 30% of all households, said they used about the same amount, and no households said they used more. Three main reasons were reported for why households used less subsistence resources in 2013, including that the resources were less available, that their attempts to harvest resources were unsuccessful, and that they were working or didn’t have time to harvest resources (Table 4-21). Each of these reasons was listed by 43% of households giving valid responses. Other less frequently reported reasons included family and personal issues, and small or diseased animals; each reason was listed by a single household. The resource category with the greatest percentage of households (60%) reporting less use of the associated resources in 2013 was large land mammals (Table 4-20). A variety of reasons were given by individual households for harvesting and using less of these resources, and the only reasons that were listed by 2 households were family or personal reasons and that their harvest attempt was unsuccessful. Other reasons included less resource availability, working/no time, and “other reasons” (Table 4-21). Considering each category, the only additional reasons for less use that were reported by multiple households were less resource availability for small land mammals and lack of effort and working/no time in relation to the harvest and use of vegetation. Salmon and nonsalmon fish were each reportedly used more in 2013 by 2 households (Table 4-20). One household reported that they used more salmon because they received more and another reported that they used more salmon because they needed more (Table 4-22). Only 1 household reported a reason for using more nonsalmon fish; they had greater harvest success. Large land mammals, other birds, and vegetation were reportedly used more in 2013 by 1 household each (Table 4-20). Large land mammals were used more by 1 household because they received more, whereas the reason for using more other birds and vegetation was greater harvest success (Table 4-22). The impact to households from not getting enough wild resources is reported in Table 4-23. The impact of not getting enough nonsalmon fish was noted as minor to all 4 households that reported not getting enough nonsalmon fish. For large land mammals the impact was noted as minor by 2 households and major by 2 189 Table 4-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Lake Louise, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource101010100.0%880.0%880.0%440.0%10100.0%All resources101010100.0%770.0%330.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon1010990.0%330.0%440.0%220.0%110.0%Nonsalmon fish101010100.0%440.0%440.0%220.0%00.0%Large land mammals101010100.0%660.0%330.0%110.0%00.0%Small land mammals1010220.0%220.0%00.0%00.0%880.0%Marine mammals1010220.0%110.0%110.0%00.0%880.0%Migratory waterfowl109110.0%111.1%00.0%00.0%888.9%Other birds1010660.0%330.0%220.0%110.0%440.0%Bird eggs101000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%10100.0%Marine invertebrates1010440.0%220.0%220.0%00.0%660.0%Vegetation101010100.0%550.0%440.0%110.0%00.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.a.Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response.Households not usingSampled householdsResource categoryMoreSameLessValid responsesaTotal householdsHouseholds reporting use190 Figure 4-23.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Lake Louise, 2013.30%40%60%20%10%11%30%20%50%40%40%30%10%20%20%40%20%20%10%10%10%10%80%80%89%40%100%60%SalmonNonsalmon fishLarge land mammalsSmall land mammalsMarine mammalsMigratory waterfowlOther birdsBird eggsMarine invertebratesVegetationPercentage of surveyed households providing a valid response. Unlabeled percentages are less than 5%.Households used LESS in 2013Households used SAME in 2013Households used MORE in 2013Households normally do not use191 Table 4-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Lake Louise, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource108225.0%450%00.0%00%338%225%All resources107114.3%343%00.0%00%00%00%Salmon103133.3%00%00.0%00%133%00%Nonsalmon fish104125.0%00%00.0%00%125%00%Large land mammals106233.3%117%00.0%00%00%00%Small land mammals10200.0%2100%00.0%00%00%00%Marine mammals10100.0%00%00.0%00%1100%00%Migratory waterfowl9100.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Other birds10200.0%150%00.0%00%00%00%Bird eggs10000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Marine invertebrates102150.0%150%00.0%00%00%00%Vegetation105120.0%00%00.0%00%00%240%Table 4-21.–Continued.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource108562.5%112.5%112.5%562.5%00.0%112.5%All resources107342.9%00.0%00%342.9%00.0%114.3%Salmon10300.0%00.0%133%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish10400.0%00.0%00%125.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals106233.3%00.0%117%116.7%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals10200.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals10100.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl9100.0%00.0%00%1100.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds10200.0%00.0%00%150.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs10000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates10200.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation10500.0%120.0%00%360.0%00.0%00.0%Resource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useUnsuccessfulWeather/environmentLack of equipmentLess sharingLack of effortResource categoryHouseholds reporting reasons for less useFamily/personalResources less availableToo far to travelValid responsesa-continued--continued-Small/diseased animalsOther reasonsWorking/no timeRegulations192 Table 4-21.–Page 2 of 2.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource10800.0%112.5%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources10700.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon10300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish10400.0%125.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals10600.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals10200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl9100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds10200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates10200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation10500.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Resource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useEquipment/fuel expenseUsed other resourcesLess competitionDid not get enoughDid not needa.Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never using the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.193 Table 4-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Lake Louise, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource10300.0%00.0%00.0%266.7%133.3%All resources10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon10200.0%00.0%00.0%150.0%150.0%Nonsalmon fish10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals10100.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%Small land mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl9000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource10300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon10200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl9000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%-continued--continued-Resource categoryValid responsesaTable 4-22.–Continued.Households reporting reasons for more useIncreased availabilityResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more useIncreased effortHad more helpOtherRegulationsTraveled fartherNeeded moreUsed other resourcesFavorable weatherReceived more194 NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource103266.7%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon10200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish1011100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl9000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds1011100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation1011100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Valid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more usea. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never use.Table 4-22.–Page 2 of 2.Resource categoryStore-bought expenseGot/fixed equipmentSubstituted resourcesMore successNeeded less195 Table 4-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Lake Louise, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageSalmon10990.0%222.2%00.0%00.0%150.0%150.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish1010100.0%440.0%00.0%00.0%4100.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates10440.0%250.0%00.0%00.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals10990.0%555.6%120.0%00.0%240.0%240.0%00.0%Marine mammals10220.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals10220.0%150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl10110.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%Other birds10550.0%240.0%00.0%00.0%150.0%150.0%00.0%Bird eggs1000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation1010100.0%440.0%00.0%00.0%375.0%125.0%00.0%All resources1010100.0%440.0%00.0%00.0%250.0%250.0%00.0%a. Does not includes households failing to respond to the question or those households that never used the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Resource categorySample householdsHouseholds not getting enough _______ .Impact to those not getting enough ______ .Valid responsesaDid not get enoughNo responseNot noticeableMinorMajorSevere196 Figure 4-24.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, Lake Louise, 1982, 1987, and 2013. 0 50 100 150 200 250 1982 1987 2013Estimated per capita harvestStudy year Vegetation Marine invertebrates Birds and eggs Small land mammals Large land mammals Nonsalmon fish Salmon Note Error bars represent the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval. households out of a total of 5 households reporting not having enough. For all resources 40% of households (out of 10 households) said that they did not get enough resources in 2013 and of those respondents 50% said that the impact from not getting enough resources was minor while another 50% said it was major. Harvest Data Changes in the harvest of resources by Lake Louise residents can also be discerned through comparisons with findings from other study years. Comprehensive subsistence harvest surveys were conducted in Lake Louise for study year 1982 (Stratton and Georgette 1984) and for study year 1987 (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988). The per capita harvest of wild foods by residents of Lake Louise has declined significantly over time (Figure 4-24). In 1982, the per capita harvest of wild foods was 175 lb and by 1987 this value was up slightly to 179 lb. Between 1987 and 2013, the per capita harvest of wild foods dropped to 73 lb (Table 4-24), which was a decrease of 59%. Much of this decline is represented by a decline in the harvest of large land mammals and nonsalmon fish, even though these categories make up the largest percentage of the overall 2013 harvest, as they had in the 2 previous study years (Figure 4-24). The per capita large land mammal harvest can fluctuate substantially in a small community with a change in harvest of a single moose. In 1982, 2 moose were reportedly harvested equaling a per capita harvest7 of 29 7. Per capita harvests for study years 1982 and 1987 were calculated based on the estimated community population recorded in the CSIS. 197 Table 4-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, Lake Louise, 1982, 1987, and 2013. Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP All resources 6,873.0 175.2 14.0%7,009.0 179.2 18.0%1,942.1 73.0 50.4% Salmon 469.0 12.0 87.0 2.2 236.8 8.9 Nonsalmon fish 2,963.0 75.5 1,569.0 40.1 570.6 21.5 Large land mammals 2,116.0 53.9 5,043.0 128.9 812.0 30.5 Small land mammals 145.0 3.7 ––8.4 0.3 Birds and eggs 156.0 4.0 42.0 1.1 33.2 1.2 Marine invertebrates ––––1.1 0.0 Vegetation 1,025.0 26.1 268.0 6.9 280.0 10.5 Note "–" indicates no harvest. Sources For 2013, ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014; for previous study years, ADF&G Division of Subsistence Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS), accessed 2014. 1982 1987 2013 Estimated harvest in pounds usable weight Resource lb for that species (CSIS). In 1987, an estimated 6 moose were harvested, increasing the per capita harvest of moose to 65 lb (CSIS). In 2013, 1 moose was reported harvested, equating to a per capita harvest of only 24 lb (Table 4-13). This trend of animal harvests was also the case for caribou, though caribou contribute far less meat per animal than moose. In 1982, an estimated 6 caribou were harvested in the community, in 1987 this was up to an estimated 13 caribou, and by 2013 there was only 1 caribou harvested (CSIS; Table 4-13). Other large land mammals were harvested in previous study years that were not harvested in 2013. In 1982 this included a single brown bear and a single deer accounting for a per capita harvest of 4 lb and 1 lb, respectively (CSIS). In 1987 a single bison was harvested, a single black bear, and 3 deer, accounting for a per capita harvest of 13 lb, 4 lb, and 4 lb, respectively (CSIS). Each of these harvests contributes to the greater proportion of harvest contributed by large land mammals in previous study years than in 2013 (Figure 4-24). The proportion that nonsalmon fish contribute to the overall harvest of Lake Louise has been steadily declining over time (Figure 4-24). The per capita harvest of these fish has also declined over time (Table 4-24). The per capita nonsalmon fish harvest in 1982 was 76 lb, in 1987 it was 40 lb, and in 2013 it was only 22 lb (CSIS; Table 4-13). The per capita harvest of whitefishes represents the greatest decline over time. The whitefishes per capita harvest in 1982 was 31 lb, in 1987 it was 13 lb, and by 2013 it was only 3 lb. In 1982, whitefishes contributed more to household harvests than any other wild resource (Stratton and Georgette 1984:62). The 1982 per capita harvest of char (including both Arctic char and lake trout) was 12 lb, in 1987 it was down to 9 lb, and by 2013 it was down to less than 1 lb (CSIS; Table 4-13). Interestingly, in 1982, lake trout was reported as “a favorite among local residents,” and they were harvested by all but 1 of surveyed households (Stratton and Georgette 1984:64). In 2013 they were used by only 30% of households and harvested by only 20% of households (Table 4-13). A per capita harvest for burbot of 19 lb was estimated in 1982, 14 lb in 1987, and only 5 lb in 2013 (CSIS; Table 4-13). Burbot represented the second greatest per capita harvest of a nonsalmon fish in 1982, surpassed only by whitefishes, and the greatest per capita harvest among nonsalmon fish in 1987. Despite substantial declines in the harvest of most nonsalmon fish over time, the per capita harvest of Pacific halibut and rockfish have increased slightly since the 1980s, likely due to increased use of motorized transport to get to marine resources. For the 3 study years in which data are available, salmon have never made up a substantial proportion of the overall harvest of wild foods in Lake Louise (Figure 4-24). This is likely due to the distance that must be traveled to access salmon since they are not available locally near the community. In 1982, the per capita harvest of salmon was 12 lb, in 1987 it was down to only 2 lb, and by 2013 it had risen to 9 lb (CSIS; Table 198 4-13). The 1982 Chinook salmon per capita harvest was 6 lb, but harvests of this species have not been reported since. The per capita harvest of sockeye salmon in 1982 was 3 lb, in 1987 it was 2 lb, and by 2013 it had risen to 8 lb. Sockeye salmon was the only salmon species harvested in 1987. The per capita coho salmon harvest declined slightly between 1982 and 2013, but no coho salmon were reportedly harvested in 1987. No pink salmon and no chum salmon were harvested in any of the 3 study years. Small land mammal harvests can be problematic to compare across study years since many species are not consumed and thus do not have a calculated per capita weight. Three species of small land mammals were harvested in 1982 that were presumed to have been eaten (snowshoe hares, lynx, and muskrats), equating to a per capita edible harvest weight of 4 lb (CSIS). No species of small land mammals were harvested in 1987 that were presumed to have been eaten. In 2013, snowshoe hares were the only small land mammals harvested and they were eaten, equating to less than 1 lb per capita. Considering the harvest of all small land mammals in Lake Louise over time, including those used for fur only, harvests have declined substantially. In 1982, 10 species were harvested—including coyote, fox, snowshoe hare, river otter, lynx, marten, mink, muskrat, weasel, and gray wolf. In 1987, only 5 species of small land mammals were harvested including fox, marten, mink, weasel, and gray wolf. Snowshoe hares were the only small land mammals harvested in 2013. Harvests of snowshoe hares declined substantially since 1982; in 1982, a total of 62 individual snowshoe hares were harvested, in 1987 no hares were harvested, and in 2013, only 4 snowshoe hares were harvested. The decline in small land mammal harvests is likely due to a dramatic drop in trapping participation. In 1982, 3 households trapped for small land mammals and the household heads reported being self-employed as “trappers” (Stratton and Georgette 1984:65). In 2013, no Lake Louise resident reported trapping of any kind. Birds and eggs have not made up a substantial portion of the overall harvest of wild foods in Lake Louise in the 3 study years for which data are available (Figure 4-24). Egg harvests were not estimated in 1982, 1987, or 2013 (CSIS; Table 4-13). The per capita bird harvest in 1982 was 4 lb. This dropped to 1 lb per capita in 1987 and remained about the same in 2013. The only study year in which migratory birds were harvested was 1982. The migratory bird harvest in that year was made up entirely of ducks, representing 61% of the overall bird harvest in that year and equaling a per capita harvest weight of 2 lb. The 1982 report indicates that a greater percentage of households (46%) in Lake Louise harvested ducks than in any other community in that study (Stratton and Georgette 1984:65). The per capita upland game bird harvest between study years has only fluctuated slightly. In 1982 the per capita harvest of these species was 2 lb, in 1987 it was less than 1 lb, and in 2013 it was 1 lb. Vegetation has played a relatively important role in the overall harvest of subsistence foods over time in Lake Louise. As a proportion of the total per capita harvest weight in 1982, 1987, and 2013, vegetation was the third most harvested resource category in all years (Figure 4-24). In 1982 the per capita vegetation harvest was 26 lb, in 1987 it was only 7 lb, and by 2013 it had risen to 11 lb (Table 4-24). In 1982, 1987, and 2013, berries made up 91%, 70%, and 99% of the vegetation harvest, respectively (CSIS; Figure 4-21). The per capita harvest of plants, greens, and mushrooms declined from 2.4 lb in 1982, to 2.1 lb in 1987, to only 0.1 lb in 2013. Current and Historical Harvest Areas It is possible to compare historical spatial harvest data with the 2013 study year to determine changes in the search and harvest areas for wild food resources over time. For Lake Louise, limited spatial data were collected as part of the 1982 or 1987 study years (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). Additionally, during the 1983 and 1984 fieldwork seasons, ADF&G researchers conducted interviews with more than 200 hunters and fishers in 20 communities in or near the Copper River Basin to map areas where hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering of wild resources occurred between 1964 and 1984 (Stratton and Georgette 1985). This effort produced 2 separate publications by 2 different ADF&G divisions; the Division of Habitat published the maps and the Division of Subsistence published a description of the project and mapping methods. The maps depicting the harvest and use areas used by study community 199 residents during this 20-year span are published in Alaska Habitat Management Guide Southcentral Region: Reference Maps—Volume 3. Community Use of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants (Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat 1985).8 Information about the mapping project is available in Copper Basin Resource Use Map Index and Methodology (Stratton and Georgette 1985). Changes in the resource harvest and use/search areas by Lake Louise residents can be discerned through limited comparisons of the maps published in 1985, which depict harvest and use areas for 20 years, and the maps produced from this study, which only reflect search and harvest areas for the study year 2012. Search and harvest areas for many wild resources appear to have changed significantly for Lake Louise residents since the 1964–1984 time period. In most cases, search and harvest areas have contracted. Reasons for this contraction may include an increase in the cost of fuel, a decrease in reliance on wild foods, a decrease in hunting/fishing/trapping participation, and an increase in locally available commercial food products. Large land mammal search and harvest areas have experienced perhaps the greatest contraction since the 1964–1984 time period of any wild food category. From 1964–1974, Lake Louise residents sought moose within a large area stretching from the Glenn Highway to the south and to the Susitna River in the north. This area included land from Mendeltna Creek to Tolsona Creek, the entire perimeter of Lake Louise, Susitna Lake, and Tyone Lake, and along the Tyone River corridor to the Susitna River. Moose were also sought along the west fork of the Gulkana River and in Moose Creek and Keg Creek near the Alphabet Hills. Caribou were sought in these same areas from 1964–1984, with the addition of another area along the south shore of the Susitna River near Stephan Lake and Fog Creek, and to the northeast near the middle fork of the Gulkana River. In 2013, the search and harvest areas for both moose and caribou were restricted to 2 small areas near Lake Louise Road. While no Dall sheep were harvested in 1982, 1987, or 2013, this species was sought over a large area in between 1964–1984. Respondents sought Dall sheep in the Chugach Mountains near Tazlina Lake and Klutina Lake. They also sought sheep in the Wrangell Mountains from McCarthy east to the Canada border. No sheep hunting occurred in 2013. Nonsalmon fish were also sought and harvested from a much greater area between 1964–1984. The historical spatial data do not differentiate search and harvest areas for individual species, only for the nonsalmon fish category. From 1964–1984, residents sought nonsalmon fish from the entirety of Lake Louise, Little Lake Louise, Susitna Lake, and Tyone Lake. Other lakes that were fished to the east of Lake Louise include North Jans Lake, South Jans Lake, Dog Lake, Bell Lake, Crosswind Lake, and Ewan Lake. Households also fished the Gulkana River from Sourdough north to Paxson Lake, the middle fork of the Gulkana River from its mouth west to Tangle Lakes, Tebay Lakes to the southeast of Chitina, and Sucker Lake and St. Ann Lake south of the Glenn Highway near Mendeltna. In 2013 nonsalmon fishing was restricted to lakes situated within about 20 mi from the community. Mendeltna Creek, Round Lake, and Old Road Lake were fished in 2013, but not in 1964–1984. The text of the technical paper for the 1982 study year (Stratton and Georgette 1984) reports that the harvest of rainbow trout was primarily from the Jans lakes area in that year. Rainbow trout were also harvested in Jans lakes in 2013, as well as in Old Road Lake and Round Lake. All 3 of 4 of these lakes have been stocked with rainbow trout since the early 1980s.9 Salmon was only sought from a small area in the Gulkana River and a small area in the Kenai River in 2013. Between 1964–1984, however, salmon were sought in the Gulkana River from the community of Gulkana north to Sourdough. They were also sought in creeks along Tazlina Lake, St. Anne Creek, and the Klutina River. King salmon were sought in 1982 from the Tazlina Lake creeks by a few households with airplanes, and 3 households dipnet for salmon at Chitina in 1982, which did not occur in 2013 (Stratton and Georgette 1984). 8. A complete index of documents published in 1985 and 1986 as part of Alaska Habitat Management Guide is available online: http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/C/AHMG/index.html. 9. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, 2014. “Alaska Lake Database (ALDAT).” Accessed August 2014. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishingSportStockingHatcheries.lakesdatabase 200 As mentioned previously, the hunting and trapping of small land mammals has declined significantly since the 1964–1984 period. Historically, small land mammals were sought along a large area from the Glenn Highway to the Susitna River in the northwest to Ewan Lake to the northeast. These species were also sought along the west fork of the Gulkana River, between Tazlina Lake and Klutina Lake to the south, and near Hudson Lake. In 2013, only snowshoe hares were sought along Lake Louise Road. Spatial data for upland game bird search and harvest areas do not exist for the 1964–1984 period, but information is available for waterfowl hunting and harvest areas. Waterfowl were sought throughout Lake Louise, Susitna Lake, Tyone Lake, and Old Man Lake in those years. No waterfowl hunting occurred in 2013. Vegetation was sought near Lake Louise, Susitna Lake, Tyone Lake, and Lake Louise Road between 1964– 1984. In 2013, vegetation was sought within much smaller areas along the Lake Louise Road, near the community of Lake Louise, and near Dog Lake. A small area between North Jans Lake and Tolsona Creek was included in 2013 but not in the historic data. local coMMentS and concernS Following is a summary of local observations of wild resource populations and trends that were recorded during the surveys in Lake Louise. Some households did not offer any additional comments or concerns during the survey interviews, so not all households are represented in the summary. In addition, respondents expressed their concerns about wild resources during the community review meeting of preliminary data; these concerns have been included in the summary. Fish Few people in the community of Lake Louise mentioned concerns regarding salmon. One household stated that they think subsistence fishing regulations are sometimes too liberal because, in their view, there is a lot of waste and freezer-burned salmon that gets thrown away, although at least 1 household avoided harvesting Chinook (king) salmon in 2013 because of statewide declines of this species. Several households mentioned concerns for freshwater fish, particularly burbot in Lake Louise. They stated that burbot declined substantially since the 1980s when the species was severely overharvested. One resident recalled seeing a pick-up truck bed full of burbot leaving the community during those years. Another household was concerned that the Susitna-Watana dam project would hinder burbot movements in the area and lead to a greater decline in this species. Several households present at the community review meeting indicated that burbot are gradually rebounding in Lake Louise. As with several other communities in the region, a common concern and complaint of residents pertains to ADFG’s stocking of local lakes with nonsalmon fish. While stocked lakes near Lake Louise are regularly fished by Lake Louise residents, some households question how lakes are selected or rejected from the stocking program. One household suggested that ADF&G should seek greater input from local residents that fish in the stocked lakes. A key respondent noted that local lakes are receiving greater fishing pressure from both local and visiting fishermen, particularly in Old Road Lake, Round Lake, Peanut Lake, Forty Foot Lake, Crater Lake, and Forgotten Lake. He suggested that many more lakes in the area should be stocked, especially with rainbow trout, and that this would help to limit existing pressure on lakes that are currently overfished. During the community review meeting, 2 households mentioned concern regarding subsistence whitefish fishing with nets in Lake Louise. In the spring 2014, non-local fishermen were observed fishing for whitefishes with nets that exceeded the maximum allowable length. One household would like to see the subsistence whitefish fishery restricted to the winter months when nets are placed under the ice. This household also suggested that nets not be used in the channel between Lake Louise and Susitna Lake, nor during periods when lake trout are spawning. This household would also like to see increased patrolling by fish and game enforcement to discourage illegal harvest activities. 201 Large Land Mammals A key respondent noted that moose and caribou are essential subsistence foods for Lake Louise residents. The most frequently cited concern pertaining to large land mammals was the pressure on local moose and caribou populations by non-local Alaska resident hunters. Several households expressed concern that urban hunters from Anchorage, Wasilla, and Palmer are taking advantage of hunting regulations and outcompeting local residents. One household mentioned a decline in moose populations over the past several years, especially in proximity to Lake Louise. This household stated that residents often need to travel farther to get a moose, and that this additional time and expense has created a difficulty for the community. A key respondent in the community suggested that one reason for moose movements from the area is increased ATV traffic and use. They noted that more people are using bigger and better side-by-side ATVs, especially non-local hunters. These ATVs are also said to be having a negative impact on local trails. Three households at the community review meeting asked that it be acknowledged that they are firmly against the community subsistence hunt10 for moose in GMUs 13, 12, and portions of 11 that is open to all Alaska residents. They indicated that the local moose populations cannot support that level of hunting pressure. These households strongly support federal hunting that provides rural preference, but they also indicated that accessing federal lands is often difficult and that boundaries are hard to find. One of these households also mentioned concern regarding illegally harvested moose and those killed by vehicle collisions. This household appreciates the distribution of moose killed by these means, but suggested that greater hunter education and greater emphasis on hunting moose in proximity to the road would alleviate the situation. A key respondent observed that the Nelchina caribou herd seems to have gotten larger based on observations of trails and feces. He said that the herd appears to be about the size that he remembers from the mid-1990s. He also noted that the winter of 2013 was somewhat unusual because the herd failed to migrate and was present throughout the winter in the Lake Louise area. One household mentioned that the caribou hunting opportunity should be provided only through drawing permits. Another household present at the community review meeting indicated that bears are causing significant caribou calf mortality in the area. Small Land Mammals/Furbearers Few observations of small land mammals were made by Lake Louise residents during this survey effort. A key respondent noted that snowshoe hares severely declined in recent years and that he only saw 1 hare throughout the entire winter. He indicated that this is part of natural cycle and that he expects hares to increase in the area in the near future. This same resident actively avoided harvesting snowshoe hares in 2013 because of the species population status locally. A key respondent also noted an unusual observation of a muskrat near Army Point on Lake Louise in 2013. The muskrat was found dead on the shore but apparently had 2 fully developed heads. No photographic evidence was available. The respondent suggested that this malformation may have been caused by chemicals associated with the dumping of military waste in the lake several decades prior. The observation was cause for alarm, and he actively avoids harvesting resources in the Army Point area because of this. No other residents reported animal malformations. Birds and Eggs No residents of Lake Louise expressed concerns regarding the harvest of birds and eggs. One resident noted that waterfowl seemed to travel between lakes more frequently in 2013, and also that there seemed to have 10. Information about the “Copper Basin Moose Community Subsistence Harvest Permit Program,” is available online: Alaska Department of Fish and Game website, “Cultural and Subsistence Harvest Permits” http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adf- g=huntlicense.cultural (accessed December 2014). 202 been a recent decrease in the local owl population. Another resident indicated that his household actively avoids harvesting sharp-tailed grouse because they want to see the local population increase. Vegetation Berries were mentioned by several households as an important subsistence food item for Lake Louise households. A key respondent noted a major increase in local salmonberry plant populations; he had not seen such an abundance of berries in the last decade. This individual also noted that deciduous trees seem to be more common as compared to conifers locally as in the past, but that sapling spruce seemed prevalent in 2013. Susitna-Watana Dam Three households in Lake Louise mentioned concerns regarding the proposed Susitna-Watana dam project. Two of these households indicated that the energy is not needed and can be acquired from other sources and one noted that if the dam is installed, local residents should reap the benefits of the power to offset the cost of fuel purchased in Glennallen. Respondents noted concerns about increased access to the area due to the installation of new access roads, that the dam would prevent normal migrations of nonsalmon fish, and that the resulting reservoir would cause an increase in Lake Louise water levels, causing concern for homeowners with structures close to the water. ACKNoWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the residents of Lake Louise for their participation and support of this project. We would also like to thank the Delaquito family for helping us to organize and implement this project in the Lake Louise community. We are also very appreciative of our local research assistant Anthony Delaquito and our key respondents that provided significant context to wildlife resource changes over time. 203 5. PAxSoN James M. Van Lanen coMMunity Background At 63˚ latitude, the Paxson census designated place (CDP) is approximately 318 square miles in size. The core area of the community lies south of the Alaska Range and within the upper reaches of the Gulkana River watershed. The geography consists of a mix of subarctic Interior Alaska boreal forest composed of birch and spruce and mountainous upland terrain of alders, willows, dwarf birch, sphagnum moss, and blueberries. Moose, caribou, black bears, brown bears, wolves, ptarmigan, grouse, trout, Arctic grayling, and a number of small land mammals are common in this area. Most of the 11 year-round permanent households identified within the CDP during this study are located along Paxson Lake and at mile 185 of the Richardson Highway at its intersection with the Denali Highway, which is 57 miles north of Gulkana (Figure 1-1). A few residences occur along the Denali Highway near the Tangle River, at Meirs Lake, and at Summit Lake. Aside from the year-round permanent households identified during this study, the Paxson CDP contains numerous seasonal-use dwellings. The Paxson CDP is home to the Tangle Lakes Archaeological District (TLAD), managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources. The TLAD is listed under the National Register of Historic Places and contains more than 600 archaeological sites that document a record of more than 10,000 years of hunting by Alaska Natives in the area (West 1984). Nineteenth century Ahtna Athabascan use of the region has also been documented through archaeological work on the Tangle River and at Paxson Lake, which is the site of a former Ahtna winter village (Ketz 1983; Reckord 1983a). The modern Paxson community originated in the early 20th century as a roadhouse along the 360-mile trail from Valdez to Fairbanks, which, in 1913, became the Richardson Highway (King 2005). In 1957 the Denali Highway, with its eastern end beginning in Paxson, was opened to provide visitor access to Denali National Park, which is approximately 100 miles to the west. In the 1970s, the Trans-Alaska pipeline was built paralleling the Richardson Highway through the Paxson CDP. Throughout most of the 20th century a roadhouse called the Paxson Lodge operated in the Paxson CDP at the junction of the Denali and Richardson highways. The lodge closed its doors in 2013 due to low visitor traffic and high energy costs in the winter.1 A roadhouse has operated at the Sourdough location since 1903 (King 2005). Today the Paxson CDP remains unincorporated and outside the boundaries of any state borough. Paxson has no government offices, schools, or stores. For basic services and supplies Paxson residents travel 71 miles to Glennallen, 81 miles to Delta Junction, or 177 miles to Fairbanks. There is an Alaska Department of Transportation road maintenance camp in operation, located at approximately mile 186 of the Richardson Highway, or just north of the Richardson Highway’s junction with the Denali Highway. Five separate Paxson households operate lodging businesses within the CDP. deMograPhy According to the federal census, Paxson CDP had 40 residents in 2010 (Table 5-1). The household survey conducted for 2013 for Paxson CDP and Sourdough2 found an estimated population of 32 residents, of which none were Alaska Native. Figure 5-1 shows the population of the community over time based on U.S. 1. Dermot Cole, “Paxson Lodge Closes,” Alaska Dispatch, December 20, 2013. http://www.adn.com/article/20131220/paxson- lodge-closes 2. As mentioned in “Chapter 1: Introduction,” previous studies by the Division of Subsistence included the community of Sourdough, which is along the Richardson Highway from the boundary of the Paxson CDP south to the boundary of the Gulkana CDP. To help with efforts to compare survey results for study year 2013 with previous study years, this survey effort was designed to include year-round residences in Sourdough, but there were none in 2013. 204 Table 5-1.–Population estimates, Paxson, 2010 and 2013. Census Bureau data, Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development estimates, and Division of Subsistence estimates recorded in the CSIS. The chart shows that from 1999 to 2007 the population of Paxson increased from 30 to 63 but from 2007 to 2013 declined by almost half, to 32 residents. The population has been fairly consistent since 2008 and this study found a population consistent with estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Prior to the study, Division of Subsistence researchers consulted with community members to obtain an estimate of the number of year-round households within Paxson and Sourdough. Community members reported there were 11 year-round households in Paxson and no current households in Sourdough; the survey confirmed this (Table 5-2). Of these, 8 households (73%) were interviewed. The mean number of years of residency in Paxson was 17 years, with the maximum length of residence being 60 years (Table 5-3). On average, households consisted of 3 people and the average age of Paxson residents in 2013 was 54 years old. The largest age cohort for males was the 65–69 age range and for females it was the 55–59 age range (Table 5-4; Figure 5-2). Only females were represented in the age cohorts spanning ages 0–19, 35–39, and 45–54. Only males were represented in age cohorts spanning ages 65–74. There were no male residents younger than 55 years of age. There were no residents of either gender older than 79 years of age. Of the Paxson household heads interviewed, 7% were born in Alaska (Table 5-5). Most (93%) of the household heads were born in other U.S. states. Of those born in Alaska, all were born in Anchorage and none were born in Paxson. For the Paxson population overall, the majority (approximately 70%) of the community residents were born somewhere else in the United States (Appendix Table E5-1). Of local birthplace communities, 8% of Paxson residents claimed Paxson as their birthplace, 4% cited Delta Junction, and 13% cited Anchorage as their birthplace. caSh eMPloyMent and Monetary incoMe Table 5-6 is a summary of the estimated earned income as well as other sources of income for residents of Paxson in 2013. This table shows that in 2013 earned income accounted for an average of $41,123 per household, or 79% of the total community income, compared to other income sources that accounted for an average of $10,748 per household, or 21% of the total community income. The per capita income of the community was $18,042 in 2013. The largest source of other income was Social Security, which accounted for 12% of the total community income in 2013, followed by Alaska Permanent Fund dividends, which accounted for 4% of the total community income in 2013. Households 22 6 11.0 Population 40 18 31.6 Population 1 0 0.0 Percentage 2.5%0.0%0.0% Sources U.S. Census Bureau (2011) for 2010 estimate; U.S. Census Bureau for American Community Survey 5-year survey estimate; and ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014, for 2013 estimate. Total population Alaska Native Note The term "households" means occupied housing units. Alaska Native population data from the American Community Survey and 2010 census come from the category "race alone or in combination with one or more other races." Census (2010) 5-year American Community Survey (2008–2012) This study (2013) 205 Table 5-2.–Sample achievement, Paxson, 2013. Figure 5-1.–Historical population estimates, Paxson, 1980–2013. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Number of peopleAlaska Department of Labor (estimate)This study (estimate) CSIS (estimate)U.S. Census (count) Trendline Note Population estimates from CSIS for 1982 and 1987 combine Paxson and Sourdough. Sourdough had no year-round population in 2013. Paxson Number of dwelling units 11 Interview goal 11 Households interviewed 8 Households failed to be contacted 3 Households declined to be interviewed 0 Households moved or occupied by nonresident 0 Total households attempted to be interviewed 8 Refusal rate 0.0% Final estimate of permanent households 11 Percentage of total households interviewed 72.7% Interview weighting factor 1.4 Sampled population 23 Estimated population 31.6 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 206 Characteristics Sampled population 23 Estimated community population 32 Mean 2.9 Minimum 1 Maximum 5 53.5 0 78 57 Total population Mean 17.0 Minimuma 0 Maximum 60 Heads of household Mean 22.5 Minimuma 3 Maximum 60 Estimated householdsb Number 0.0 Percentage 0.0% Estimated population Number 0.0% Percentage 0.0% b. The estimated number of households in which at least 1 head of household is Alaska Native. Alaska Native Minimuma Maximum Median Length of residency a. A minimum age of 0 (zero) is used for infants who are less than 1 year of age. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Mean Household size Age Table 5-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Paxson, 2013. 207 Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage 0–4 0.0 0.0%0.0%1.4 7.7%7.7%1.4 4.3%4.3% 5–9 0.0 0.0%0.0%1.4 7.7%15.4%1.4 4.3%8.7% 10–14 0.0 0.0%0.0%1.4 7.7%23.1%1.4 4.3%13.0% 15–19 0.0 0.0%0.0%1.4 7.7%30.8%1.4 4.3%17.4% 20–24 0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%30.8%0.0 0.0%17.4% 25–29 0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%30.8%0.0 0.0%17.4% 30–34 0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%30.8%0.0 0.0%17.4% 35–39 0.0 0.0%0.0%1.4 7.7%38.5%1.4 4.3%21.7% 40–44 0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%38.5%0.0 0.0%21.7% 45–49 0.0 0.0%0.0%1.4 7.7%46.2%1.4 4.3%26.1% 50–54 0.0 0.0%0.0%1.4 7.7%53.8%1.4 4.3%30.4% 55–59 2.8 20.0%20.0%4.1 23.1%76.9%6.9 21.7%52.2% 60–64 1.4 10.0%30.0%1.4 7.7%84.6%2.8 8.7%60.9% 65–69 4.1 30.0%60.0%0.0 0.0%84.6%4.1 13.0%73.9% 70–74 2.8 20.0%80.0%0.0 0.0%84.6%2.8 8.7%82.6% 75–79 2.8 20.0%100.0%2.8 15.4%100.0%5.5 17.4%100.0% 80–84 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 85–89 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 90–94 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 95–99 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 100–104 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Missing 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Total 13.8 100.0%100.0%17.9 100.0%100.0%31.6 100.0%100.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Age Male Female Total Table 5-4.–Population profile, Paxson, 2013. 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 0–4 5–9 10–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65–69 70–74 75–79 80–84 85–89 90–94 95–99 100–104 Missing Number of people Female Male Figure 5-2.–Population profile, Paxson, 2013. 208 Table 5-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Paxson, 2013. Table 5-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Paxson, 2013. Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 7.1% Other U.S.92.9% Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Percentage of Number Number Total Mean Per total of of for per capita community Income source people households community household income income Earned income Services 15.1 8.3 $195,511 $0 –$875,673 $17,774 34.3% State government 1.4 1.4 $99,881 $80,442 –$160,105 $9,080 17.5% Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 1.4 1.4 $59,529 $0 –$303,416 $5,412 10.4% Construction 1.4 1.4 $47,872 $0 –$138,507 $4,352 8.4% Other employment 1.4 1.4 $22,235 $0 –$88,952 $2,021 3.9% Manufacturing 1.4 1.4 $22,235 $0 –$88,952 $2,021 3.9% Transportation, communication, and utilities 1.4 1.4 $5,087 $0 –$9,446 $462 0.9% Earned income subtotal 17.9 11.0 $452,350 $0 –$1,984,492 $41,123 $14,304 79.3% other income Social Security 2.8 $70,538 $51,300 –$177,238 $6,413 12.4% Alaska Permanent Fund dividend 11.0 $23,513 $16,088 –$27,225 $2,138 4.1% Pension/retirement 1.4 $18,288 $13,300 –$36,575 $1,663 3.2% Longevity bonus 1.4 $4,125 $3,000 –$8,250 $375 0.7% Gifts 1.7 $1,760 $1,280 –$3,520 $160 0.3% TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Adult public assistance (OAA, APD)0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Supplemental Security income 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Food stamps 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Heating assistance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Workers' compensation/insurance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Unemployment 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Disability 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Veterans assistance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Native corporation dividend 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Child support 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Other 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Foster care 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% CITGO fuel voucher 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Meeting honoraria 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% other income subtotal 11.0 $118,223 $24,475 –$276,128 $10,748 $3,738 20.7% Community income total $570,573 $60,088 –$2,120,259 $51,870 $18,042 100.0% -/+ 95% CI Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 209 In 2013, most (64%) of the jobs in Paxson were in the services sector (Table 5-7). Other important employment sectors during the study year were agriculture, forestry, and fishing (9% of jobs) and construction (9% of jobs). In 2013, 68% of the adults of working age (16 and older) at Paxson were employed at some point during the study year (Table 5-8). Of these employed adults, 59% were employed year-round. On average in 2013, 100% of households contained at least 1 adult who was employed. The mean number of jobs per employed household was 2.9. levelS oF individual ParticiPation in the harveSting and ProceSSing oF wild reSourceS Table 5-9 reports the expanded levels of individual participation in the harvesting and processing of wild resources by Paxson residents in 2013. Approximately 61% of residents attempted to harvest resources and processed resources in 2013. With reference to specific resource categories, 60% of all residents gathered plants and berries, 57% fished, 48% hunted for large land mammals, 22% hunted for birds, and 17% hunted or trapped for small land mammals. The level of participation in processing plants and berries was the same (60% of residents). The level of participation in processing fish was 57%. Large land mammals were processed by 57% of Paxson residents, indicating that other residents help to process the meat once a successful hunter returns to camp or home. Additionally, 22% of residents participated in processing birds (the same proportion of residents as hunted birds) and 13% of residents participated in furbearer processing. The survey included questions about individual participation in wild resource harvest activities such as working with fish wheels, handicrafts, and cooking wild foods. In Paxson, no residents worked with fish wheels. In 2013, 4% of residents sewed skins, and 65% of residents cooked wild foods (Table 5-10). Table 5-7.–Employment by industry, Paxson, 2013. Jobs Households Individuals Percentage of wage earnings 31.8 11.0 18.8 4.5%12.5%7.7%22.1% Transportation and material moving occupations 4.5%12.5%7.7%22.1% 9.1%12.5%7.7%13.2% Agricultural, forestry, and fishing occupations 9.1%12.5%7.7%13.2% 9.1%12.5%7.7%10.6% Construction and extractive occupations 9.1%12.5%7.7%10.6% 4.5%12.5%7.7%4.9% Writers, artists, entertainers, and athletes 4.5%12.5%7.7%4.9% 4.5%12.5%7.7%1.1% Executive, administrative, and managerial 4.5%12.5%7.7%1.1% 63.6%75.0%84.6%43.2% Executive, administrative, and managerial 40.9%62.5%69.2%16.4% Teachers, librarians, and counselors 4.5%12.5%7.7%4.9% Service occupations 18.2%12.5%7.7%21.9% 4.5%12.5%7.7%4.9% Marketing and sales occupations 4.5%12.5%7.7%4.9% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated total number Industry State government Construction industry not indicated Services Transportation, communication, and utilities Manufacturing Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 210 Community Paxson 27.5 27.1 18.8 68.4% 31.8 1.7 1 9 9.1 3 12 58.5% 39.6 11 11.0 100.0% 2.9 1 11 1.7 1.7 1 3 45.5 Characteristic Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. All adults Number Mean weeks employed Employed adults Number Households Mean Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs per employed household Maximum Percentage employed year-round Maximum Employed adults Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs Number Mean person-weeks of employment Minimum Maximum Minimum Total households Number Employed Mean Employed households Months employed Maximum Number Mean weeks employed Table 5-8.–Employment characteristics, Paxson, 2013. 211 Table 5-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Paxson, 2013. 31.6 Number 17.9 Percentage 56.5% Number 17.9 Percentage 56.5% Number 15.1 Percentage 47.8% Number 17.9 Percentage 56.5% Number 5.5 Percentage 17.4% Number 4.1 Percentage 13.0% Number 6.9 Percentage 21.7% Number 6.9 Percentage 21.7% Number 19.0 Percentage 60.0% Number 19.0 Percentage 60.0% Number 19.3 Percentage 60.9% Number 19.3 Percentage 60.9% Fish Process Hunt/gather Process Hunt or trap Process Gather Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Process Total number of people Birds and eggs Fish Large land mammals Hunt Process Attempt harvest Small land mammals Vegetation Any resource Process 212 Table 5-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Paxson, 2013. 31.6 Building, maintaining, or moving fish wheels Number 0.0 Percentage 0.0% Number 1.4 Percentage 4.3% Number 20.6 Percentage 65.2% Total number of people Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Sewing skins or cloth Cooking wild foods houSehold reSource harveSt and uSe PatternS and Sharing oF wild reSourceS Table 5-11 summarizes resource harvest and use characteristics for Paxson in 2013 at the household level. All households (100%) used wild resources in 2013 and 88% of households attempted to harvest and harvested resources. The average harvest was 615 lb usable weight per household, or 214 lb per capita. During the study year, households harvested an average of 10 kinds of resources and used an average of 12 kinds of resources. The maximum number of resources used by any household was 40. In addition, households gave away an average of 4 kinds of resources and 75% of households shared resources with other households. Resources were received by 100% of households. Overall, as many as 114 species were available for households to harvest in the study area; this included species that survey respondents identified but were not asked about in the survey instrument. Previous studies by the Division of Subsistence (Wolfe 1987; Wolfe et al. 2010) have shown that in most rural Alaska communities, a relatively small portion of households produces most of the community’s fish and wildlife harvests, which they share with other households. A recent study of 3,265 households in 66 rural Alaska communities found that about 33% of the households accounted for 76% of subsistence harvests (Wolfe et al. 2010). Although overall the set of very productive households was diverse, factors that were associated with higher levels of subsistence harvests included larger households with a pool of adult male labor, higher wage income, involvement in commercial fishing, and community location. As shown in Figure 5-3, in the 2013 study year in Paxson, about 72% of the harvests of wild resources as estimated in usable pounds were harvested by 38% of the community’s households. Further analysis of the study findings, beyond the scope of this report, might identify characteristics of the highly productive households in Paxson and the other study communities. The survey included questions about residents’ use of alternative and motorized modes of transportation to access wild food harvest areas and the use of portable motors. In order to participate in resource harvesting activities most Paxson residents relied on motorized transportation such as motor-powered boats, ATVs, and snowmachines for access to harvest areas; in the case of Paxson, dog sleds were another kind of alternative transportation used. Figure 5-4 demonstrates the percentage of community households that used an alternate means of transportation (in addition to or aside from using cars, trucks, or traveling on foot). Approximately 63% of Paxson households used a boat when harvesting wild foods. Similarly, about 63% of households used ATVs. Snowmachines were used by 38% of households and 13% used a dog sled when harvesting wild resources. Some Paxson residents used portable motorized equipment when participating in resource harvest activities. For example, chain saws were used to harvest and process wood for use in home heating. Chain saws, generators, and winches were each used by 13% of households and 38% of Paxson households used an ice auger (Figure 5-5). 213 11.8 Minimum 1 Maximum 40 95% confidence limit (±)45.9% Median 9 11.4 Minimum 0 Maximum 40 95% confidence limit (±)47.7% Median 9.5 9.8 Minimum 0 Maximum 40 95% confidence limit (±)56.8% Median 7 2.6 Minimum 1 Maximum 9 95% confidence limit (±)45.3% Median 1.5 4.4 Minimum 0 Maximum 20 95% confidence limit (±)65.3% Median 3 Minimum 0 Maximum 2,178 Mean 615.3 Median 483 6,767.9 214.0 100.0% 87.5% 87.5% 100.0% 75.0% 8 114 Mean number of resources used per household Mean number of resources attempted to harvest per household Mean number of resources harvested per household Mean number of resources received per household Characteristic Percentage using any resource Percentage attempting to harvest any resource Percentage harvesting any resource Mean number of resources given away per household Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Percentage receiving any resource Percentage giving away any resource Number of households in sample Number of resources asked about and identified voluntarily by respondents Household harvest (pounds) Total harvest weight (lb) Community per capita harvest (lb) Table 5-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Paxson, 2013. 214 Figure 5-3.–Household specialization, Paxson, 2013. Figure 5-4.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Paxson, 2013. 63% 38% 63% 13% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Boat Snowmachine ATV DogsledPercentage of sampled householdsTransportation type 38% of households took 72% percent of the harvest 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cumulative percent of pounds harvestedPercentage of households 215 13%13% 38% 13% 0%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Generator Chain saw Ice auger Winch Other portable motors or motorized equipmentPercentage of sampled householdsEquipment type Figure 5-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Paxson, 2013. Figure 5-6.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Paxson, 2013. 0% 13% 38% 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Birch bark Horns Antlers Other natural materialPercentage of sampled householdsMaterial 216 Table 5-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Paxson, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentagePaxson$2,545562.5%112.5%00.0%00.0%225.0%00.0%76%–99%100%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.CommunityAverage annual cost of home heatingHousehold use of wood for home heating as a percentage of total fuel for heating0%1%–25%26%–50%51%–75%217 Figure 5-6 demonstrates the percentage of households that used natural materials for handicrafts; 38% used antlers, 13% used horns, and 25% of households used other raw natural materials, most of which were fur and skins. During the winter months most Paxson households rely on oil stoves to for home heating. Only 3 of the 8 surveyed households in Paxson reported using firewood for home heating in 2013 (Table 5-12). harveSt QuantitieS and coMPoSition Table 5-13 reports estimated wild resource harvests and uses by Paxson residents in 2013 and is organized first by general category and then by species. All edible resources are reported in pounds usable weight (see Appendix C for conversion factors[3]). The “harvest” category includes resources harvested by any member of the surveyed household during the study year. The “use” category includes all resources taken, given away, or used by a household, and resources acquired from other harvesters, either as gifts, by barter or trade, through hunting partnerships, or as meat given by hunting guides and non-local hunters. Purchased foods are not included, but resources such as firewood are included because they are an important part of the subsistence way of life. Differences between harvest and use percentages reflect sharing among households, which results in a wider distribution of wild foods. The total estimated harvest for all fish, wildlife, and wild plant resources during 2013 for Paxson was 6,768 lb, or 214 lb per capita (Table 5-13). Large land mammals provided the majority (39%) of the total harvest (2,668 lb, or 84 lb per capita) (Figure 5-7; Table 5-13). Salmon and nonsalmon fish combined composed 46% (97 lb per capita) of the harvest in 2013, which is more than large land mammals, but when considered separately salmon contributed the second most pounds usable weight to the community harvest (27%, or 1,801 lb) and nonsalmon fish was the third most harvested resource category (19%, or 1,279 lb). Small land mammals provided 7% (462 lb, or 15 lb per capita), vegetation provided 6% (391 lb, or 12 lb per capita), birds provided 2% (142 lb, or 5 lb per capita), and marine invertebrates provided less than 1% (26 lb, less than 1 lb per capita) of the total harvest. SeaSonal round Harvest survey data and key respondent interview information tell the story of a seasonal round of fishing, hunting, and gathering activities followed by Paxson residents where a variety of species are harvested throughout the year. In spring, summer, fall, and winter, Paxson residents harvest resources along the road corridors of the Richardson and Denali highways, along ATV trails connected to the main road system, and within adjacent rivers and lakes, including the Maclaren, Gulkana, and Copper rivers, Upper Tangle Lake, Round Tangle Lake, Long Tangle Lake, and Summit and Paxson lakes, Port Valdez, and Prince William Sound (Figure 5-8). Residents use ATVs, motorized boats suitable for travel on waterways, snowmachines, and dog sleds to reach their hunting, fishing, and gathering areas. During early spring some Paxson residents trap beavers around Paxson Lake. Following spring breakup and into the summer months salmon are caught in the Copper River and in Port Valdez. Sockeye salmon are caught during June and July in the Copper River by dip net under personal use fishing regulations. Coho salmon are caught during August in Port Valdez by rod and reel under sport fishing regulations. Also, a Paxson resident catches sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon in Bristol Bay by removing fish from a commercial catch for household use in Paxson. Salmon retained from the commercial fishery are caught by gillnet. This resident also harvests some Chinook salmon in Bristol Bay by rod and reel under sport fishing regulations. During spring and summer nonsalmon fish are caught in the Round Tangle Lake, Long Tangle Lake, Maclaren River, Boulder Creek, Paxson Lake, and Prince William Sound. Lake trout are caught during May, June, July, and August in Long Tangle Lake, Summit Lake, Paxson Lake, and Boulder Creek by rod 3. Resources that are not eaten, such as firewood and some furbearers, are included in the table but are given a conversion factor of zero. 218 Table 5-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Paxson, 2013.Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per householdAll resources100.087.587.5100.075.06,767.9615.3214.048.8 Salmon100.062.562.562.562.51,801.0163.756.945.0 Chum salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Coho salmon62.562.562.512.550.0786.271.524.9126.5ind11.546.9 Chinook salmon37.525.025.012.525.0132.212.04.29.6ind0.990.2 Pink salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sockeye salmon87.537.537.562.537.5882.780.227.9192.5ind17.563.6 Landlocked salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Nonsalmon fish75.075.075.037.537.51,278.5116.240.485.9 Pacific herring0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring sac roe0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring spawn on kelp0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown smelt0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific (gray) cod12.512.512.50.012.568.86.32.217.2ind1.6123.5 Pacific tomcod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Starry flounder0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lingcod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pacific halibut62.537.525.037.525.0293.426.79.3293.4lb26.781.1 Arctic lamprey0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown rockfish25.025.012.512.50.027.52.50.96.9ind0.6123.5 Unknown sculpin0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Burbot0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Dolly Varden25.025.025.00.012.514.91.40.516.5ind1.5102.0 Lake trout75.075.075.00.012.5137.512.54.368.8ind6.356.1 Arctic grayling62.562.562.50.012.5132.812.14.2189.8ind17.386.4 Northern pike0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Longnose sucker12.512.512.50.00.0192.517.56.1275.0ind25.0123.5 Cutthroat trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Rainbow trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Broad whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Least cisco25.025.025.00.00.0170.515.55.4426.3ind38.8119.0-continued-Percentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amountaResource95% confidence limit (±)219 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Humpback whitefish12.512.512.50.00.0240.621.97.6137.5ind12.5123.5 Round whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whitefishes0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Large land mammals75.075.062.550.050.02,667.5242.584.344.3 Bison0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black bear0.012.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brown bear0.025.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Caribou50.075.050.012.537.51,430.0130.045.211.0ind1.061.7 Deer0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mountain goat0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Moose50.075.025.037.525.01,237.5112.539.12.8ind0.380.8 Dall sheep0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Small land mammals12.525.012.50.012.5462.042.014.6123.5 Beaver12.512.512.50.012.5350.631.911.123.4ind2.1123.5 Coyote12.512.512.50.00.00.00.00.06.9ind0.6123.5 Red fox–cross phase12.512.512.50.00.00.00.00.04.1ind0.4123.5 Red fox–red phase12.512.512.50.00.00.00.00.027.5ind2.5123.5 Snowshoe hare12.525.012.50.00.013.81.30.46.9ind0.6123.5 North American river (land) otter12.512.512.50.00.00.00.00.04.1ind0.4123.5 Lynx12.512.512.50.012.511.01.00.32.8ind0.3123.5 Marmot0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marten12.512.512.50.00.00.00.00.020.6ind1.9123.5 Mink0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Muskrat12.512.512.50.00.086.67.92.748.1ind4.4123.5 Porcupine0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red (tree) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Least weasel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Gray wolf0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Wolverine12.512.512.50.00.00.00.00.01.4ind0.1123.5 Nonsalmon fish, continued-continued-Table 5-13.–Page 2 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±)220 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Marine mammals0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Fur seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Harbor seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sea otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Steller sea lion0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whale0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Birds and eggs25.025.025.012.512.5142.312.94.5110.7 Canvasback0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spectacled eider0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Goldeneye12.512.512.50.012.511.01.00.313.8ind1.3123.5 Mallard25.012.512.512.512.513.81.30.413.8ind1.3123.5 Northern pintail25.012.512.512.50.011.01.00.313.8ind1.3123.5 Unknown scaup12.512.512.50.00.024.82.30.827.5ind2.5123.5 Black scoter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 White-winged scoter12.512.512.50.012.59.90.90.311.0ind1.0123.5 Northern shoveler25.012.512.512.50.04.10.40.16.9ind0.6123.5 Green-winged teal12.512.512.50.012.56.20.60.220.6ind1.9123.5 American wigeon12.512.512.50.012.519.31.80.627.5ind2.5123.5 Unknown ducks0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brant0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cackling goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Canada goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown Canada/ cackling geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Emperor goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snow goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 White-fronted goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Tundra (whistling) swan0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sandhill crane0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spruce grouse12.512.512.50.00.011.61.10.416.5ind1.5123.5 Sharp-tailed grouse12.512.512.50.012.514.41.30.520.6ind1.9123.5 Ruffed grouse0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Table 5-13.–Page 3 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±)-continued-221 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Unknown ptarmigan25.025.025.00.012.516.41.50.523.4ind2.1107.8 Unknown duck eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown goose eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown gull eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marine invertebrates37.512.512.525.012.525.82.30.8123.5 Freshwater clams0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Razor clams25.012.512.512.512.525.82.30.88.6gal0.8123.5 Dungeness crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown king crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown tanner crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Octopus0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Shrimp12.50.00.012.50.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Squid0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Vegetation87.587.587.512.550.0390.835.512.458.7 Blueberry87.587.587.514.357.1322.129.310.280.5gal7.352.7 Lowbush cranberry37.537.537.50.012.59.60.90.32.4gal0.272.7 Highbush cranberry0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Raspberry25.025.025.00.00.011.01.00.32.8gal0.380.8 Other wild berry0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Dandelion greens12.512.512.50.00.01.40.10.01.4gal0.1123.5Wormwood12.512.512.50.00.02.80.30.12.8gal0.3123.5 Unknown mushrooms0.012.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Fireweed12.512.512.50.00.044.04.01.444.0gal4.0123.5 Firewood37.537.537.50.00.00.00.00.014.9cord1.4112.8 Birds and eggs, continuedHarvest amounta95% confidence limit (±)Table 5-13.–Page 4 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)a. Summary rows that include incompatible units of measure have been left blank.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Note Resources where the percentage using is greater than the combined received and harvest indicate use from resources obtained during a previous year.Note For small land mammals, species that are not typically eaten show a non-zero harvest amount with a zero harvest wight. Harvest weight is not calculated for species harvested but not eaten.222 Figure 5-7.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013. Salmon 27% Nonsalmon fish 19% Large land mammals 39% Small land mammals 7% Birds and eggs 2% Marine invertebrates < 1% Vegetation 6% Note Categories having 0 lb of usable weight are not included. and reel under sport fishing regulations. Arctic grayling are caught during May, June, July, and August in Round Tangle Lake, Long Tangle Lake, Paxson Lake, and Boulder Creek by rod and reel under sport fishing regulations. Pacific halibut, Pacific cod, and rockfish are caught in Prince William Sound by rod and reel under sport fishing regulations. Summer is the time for berry picking and plant gathering. During July and August, Paxson residents harvest blueberries, lowbush cranberries, raspberries, dandelion greens, wormwood, and fireweed along the Denali Highway. Fall is the season when Paxson residents most actively pursue subsistence activities. During August and September, moose, caribou, black bears, and brown bears are hunted. Caribou and bears are pursued in nearly identical areas accessed from the Denali Highway; the most significant difference between bear and caribou search areas is that caribou are sought more extensively in the Landmark Gap Lake area. Moose hunting occurs at intervals along the Denali Highway, in the Upper Tangle Lake, Dickey Lake, and the Maclaren River and Boulder Creek watersheds, but also east of the Richardson Highway and along the shores of Paxson Lake. During late fall and early winter Paxson residents harvest ducks, grouse, ptarmigan, whitefishes, longnose suckers, beavers, coyotes, foxes, snowshoe hares, muskrats, and martens. During October ducks are harvested at Paxson Lake and in the Maclaren River and Boulder Creek watersheds north of the Denali Highway. During September, October, and November grouse are sought on the eastern shore of Paxson Lake and ptarmigan are sought along the Denali Highway from Paxson westward to the Maclaren River. During October humpback whitefish, least cisco, and longnose suckers are harvested in the Maclaren River by fish spear under sport fishing regulations. Least cisco and longnose suckers are also harvested in Upper Tangle Lake and Round Tangle Lake at this time. Fall small land mammal hunting and trapping for beavers, coyotes, foxes, snowshoe hares, muskrats, and martens occur in an area extending from the western shore of Paxson Lake to the Excelsior Creek drainage toward the east. In 2013, Paxson residents harvested ducks at 223 Figure 5-8.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, Paxson, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaLake LouiseTokSlanaValdezGakonaSuttonPalmerTetlinNabesnaChitinaGirdwoodNorthwayTatitlekMcCarthyDot LakeDry CreekTanacrossChickaloonKenny LakeHealy LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaCopper CenterMentasta LakeNorthway JunctionWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve04020MilesPAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Search and harvest areasHighway/roadPark and preserve boundarySearch and harvest locations All resources 224 Table 5-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Paxson, 2013. Paxson Lake and in the Maclaren River watershed north of the Denali Highway. Ptarmigan were harvested along the Denali Highway from Paxson in the east to the Maclaren River in the west and grouse were harvested along the eastern shore of Paxson Lake. During winter some Paxson residents continue hunting caribou, ptarmigan, and snowshoe hares. Ice fishing for lake trout and Dolly Varden is also pursued during the winter months as well as trapping for foxes, North American river otters, lynx, martens, muskrats, coyotes, and wolverines. uSe and harveSt characteriSticS By reSource category Estimates of sharing indicated that 100% of Paxson households received wild resources from other households and 75% of households gave resources away (Table 5-13). Salmon, large land mammals, and vegetation were the most commonly shared resources. Salmon were used by 100% of households, were given away by 63% of households, and were received by 63% of households. Large land mammals were used by 75% of households, were given away by 50% of households, and were received by 50% of households. Vegetation was used by 88% of households, was given away by 50% of households, and was received by 13% of households. As a result of the way resources were shared within the community, salmon use surpassed nonsalmon fish, large land mammal, and vegetation use despite the harvest rates of those resources being the same or higher than salmon. Table 5-14 lists the top resources used by Paxson households and Figure 5-9 depicts the most harvested resources, by per capita harvest, by Paxson households during the 2013 study year. Caribou made the largest contribution to Paxson’s 2013 wild resource harvest (21% of total harvest), followed by moose (18%), sockeye salmon (13%), coho salmon (12%), beavers (5%) blueberries (5%), and Pacific halibut (4%) (Figure 5-9). Of all the available resources, sockeye salmon and blueberries were the most used by Paxson residents (both used by 88% of households), followed by lake trout (used by 75% of households), coho salmon, Pacific halibut, and Arctic grayling (each used by 63% of households), and caribou and moose (each used by 50% of households) (Table 5-14). Despite being among the top ranked resources used, the amounts of lake trout, Arctic grayling, Chinook salmon, and lowbush cranberries harvested individually contributed approximately 2% or less of Paxson’s total 2013 wild resource harvest. Ranka Resource Percentage of households using 1.Sockeye salmon 87.5% 1.Blueberry 87.5% 3.Lake trout 75.0% 4.Coho salmon 62.5% 4.Pacific halibut 62.5% 4.Arctic grayling 62.5% 7.Caribou 50.0% 7.Moose 50.0% 9.Chinook salmon 37.5% 9.Lowbush cranberry 37.5% a.Resources used by the same percentage of households share the lowest rank value instead of having sequential rank values. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 225 Figure 5-9.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013.Caribou21%Moose18%Sockeye salmon13%Coho salmon12%Beaver5%Blueberry5%Pacific halibut4%Humpback whitefish4%Longnose sucker3%Least cisco2%All other resources13%NoteThe "allother resources" category represents all species that contributed less than 2.5% to the total harvest weight.226 Figure 5-10.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013. Coho salmon 44% Chinook salmon 7% Sockeye salmon 49% Salmon For Paxson, salmon composed 27% of the wild resource harvest in pounds usable weight in 2013 (1,801 lb, or 57 lb per capita) (Figure 5-7; Table 5-13). The composition of the salmon harvest was as follows: 49% sockeye salmon (883 lb, or 28 lb per capita); 44% coho salmon (786 lb, or 25 lb per capita); and 7% Chinook salmon (132 lb, or 4 lb per capita) (Figure 5-10: Table 5-13). During 2013, 100% of Paxson households used salmon, 63% harvested salmon, 63% shared salmon, and 63% reported receiving salmon (Table 5-13). Sockeye salmon, coho salmon, and Chinook salmon were the 3 salmon species used by Paxson residents. During 2013, 88% of households used sockeye salmon, 63% of households used coho salmon, and 38% of households used Chinook salmon. The majority of the salmon harvest effort by Paxson households was directed toward coho salmon. Of the 63% of households that attempted to harvest coho salmon all were successful (Table 5-13). Similarly, all 38% of the households that attempted to harvest sockeye salmon and all 25% of the households that attempted to harvest Chinook salmon were successful. Some of the households that harvested salmon shared their catch with other Paxson households, especially sockeye salmon (63% of households received sockeye salmon); 13% of households received coho salmon and Chinook salmon. In 2013, rod and reel gear was used to harvest an estimated 31% of the salmon harvest weight, dip nets were used to harvest about 28% of the salmon harvest weight, 23% of the salmon harvest weight was removed from commercial catch, and gillnets were used to harvest about 19% of the salmon harvest weight during the study year (Table 5-15). During the 2013 study year, Paxson respondents reported harvesting sockeye salmon in the Copper River (Figure 5-11). Paxson residents are relatively close to the Copper River personal use dip net fishery, which is where they harvest most of their sockeye salmon. Most of the coho salmon were harvested in Port Valdez and in Bristol Bay. Coho salmon are most often caught using rod and reel gear. Paxson residents removed sockeye salmon, coho salmon, and Chinook salmon for personal use from commercial catch and also harvested sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay. 227 Table 5-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Paxson, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsSalmonGear type100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource23.4%22.6%17.2%18.8%0.0%0.0%33.5%28.0%0.0%0.0%50.6%46.8%25.9%30.6%100.0%100.0%Total23.4%22.6%17.2%18.8%0.0%0.0%33.5%28.0%0.0%0.0%50.6%46.8%25.9%30.6%100.0%100.0%Chum salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Coho salmonGear type3.6%4.2%73.2%75.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%24.8%30.4%96.8%93.1%38.5%43.7%Resource2.2%2.2%32.6%32.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%32.6%32.6%65.2%65.2%100.0%100.0%Total0.8%0.9%12.6%14.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%12.6%14.2%25.1%28.5%38.5%43.7%Chinook salmonGear type7.1%18.5%2.4%5.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.8%2.2%3.2%6.9%2.9%7.3%Resource57.1%57.1%14.3%14.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%14.3%14.3%28.6%28.6%100.0%100.0%Total1.7%4.2%0.4%1.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.4%1.0%0.8%2.1%2.9%7.3%Pink salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Sockeye salmonGear type89.3%77.3%24.4%18.6%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%74.4%67.3%0.0%0.0%58.6%49.0%Resource35.7%35.7%7.1%7.1%0.0%0.0%57.1%57.1%0.0%0.0%64.3%64.3%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total20.9%17.5%4.2%3.5%0.0%0.0%33.5%28.0%0.0%0.0%37.7%31.5%0.0%0.0%58.6%49.0%Landlocked salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Any methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodFish wheelDip netResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reel228 Figure 5-11.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, Paxson, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013izinaRiverChitina RiverMcCarthy RoadaRiver Klu RiverHanagita RiverNorth Fork Breminer Riverr GlacierChugach ntainsSilver LakeStrelna LakeCanyon CreekTebay LakeTebay RiverO'Brien CreekHaley CreekWood CanyonChitinaKenny LakeLower Tonsina0105MilesSockeye salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadNaknekKing SalmonSouth NaknekBristol Bay229 Figure 5-12.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013. Pacific (gray) cod 5% Pacific halibut 23% Unknown rockfish 2% Dolly Varden 1% Lake trout 11% Arctic grayling 11% Longnose sucker 15% Least cisco 13% Humpback whitefish 19% Nonsalmon Fish In 2013, Paxson residents harvested an estimated total of 1,279 lb, or 40 lb per capita, of nonsalmon fish (Table 5-13). Nonsalmon fish composed 19% of the wild resource harvest in pounds in 2013 (Figure 5-7). In terms of total pounds and percentages harvested, most of the nonsalmon fish harvest was Pacific halibut (293 lb, or 9 lb per capita), followed by humpback whitefish (241 lb, or 8 lb per capita), longnose sucker (193 lb, or 6 lb per capita), least cisco (171 lb, or 5 lb per capita), lake trout (138 lb, or 4 lb per capita), and Arctic grayling (133 lb, or 4 lb per capita); combined, these species composed 92% of the nonsalmon fish harvest4 (Table 5-13; Figure 5-12). Paxson residents also harvested Pacific cod, rockfish, and Dolly Varden. During 2013, 75% of Paxson households used and harvested nonsalmon fish and 38% of households shared and received nonsalmon fish. Pacific halibut, harvested non-locally, was the primary nonsalmon fish shared, with 38% of Paxson households having received halibut from other households. Table 5-16 lists the number and pounds of each nonsalmon fish species harvested by Paxson residents in 2013 in percentages by gear type. Paxson residents harvested most of their nonsalmon fish with rod and reel (50% of usable weight) and by fish spear (47% of usable weight). Some of the harvest of lake trout (20%) and all of the harvest of Dolly Varden was accomplished by jigging through the ice. During the 2013 study year, Paxson respondents reported harvesting humpback whitefish, least cisco, and longnose suckers in the Maclaren River. Longnose suckers were also harvested in the Tangle River. Lake trout were harvested in Boulder Creek, Round Tangle Lake, Long Tangle Lake, Summit Lake, and Paxson Lake (Figure 5-13). Arctic grayling were harvested in Boulder Creek, Round Tangle Lake, Long Tangle 4. A portion of Paxson’s 2013 nonsalmon harvest was not used for human consumption. Most of the reported least cisco harvest and all of the reported longnose sucker harvest were used for dog food. 230 Table 5-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Paxson, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNonsalmon fishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.1%3.3%58.6%47.2%60.7%50.5%39.3%49.5%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.1%3.3%58.6%47.2%60.7%50.5%39.3%49.5%100.0%100.0%Pacific herringGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring sac roeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown smeltGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific (gray) codGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.1%10.9%1.2%5.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.2%5.4%1.2%5.4%Pacific tomcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Starry flounderGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%LingcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific halibutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%52.2%46.4%20.5%23.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%20.5%23.0%20.5%23.0%Arctic lampreyGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.2%4.3%0.5%2.2%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.5%2.2%0.5%2.2%Unknown sculpinGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reelAny methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodIce fish-continued-Pacific herring spawn on kelp231 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsBurbotGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Dolly VardenGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%54.5%35.1%0.0%0.0%1.9%2.3%0.0%0.0%1.2%1.2%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.2%1.2%0.0%0.0%1.2%1.2%0.0%0.0%1.2%1.2%Lake troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%45.5%64.9%0.0%0.0%1.6%4.3%9.8%17.4%4.8%10.8%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%20.0%20.0%0.0%0.0%20.0%20.0%80.0%80.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.0%2.2%0.0%0.0%1.0%2.2%3.8%8.6%4.8%10.8%Arctic graylingGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%33.7%21.0%13.3%10.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%13.3%10.4%13.3%10.4%Northern pikeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Longnose suckerGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%32.8%31.9%31.6%29.8%0.0%0.0%19.2%15.1%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%19.2%15.1%19.2%15.1%0.0%0.0%19.2%15.1%Cutthroat troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rainbow troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Broad whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Least ciscoGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%50.8%28.2%49.1%26.4%0.0%0.0%29.8%13.3%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%29.8%13.3%29.8%13.3%0.0%0.0%29.8%13.3%Humpback whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%16.4%39.9%15.8%37.2%0.0%0.0%9.6%18.8%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%9.6%18.8%9.6%18.8%0.0%0.0%9.6%18.8%Round whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Table 5-16.–Page 2 of 3.-continued-ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchAny methodGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodSubsistence methodsRod and reel232 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsUnknown whitefishesGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Table 5-16.–Page 3 of 3.ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchAny methodGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodSubsistence methodsRod and reel233 Figure 5-13.–Fishing and harvest locations of lake trout, Paxson, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeSummit LakeUpper Tangle LakeDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Fielding LakePaxson063MilesLake trout search and harvest areaLake trout search and harvest areaHighway/roadLong Tangle Lake Maclaren RiverBoulder Creek234 Figure 5-14.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013. Caribou 54% Moose 46% Lake, and Paxson Lake. Dolly Varden were harvested in Boulder Creek. Paxson residents traveled to Prince William Sound to harvest Pacific halibut, Pacific cod, and rockfish in Jack Bay and Tatitlek Narrows. Large Land Mammals In 2013, large land mammals made up 39% of the total Paxson wild resource harvest by weight (2,668 lb, or 84 lb per capita) (Figure 5-7; Table 5-13). Moose and caribou made up the composition of large land mammal harvest for the community (Figure 5-14). Caribou provided 54% (1,430 lb) of the usable pounds of large land mammals harvested by Paxson households and moose provided 46% (1,238 lb). Caribou was used by 50% of Paxson households (75% hunted caribou and 50% of Paxson households were successful harvesters) (Table 5-13). According to the study, the majority of the successful caribou hunting took place during fall. In September 2013, 8 caribou were harvested; one caribou was harvested in August 2013; an additional caribou was harvested in March 2013 (Table 5-17). Caribou was shared among Paxson households and Paxson households shared caribou with other communities (36% of households gave caribou away and 13% of Paxson households received caribou from other households). Moose was also used by 50% of Paxson households (75% hunted moose and 25% of Paxson households were successful harvesters) (Table 5-13). According to the study, all of the successful moose hunting took place during September 2013, during which Paxson households harvested 3 moose (Table 5-17). Moose was shared among Paxson households (25% of households gave moose away and 38% of households received moose from other households). In 2013, 13% of Paxson households attempted to harvest black bears and 25% attempted to harvest brown bears (Table 5-13). No Paxson hunters were successful in harvesting bears in 2013. During the 2013 study year, Paxson households reported hunting caribou along the Denali Highway from Paxson in the east to Crazy Notch in the west, within the Maclaren River watershed, around Long Tangle Lake, Round Tangle Lake, Upper Tangle Lake, Tangle Lakes, Dickey Lake, and along the southern and western shores of Summit Lake (Figure 5-15). Residents hunted moose along the Richardson Highway, around Gunn Lake, Fish Creek, Upper Fish Lake, Lower Fish Lake, Wolverine Mountain, Summit Lake, 235 Table 5-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Paxson, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All large land mammals 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 Bison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brown bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Caribou 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 Caribou, male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 Caribou, female 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Deer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mountain goat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Moose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Moose, bull 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Moose, cow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dall sheep 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Estimated harvest by month Total Upper Tangle Lake, Tangle Lakes, Dickey Lake, and within the upper watershed of the Maclaren River. Both black bears and brown bears were hunted along the Denali Highway from Paxson in the east to Crazy Notch in the west, around Long Tangle Lake, Round Tangle Lake, Upper Tangle Lake, Tangle Lakes, Dickey Lake, and brown bears were hunted for on the eastern shore of Paxson Lake. 236 Figure 5-15.–Hunting locations of caribou, Paxson, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeSummit LakeDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Fielding LakePaxson13B042MilesCaribou search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit Maclaren RiverDickey LakeUpper Tangle LakeLong Tangle LakeRound Tangle LakeTangle LakesCrazy Notch13ALandmark Gap Lake237 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers As listed in Table 5-13, the total harvest of small land mammals by Paxson residents in 2013 for food was 462 lb (15 lb per capita). The harvest of small land mammals composed approximately 7% of Paxson’s total harvest of wild food resources in 2013 (Figure 5-7). Paxson’s small land mammal food harvest consisted of beavers (351 lb), muskrats (87 lb), snowshoe hares (14 lb), and lynx (11 lb) (Table 5-13); all of these species were used for both food and fur (Figure 5-16). These species also made up 56% of the total harvest of individual small land mammals (Figure 5-17). Other furbearers such as coyotes, red foxes, river otters, martens, and wolverines were also harvested—mostly for sale in the fur market (Figure 5-16). Beavers were harvested in September, October, and April; muskrats were harvested in October and February; snowshoe hares were harvested in November and December; lynx, river otters, and a wolverine were harvested during December; coyotes were harvested during December and January; and red foxes and martens were only harvested during November (Table 5-18). Because fur is at its prime during the coldest months of the year, most (93%) of the furbearer harvests occurred from October through February. The search and harvest areas for small land mammals and furbearers in 2013 occurred in an area extending from the western shore of Paxson Lake to the Excelsior Creek drainage toward the west (Figure 5-18). Figure 5-16.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Paxson, 2013. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Individual animalsharvestedTotal harvest Fur only 238 Table 5-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Paxson, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All small land mammals 2.8 6.9 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 55.0 56.4 15.1 0.0 145.8 Beaver 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 Coyote 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 6.9 Red fox–cross phase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 Red fox–red phase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 Snowshoe hare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 2.8 0.0 6.9 North american river (land) otter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 4.1 Lynx 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 Marmot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marten 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.6 0.0 0.0 20.6 Mink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muskrat 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.1 Porcupine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red (tree) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Least weasel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gray wolf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wolverine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 Estimated harvest by month Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Total Figure 5-17.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Paxson, 2013. Beaver 16% Coyote 4% Red fox–cross phase 3% Red fox–red phase 19% Snowshoe hare 5% North American river (land) otter 3% Lynx 2% Marten 14% Muskrat 33% Wolverine 1% 239 Figure 5-18.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, Paxson, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Small land mammal and furbearersearch and harvest areaPaxson LakeSummit LakeDelta RiverRichardson Highway ighway Fielding LakePaxson063MilesHighway/roadDenali HighwayExcelsior CreekGakona River240 Goldeneye 8%Mallard 10% Northern pintail 8% Unknown scaup 17% White-winged scoter 7%Northern shoveler 3% Green-winged teal 4% American wigeon 14% Spruce grouse 8% Sharp-tailed grouse 10% Unknown ptarmigan 11% Note No bird eggs were harvested. Figure 5-19.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013. Birds and Eggs Birds were harvested and used by 25% of Paxson households (Table 5-13). Migratory birds composed 71% of the total bird harvest (Figure 5-19). The total harvest of migratory birds was an estimated 100 lb, or 3 lb per capita (Table 5-13). The total harvest of upland game birds, which includes grouse and ptarmigan, was 42 lb, or a little more than 1 lb per capita. Ducks made up the entirety of Paxson’s migratory bird harvest in 2013. Scaups accounted for most of the bird harvest by the community (25 lb) followed by American wigeons and mallards, which provided 19 lb and 14 lb, respectively. Other duck species harvested by Paxson residents included goldeneye, northern pintail, white-winged scoter, northern shoveler, and green-winged teal. Upland bird harvests consisted of ptarmigan (16 lb), sharp-tailed grouse (14 lb), and spruce grouse (12 lb); the per capita harvest of each species was approximately one-half pound. Most bird hunting by Paxson residents occurs during the fall (Table 5-19). In 2013, Paxson residents harvested ducks at Paxson Lake and in the Maclaren River and Boulder Creek watersheds north of the Denali Highway (Figure 5-20). Ptarmigan were harvested along the Denali Highway from Paxson in the east to the Maclaren River in the west and grouse were harvested along the eastern shore of Paxson Lake. Marine invertebrates As listed in Table 5-13, the total harvest of marine invertebrates by Paxson residents in 2013 was made up of an estimated 9 gal of razor clams (26 lb usable weight). The harvest of marine invertebrates totaled less than 1% of the total wild food harvest in 2013 (Figure 5-7). Marine invertebrates were used by 38% of households and harvested by 13% of households. Shrimp were received and used by 13% of Paxson households (Table 5-13). 241 Table 5-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Paxson, 2013. Winter Spring Summer Fall Season unknown All birds 17.9 0.0 0.0 177.4 0.0 195.3 Canvasback 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spectacled eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Goldeneye 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 13.8 Mallard 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 13.8 Northern pintail 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 13.8 Unknown scaup 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.5 0.0 27.5 Black scoter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White-winged scoter 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 11.0 Northern shoveler 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 6.9 Green-winged teal 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.6 0.0 20.6 American wigeon 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.5 0.0 27.5 Unknown ducks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cackling goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Canada goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown Canada/cackling geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Emperor goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snow goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White-fronted goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tundra (whistling) swan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandhill crane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spruce grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 16.5 Sharp-tailed grouse 11.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 20.6 Ruffed grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown ptarmigan 6.9 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 23.4 Unknown duck eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown goose eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown gull eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated harvest by season TotalResource 242 Figure 5-20.–Hunting and harvest locations of migratory waterfowl and upland game birds, Paxson, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeSummit LakeUpper Tangle LakeDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Fielding LakePaxson063MilesUpland game bird search and harvest areaUpland game bird search and harvest areaMigratory waterfowl search and harvest areaMigratory waterfowl search and harvest areaHighway/roadDickey Lake Maclaren River Maclaren RiverBoulder Creek243 Vegetation The majority (88%) of households in Paxson harvested and used vegetation during the 2013 study year (Table 5-13). In 2013, Paxson residents harvested 391 lb, or 12 lb per capita, of edible vegetation. Edible vegetation consisted of blueberries, lowbush cranberries, raspberries, dandelion greens, wormwood, and fireweed. Berries composed 88% of the vegetation harvest in pounds usable weight and were harvested and used by 88% of households; plants and greens composed 12% of the vegetation harvest and were harvested and used by 13% percent of households (Figure 5-21; Table 5-13). Paxson residents also harvested 15 cords of firewood for home heating in 2013 (Table 5-13). Berries were harvested along the Denali Highway near Little Swede Lake and around the radio tower north and to the east of Paxson Lake (Figure 5-22). Plants and greens were harvested on the eastern shore of Summit Lake. Figure 5-21.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Paxson, 2013. Berries 88% Plants and greens 12% 244 Figure 5-22.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, Paxson, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeSummit LakeTangle LakesDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Fielding LakePaxson063MilesPlant harvest areaBerry harvest areaHighway/roadMaclaren RiverSwede LakeLittle Swede LakeRadio Tower245 coMParing harveStS and uSeS in 2013 with PreviouS yearS Harvest Assessments For 10 resource categories and for all resources combined, survey respondents were asked to assess whether their uses and harvests in the 2013 study year were less, more, or about the same as other recent years. “Other recent years” was defined as about the last 5 years. Table 5-20 reports the number of valid responses for each category, the number of households that did not respond, and the number of households that did not use a resource category or all resources combined. In Table 5-20, response percentages are based on the number of valid responses for each category to contextualize these assessments within the set of community households that typically use each category. Figure 5-23 depicts responses to the “less, same, more” assessment question. Households that said they did not ordinarily “use” something are not included within the results. This results in fewer responses for less commonly used categories, such as small mammals or marine mammals, and manifests in the chart as a very short series of colored bars (or no colored bars at all) compared to categories such as salmon or vegetation, which are ordinarily used by most households. Some households did not respond to the question. Taking all the resource categories into consideration, 63% Paxson households said they used the same amounts of wild resources in general over the previous 12 months compared to recent years (Table 5-20). A smaller number, 38% of all households, said they used less wild resources in 2013 compared to recent years. No households said they used more. Paxson households reported that use levels of upland game birds, such as grouse and ptarmigan, had changed more than any other resource category (Figure 5-23). One-half of the households with valid responses (50%) reported using less upland game birds during the previous 12 months compared to recent years (Table 5-20). Paxson households reported that use levels of nonsalmon fish and large land mammals, 2 major resource categories, had also declined significantly (38% of households said they used less nonsalmon fish and less large land mammals during 2013). Moreover, use levels of salmon, small land mammals, migratory waterfowl, and vegetation were all reported to have declined by 25%. Table 5-21 depicts the reasons Paxson respondents gave for lower levels of use by resource category. This was an open-ended question, and respondents could provide more than 1 reason for each resource category. Project staff grouped the responses into categories, such as regulations hindering residents from harvesting resources, sharing of harvests, effects of weather on animals and subsistence activities, changes in the animal populations, personal reasons such as work and health, and other outside effects on residents’ opportunities to engage in hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. Of the surveyed households that provided assessments of lowered use in the 2013 survey, the reasons most cited for less use of wild resources overall were that resources were less available, lack of effort, unsuccessful harvest efforts, working/no time, regulation interference, and small/diseased animals (33% each). Lack of equipment, lack of effort, weather/environment, and working/no time were the main reasons cited for less use of salmon and family/personal reasons, resources were less available, travel distance being too far, unsuccessful efforts, and small/diseased animals were the primary reasons given for less use of large land mammals. With regard to reasons for more use of any resource in 2013, increased effort was the most cited reason (67% of households providing a valid response) (Table 5-22). Reasons for more use were given only for the categories upland game birds, marine invertebrates, and vegetation. The impact to households from not getting enough wild resources is reported in Table 5-23. The most notable impacts were for salmon and large land mammals. For salmon, 3 households reported that the impact of not getting enough salmon in 2013 was severe. For large land mammals the impact was noted as minor by 1 household, major by 1 household, and severe for 1 household. For all resources, 3 households said that they did not get enough resources in 2013 and the impact from not getting enough resources with evenly split between minor, major, and severe (1 household each). 246 Table 5-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Paxson, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource888100.0%787.5%787.5%337.5%8100.0%All resources888100.0%337.5%562.5%00.0%00.0%Salmon888100.0%225.0%562.5%112.5%00.0%Nonsalmon fish88787.5%337.5%450.0%00.0%112.5%Large land mammals88675.0%337.5%337.5%00.0%225.0%Small land mammals88225.0%225.0%00.0%00.0%675.0%Marine mammals8800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%8100.0%Migratory waterfowl88450.0%225.0%225.0%00.0%450.0%Other birds88675.0%450.0%112.5%112.5%225.0%Bird eggs8800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%8100.0%Marine invertebrates88337.5%00.0%225.0%112.5%562.5%Vegetation888100.0%225.0%562.5%112.5%00.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.a.Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response.Households not usingSampled householdsResource categoryMoreSameLessValid responsesaTotal householdsHouseholds reporting use247 Figure 5-23.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Paxson, 2013.25%38%38%25%25%50%25%63%50%38%25%13%25%63%13%13%13%13%13%25%75%100%50%25%100%63%SalmonNonsalmon fishLarge land mammalsSmall land mammalsMarine mammalsMigratory waterfowlOther birdsBird eggsMarine invertebratesVegetationPercentage of surveyed households providing a valid response. Unlabeled percentages are less than 5%.Households used LESS in 2013Households used SAME in 2013Households used MORE in 2013Households normally do not use248 Table 5-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Paxson, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource87114.3%229%114.3%114%00%457%All resources8300.0%133%00.0%00%00%133%Salmon8200.0%00%00.0%150%00%150%Nonsalmon fish8200.0%00%00.0%00%00%2100%Large land mammals83133.3%133%133.3%00%00%00%Small land mammals8200.0%2100%00.0%00%00%150%Marine mammals8000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Migratory waterfowl82150.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Other birds84125.0%00%00.0%00%00%125%Bird eggs8000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Marine invertebrates8000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Vegetation8200.0%00%00.0%00%00%150%Table 5-21.–Continued.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource87114.3%342.9%00.0%342.9%228.6%114.3%All resources83133.3%00.0%00%133.3%133.3%133.3%Salmon8200.0%150.0%00%150.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish8200.0%150.0%00%150.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals83133.3%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%133.3%Small land mammals8200.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals8000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl8200.0%00.0%00%150.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds8400.0%00.0%00%125.0%125.0%00.0%Bird eggs8000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates8000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation8200.0%150.0%00%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Resource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useUnsuccessfulWeather/environmentLack of equipmentLess sharingLack of effortResource categoryHouseholds reporting reasons for less useFamily/personalResources less availableToo far to travelValid responsesaTable 5-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Paxson, 2013.-continued--continued-Small/diseased animalsOther reasonsWorking/no timeRegulations249 Table 5-21.–Page 2 of 2.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource8700.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources8300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon8200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish8200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals8300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals8200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl8200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds8400.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation8200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Resource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useEquipment/fuel expenseUsed other resourcesLess competitionDid not get enoughDid not needa. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never using the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.250 Table 5-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Paxson, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource83133.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%133.3%All resources8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds811100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates8100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation8100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource83266.7%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds8100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates811100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation811100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%-continued-Table 5-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Paxson, 2013.-continued-Resource categoryValid responsesaTable 5-22.–Continued.Households reporting reasons for more useIncreased availabilityResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more useIncreased effortHad more helpOtherRegulationsTraveled fartherNeeded moreUsed other resourcesFavorable weatherReceived more251 NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource8300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds8100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates8100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation8100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Valid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more usea. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never use.Table 5-22.–Page 2 of 2.Resource categoryStore-bought expenseGot/fixed equipmentSubstituted resourcesMore successNeeded less252 Table 5-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Paxson, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageSalmon88100.0%337.5%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%3100.0%Nonsalmon fish8787.5%114.3%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates8225.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals8675.0%350.0%00.0%00.0%133.3%133.3%133.3%Marine mammals800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals8225.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%150.0%150.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl8450.0%250.0%00.0%00.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds8675.0%350.0%00.0%00.0%3100.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation88100.0%337.5%00.0%00.0%266.7%133.3%00.0%All resources88100.0%337.5%00.0%00.0%133.3%133.3%133.3%a. Does not includes households failing to respond to the question or those households that never used the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Resource categorySample householdsHouseholds not getting enough _______ .Impact to those not getting enough ______ .Valid responsesaDid not get enoughNo responseNot noticeableMinorMajorSevere253 Table 5-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, Paxson, 1982, 1987, and 2013. Harvest Data Changes in the harvest of resources by Paxson residents can also be discerned through comparisons with findings from previous study years. Comprehensive subsistence harvest surveys were conducted in Paxson– Sourdough for study year 1982 (Stratton and Georgette 1984) and Paxson and Sourdough for study year 1987 (CSIS).5 A comparison of the 1982, 1987, and 2013 harvests for the Paxson area shows fluctuations in per capita subsistence resource harvests by community residents over the 31-year period from 1982 to 2013. In 1982, Paxson–Sourdough residents harvested 124 lb of wild resources per capita and in 1987 Paxson and Sourdough harvested a combined amount 221 lb of wild resources per capita (Stratton and Georgette 1984); CSIS). The harvest in 2013 (214 lb per capita) was comparable with the 1987 per capita harvest (Table 5-24). The composition of harvests by resource category also shifted somewhat. Figure 5-24 summarizes what percentage of the harvest each major resource category contributed to the total annual per capita harvest for the 3 comprehensive study years of 1982, 1987, and 2013. The composition of the harvest has changed over time and is shown in Figure 5-24. The per capita harvest was similar between the 1987 and 2013 surveys. Salmon increased in terms of composition between the 2 study years and large land mammals declined slightly. Nonsalmon fish also declined slightly between the 2 study years. Although a small component of the overall harvest, berries and plants increased in the overall composition from 1987 to 2013. Current and Historical Harvest Areas It is possible to compare historical spatial harvest data with the 2013 study year to determine changes in the search and harvest areas for wild food resources over time. During the 1983 and 1984 fieldwork seasons, ADF&G researchers conducted interviews with more than 200 hunters and fishers in 20 communities in or near the Copper River Basin to map areas where hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering of wild resources occurred between 1964 and 1984 (Stratton and Georgette 1985). This effort produced 2 separate publications by 2 different ADF&G divisions; the Division of Habitat published the maps and the Division of Subsistence published a description of the project and mapping methods. The maps depicting the harvest and use areas used by study community residents during this 20-year span are published in Alaska Habitat Management Guide Southcentral Region: Reference Maps—Volume 3. Community Use of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants 5. During the 1982 survey period the Paxson CDP did not exist; therefore, for sampling purposes, the Division of Subsistence defined the study community as Paxson–Sourdough, which included households extending from Paxson south to mile 147 of the Richardson Highway. Sampling efforts by the division in 1987, however, divided Paxson and Sourdough into 2 separate communities. In 2013 the division’s research team attempted to include the community of Sourdough in the study sample with the households located in Paxson CDP, but there were no longer any permanent year-round residents in the Sourdough community. For historical comparisons of the division’s research, 1987 data documented individually for Paxson and Sourdough were combined to reflect the sampled study areas of 1982 and 2013. Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP All resources 6,822.0 124.0 49.0%14,251.0 221.2 57.8%6,767.9 214.0 48.8% Salmon 1,047.0 19.0 2,153.0 33.4 1,801.0 56.9 Nonsalmon fish 1,622.0 29.5 3,274.0 50.8 1,278.5 40.4 Large land mammals 3,058.0 55.6 6,837.0 106.1 2,667.5 84.3 Small land mammals 147.0 2.7 1,004.0 15.6 462.0 14.6 Birds and eggs 519.0 9.4 666.0 10.3 142.3 4.5 Marine invertebrates ––––25.8 0.8 Vegetation 429.0 7.8 315.0 4.9 390.8 12.4 Note "–" indicates no harvest. Sources For 2013, ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014; for previous study years, ADF&G Division of Subsistence Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS), accessed 2014. 1982 1987 2013 Estimated harvest in pounds usable weight Resource 254 Figure 5-24.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, Paxson, 1982, 1987, and 2013. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1982 1987 2013Estimated per capita harvestStudy year Vegetation Marine invertebrates Birds and eggs Small land mammals Large land mammals Nonsalmon fish Salmon Note Error bars represent the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval. (Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat 1985).6 Information about the mapping project is available in Copper Basin Resource Use Map Index and Methodology (Stratton and Georgette 1985). A total of 6 harvest and use (referred to in this report as “search”) maps were produced that show activities for Paxson–Sourdough area residents for 1964–1984. These maps cover harvest and use areas for select large land mammal species (moose, caribou, and Dall sheep), waterfowl, furbearers (small land mammals), fish (salmon and freshwater fish), and vegetation. Absent from these maps are harvest and use areas for upland game birds, and black and brown bears. Changes in the resource harvest and use/search areas by Paxson area residents can be discerned through limited comparisons of the maps published in 1985, which depict harvest and use areas for 20 years, and the maps produced from this study, which only reflect search and harvest areas for the study year 2013. The 2013 research provides the first known subsistence harvest mapping data available for the Paxson community for a single year. While there are many similarities between the harvest and use/search areas in the historical and the 2013 maps, there also are noticeable differences. In the historical maps, the harvest and use areas cover a wide expanse of land in the Copper River Basin and Copper River tributaries—including the Chitina, Tonsina, Klutina, Gulkana, and Gakona rivers, the remote country north and south of the Denali Highway, and west and east of the Richardson Highway. Additionally, the harvest and use areas follow a long expanse of the Richardson Highway, north through Isabell Pass into the Delta River watershed and south to Gakona Junction. The 2013 harvest and search area maps did not include this extent of geographic area. 6. A complete index of documents published in 1985 and 1986 as part of Alaska Habitat Management Guide is available online: http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/C/AHMG/index.html. 255 With regard to specific species, there are noticeable differences in the harvest and use/search areas in the 2 map sets for moose, caribou, Dall sheep, salmon, nonsalmon fish, small land mammals, and vegetation. The first difference is that the extent of caribou harvest and use areas depicted in the historical maps is much greater than the areas depicted in the 2013 maps. In the historical maps, the caribou search area included Squaw Creek and Alfred Creek near Eureka on the Glenn Highway, covered a large extent of the Amphitheater Mountains, and reached west into the upper Gakona River and upper Chistochina River watersheds. In 2013, no caribou were reportedly sought by Paxson residents in an area of this extent. The difference in harvest and use/search areas for moose when comparing the 2013 study year to the historical maps is similar to the differences for caribou. Historically moose were also sought over a large extent of the Amphitheater Mountains and west into the upper Gakona River and upper Chistochina River watersheds. Additionally the historical maps show that Paxson–Sourdough residents pursued a road hunt strategy along the Richardson Highway from Paxson south to Gakona Junction and that moose were sought all along the Gakona River corridor and in a large area extending south from the Denali Highway from the Maclaren River to the west slope of Paxson Mountain. For the 2013 study, the area where residents focused their moose search areas was similar, but much reduced in size and extent from the area documented for 1964–1984. There were no Dall sheep search areas or hunting activities documented for the 2013 study year. Yet the historical maps depict Dall sheep harvest and use areas north of Paxson in the Alaska Range and on the Nabesna Road in the Wrangell Mountains. The historical maps document Dall sheep hunting activities in the Alaska Range by Paxson–Sourdough residents on Rainbow Ridge, Cantwell Glacier, Eel Glacier, Little Gold Creek, Jarvis Creek, Riley Creek, upper Bear Creek, Morningstar Creek, McCumber Creek, St. Antony Pass, and the Jagged Boulder Plateau. In the Wrangell Mountains, Paxson–Sourdough residents formerly used the Jacksina River watershed and the areas surrounding Sheep Lake and Grizzly Lake for Dall sheep hunting. Similarly, for small land mammals and furbearers, the historical harvest and use maps are more expansive and included McCallum Creek located north of Paxson, an area within the Twelvemile Creek watershed, and the many small lakes near the headwaters of Spring Creek (east of Hogan Hill). These areas were not documented as harvest and search areas for small land mammals on the 2013 maps. Regarding waterfowl, the only change for 2013 was that Paxson residents did not report hunting for migratory birds near Sourdough but did report doing so during 1964–1984. The historical maps show that Paxson residents reported some salmon harvest and use/search areas similar to those of the 2013 study year. However, one difference between the map sets is that the entire Gakona River is documented as a historical salmon fishing area on the 1964–1984 maps and was not reported as a salmon harvest and search area for 2013. Another difference between the map sets is that the 2013 salmon harvest areas include Port Valdez and Bristol Bay; these locations were not reported for 1964–1984. While Paxson residents continue to use many of the nonsalmon fish harvest and use areas documented for 1964–1984, the 2013 study found that Paxson residents’ nonsalmon fish harvest areas have diminished when compared to the areas shown in the historical maps for Paxson–Sourdough. From 1964–1984, Paxson–Sourdough residents fished for nonsalmon fish at multiple lakes in the region southwest of what is now the Paxson CDP, including Fish Lake, Deep Lake, Bog Lake, Ewan Lake, Crosswinds Lake, the Tyone River, Lake Louise, and Old Man Lake. From 1964–1984, Paxson residents also fished for nonsalmon fish at Swede Lake, Little Swede Lake, Sevenmile Lake, Swampy Lakes, Fielding Lake, Two Bit Lake, and Manokonen Lake. None of these lakes or rivers were reported as being used by Paxson residents in 2013. Lastly, historical maps depict some harvest and use areas for vegetation during 1964–1984 that were not reported as harvest and search areas for vegetation in 2013. These include an area along the Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff east of Gakona, the area surrounding Sourdough, and the area around Hogan Hill south of Paxson and east of the Richardson Highway. 256 local coMMentS and concernS Following is a summary of local observations of wild resource populations and trends that were recorded during the surveys in Paxson. Some households did not offer any additional comments or concerns during the survey interviews, so not all households are represented in the summary. In addition, respondents expressed their concerns about wild resources during the community review meeting of preliminary data. These concerns have been included in the summary. Fish Salmon and nonsalmon fish are important traditional wild resources used by Paxson residents for subsistence—especially sockeye salmon, coho salmon, lake trout, and Arctic grayling. Some Paxson residents travel to Prince William Sound to harvest marine fishes—primarily Pacific halibut, but also Pacific cod and rockfish. Additionally some residents use whitefishes for subsistence. Paxson residents commonly harvest nonsalmon fish for subsistence uses by rod and reel methods under sport fishing regulations. Some Paxson residents expressed concern about what they see as a limited ability to harvest lake trout and rainbow trout under current sport fishing regulations. Most Paxson residents put forth considerable annual effort to harvest lake trout during the summer months and community members reported that the lakes inside the Paxson CDP have excellent lake trout fishing. However, as a conservation measure current sport fishing regulations stipulate that from April 16–October 31 only unbaited, single- hook, artificial lures may be used to harvest fish inside of all waters within the Gulkana River drainage. Some Paxson residents expressed concern that these regulations are too strict and unnecessary. These residents believe that disallowing the use of bait to harvest lake trout during summer limits their ability to obtain the harvesting goals for lake trout. A resident explained that it can sometimes be difficult to harvest lake trout under current regulations: When you’ve not been capturing [any lake trout] for 6 days it’s real tempting [to use bait]. Whoever closed this water to bait should be thrown out. There is no reason for it. We bring it up at every one of our advisory meetings. Additionally, Paxson residents expressed concern that current regulations, which require release of all rainbow trout caught in the area, are an unnecessary burden. Several residents expressed a desire to change the catch-and-release-only regulation and obtain an ability to retain rainbow trout caught in the Gulkana River. Today, sockeye salmon and coho salmon are the primary salmon species sought by the community. In the past, Paxson residents made greater use of Chinook salmon for subsistence purposes that were caught using rod and reel methods, but harvest and use of this species has declined in tandem with declines in Chinook salmon abundance and resulting regulatory restrictions in the Copper River and Gulkana River rod and reel sport fisheries, which were both traditional Chinook salmon harvest areas for the community. Today most Paxson residents obtain their salmon by dip net in the Copper River sockeye salmon personal use fishery. In the past Paxson residents also used fish wheels to harvest sockeye salmon on the Copper River but residents explained that no one in the community currently operates a fish wheel. Large Land Mammals Alongside fish, moose and caribou are the most important wild resources for Paxson residents. To obtain moose and caribou, most Paxson residents rely on obtaining federal subsistence moose and caribou permits for GMU 13. These hunts allow federally qualified permit holders to hunt on federal lands within GMU 13 for 1 antlered bull moose from August 1–September 20 and for 1 bull caribou from August 1–September 20 and October 21–March 31 (within subunits 13A and 13B federal permit holders are allowed to harvest caribou of either sex). Some residents also participate in the various large land mammal hunting opportunities available on state land in GMU 13, which include a state general season moose hunt occurring August 20– September 20 (1 bull with spike-fork or 50-in antlers or antlers with 4 or more brow tines on at least 1 side), 257 a state registration caribou hunt occurring August 20–September 20 and October 21–March 31 (1 caribou), and, if successfully drawn, 1 of the 4 state caribou permits available by drawing for areas inside of GMU 13, which occurs August 20–September 20 and October 21–March 31 (1 caribou). During 2013 no Paxson residents participated in the state community subsistence moose or caribou hunts available in GMU 13. Paxson residents expressed various concerns about their ability to obtain moose and caribou for subsistence in their traditional harvest and use areas. Paxson residents’ greatest concern is the large numbers of non- local hunters that come to the Paxson area annually to hunt for moose and caribou in GMU 13, particularly around the Denali Highway area. A Paxson resident explained: The Denali Highway has become progressively busy with more and more hunters over the years. Crowding is a big problem. There is often nowhere to park for hunting. It is overrun with people … makes it much tougher for local people to find game. Indeed, because of easy access to the area for residents of Alaska’s urban communities, particularly Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer, and Wasilla, thousands of hunters attempt to harvest moose and caribou in GMU 13 annually. From the 10 most recently concluded regulatory years (2004–2013) the average number of caribou hunters that hunted in GMU 13 per regulatory year was 3,036 and the average number of moose hunters was 2,623 (WinfoNet7). As a result of this large number of non-local hunters using the area, Paxson residents also expressed frustration that most of the large game resources harvested in the region end up not being consumed locally but instead are consumed in other distant communities. “Most of the meat that comes out of this area leaves this area. There are lots of caribou and moose killed in this area, but it’s not eaten in this area. It is taken somewhere else,” explained one Paxson resident. Paxson residents also believe that many of the hunters that frequent the region prioritize trophy hunting versus hunting for food. “There are too many people that come from too far away, just because they can ride a 4-wheeler. I don’t think 90% of them need the meat in the first place. They just want to kill something. They don’t care, they are all horn hunters,” said one Paxson resident. Another Paxson resident said: Either we need to restrict urban hunters or only allow them to come up every 2 or 3 years … . They come up here all the way from Homer. It’s too damn accessible. They come up here with a $100,000 motor home and 6 4-wheelers. Excessive use of costly motorized equipment by GMU 13 moose and caribou hunters was a continuous theme addressed in the comments provided by Paxson residents. For example, a Paxson resident explained: ATV use is out of control in the Denali Highway area. There is just too much motorized access. Local subsistence hunters cannot compete with those people that come into this area with lots of equipment like motorhomes and 4-wheelers or 6-wheelers. Paxson residents also expressed concern that excessive off-highway motorized vehicle use in the area is creating negative impacts on wildlife behavior and habitat. “People on ATVs are pushing the game animals further and further back from the road,” said one Paxson resident. Residents also said that excessive illegal motorized vehicle use off of designated trails is resulting in land erosion and the destruction of wildlife habitat. Residents observed that caribou migration patterns in the area are becoming abnormal and suggested that excessive off-highway motorized vehicle use may be one cause. Additionally, when caribou hunting opens during winter, hunters often use snowmachines for transport into the area and a Paxson resident expressed concern that snowmachine hunting tactics result in large numbers of caribou “being run to death” in the snow. Paxson residents also said that airboat use for hunting access on the many shallow rivers in the area is creating similar negative impacts to wildlife and hunting opportunities for local residents. While Paxson residents are not completely opposed to motorized use in the area, community members believe that it is imperative for future sustainability of wildlife populations and habitat health in the region that motorized use is better managed and restricted to a larger degree than it is now. 7. ADF&G, WinfoNet: http://winfonet.alaska.gov/ (accessed September 11, 2014). 258 Other community concerns are the state-managed Copper Basin community subsistence moose and caribou hunts (CSH). Some Paxson residents are opposed to the CSH particularly because it provides an opportunity for non-local hunters to harvest moose and caribou beginning on August 10, which is 10 days prior to the opening of the state general season hunt on August 20—a situation which leaves hunters hunting in the general season at a disadvantage. Because they believe that the CSH is both socially and ecologically unsustainable, rather than forming their own CSH group, Paxson residents have chosen to boycott participation in the CSH. “They should get rid of the community hunt, it is a disaster,” said one resident. Paxson residents raised several other issues they see as having negative ecological impacts in the area and concomitantly, negative impacts on their ability to live a subsistence way of life. Another concern for Paxson residents are observations that use of the region by military aircraft may be having a negative impact on caribou and Dall sheep populations. Residents suggested that sonic booms from these aircraft are disturbing caribou and possibly changing their migration patterns. Some Paxson residents also believe that bear predation on moose populations in the area is a major contributor to observed population declines. As a result of these observations some residents desire increased measures of bear control.8 In contrast, some residents expressed disillusionment with the reduction of the wolf populations in the area as a result of the state’s ongoing wolf management program in GMU 13. Increased wolf predation was documented as a factor leading to declines in the GMU 13 moose population beginning in the early 1990s. In 2000, ADF&G implemented an active wolf management program in the region that successfully reduced wolf numbers and led to a 46% increase in moose count numbers in GMU 13 from 2001–2009 (Tobey and Schwanke 2010:158). ADF&G noted that the intensive management program was the primary reason for the increase in moose survival rates (Tobey and Schwanke 2010:158). Despite the success of the wolf control program in helping to increase moose numbers, several Paxson residents expressed distaste for an observed absence of wolves from the area and cited the state’s wolf management program as an unnatural manipulation of the local ecosystem implemented solely to meet an increasing demand for moose hunting opportunities by non-local urban hunters. Lastly, during discussions about large land mammals, Paxson residents often brought up the state- administered Paxson Closed Area (PCA), an area inside GMU 13B closed to the taking of large game under state regulations but recently opened (2014) for the taking of large game by federal permittees on federal lands within the PCA. The PCA is very near most Paxson households and consists of the eastern drainage of the Gulkana River lying west of the Richardson Highway and the western drainage of the Gulkana River between the Denali Highway and the north end of Paxson Lake where the Gulkana River enters Paxson Lake. According to local residents the PCA predates statehood, dating to around 1958, and was created to protect migrating caribou from overharvest by hunters as the caribou travel inside a narrow corridor, and to provide a wildlife viewing area adjacent to the junction of the Richardson and Denali highways. Some Paxson residents expressed opposition to the PCA and others expressed support for the PCA. Some residents strongly oppose the recent opening of the PCA for large game hunting by federal permittees. These residents stated that closure of large game hunting in the PCA is vital to the protection of migrating caribou, moose, and brown bears in the area. Some of the residents who are in support of the PCA recommended that ADF&G improve the signage on the Denali Highway that denotes the PCA and that large land mammal hunting is closed to state permittees because currently the signage is difficult to see and because the brown color of the signs can be confused with signs of the same color that denote areas open to federal permittees in the region. 8. Ongoing research by ADF&G continues to show high neonatal moose calf losses due to bear predation in GMU 13. Based on available research, liberalized hunting regulations have been in effect for brown bears in GMU 13 since the mid-1990s in an attempt to substantially reduce the population of brown bears and increase moose calf survival unit-wide (Tobey and Schwanke 2010). 259 Birds Bird hunting for both upland game birds and migratory waterfowl is an important subsistence activity for Paxson residents. Some community members expressed concern that ptarmigan are being overharvested by non-local hunters in GMU 13. These residents also expressed concern that some ptarmigan hunters using GMU 13 had been hunting for sport only and had failed to follow salvage requirements thus leaving the harvested birds to waste. Residents are particularly concerned about high levels of ptarmigan overharvest that occurs by snowmachine-riding hunters during spring. Residents recommended that snowmachine use for ptarmigan hunting be restricted along the Denali Highway. Residents also recommended that ADF&G reduce the daily bag limit for ptarmigan in GMU 13E from 10 per day to 5 per day and extend the season an additional month from the current March 31 closure to an April 30 closure. Residents believe that the reduced bag limit would help conserve the ptarmigan population during the winter and spring months while the extended season would provide a longer subsistence hunting opportunity for local residents. Regarding migratory waterfowl, some residents expressed concerns about seagull predation on duck eggs and chicks in the area. Residents have observed that seagull predation is having a negative impact on duck reproduction. ACKNoWLEDGMENTS ADF&G Division of Subsistence would like to thank local research assistant Lee Harper for his valuable help in facilitating the Paxson portion of this research. 260 6. TAZLiNA Hannah Johnson coMMunity Background For this study the community defined as Tazlina used the 2010 census boundaries, which consist of the communities of Tazlina and Copperville, including the subdivisions of Aspen Valley, Tazlina Terrace, and Copper Valley School Road. Tazlina is located on the Richardson Highway beginning approximately 5 miles south of the junction with the Glenn Highway for about 3 miles along the highway. The use of the 2010 census designated place (CDP) boundaries most closely represents the boundaries used in the ADF&G study for 1987 (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988). The Tazlina CDP area is intersected by the Copper and Tazlina rivers. The landscape of the area is characterized by lowland spruce–hardwood and river ecosystems that support a diversity of plants and animals.1 Elders of the Tazlina community noted that the area used to be open fields (Stickwan 2006). Today, the ecology is dominated by spruce trees and willow and alder brush. Similar to other Interior communities, Tazlina experiences cold winters with extreme temperatures reaching -74 °F and fairly warm summers with temperatures into the 90s °F.2 The community is named after the Ahtna name for the Tazlina River, Tezdlende (swiftwater) (Kari 2007). Tazlina falls within the traditional territory of the Ahtna Athabascans and was a popular summer fish camp settlement. The majority of Alaska Natives in the community trace their ancestry to the Tazlina River and Dry Creek bands of Ahtna (Reckord 1983b). One elder noted that it was the creation of a military airstrip in Dry Creek that forced her family to settle permanently in Tazlina (Pete 2001). The more recent history of Tazlina and its surrounding subdivisions is grounded in the boom–bust town cycle. Each of the economic boom events caused varying degrees of population growth and an influx of goods and services. Much of the current non-Native population resulted from the discovery of copper and subsequent mining activity at Kennecott and Nabesna in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the building of roads and runways during World War II, and the building of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline through the area in the 1970s. When the Glenn Highway was constructed following the United States’ entry into World War II in the 1940s, people relocated from communities, such as Dry Creek, to settlements along the road, such as at Tazlina; a population inflow also occurred (Pete 2001). However, most of this population was settled temporarily and after the end of the war Alaska experienced a large outmigration of military personnel. A second population boom in the Copper River Basin in the 1970s was connected to pipeline construction and maintenance, as well as baby boomers born to those who settled in the area following the war. The trans-Alaska pipeline population influx is still influencing the Copper River Basin (Sandberg 2013). More residents settled in the community of Tazlina when affordable housing was built in the community in the 1990s. Tazlina is a road-based community with no concentrated community center, except perhaps the Native Village of Tazlina Community Hall and the Tazlina Trading Post (a gas station and general store). In 2013 other local businesses in the area included a wholesale bread distributor, 2 bed-and-breakfast establishments, a freight service, an auto repair service, and an RV park. Many of these businesses rely on tourism. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources divisions of Forestry and Parks and Outdoor Recreation each have offices in Tazlina. Copper Valley Development Association, Copper River Native Association, and the Copper Valley Housing 1. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (ADCCED) Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau. n.d. “Alaska Community Database Online: Community Information.” Accessed August 2014. http://commerce. alaska.gov/cra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/b3f326df-0113-4610-b54a-81a371a4a8e3 2. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (ADCCED) Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau. n.d. “Alaska Community Database Online: Community Information.” Accessed August 2014. http://commerce. alaska.gov/cra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/b3f326df-0113-4610-b54a-81a371a4a8e3 261 Households 111 152 120.0 Population 297 299 352.4 Population 132 78 138.2 Percentage 44.4%26.1%39.2% Sources U.S. Census Bureau (2011) for 2010 estimate; U.S. Census Bureau for American Community Survey 5-year survey estimate; and ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014, for 2013 estimate. Total population Alaska Native Note The term "households" means occupied housing units. Alaska Native population data from the American Community Survey and 2010 census come from the category "race alone or in combination with one or more other races." Census (2010) 5-year American Community Survey (2008–2012) This study (2013) Table 6-1.–Population estimates, Tazlina, 2010 and 2013. Authority are located within Tazlina. Local governing bodies include the Native Village of Tazlina and the Association of Tazlina Residents (a homeowners’ association).3 The Copper Valley Mission School, a boarding school, opened in 1956 and operated in Tazlina for 15 years before it was closed in 1971. In 1976 the school building caught fire and partially burnt down, leaving behind hazardous material in the center of a residential area.4 Since then, students in Tazlina have attended school (grades K–12) in Glennallen. Glennallen also has a Prince William Community College campus. Heating fuel is delivered by Crowley Petroleum Distribution and makes up the bulk of the heating methods used (74%)5 in the community. Electricity is provided through the Copper Valley Electric Association. Both of these service providers are based out of Glennallen. Non-bulk gasoline and diesel are provided by the Tazlina Trading Post or gas stations in Glennallen. Houses in the area are fully plumbed. Houses are mostly equipped with their own wells and are hooked up to septic systems. Some people haul water from Copper Center Safe Water or have it trucked in from Glennallen.6 deMograPhy The 2013 study documented a slightly larger population (352) for Tazlina than the 2010 federal census and the American Community Survey’s 5-year average population estimate (Table 6-1). This difference could be due to different sampling methods (such as how residency is determined or method of contact). These differences could also be due to factors such as work rotations, such as those available in the oil 3. Copper River Valley Development Association, Inc., Tazlina. 2013. “Copper River Regional Energy Plan.” Accessed October 2014. http://www.coppervalley.org/wwd-Energy 4. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Juneau. n.d. “Contaminated Sites Database: Tazlina Copper Valley School, Cleanup Chronology.” Accessed October 2014. http://dec.alaska.gov/Applications/ SPAR/CCReports/Site_Report.aspx?Hazard_ID=25429 5. Copper Valley Development Association, Inc., Tazlina. 2013. “Copper River Regional Energy Plan.” Page 72. Accessed October 2014. http://www.coppervalley.org/wwd-Energy 6. Copper Valley Development Association, Inc., Tazlina. 2013. “Copper River Regional Energy Plan.” Accessed October 2014. http://www.coppervalley.org/wwd-Energy 262 Figure 6-1.–Historical population estimates, Tazlina, 1987–2013. industry, and monthly fluctuations in seasonal residence; seasonal occupation affects residents’ availability to participate in surveys. Earlier population estimates are either incomparable due to differing survey area boundaries (Stratton and Georgette 1984) or inaccurate7 due to survey methods (Alaska Department of Labor 1991). For instance, the 1982 ADF&G study grouped the Tazlina and Copperville subdivisions with Glennallen. At that time, Tazlina and Copperville were not part of a CDP so it was necessary for ADF&G to expand the Glennallen community boundaries to include the Tazlina area households. However, this makes it difficult to flush out demographic estimates for the Tazlina area at the time. Because of this, the historical population estimate data in Figure 6-1 have been assembled to best reflect the 1987 and 2013 (current Tazlina CDP boundary) study areas, which are equivalent. This includes combining the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADLWD) population estimates for Copperville CDP and Tazlina CDP in 1990 (Alaska Department of Labor 1991) and combining the estimates for these CDPs for the 2000 census.8 As the trendline projects, population growth began to stabilize after falling slightly in the 1990s, continuing into the 2000s (Figure 6-1). The 2013 study surveyed 79 households (66%) out of an estimated 120 (Table 6-2). The mean number of people per household was 3 with an average age of 32 (Table 6-3). The average length of residency in the community for heads of households was 16 years, but it is important to note that many people reported having been in the Copper River Basin for much longer. The average length of residency for the 7. The U.S. Census Bureau noted the following about the 1980 census population estimate for Tazlina: “Tazlina was erroneously placed on the 1980 map at the 1990 location of Mendeltna CDP” (Alaska Department of Labor 1991). 8. Note that for the 2010 census that there was no separate Copperville CDP; the 2010 census area for Tazlina CDP combined both the CDPs for Tazlina and Copperville that were used for the 2000 census. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Number of peopleAlaska Department of Labor (estimate)This study (estimate) CSIS (estimate)U.S. Census (count) Trendline Note Estimates for 1990 by ADLWD and 2000 by U.S. Census Bureau are combined values for the Tazlina and Copperville survey areas to align with the 1987 and 2012 study year survey areas. 263 Table 6-2.–Sample achievement, Tazlina, 2013. Tazlina Number of dwelling units 137 Interview goal 137 Households interviewed 79 Households failed to be contacted 27 Households declined to be interviewed 14 Households moved or occupied by nonresident 17 Total households attempted to be interviewed 93 Refusal rate 15.1% Final estimate of permanent households 120 Percentage of total households interviewed 65.8% Interview weighting factor 1.5 Sampled population 232 Estimated population 352.4 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. total population is 12 years. This average is impacted by the large population of younger people in the community. Approximately 36% of Tazlina residents are under the age of 20 (Table 6-4). Overall the number of males in the community exceeded females by approximately 18; the community gender profile was split with 53% males and 47% females (Table 6-4). The 2 largest age groups that contribute to this average comprise the 2 youngest age brackets (0–4 and 5–9) (Figure 6-2). Approximately 24% of heads of household were born either in Tazlina or in communities nearby on the Richardson or Glenn highways and Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff and 40% were born in Alaska (Table 6-5). However, when looking at the community in its entirety rather than just the heads of household, 60% of the residents were born in the Copper River Basin area, with 18% being directly from the Tazlina area (Appendix Table E6- 1). This shows a relatively steady population of locally-born residents (or a low population turnover) when compared to the state average. The ADLWD estimated that in 2010, only 39% of Alaskans were born in the state (Hunsinger et al. 2012). This community also has a large Alaska Native population (39%) (Table 6-3). When speaking to community residents, a clear distinction is often made that Tazlina is considered to be the Native village while Copperville is the non-Native village. Despite these 2 communities being a stone’s throw away from one another and both being inhabited by Native and non-Native people alike, the perception of separation is strong enough to warrant mention. Recent restrictions preventing non-Ahtna people from accessing Ahtna-owned lands has seemed to further this division in some non-Ahtna residents’ opinion. 264 Table 6-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Tazlina, 2013. Characteristics Sampled population 232 Estimated community population 352 Mean 2.9 Minimum 1 Maximum 7 31.8 0 91 28.5 Total population Mean 12.0 Minimuma 0 Maximum 64 Heads of household Mean 16.2 Minimuma 0 Maximum 64 Estimated householdsb Number 50.1 Percentage 41.8% Estimated population Number 138 Percentage 39.2% b. The estimated number of households in which at least 1 head of household is Alaska Native. Alaska Native Minimuma Maximum Median Length of residency a. A minimum age of 0 (zero) is used for infants who are less than 1 year of age. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Mean Household size Age 265 Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage 0–4 19.7 10.7%10.7%13.7 8.2%8.2%33.4 9.5%9.5% 5–9 18.2 9.8%20.5%18.2 10.9%19.1%36.5 10.3%19.8% 10–14 18.2 9.8%30.3%12.2 7.3%26.4%30.4 8.6%28.4% 15–19 15.2 8.2%38.5%10.6 6.4%32.7%25.8 7.3%35.8% 20–24 13.7 7.4%45.9%13.7 8.2%40.9%27.3 7.8%43.5% 25–29 13.7 7.4%53.3%13.7 8.2%49.1%27.3 7.8%51.3% 30–34 9.1 4.9%58.2%7.6 4.5%53.6%16.7 4.7%56.0% 35–39 10.6 5.7%63.9%10.6 6.4%60.0%21.3 6.0%62.1% 40–44 16.7 9.0%73.0%12.2 7.3%67.3%28.9 8.2%70.3% 45–49 9.1 4.9%77.9%12.2 7.3%74.5%21.3 6.0%76.3% 50–54 10.6 5.7%83.6%16.7 10.0%84.5%27.3 7.8%84.1% 55–59 9.1 4.9%88.5%9.1 5.5%90.0%18.2 5.2%89.2% 60–64 6.1 3.3%91.8%3.0 1.8%91.8%9.1 2.6%91.8% 65–69 6.1 3.3%95.1%3.0 1.8%93.6%9.1 2.6%94.4% 70–74 1.5 0.8%95.9%1.5 0.9%94.5%3.0 0.9%95.3% 75–79 1.5 0.8%96.7%6.1 3.6%98.2%7.6 2.2%97.4% 80–84 1.5 0.8%97.5%1.5 0.9%99.1%3.0 0.9%98.3% 85–89 3.0 1.6%99.2%1.5 0.9%100.0%4.6 1.3%99.6% 90–94 1.5 0.8%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%1.5 0.4%100.0% 95–99 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 100–104 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Missing 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Total 185.3 100.0%100.0%167.1 100.0%100.0%352.4 100.0%100.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Age Male Female Total Table 6-4.–Population profile, Tazlina, 2013. 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0–4 5–9 10–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65–69 70–74 75–79 80–84 85–89 90–94 95–99 100–104 Missing Number of people Female Male Figure 6-2.–Population profile, Tazlina, 2013. 266 Table 6-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Tazlina, 2013. Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 6.2% Aniak 0.8% Atka 0.8% Chistochina 1.5% Chitina 3.1% Chuathbaluk 0.8% Copper Center 5.4% Cordova 0.8% Crooked Creek 0.8% Fairbanks 1.5% Glennallen 2.3% Kenai 0.8% Kenny Lake 1.5% Mendeltna 0.8% Mentasta Lake 3.1% Nuiqsut 0.8% Sanak 0.8% Slana 0.8% Tazlina 5.4% Tok 0.8% Tolsona 0.8% Wrangell 0.8% Other U.S.59.2% Foreign 0.8% Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. caSh eMPloyMent and Monetary incoMe Tazlina’s economy is mixed: many people depend on a combination of earned income, non-earned income, and subsistence. The community has some economic opportunity and services, but still relies on the nearby Copper River supply “hub” of Glennallen.9 Table 6-6 is a summary of the estimated sources of income for residents of Tazlina in 2013. The total community income for the 2013 study year was $8,093,961, of which 90% was earned income from employment. During the study year the average household total income was approximately $67,450, of which earned income accounted for an average of $60,406 per household. Table 6-6 shows the per capita income for the Tazlina area ($22,968), which was considerably lower (less than one-half) than the per capita income for the state of Alaska ($50,150).10 The services industry includes positions for personal caretakers, food and beverage services, or security, and accounted for 35% of all jobs in the community (Table 6-7). The second largest job sector in 2013 was government work (including federal, state, and local government jobs). Positions with local government 9. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (ADCCED) Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau. n.d. “Alaska Community Database Online: Community Information.” Accessed August 2014. http://commerce. state.ak.us/cra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/f817207e-7c46-44c2-ae89-1ff22eda3f09. 10. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2014. “Per Capita Personal Income.” Accessed August 2014. http://www.bea.gov/REGIONAL/bearfacts/action.cfm?geoType=3&fips=02000&areatype=02000 267 Table 6-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Tazlina, 2013. Percentage of Number Number Total Mean Per total of of for per capita community Income source people households community household income income Earned income Services 71.4 58.3 $2,261,491 $1,354,054 –$3,290,713 $18,845.76 27.9% State government 27.3 25.0 $1,234,358 $503,760 –$1,984,443 $10,286.32 15.3% Construction 13.7 13.3 $816,796 $280,288 –$1,714,310 $6,806.63 10.1% Federal government 12.2 13.3 $630,813 $203,735 –$1,191,279 $5,256.78 7.8% Local government, including tribal 25.8 21.7 $565,448 $202,875 –$1,040,201 $4,712.06 7.0% Transportation, communication, and utilities 10.6 11.7 $558,085 $122,723 –$1,127,983 $4,650.71 6.9% Retail trade 21.3 20.0 $346,775 $88,327 –$721,894 $2,889.79 4.3% Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 6.1 6.7 $290,641 $77,688 –$1,005,402 $2,422.01 3.6% Mining 4.6 5.0 $222,020 $32,633 –$572,087 $1,850.17 2.7% Other employment 3.0 3.3 $174,814 $68,709 –$477,432 $1,456.78 2.2% Finance, insurance, and real estate 3.0 3.3 $133,334 $33,426 –$382,515 $1,111.12 1.6% Wholesale trade 1.5 1.7 $10,451 $4,206 –$24,781 $87.10 0.1% Manufacturing 3.0 3.3 $3,655 $726 $10,664 $30.46 0.0% Earned income subtotal 174.7 116.7 $7,248,681 $5,447,959 –$8,774,032 $60,406 $20,569 89.6% other income Alaska Permanent Fund dividend 110.9 $266,494 $231,231 –$307,169 $2,221 3.3% Social Security 19.7 $178,865 $73,760 –$327,771 $1,491 2.2% Native corporation dividend 47.1 $109,389 $26,177 –$319,919 $912 1.4% Pension/retirement 10.6 $67,816 $2,500 –$191,684 $565 0.8% Food stamps 10.6 $53,169 $15,385 –$109,415 $443 0.7% Workers' compensation/insurance 1.5 $42,532 $28,000 –$85,063 $354 0.5% Disability 6.1 $38,585 $818 –$95,631 $322 0.5% Veterans assistance 6.1 $27,111 $2,351 –$79,443 $226 0.3% Unemployment 13.7 $26,595 $4,865 –$59,840 $222 0.3% Child support 4.6 $10,481 $456 –$37,367 $87 0.1% Rental income 2.9 $8,571 $543 –$28,571 $71 0.1% Heating assistance 7.6 $5,766 $1,231 –$14,053 $48 0.1% Adult public assistance (OAA, APD)1.5 $5,468 $3,600 –$10,937 $46 0.1% Foster care 1.5 $3,646 $2,400 –$7,291 $30 0.0% Meeting honoraria 1.5 $608 $400 –$1,215 $5 0.0% Supplemental Security income 1.5 $185 $122 –$966 $2 0.0% TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Longevity bonus 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Other 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% CITGO fuel voucher 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% other income subtotal 114.6 $845,279 $5,447,959 –$8,774,032 $7,044 $2,399 10.4% Community income total $8,093,961 $6,221,242 –$9,597,248 $67,450 $22,968 100.0% -/+ 95% CI Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 268 Table 6-7.–Employment by industry, Tazlina, 2013. Jobs Households Individuals Percentage of wage earnings 253.3 116.7 206.6 5.7%11.4%7.0%8.7% Executive, administrative, and managerial 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.5% Natural scientists and mathematicians 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.2% Social scientists, social workers, religious workers, and lawyers 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.3% Teachers, librarians, and counselors 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.4% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.1% Service occupations 1.4%2.9%1.7%0.6% Mechanics and repairers 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.5% 12.8%21.4%15.7%17.0% Executive, administrative, and managerial 1.4%2.9%1.7%2.0% Engineers, surveyors, and architects 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.2% Natural scientists and mathematicians 1.4%1.4%1.7%2.6% Technologists and technicians, except health 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.2% Service occupations 3.5%7.1%4.3%5.3% Mechanics and repairers 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.1% Transportation and material moving occupations 2.1%2.9%2.6%2.8% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.5% Occupation not indicated 1.4%2.9%1.7%1.3% 13.5%18.6%14.8%7.8% Executive, administrative, and managerial 2.8%2.9%1.7%2.2% Teachers, librarians, and counselors 3.5%7.1%4.3%2.6% Health technologists and technicians 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.0% Technologists and technicians, except health 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.2% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 1.4%2.9%1.7%1.0% Service occupations 2.1%4.3%2.6%0.7% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 2.1%2.9%2.6%0.1% 2.8%5.7%3.5%4.0% Agricultural, forestry, and fishing occupations 2.8%5.7%3.5%4.0% 2.1%4.3%2.6%3.1% Service occupations 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.5% Transportation and material moving occupations 1.4%2.9%1.7%2.6% 7.1%11.4%7.8%11.3% Executive, administrative, and managerial 0.7%1.4%0.9%4.0% Mechanics and repairers 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.1% Construction and extractive occupations 3.5%7.1%4.3%4.7% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 2.1%2.9%2.6%1.4% 1.4%2.9%1.7%0.1% Writers, artists, entertainers, and athletes 1.4%2.9%1.7%0.1% 5.0%10.0%6.1%7.7% Executive, administrative, and managerial 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.2% Engineers, surveyors, and architects 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.4% Marketing and sales occupations 1.4%2.9%1.7%1.1% Mechanics and repairers 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.1% Construction and extractive occupations 0.7%1.4%0.9%2.6% Transportation and material moving occupations 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.2% -continued- Transportation, communication, and utilities Construction Mining State government Estimated total number Industry Federal government Local government, including tribal Agriculture, forestry, and fishing Manufacturing 269 Jobs Households Individuals Percentage of wage earnings 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.1% Writers, artists, entertainers, and athletes 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.1% 11.3%17.1%12.2%4.8% Executive, administrative, and managerial 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.2% Marketing and sales occupations 3.5%7.1%4.3%0.9% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.7% Service occupations 3.5%7.1%4.3%1.7% Agricultural, forestry, and fishing occupations 1.4%1.4%1.7%0.1% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.1% Occupation not indicated 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.2% 1.4%2.9%1.7%1.8% Executive, administrative, and managerial 0.7%1.4%0.9%1.2% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.6% 34.8%50.0%40.9%31.2% Executive, administrative, and managerial 7.8%14.3%9.6%12.3% Teachers, librarians, and counselors 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.0% Registered nurses, pharmacists, dietitians, therapists, and physicians assistants 2.8%5.7%3.5%2.3% Health technologists and technicians 2.8%5.7%3.5%3.1% Marketing and sales occupations 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.1% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 1.4%2.9%1.7%0.2% Service occupations 9.9%14.3%12.2%5.6% Mechanics and repairers 2.1%4.3%2.6%2.4% Production working occupations 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.1% Transportation and material moving occupations 3.5%7.1%4.3%4.4% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 1.4%2.9%1.7%0.5% Occupation not indicated 0.7%1.4%0.9%0.1% 1.4%2.9%1.7%2.4% Executive, administrative, and managerial 1.4%2.9%1.7%2.4% Industry Table 6-7.–Page 2 of 2. Wholesale trade Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. industry not indicated Services Finance, insurance and real estate Retail trade agencies made up 14% of all jobs, state government positions provided 13% of community jobs, and federal government positions provided 6% of jobs; combined, government employment composed 33% of total jobs in Tazlina. The services industry and combined government positions composed 31% and 34% of earned income, respectively. Another large contributor to earned income was the construction industry (11% of earned income). Other income sources included Alaska Permanent Fund dividends, Social Security benefits, Native corporation dividends, unemployment benefits, and other assistance program benefits. Combined, Alaska Permanent Fund dividends, Social Security, and Native corporation dividends provided 7% of the total community income (Table 6-6). Remaining types of other income sources each provided less than 1% of the total community income. Tazlina’s unemployment rate was 9% in 2013, which is low compared to most of the other communities in the Copper River valley. However, 37% of Tazlina’s residents described themselves as not being a part of the labor force.11 Eighty-four percent of working-age adults (age 16 or older) in Tazlina were employed in 2013 (Table 6-8). The mean duration of employment was 9 months for each employed individual and 58% of employed adults were employed year-round. The average number of jobs that each employed individual held in 2013 was 1.2. Total jobs averaged 2.1 for employed households. 11. Copper River Valley Development Association, Inc., Tazlina. 2013. “Copper River Regional Energy Plan.” Accessed October 2014. http://www.coppervalley.org/wwd-Energy 270 Community Tazlina 246.1 30.8 206.6 83.9% 253.3 1.2 1 3 8.5 1 12 58.1% 36.7 120 116.7 97.2% 2.1 1 7 1.8 1.7 1 4 42.7Mean person-weeks of employment Minimum Maximum Minimum Total households Number Employed Mean Employed households Months employed Maximum Number Mean weeks employed Maximum Employed adults Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs Number Characteristic Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. All adults Number Mean weeks employed Employed adults Number Households Mean Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs per employed household Maximum Percentage employed year-round Table 6-8.–Employment characteristics, Tazlina, 2013. 271 levelS oF individual ParticiPation in the harveSting and ProceSSing oF wild reSourceS Table 6-9 reports the expanded levels of individual participation in the harvesting and processing of wild resources by all Tazlina residents in 2013. Approximately 89% of all residents participated in harvesting wild resources while 88% participated in processing wild resources. Vegetation had the highest levels of harvesting (79%) and processing (78%) involvement; this high level of participation is reflected in the high amount of use of vegetation by community households. The resource category with the second highest harvesting and processing participation was fish: 70% of people said they participated in harvesting fish, while 73% processed fish. Forty-four percent of the population harvested large land mammals and about 43% processed these resources. Small land mammals and birds and eggs both had roughly 20% of individuals harvesting and processing these resources. The survey included questions about individual participation in wild harvest activities such as working with fish wheels, handicrafts, and cooking wild foods. In Tazlina, 30% of residents built or repaired fish wheels or placed them in the river; this participation rate corresponds to the high level of salmon harvesting that occurs by fish wheel. In 2013, 10% of residents sewed skins or cloth and 68% of residents cooked wild foods (Table 6-10). houSehold reSource harveSt and uSe PatternS and Sharing oF wild reSourceS Table 6-11 summarizes resource harvest and use characteristics for Tazlina in 2013 at the household level. Most households (99%) used wild resources in 2013, while 96% attempted to harvest and 95% harvested resources. The average harvest was 441 lb usable weight per household, or 150 lb per capita. During the study year, community households harvested an average of 7 kinds of resources and used an average of 10 kinds of resources. The maximum number of resources used by any household was 36. In addition, households gave away an average of 4 kinds of resources and 89% of households shared resources with other households. Overall, as many as 129 species were available for households to harvest in the study area; this included species that survey respondents identified but were not asked about in the survey instrument. Previous studies by the Division of Subsistence (Wolfe 1987; Wolfe et al. 2010) have shown that in most rural Alaska communities, a relatively small portion of households produces most of the community’s fish and wildlife harvests, which they share with other households. A recent study of 3,265 households in 66 rural Alaska communities found that about 33% of the households accounted for 76% of subsistence harvests (Wolfe et al. 2010). Although overall the set of very productive households was diverse, factors that were associated with higher levels of subsistence harvests included larger households with a pool of adult male labor, higher wage income, involvement in commercial fishing, and community location. As shown in Figure 6-3, in the 2013 study year in Tazlina, 70% of the harvest of wild resources as estimated in usable pounds was harvested by 28% of the community’s households. Further analysis of the study findings, beyond the scope of this report, might identify characteristics of the highly productive households in Tazlina and the other study communities. The survey included questions about residents’ use of alternative and motorized modes of transportation to access wild food harvest areas and the use of portable motors. Figure 6-4 demonstrates the percentage of community households that used an alternate motorized means of transportation (in addition to or aside from using cars, trucks, or traveling on foot). Approximately 51% of the Tazlina households used ATVs when harvesting wild foods. About 38% of households used boats, 32% used snow machines, and 5% used aircraft. Many residents noted that being on the road system they were able to travel using highway vehicles. The use of portable motors was important for Tazlina; 70% of households that responded used a chain saw, 32% used a winch, 24% used an ice auger, 25% used generators, and 11% used other portable motorized equipment (Figure 6-5). 272 352.4 Number 247.6 Percentage 70.3% Number 258.2 Percentage 73.3% Number 154.9 Percentage 44.0% Number 150.4 Percentage 42.7% Number 68.4 Percentage 19.4% Number 62.3 Percentage 17.7% Number 80.5 Percentage 22.8% Number 75.9 Percentage 21.6% Number 278.2 Percentage 78.9% Number 275.1 Percentage 78.1% Number 312.9 Percentage 88.8% Number 308.4 Percentage 87.5% Process Gather Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Process Total number of people Birds and eggs Fish Large land mammals Hunt Process Attempt harvest Small land mammals Vegetation Any resource Process Fish Process Hunt/gather Process Hunt or trap Table 6-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Tazlina, 2013. 273 Table 6-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Tazlina, 2013. 352.4 Building, maintaining, or moving fish wheels Number 104.0 Percentage 29.5% Number 35.7 Percentage 10.1% Number 240.6 Percentage 68.3% Total number of people Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Sewing skins or cloth Cooking wild foods Figure 6-6 demonstrates the percentage of households that used natural materials for handicrafts; of the households that responded to this question 18% used antlers, 3% used horns, and 5% used bark. Significantly, 22% of households used other raw natural materials, most of which were fur and skins. Wood was one of the community’s top harvested resources. This is in large part because 64% of households supplemented or fully heated their homes with wood (Table 6-12). Fifty-eight percent of households used wood for more than 25% of their home’s heat; the importance of wood used to heat homes and its unavailability was heavily commented upon by survey respondents. harveSt QuantitieS and coMPoSition Table 6-13 reports estimated wild resource harvests and uses by Tazlina residents in 2013 and is organized first by general category and then by species. All edible resources are reported in pounds usable weight (see Appendix B for conversion factors[12]). The “harvest” category includes resources harvested by any member of the surveyed household during 2013. The “use” category includes all resources taken, given away, or used by a household, and resources acquired from other harvesters, either as gifts, by barter or trade, through hunting partnerships, or as meat given by hunting guides and non-local hunters. Purchased foods are not included but resources such as collected firewood are included because they are an important part of the subsistence way of life. Differences between harvest and use percentages reflect sharing among households, which results in a wider distribution of wild foods. In 2013, residents of Tazlina harvested an estimated total of 52,880 lb, or 150 lb per capita, of wild resources (Table 6-13). In terms of pounds harvested, salmon constituted the largest portion (68%) of the community harvest totaling 35,994 lb, or 102 lb per capita (Figure 6-7; Table 6-13). Large land mammals contributed the second highest most usable weight to the 2013 harvest and made up 20% of the harvest (Figure 6-7). The community harvested approximately 10,741 lb of large land mammals, or 31 lb per capita (Table 6-13). Nonsalmon fish contributed 7% of the harvest (3,410 lb total, or 10 lb per capita) (Figure 6-7; Table 6-13). Vegetation made up 3% of the harvest with a total of 1,814 lb, or 5 lb per capita, harvested. Marine invertebrates and birds and eggs both made up approximately 1% of the total harvest. The remaining small land mammal harvests made up less than 1% of the total usable weight harvested. SeaSonal round Tazlina seasonal rounds are largely shaped by regulation, permit access, and availability of resources. In addition to ice fishing, spring marks the end of the commercial trapping season and presents another 12. Resources that are not eaten, such as firewood and some furbearers, are included in the table but are given a conversion factor of zero. 274 Table 6-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Tazlina, 2013. 10.0 Minimum 0 Maximum 36 95% confidence limit (±)8.3% Median 9 8.5 Minimum 0 Maximum 36 95% confidence limit (±)9.9% Median 8 7.0 Minimum 0 Maximum 35 95% confidence limit (±)10.6% Median 6 4.1 Minimum 0 Maximum 15 95% confidence limit (±)9.5% Median 4 3.9 Minimum 0 Maximum 15 95% confidence limit (±)11.2% Median 3 Minimum 0 Maximum 2,227 Mean 440.7 Median 266 52,880.3 150.1 98.7% 96.2% 94.9% 92.4% 88.6% 79 129 Mean number of resources used per household Mean number of resources attempted to harvest per household Mean number of resources harvested per household Mean number of resources received per household Characteristic Percentage using any resource Percentage attempting to harvest any resource Percentage harvesting any resource Mean number of resources given away per household Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Percentage receiving any resource Percentage giving away any resource Number of households in sample Number of resources asked about and identified voluntarily by respondents Household harvest (pounds) Total harvest weight (lb) Community per capita harvest (lb) 275 38% 32% 51% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Boat Snowmachine ATV AircraftPercentage of sampled householdsTransportation type Figure 6-4.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Tazlina, 2013. Figure 6-3.–Household specialization, Tazlina, 2013. 28% of households took 70% percent of the harvest 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cumulative percent of pounds harvestedPercentage of households 276 14% 71% 24% 32% 11% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Generator Chain saw Ice auger Winch Other portable motors or motorized equipmentPercentage of sampled householdsEquipment type Figure 6-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Tazlina, 2013. Figure 6-6.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Tazlina, 2013. 5%3% 18%22% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Birch bark Horns Antlers Other natural materialPercentageofsampled householdsMaterial 277 Table 6-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Tazlina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageTazlina$2,0622835.4%56.3%1417.7%1012.7%1519.0%78.9%76%–99%100%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.CommunityAverage annual cost of home heatingHousehold use of wood for home heating as a percentage of total fuel for heating0%1%–25%26%–50%51%–75%278 Table 6-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Tazlina, 2013.Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per householdAll resources98.796.294.992.488.652,880.3440.7150.114.6 Salmon92.473.470.960.867.135,993.8299.9102.117.2 Chum salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Coho salmon21.521.517.76.313.92,001.316.75.7322.0ind2.758.7 Chinook salmon57.050.645.629.141.84,192.034.911.9305.3ind2.528.0 Pink salmon5.15.15.10.03.8502.64.21.4233.9ind1.978.9 Sockeye salmon92.469.669.658.260.829,297.8244.183.16,388.9ind53.217.6 Landlocked salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Nonsalmon fish68.454.453.253.241.83,409.528.49.727.3 Pacific herring0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring sac roe0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring spawn on kelp0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pacific herring roe on hemlock branches1.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Eulachon (hooligan, candlefish)2.51.31.31.31.32.50.00.00.8gal0.0116.4 Unknown smelt0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific (gray) cod2.50.00.01.31.30.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pacific tomcod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Starry flounder1.31.31.30.00.013.70.10.04.6ind0.0116.4 Lingcod8.98.97.61.37.6153.71.30.464.1ind0.581.9 Pacific halibut49.417.715.238.024.11,253.810.43.61,253.8lb10.452.6 Arctic lamprey0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown rockfish13.910.110.15.13.8387.73.21.196.9ind0.864.2 Unknown sculpin0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Burbot20.316.516.510.15.1324.52.70.9135.2ind1.139.2 Dolly Varden5.16.35.12.53.879.30.70.288.1ind0.768.5 Lake trout6.36.36.30.00.0127.61.10.463.8ind0.584.9 Arctic grayling30.425.325.37.67.6265.82.20.8379.7ind3.229.4 Northern pike1.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sheefish1.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Percentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amountaResource95% confidence limit (±) -continued-279 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Longnose sucker1.31.31.30.00.031.90.30.145.6ind0.4116.4 Cutthroat trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Rainbow trout16.516.516.50.05.1219.01.80.6156.5ind1.337.8 Steelhead2.52.52.50.00.051.00.40.112.2ind0.181.8 Unknown trout0.01.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Broad whitefish3.83.83.83.81.3218.71.80.654.7ind0.574.2 Least cisco0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Humpback whitefish5.13.83.82.51.363.80.50.236.5ind0.370.5 Round whitefish1.31.31.30.00.030.40.30.130.4ind0.3116.4 Unknown whitefishes5.12.52.53.82.5186.11.60.5106.3ind0.982.6 Large land mammals88.665.825.377.240.510,740.889.530.527.9 Bison5.13.81.35.12.5683.55.71.91.5ind0.0116.4 Black bear12.710.16.37.62.5440.53.71.37.6ind0.150.7 Brown bear2.53.81.31.30.0214.21.80.61.5ind0.0116.4 Caribou55.748.112.739.220.32,369.619.76.718.2ind0.236.7 Deer3.80.00.03.80.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mountain goat0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Moose77.262.011.469.630.46,835.457.019.415.2ind0.138.4 Dall sheep5.13.82.51.31.3197.51.60.63.0ind0.081.8 Small land mammals26.620.319.012.77.6113.30.90.349.1 Beaver7.66.35.12.52.522.80.20.138.0ind0.3116.4 Coyote5.16.35.10.01.30.00.00.047.1ind0.4101.6 Red fox–cross phase3.83.83.80.00.00.00.00.013.7ind0.168.8 Red fox–red phase7.67.67.60.00.00.00.00.042.5ind0.465.6 Snowshoe hare3.83.83.80.00.051.60.40.125.8ind0.277.1 North American river (land) otter2.53.82.51.31.30.00.00.012.2ind0.184.3 Lynx6.36.36.30.00.06.10.10.038.0ind0.3116.4 Marmot0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marten6.36.36.30.00.00.00.00.057.7ind0.563.3 Mink2.52.52.50.00.00.00.00.03.0ind0.081.8 Muskrat6.33.83.82.51.35.50.00.06.1ind0.181.8 Porcupine12.76.35.110.13.827.30.20.16.1ind0.157.1 Nonsalmon fish, continuedTable 6-13.–Page 2 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) -continued-280 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Arctic ground (parka) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red (tree) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Least weasel5.15.15.10.00.00.00.00.036.5ind0.367.7 Gray wolf3.86.33.80.00.00.00.00.015.2ind0.178.3 Wolverine2.53.82.50.00.00.00.00.010.6ind0.189.1 Marine mammals7.60.00.07.60.00.00.00.00.0 Fur seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Harbor seal1.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown seal3.80.00.03.80.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sea otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Steller sea lion0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whale5.10.00.05.10.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Birds and eggs43.044.339.210.115.2362.63.01.027.9 Canvasback0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spectacled eider0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Goldeneye1.31.31.30.00.012.20.10.015.2ind0.1116.4 Mallard10.111.48.92.63.844.10.40.144.1ind0.453.0 Unknown merganser1.31.31.30.00.02.70.00.03.0ind0.0116.4 Northern pintail2.53.82.50.01.310.90.10.013.7ind0.1104.1 Black scoter1.31.31.31.31.38.20.10.09.1ind0.1116.4 Northern shoveler1.31.31.30.01.35.50.00.09.1ind0.1116.4 Green-winged teal1.32.51.30.00.00.90.00.03.0ind0.0116.4 Unknown wigeon1.32.51.30.00.02.10.00.03.0ind0.0116.4 Unknown ducks7.63.83.83.82.511.70.10.016.7ind0.166.9 Brant0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cackling goose2.52.51.31.30.01.80.00.01.5ind0.0116.4 Canada goose1.32.51.30.01.314.60.10.012.2ind0.1116.4 Unknown Canada/ cackling geese1.31.31.30.01.33.60.00.03.0ind0.0116.4 Emperor goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snow goose1.31.31.30.00.09.10.10.03.0ind0.0116.4 White-fronted goose0.01.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Small land mammals, continuedTable 6-13.–Page 3 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) -continued-281 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Unknown geese1.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Tundra (whistling) swan1.31.31.30.01.318.20.20.13.0ind0.0116.4 Sandhill crane0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spruce grouse19.021.519.01.35.1111.60.90.3159.5ind1.331.7 Sharp-tailed grouse2.52.52.50.00.010.60.10.015.2ind0.183.4 Ruffed grouse3.85.13.81.31.39.60.10.013.7ind0.173.6 Unknown ptarmigan22.829.121.51.35.185.10.70.2121.5ind1.035.0 Unknown duck eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown goose eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown gull eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marine invertebrates16.57.67.612.76.3446.43.71.376.4 Freshwater clams1.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Razor clams3.82.52.52.50.0296.22.50.898.7gal0.8107.7 Dungeness crab2.50.00.02.50.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown king crab2.50.00.02.51.30.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown tanner crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Octopus0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Shrimp12.75.15.110.15.1150.21.30.4150.2lb1.384.1 Squid0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Vegetation93.787.387.336.746.81,813.915.15.117.2 Blueberry74.770.970.915.231.6994.28.32.8248.6gal2.120.2 Lowbush cranberry44.338.038.08.922.8432.33.61.2108.1gal0.929.0 Highbush cranberry11.411.411.41.35.157.70.50.214.4gal0.157.9 Crowberry8.98.98.90.03.847.80.40.112.0gal0.154.4 Currants2.52.52.50.02.57.60.10.01.9gal0.083.4 Raspberry34.232.932.98.96.3163.11.40.540.8gal0.331.5 Cloudberry3.83.83.80.00.07.80.10.02.0gal0.092.8 Salmonberry2.50.00.02.50.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Twisted stalk berry (watermelon berry)1.31.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Other wild berry3.82.52.51.30.09.10.10.02.3gal0.086.3 Birds and eggs, continuedHarvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) Table 6-13.–Page 4 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)-continued-282 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per householdVegetation, continued Wild rhubarb2.52.52.50.02.50.40.00.00.4gal0.058.6 Eskimo potato1.32.51.30.01.31.10.00.00.3gal0.0116.4 Devils club1.31.31.30.00.00.80.00.00.8gal0.0116.4 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea2.52.52.51.30.021.30.20.121.3gal0.2108.3 Wild rose hips5.15.15.10.01.321.30.20.15.3gal0.068.8 Yarrow2.52.52.50.01.31.90.00.01.9gal0.095.7 Other wild greens6.35.15.11.31.37.70.10.07.7gal0.175.6 Unknown mushrooms10.111.48.92.51.321.20.20.121.2gal0.285.6 Plantain1.31.31.30.00.00.40.00.00.4gal0.0116.4 Stinkweed3.83.83.81.31.318.30.20.118.3gal0.298.1 Bark2.52.50.00.02.50.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Roots1.31.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.0qt0.00.0 Other wood60.858.258.26.324.10.00.00.0438.2cord3.717.3a. Summary rows that include incompatible units of measure have been left blank.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Note Resources where the percentage using is greater than the combined received and harvest indicate use from resources obtained during a previous year.Note For small land mammals, species that are not typically eaten show a non-zero harvest amount with a zero harvest wight. Harvest weight is not calculated for species harvested but not eaten.Table 6-13.–Page 5 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) 283 Figure 6-7.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. Salmon 68% Nonsalmon fish 7% Large land mammals 20% Small land mammals < 1% Birds and eggs 1% Marine invertebrates 1% Vegetation 3% Note Categories having 0 lb of usable weight are not included. opportunity to harvest migratory waterfowl passing through on their way north. Spring is a popular time for bears to be taken. Summertime is dominated by salmon harvesting activity. Chinook salmon are an important resource in the spring, with sockeye salmon making up a larger part of the harvest occurring throughout the summer with coho salmon making important contribution in the fall. Nonsalmon fish, including marine fish, are most heavily harvested in the summer; fishing continues until before freeze-up. Harvesting of small land mammals for food purposes happens in the summer and is mostly opportune hunting activity with some trapping efforts. Fall is an important and productive harvest time for people in the Tazlina area. The season is dominated by large land mammal hunting (mainly moose and caribou). This is largely due to the regulated time periods during which moose and caribou can be taken in game management unit (GMU) 13 (which is the predominantly used GMU in the area) (Figure 6-8). Sheep hunting also occurs in the fall. Fall bird hunting is popular. Migratory waterfowl pass through the area heading south and the spruce grouse and ptarmigan season is open. Late summer and fall are also opportune times for berry harvesting. Winter is a less productive time to harvest resources because of extreme temperatures and less resource availability. Traplines are maintained throughout the winter, but only a small portion of households participate in trapping. During the winter, the bison hunt is also open, although the odds against drawing a bison permit are very high and Alaska residents are only eligible every 10 years. Some caribou are also taken in the winter hunt. Ice fishing (mainly for burbot or lake and rainbow trout) also occurs during winter, but much of the ice fishing happens in the early spring before breakup. Harvesting wood for heat occurs year-round. 284 Figure 6-8.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, Tazlina, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaLake LouiseTokHopeKnikEyakHealyKenaiHomerSlanaBelugaValdezGakonaWillowSuttonPalmerSewardTetlinPortageKasilofCordovaNabesnaChitinaEklutnaSusitnaHoustonNikiskiSterlingGirdwoodNorthwayWhittierSoldotnaSeldoviaTatitlekMcCarthyCantwellSkwentnaNanwalekTanacrossTalkeetnaNinilchikAnchorageClam GulchChickaloonMoose PassKenny LakeEagle RiverChistochinaChenega BayPetersvilleHappy ValleyAnchor PointCopper CenterMentasta LakeMcKinley ParkCooper LandingWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve06030MilesTyonekTAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Search and harvest areasHighway/roadPark and preserve boundarySearch and harvest locations All resources 285 Table 6-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Tazlina, 2013. uSe and harveSt characteriSticS By reSource category Table 6-13 helps identify the roles sharing and receiving resources play in use patterns of resources harvested in 2013. Sharing and receiving are important components to wild resource harvesting. Resources with poor harvest success rates or lower-than-desired harvests were those resources that were most shared. This is reflected most dramatically in the high number of households (77%) receiving large land mammals such as moose (70% of households received) and caribou (39% of households). It is important to note that a small portion of the receiving rates include meat harvested from roadkill salvage programs; however, sharing still remains high despite the extremely low successful harvest rates in Tazlina for large land mammals (11% of households harvested moose and 13% harvested caribou). Salmon also had a high rate of sharing with 61% of households having received salmon, and 67% gave it away. This is significant for 2013 because people said the extreme floods made the salmon less accessible and many people’s fish wheels were damaged or had to be pulled from the river because of spring/early summer flooding. Although some people could not get their fish wheels in the river on time to intercept the big sockeye salmon pulse, almost everyone interviewed (including those who lost fish wheels due to flooding or had to pull them because of high water) knew people they could get fish from or whose wheels they could use. Table 6-14 lists the top resources used by Tazlina households and Figure 6-9 depicts the resources with the largest harvests (1% or more of the total harvest composition as estimated in pounds usable weight per person) in 2013. These rankings nearly mirror each other and indicate that level of use was connected to total pounds harvested. Exceptions to this are vegetation, such as blueberries, which were widely used (75% of households) but contributed a relatively small harvest (2%). Survey respondents indicated that in 2013 there was a low salmon harvest success rate; however, sockeye salmon was still the most harvested resource and contributed 55% of the overall harvest. The second most harvested resource was moose (13%) followed closely by Chinook salmon (8%), and caribou (5%). Vegetation in general made up the most used resource type in the community with 93% of households using vegetation of some type (Table 6-13); 3 kinds of berries were ranked as top used resources (Table 6-14). This is probably due to the ease of harvesting vegetation, much of which people gathered from their yards or their neighborhoods. Ranka Resource Percentage of households using 1.Sockeye salmon 92.4% 2.Moose 77.2% 3.Blueberry 74.7% 4.Chinook salmon 57.0% 5.Caribou 55.7% 6.Pacific halibut 49.4% 7.Lowbush cranberry 44.3% 8.Raspberry 34.2% 9.Arctic grayling 30.4% 10.Unknown ptarmigan 22.8% a.Resources used by the same percentage of households share the lowest rank value instead of having sequential rank values. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 286 Figure 6-9.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013.Sockeye salmon55%Moose13%Chinook salmon8%Caribou5%Coho salmon4%Pacific halibut2%Blueberry2%Bison1%Pink salmon1%Black bear1%All other resources8%NoteThe "allother resources" category represents all species that contributed less than 1% to the total harvest weight.287 Figure 6-10.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. Coho salmon 6% Chinook salmon 12% Pink salmon 1% Sockeye salmon 81% Salmon Salmon is and has historically been the most harvested and used resource in Tazlina (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988). In 2013, 92% of Tazlina households used salmon and 71% of households harvested salmon. Sockeye salmon dominated the type of salmon harvested in the Tazlina area in 2013. Approximately 81% of the harvested salmon (in pounds) was sockeye salmon (Figure 6-10). The harvest of Chinook salmon followed distantly, making up roughly 12% of the salmon harvest, and then coho salmon, which made up 6%, and pink salmon (1% of the salmon harvest). The majority of the sockeye salmon harvest occurred close to the community with fish wheels (Figure 6-11). Coho salmon were predominately harvested with fish wheels (57% of coho salmon harvest weight) and by rod and reel (37%) (Table 6-15). The 2013 salmon season was not considered particularly successful compared to other years by local harvesters. Compounding factors included late spring flooding, high waters that continually damaged fish wheels, and a large pulse of sockeye salmon arriving later in the season. However, many people knew where to procure fish if necessary (borrowed wheels or received from friends) and people also relied on salmon canned from the previous year (2012) when people said harvest efforts were highly successful. Chinook salmon harvests were down significantly from what long-term residents remember of harvests in the past. Out of concern for the stock, many respondents mentioned trying to remove Chinook salmon from the boxes of the fish wheels if it seemed like there was a chance the fish would survive. Almost all harvests of Chinook salmon by Tazlina residents were incidental and caught in fish wheels in operation for sockeye salmon; people made efforts to avoid harvesting Chinook salmon. 288 Figure 6-11.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, Tazlina, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper Riverir Basin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekTanada CreekChitina RiverMcCarthy RoadCreekSilver LakeStrelna LakeTebayRiverO'Brien CreekHaley CreekeweedMntEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y Richardson HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffSuckerLakeTwin LakesTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaChitinaKenny LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesPort ValdezJack BayMt ShastaValdezCopper CenterCopper RiverSockeye salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundarySockeye salmon search and harvest area289 Table 6-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Tazlina, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsSalmonGear type100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.4%0.4%0.0%0.0%85.7%87.5%3.1%3.0%0.0%0.0%88.9%90.5%10.8%9.1%100.0%100.0%Total0.4%0.4%0.0%0.0%85.7%87.5%3.1%3.0%0.0%0.0%88.9%90.5%10.8%9.1%100.0%100.0%Chum salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Coho salmonGear type70.6%76.5%0.0%0.0%3.0%3.6%0.7%0.9%0.0%0.0%2.9%3.5%15.1%22.5%4.4%5.6%Resource5.7%5.7%0.0%0.0%57.1%57.1%0.5%0.5%0.0%0.0%57.5%57.5%36.8%36.8%100.0%100.0%Total0.3%0.3%0.0%0.0%2.5%3.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.6%3.2%1.6%2.0%4.4%5.6%Chinook salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.7%12.8%2.0%5.8%0.0%0.0%4.6%12.6%1.0%3.2%4.2%11.6%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%96.0%96.0%1.5%1.5%0.0%0.0%97.5%97.5%2.5%2.5%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.0%11.2%0.1%0.2%0.0%0.0%4.1%11.4%0.1%0.3%4.2%11.6%Pink salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%29.9%15.3%3.2%1.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.2%1.4%3.2%1.4%Sockeye salmonGear type29.4%23.5%0.0%0.0%92.3%83.6%97.3%93.3%0.0%0.0%92.5%83.9%54.0%59.0%88.1%81.4%Resource0.1%0.1%0.0%0.0%89.8%89.8%3.4%3.4%0.0%0.0%93.3%93.3%6.6%6.6%100.0%100.0%Total0.1%0.1%0.0%0.0%79.2%73.1%3.0%2.8%0.0%0.0%82.2%75.9%5.8%5.4%88.1%81.4%Landlocked salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Any methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodFish wheelDip netResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reel290 Figure 6-12.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. Lingcod 5% Pacific halibut 37% Unknown rockfish 11% Burbot 10% Dolly Varden 2% Lake trout 4% Arctic grayling 8% Rainbow trout 6% Broad whitefish 6% Humpback whitefish 2% Unknown whitefishes 5% Other 4% Nonsalmon Fish Marine fish were the most harvested nonsalmon fish by harvest weight. Pacific halibut made up the majority of the nonsalmon fish harvest (37%), followed by unspecified types of rockfish (11%) (Figure 6-12). Marine fish were harvested mainly by rod and reel, with the exception of eulachon (“hooligan”) and starry flounder, which were caught with dip nets (Table 6-16). The halibut, lingcod, and rockfish were caught off boats— some of the fishing was on charters out of Valdez, while other people used their own personal boats. There was a concerted effort within the community to harvest lake and river fish such as burbot, lake and rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, and Dolly Varden. Burbot, rainbow trout, and lake trout were the only fish caught through the ice (Table 6-16). Most of the freshwater fish were caught by rod and reel. Exceptions to this were whitefishes, which were harvested in the fall with nets. The steelhead and longnose suckers were caught in fish wheels incidentally. Although nonsalmon freshwater fish are enjoyed and were extensively harvested historically (Reckord 1983a), most of the fishing in 2013 was characterized by residents as being conducted with family or friends recreationally rather than as part of a concentrated effort to put up fish (such as people in the community do with salmon). All of the nonsalmon freshwater fish were harvested in the Copper River Basin (see maps in Appendix D). The farthest that people traveled to the north was approximately 65 miles to Paxson Lake, a popular area for harvesting resources; to the south people traveled to McCarthy Road (about 60 miles from Tazlina); and to the west people fished just between Tolsona and Mendeltna (about 35 miles away). Moose Creek in Glennallen was a popular spot to fish for freshwater fish, as well as various lakes in the region. 291 Table 6-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Tazlina, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNonsalmon fishGear type0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%1.9%1.8%5.8%8.9%12.8%18.7%20.6%29.4%79.4%70.6%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%1.9%1.8%5.8%8.9%12.8%18.7%20.6%29.4%79.4%70.6%100.0%100.0%Pacific herringGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring sac roeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.2%0.4%0.1%0.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.1%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.1%0.0%0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.1%Unknown smeltGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific (gray) codGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific tomcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Starry flounderGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.4%2.1%0.9%1.4%0.0%0.0%0.2%0.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.2%0.4%0.2%0.4%0.0%0.0%0.2%0.4%LingcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.2%6.4%2.5%4.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.5%4.5%2.5%4.5%Pacific halibutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%62.4%52.1%49.6%36.8%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%49.6%36.8%49.6%36.8%Arctic lampreyGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring spawn on kelpPacific herring roe on hemlock branchesEulachon (hooligan, candlefish)Any methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodIce fish-continued-ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reel292 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsUnknown rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.8%16.1%3.8%11.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.8%11.4%3.8%11.4%Unknown sculpinGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%BurbotGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%61.9%72.4%8.0%9.7%22.5%28.0%0.9%1.8%5.3%9.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%67.4%67.4%19.1%19.1%86.5%86.5%13.5%13.5%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.6%6.4%1.0%1.8%4.6%8.2%0.7%1.3%5.3%9.5%Dolly VardenGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.4%3.3%3.5%2.3%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.5%2.3%3.5%2.3%Lake troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%5.2%5.0%0.0%0.0%1.5%1.5%2.8%4.7%2.5%3.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%11.9%11.9%0.0%0.0%11.9%11.9%88.1%88.1%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.3%0.4%0.0%0.0%0.3%0.4%2.2%3.3%2.5%3.7%Arctic graylingGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%16.4%5.8%10.2%3.7%16.3%9.5%15.0%7.8%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%14.0%14.0%14.0%14.0%86.0%86.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.1%1.1%2.1%1.1%12.9%6.7%15.0%7.8%Northern pikeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%SheefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Longnose suckerGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%14.1%5.0%8.8%3.2%0.0%0.0%1.8%0.9%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.8%0.9%1.8%0.9%0.0%0.0%1.8%0.9%Cutthroat troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rainbow troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%33.0%22.5%0.9%0.7%9.9%7.2%5.2%6.1%6.2%6.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%31.1%31.1%1.9%1.9%33.0%33.0%67.0%67.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.9%2.0%0.1%0.1%2.0%2.1%4.1%4.3%6.2%6.4%SteelheadGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.7%8.0%2.3%5.1%0.0%0.0%0.5%1.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.5%1.5%0.5%1.5%0.0%0.0%0.5%1.5%Unknown troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rod and reelAny methodPercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodTable 6-16.–Page 2 of 3.-continued-Resource293 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsBroad whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%16.9%34.2%10.5%21.8%0.0%0.0%2.2%6.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.2%6.4%2.2%6.4%0.0%0.0%2.2%6.4%Least ciscoGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Humpback whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%37.5%51.2%0.0%0.0%5.6%5.0%7.0%6.4%0.0%0.0%1.4%1.9%Resource0.0%0.0%50.0%50.0%0.0%0.0%50.0%50.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.7%0.9%0.0%0.0%0.7%0.9%1.4%1.9%0.0%0.0%1.4%1.9%Round whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%62.5%48.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%5.8%3.0%0.0%0.0%1.2%0.9%Resource0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%1.2%0.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.2%0.9%0.0%0.0%1.2%0.9%Unknown whitefishesGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%32.8%29.1%20.4%18.5%0.0%0.0%4.2%5.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.2%5.5%4.2%5.5%0.0%0.0%4.2%5.5%Any methodGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodSubsistence methodsRod and reelResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Table 6-16.–Page 3 of 3.294 Large Land Mammals Large land mammals made up the second most harvested and used resources in Tazlina in 2013, with a wide diversity of species. The second most used and harvested resource was moose (Table 6-14; Figure 6-9). The large land mammal harvest was composed predominantly of moose (64% of large land mammal harvest) followed by caribou (22%), and bison 6% (Figure 6-13). Moose and caribou were singled out by community members as being particularly important in 2013. Moose and caribou were among the most sought-out resources: 62% and 48% of households hunted for moose and caribou, respectively, but harvests were low (about 12% of households harvested these species) (Table 6-13). Most large mammals were taken in the fall (Table 6-17). Nonsubsistence and subsistence moose hunts are regulated to occur in the fall and winter. Many people reported that they prefer the fall hunt since the moose are fatter at that time. Moose hunting in 2013 occurred completely within the bounds of GMU 13 (Figure 6-14). This is probably due to the limited road access into GMU 11 and GMU 12. People felt that overharvesting by non-locals has greatly limited local residents’ ability to harvest moose. In addition to low moose returns, residents also discussed low caribou harvest success. People felt that the caribou were simply not in the right place at the right time—for instance, the animals were on state land during the federal hunt. Similar to moose, caribou hunters had a poor success rate when compared to the percentage of households attempting to harvest. The areas that were hunted for caribou are similar to those of moose (Figure 6-15). Residents of the area who harvested bears said that spring bears are the best for eating. This is reflected in the timing of harvests: spring is when most of the bears were harvested (Table 6-17). Bears taken in the summer during the salmon runs (particularly brown bears) were usually inedible and shot in defense of life or property. One respondent stated that fall black bears, after they have been eating berries, were also tasty. A few people that harvested bears also rendered them for fat. Dall sheep share a similar fall season to moose and caribou; however, Dall sheep only account for 2% of the large land mammal harvest (Figure 6-13). Bison are large animals and the low number harvested in 2013 made up 6% of the total weight of large land mammals harvested. The hunter stated that this is a rare Figure 6-13.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. Bison 6%Black bear 4% Brown bear 2% Caribou 22% Moose 64% Dall sheep 2% 295 Table 6-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Tazlina, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All large land mammals 1.5 0.0 4.6 0.0 4.6 1.5 0.0 9.1 10.6 12.2 0.0 0.0 3.0 47.1 Bison 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Black bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 Brown bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Caribou 1.5 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 Caribou, male 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 Caribou, female 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Deer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mountain goat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Moose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 15.2 Moose, bull 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 13.7 Moose, cow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Dall sheep 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Estimated harvest by month Total occurrence, though, and that people in the community could not depend on a bison permit—thus stressing why moose and caribou are still extremely important, even if there is a year that households do not need to harvest them. The bison hunt targets plains bison that were introduced to Alaska in 1928 and are not part of customary and traditional use. Out of the roughly 15,000 applicants, 100 permits are awarded.13 13. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2014. “Bison Hunting in Alaska.” Accessed November 2014. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=bisonhunting.main 296 Figure 6-14.–Hunting locations of moose, Tazlina, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Susitna RiverSusTyone RiverPaxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeSummit LakeMankomen LakeOshetna RiverTulsona CreekerLakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekMentastaLakeTangle LakesDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Lake LouiseSourdoughGlenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y ighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffLake Louise Road Nelchina RiverNickoli LakeSucker LakeTwin LakesFielding LakePaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseSlanaGakonaChistochinaCopper Center1213B13A13C13D13E13EWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesMoose search areaMoose search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit11IgiugigLevelockAlagnak RiverKvichak River297 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Susitna RiverSusitna RiverTyone RiverPaxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RivererCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeNenanaSummit LakekeDeadmaLaOshetna RiverTulsona CreekDenali HighwayTangle LakesDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Lake LouiseSourdoughGlenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a yGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffLake Louise Road Sucker LakeFielding LakePaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseCopper Center111213B13A13C13D13EWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve02010MilesCaribou search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unitCaribou search areaIgiugigLevelockAlagnak RiverKvichak RiverFigure 6-15.–Hunting locations of caribou, Tazlina, 2013.298 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers The majority of small land mammals and furbearers were harvested by trappers. The exceptions to this were snowshoe hares, porcupines, one-half of the harvested muskrats, and a few beavers and lynx (Figure 6-16). The small mammals harvested for food were mostly hunted opportunistically during the summer months, but some were trapped (Table 6-18). Primarily, trapping occurred during colder months. Animals that were harvested solely for fur use were not considered in the estimated usable weight. Because of this, small land mammals made up less than 1% of the total wild food harvest for Tazlina (Figure 6-7). Serious trapping involves a large investment of both time and money. Those who did so in the community were hobbyists and did not make a profit from trapping. One trapper could remember only 1 year in his time as a trapper in which he landed “in the black.” Martens were heavily trapped the 2013 season (making up about 16% of the small mammal harvest based on individual animals harvested) because prices were high the previous year (Figure 6-17). The second most harvested small mammals were coyotes (13%) and red foxes in their red phase were third (12%). Similar to other harvesting practices, small animal harvesting occurred within the Copper River Basin (Figure 6-18). The trapline farthest from the community ran south of Tazlina Lake, approximately 50 miles away. Hunting for small mammals occurred along the Richardson Highway and along the Denali Highway near Paxson. The most common small mammal harvested for food was the snowshoe hare. All of the 26 hares and all of the 6 porcupines harvested were used entirely for food (Figure 6-16). Fifty percent of muskrats harvested were used for food (3 animals). Lastly, 2 beavers were harvested for food. Characterizing a harvest as being for food does not mean that the animal’s pelts, quills, etc., were not utilized; it simply means the animal was taken primarily as a food resource. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Individual animalsharvestedTotal harvest Fur only Figure 6-16.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Tazlina, 2013. 299 Table 6-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Tazlina, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All small land mammals 91.1 62.3 15.2 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 1.5 18.2 21.3 36.5 71.4 28.9 352.4 Beaver 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.0 Coyote 7.6 10.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 7.6 3.0 47.1 Red fox–cross phase 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.6 0.0 13.7 Red fox–red phase 10.6 7.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 9.1 12.2 0.0 42.5 Snowshoe hare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.8 25.8 North american river (land) otter 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 6.1 0.0 12.2 Lynx 19.7 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 4.6 0.0 38.0 Marmot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marten 25.8 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 57.7 Mink 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Muskrat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 6.1 Porcupine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red (tree) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Least weasel 15.2 9.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 6.1 0.0 36.5 Gray wolf 1.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 9.1 0.0 15.2 Wolverine 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 10.6 Estimated harvest by month Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Total Beaver 11% Coyote 13% Red fox–cross phase 4% Red fox–red phase 12% Snowshoe hare 7%North American river (land) otter 4% Lynx 11% Marten 16% Mink 1% Muskrat 2% Porcupine 2% Least weasel 10% Gray wolf 4% Wolverine 3% Figure 6-17.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Tazlina, 2013. 300 Figure 6-18.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, Tazlina, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Small land mammal and furbearersearch and harvest areaGulkan Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeSusitna LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway ay-TokCutoffLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverNickoli LakeSucker LakeTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseGakonaKenny LakeCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesPaxson LakeGakonaRiverSummit LakeTangle LakesSevenDenali HighwayRichards o n Hi g h w a y Fielding LakePaxsonSmall land mammal and furbearersearch and harvest area Highway/roadPark and preserve boundarySmall land mammal and furbearersearch and harvest area301 Goldeneye 3%Mallard 12% Northern pintail 3% Black scoter 2% Northern shoveler 2% Unknown ducks 3% Canada goose 4% Snow goose 3% Tundra (whistling) swan 5% Spruce grouse 31% Sharp-tailed grouse 3% Ruffed grouse 3% Unknown ptarmigan 23% Other 3% Note No bird eggs were harvested. Figure 6-19.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. Birds and Eggs Upland game birds and migratory birds are both harvested at different times throughout the year. Game birds that were most harvested were spruce grouse (160 birds) and ptarmigan (122 birds (Table 6-13; Figure 6-19). A few local residents said that they had not seen as many ptarmigan in recent years, but that spruce grouse have been common. The other birds most frequently harvested were migratory waterfowl, including ducks and geese. Waterfowl were hunted in the spring and fall as they migrated through the region (Table 6-19). Mallards were the most commonly harvested duck and made up approximately 38% of ducks harvested (Table 6-13). Canada geese were the most common goose hunted, making up 62% of the total goose harvest. Overall, birds made up a small portion (1%) of the total harvest (Figure 6-7). No eggs were harvested from wild birds. Birds were harvested mainly from along the road system. People described driving the road system looking for upland game birds. Some lakes were specifically targeted for waterfowl. However, a few households discussed how the waterfowl were not in their usual areas in 2013 (Figure 6-20). Marine Mammals There was no marine mammal harvest in the community; however, a small number of households did report using seals that they received. Two households reported that they usually received seal oil, but did not receive any that year (Table 6-13). 302 Table 6-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Tazlina, 2013. Winter Spring Summer Fall Season unknown All birds 41.0 115.4 48.6 244.6 0.0 449.6 Canvasback 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spectacled eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Goldeneye 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 15.2 Mallard 0.0 33.4 0.0 10.6 0.0 44.1 Unknown merganser 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Northern pintail 0.0 12.2 0.0 1.5 0.0 13.7 Black scoter 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 Northern shoveler 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 Green-winged teal 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 Unknown wigeon 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 Unknown ducks 0.0 6.1 0.0 10.6 0.0 16.7 Brant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cackling goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 Canada goose 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 Unknown Canada/cackling geese 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Emperor goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snow goose 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 White-fronted goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tundra (whistling) swan 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 Sandhill crane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spruce grouse 3.0 12.2 28.9 115.4 0.0 159.5 Sharp-tailed grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 15.2 Ruffed grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 13.7 Unknown ptarmigan 38.0 12.2 19.7 51.6 0.0 121.5 Unknown duck eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown goose eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown gull eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated harvest by season TotalResource 303 Figure 6-20.–Hunting and harvest locations of migratory waterfowl and upland game birds, Tazlina, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RivererKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeSuslotaCreekTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekTanada CreekMcCarthy RoadSkullCreekSilver LakeStrelna LakeTebayRiverSourdoughCoppereweedMntEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson H i GGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffSuckerLakeTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaChitinaKenny LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesSusitna RiverGulkanaRiv erCopperRiver SanfordRiverCrosswindLakeSusitnaLakeEwanLakeButkte LaeDenalDenali HighwayRichardson Hig h w a yGlennHighway-TokCutoffPaxsonMigratory waterfowl search and harvest areaMigratory waterfowl search and harvest areaMigratory waterfowl search and harvest areaUpland game bird search and harvest areaUpland game bird search and harvest areaUpland game bird search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary304 Marine invertebrates Shrimp and razor clams made up the total marine invertebrates harvest efforts of the Tazlina community (Figure 6-21). One household procured razor clams on the east coast of the Kenai Peninsula at Clam Gulch (Figure 6-22). Another household that had their own boat was able to harvest razor clams in Kachemak Bay near the community of Halibut Cove. The shrimp were harvested in Jack Bay, a small bay off the Port of Valdez. The households that harvested marine invertebrates outside of Valdez and Homer both used their own boats. Marine invertebrates made up less than 1% of the total harvest of wild resources (Figure 6-7). Razor clams 66% Shrimp 34% Figure 6-21.–Composition of marine invertebrates harvest in pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. 305 Figure 6-22.–Fishing and harvest locations of marine invertebrates, Tazlina, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013HomerKasilofNanwalekKachemakNinilchikClam GulchNikolaevskPort GrahamHappy ValleyAnchor Point0105MilesPort ValdezJack BayMt ShastaValdezMarine invertebrate search and harvest areaHighway/roadMarine invertebrate search and harvest areaCook InletKachemak BaySterling HighwayKenai Peninsula Halibut Cove.306 Figure 6-23.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Tazlina, 2013. Berries 95% Plants and greens 4% Mushrooms 1% Vegetation Vegetation is often the most used and harvested category of wild resources in Tazlina. In 2013, 94% of households used vegetation while 87% harvested these resources (Table 6-13). Berry harvests dominated the category; berries made up 95% of the category harvest (Figure 6-23). Blueberries (994 lb) were the most heavily harvested berry, followed by lowbush cranberries (432 lb) and raspberries (163 lb) (Table 6-13). These high harvest weight numbers reflect the convenience of harvesting berries. Most people harvested berries directly within the community; those who harvested berries farther outside of the community did so secondary to other harvesting efforts (Figure 6-24). Plant harvests in addition to berries included a variety of mushrooms (1% of vegetation harvest), and other plants and greens such as rose hips and Hudson’s Bay (Labrador) tea (4% of vegetation harvest) (Figure 6-23; Table 6-13). These plants were also harvested within proximity to the community (Figure 6-24). Wood, however, was the most used and harvested of all the vegetation resources (excluding berries). While not contributing to the community harvest estimated usable weight, 438 cords of wood were harvested by 58% of Tazlina households and used by 61% of households (Table 6-13). 307 Figure 6-24.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, Tazlina, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana RiverTazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeCopperLakeBoulderSilverLakeStrelnaLakeO'Brien CreekEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaKenny LakeLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesGakonaRiverSevenRichards o n Hi g h RichardsonHig h w a yPlant harvest areaPlant harvest areaBerry harvest areaBerry harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryPaxson LakeSummit LakeTangle LakesDenali Highwayy Fielding LakePaxson308 coMParing harveStS and uSeS in 2013 with PreviouS yearS Harvest Assessments For the 10 resource categories and for all resources combined, survey respondents were asked to assess whether their uses and harvests in the 2013 study year were less, more, or about the same as other recent years. “Other recent years” was defined as about the last 5 years. Table 6-20 reports the number of valid responses for each category, the number of households that did not respond, and the number of households that did not use a resource category or all resources combined. In Table 6-20, response percentages are based on the number of valid responses for each category to contextualize these assessments within the set of community households that typically use each category. Figure 6-25 depicts responses to the “less, same, more” assessment question. Households that said they did not ordinarily “use” something are not included within the results. This results in fewer responses for less commonly used categories such as bird eggs or marine mammals, and manifests in the chart as a very short set of colored bars compared to categories such as vegetation, salmon, or large land mammals, which are ordinarily used by most households. Some households did not respond to the question. Taking all the resource categories into consideration, most Tazlina households, 60%, said they used less subsistence resources in general in 2013 compared to recent years (Table 6-20). A smaller number, 35%, said they used about the same amount, and only 5% said they used more. The main reason given for less use of resources overall was work interference or a lack of time to effectively participate in wild resource harvesting (cited by 28% of responding households) (Table 6-21). Some people could only go out 1 or 2 weekends to look for large land mammals, while others were not able to go out at all because of their work schedules. This reason for less use was followed closely by a lack of resource availability (26%). Personal reasons and unfavorable weather were also largely responsible for the less resource harvesting (19%). Thirty-three percent of households that stated they used less salmon and attributed lowered use to weather: 22% said the weather negatively impacted their ability to harvest vegetation. Conflicting work schedules (24%) and a change in the amount of effort (24%) were the main factors that caused people to use less nonsalmon fish. Lack of sharing was cited relatively frequently as the reason for less use of salmon, marine mammals, and migratory birds. Upland game birds (grouse and ptarmigan), vegetation, large land mammals (moose and caribou), small land mammals (rabbits), and salmon and nonsalmon fish were all considered to be in decline in the area. This lack of availability was a large concern for community members and the main reason they harvested fewer game birds (57%) and small land mammals (47%). The lack of availability led to a high rate of unsuccessful harvest attempts, which was the main reason given (26%) for less-than-usual use of large land mammals. Those households that stated they harvested more resources attributed this predominantly to increased efforts (Table 6-22). As stated previously, most households felt they used less wild resources (Table 6-20). An exception to this trend is vegetation: 49% of households felt that use was the same as previous years and 18% indicated they used more. Vegetation and salmon were the 2 resources most frequently identified as being used more than in previous years (15% of households used more salmon). People said that their use was higher for salmon because they received more than usual and for vegetation it was because households had more help to harvest. The impact to households from not getting enough wild resources is reported in Table 6-23. The impact from not getting enough salmon was noted as minor by 9 households, major by 9 households, and severe by 3 household out of 22 households reporting that they did not get enough salmon. For large land mammals the impact was noted as minor by 13 households, major by 19 households, and severe by 8 household out of a total of 42 households that did not get enough. For all resources 53% of households (out of 79) said that they did not get enough resources in 2013 and of those respondents 24% said that the impact from not getting enough resources was minor, 57% said it was major, and 14% said it was severe. 309 Table 6-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tazlina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource797979100.0%6683.5%6582.3%3443.0%79100.0%All resources797979100.0%4759.5%2835.4%45.1%00.0%Salmon79797898.7%3746.8%2936.7%1215.2%11.3%Nonsalmon fish79756278.5%3040.0%2432.0%810.7%1317.3%Large land mammals79757291.1%4762.7%2026.7%56.7%34.0%Small land mammals79742531.6%1723.0%68.1%22.7%4966.2%Marine mammals7978810.1%33.8%33.8%22.6%7089.7%Migratory waterfowl79731620.3%68.2%45.5%68.2%5778.1%Other birds79703544.3%1420.0%1825.7%34.3%3550.0%Bird eggs797911.3%11.3%00.0%00.0%7898.7%Marine invertebrates79761417.7%22.6%810.5%45.3%6281.6%Vegetation79777594.9%2329.9%3849.4%1418.2%22.6%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.a.Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response.Households not usingSampled householdsResource categoryMoreSameLessValid responsesaTotal householdsHouseholds reporting use310 Figure 6-25.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tazlina, 2013.47%40%63%23%8%20%30%37%32%27%8%5%26%11%49%15%11%7%8%5%18%17%66%90%78%50%99%82%SalmonNonsalmon fishLarge land mammalsSmall land mammalsMarine mammalsMigratory waterfowlOther birdsBird eggsMarine invertebratesVegetationPercentage of surveyed households providing a valid response. Unlabeled percentages are less than 5%.Households used LESS in 2013Households used SAME in 2013Households used MORE in 2013Households normally do not use311 Table 6-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tazlina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource79651523.1%3148%46.2%812%1726%2031%All resources7947919.1%1226%12.1%36%49%613%Salmon7936513.9%38%00.0%411%617%26%Nonsalmon fish752900.0%414%26.9%13%310%724%Large land mammals7547714.9%1123%00.0%00%715%49%Small land mammals7415213.3%747%00.0%00%00%213%Marine mammals78300.0%00%00.0%00%3100%00%Migratory waterfowl736116.7%00%00.0%00%117%117%Other birds701417.1%857%00.0%00%17%17%Bird eggs79100.0%00%00.0%00%00%1100%Marine invertebrates76200.0%00%150.0%00%00%00%Vegetation7723417.4%522%28.7%29%14%522%Table 6-21.–Continued.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource79651827.7%1929.2%46.2%2944.6%46.2%11.5%All resources7947714.9%919.1%12%1327.7%12.1%00.0%Salmon793625.6%1233.3%00%513.9%12.8%00.0%Nonsalmon fish752913.4%26.9%00%724.1%00.0%13.4%Large land mammals75471225.5%24.3%12%1123.4%36.4%00.0%Small land mammals741516.7%16.7%17%213.3%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals78300.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl73600.0%116.7%00%233.3%00.0%00.0%Other birds701400.0%214.3%00%428.6%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs79100.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates76200.0%00.0%00%150.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation772300.0%521.7%14%626.1%00.0%00.0%-continued--continued-Small/diseased animalsOther reasonsWorking/no timeRegulationsResource categoryHouseholds reporting reasons for less useFamily/personalResources less availableToo far to travelValid responsesaLack of equipmentLess sharingLack of effortResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useUnsuccessfulWeather/environment312 Table 6-21.–Page 2 of 2.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource796511.5%69.2%710.8%11.5%34.6%All resources794700.0%36.4%12.1%00.0%12.1%Salmon793600.0%38.3%00.0%12.8%00.0%Nonsalmon fish752913.4%26.9%517.2%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals754700.0%12.1%12.1%00.0%24.3%Small land mammals741500.0%16.7%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals78300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl73600.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds701400.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs79100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates76200.0%00.0%150.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation772300.0%14.3%14.3%00.0%00.0%a.Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never using the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Did not needResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useEquipment/fuel expenseUsed other resourcesLess competitionDid not get enough313 Table 6-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tazlina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource793239.4%00.0%00.0%1650.0%618.8%All resources794125.0%00.0%00.0%125.0%125.0%Salmon791200.0%00.0%00.0%541.7%325.0%Nonsalmon fish75800.0%00.0%00.0%450.0%112.5%Large land mammals75400.0%00.0%00.0%250.0%125.0%Small land mammals74100.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%Marine mammals78200.0%00.0%00.0%2100.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl73500.0%00.0%00.0%120.0%00.0%Other birds703133.3%00.0%00.0%133.3%00.0%Bird eggs79000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates76400.0%00.0%00.0%375.0%125.0%Vegetation7714321.4%00.0%00.0%17.1%17.1%NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource79321546.9%721.9%13.1%13.1%00.0%All resources794375.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon7912216.7%18.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish758337.5%112.5%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals754125.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals74100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals78200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl735480.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds703133.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs79000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates76400.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation7714321.4%535.7%17.1%17.1%00.0%Needed moreUsed other resourcesFavorable weatherReceived moreTable 6-22.–Continued.Households reporting reasons for more useIncreased availabilityResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more useIncreased effortHad more helpOtherRegulationsTraveled farther-continued--continued-Resource categoryValid responsesa314 NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource793226.3%00.0%00.0%13.1%00.0%All resources79400.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon791200.0%00.0%00.0%18.3%00.0%Nonsalmon fish75800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals75400.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals74100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals78200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl73500.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds70300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs79000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates76400.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation7714214.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Store-bought expenseGot/fixed equipmentSubstituted resourcesMore successNeeded lessa. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never use.Table 6-22.–Page 2 of 2.Resource categorySource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Valid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more use315 Table 6-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Tazlina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageSalmon797797.5%2228.6%14.5%00.0%940.9%940.9%313.6%Nonsalmon fish796177.2%2947.5%26.9%00.0%2069.0%517.2%26.9%Marine invertebrates791519.0%1280.0%216.7%00.0%1083.3%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals797291.1%4258.3%24.8%00.0%1331.0%1945.2%819.0%Marine mammals79810.1%450.0%00.0%00.0%4100.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals792430.4%1145.8%19.1%00.0%763.6%218.2%19.1%Migratory waterfowl791620.3%956.3%00.0%00.0%666.7%222.2%111.1%Other birds793443.0%1544.1%213.3%00.0%1066.7%213.3%16.7%Bird eggs7911.3%1100.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation797493.7%3547.3%12.9%00.0%1748.6%1234.3%514.3%All resources7979100.0%4253.2%12.4%12.4%1023.8%2457.1%614.3%a. Does not includes households failing to respond to the question or those households that never used the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Resource categorySample householdsHouseholds not getting enough _______ .Impact to those not getting enough ______ .Valid responsesaDid not get enoughNo responseNot noticeableMinorMajorSevere316 Harvest Data Changes in the harvest of resources by Tazlina residents can be discerned through comparisons with findings from other study years. As mentioned in the demographics section, households in the Tazlina and Copperville subdivisions were grouped with Glennallen households for study year 1982 (Stratton and Georgette 1984:73–74). As such, direct comparisons cannot be made for Tazlina area households for the 1982, 1987, and 2012 study years because of this sampling difference. However, the 2012 study area is similar to the one from 1987, which is when comprehensive subsistence harvest surveys were last conducted in Tazlina. Harvest data for 1987 were collected by ADF&G and were used in an environmental assessment for the U.S. Air Force titled Alaska Over-the-Horizon Backscatter Radar System: Characteristics of Contemporary Subsistence Use Patterns in the Copper River Basin and Upper Tanana Area (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988). Survey methods used for 2012 were similar to those applied for the 1987 study year and harvest and use patterns are comparable to help discern changes over time. The total resource harvest in Tazlina in 1987 increased by 13,698 lb in 2013 (Table 6-24). The per capita harvest jumped from 108 lb in 1987 to 150 lb in 2013 (a 39% increase). Despite the difference in per capita harvest, there are notable similarities in the resource harvest patterns between the 2 study years. Both study years show salmon and large land mammals made up the greatest portion of harvested resources (Figure 6-26). Large land mammals made up an estimated 1,697 lb more of the total harvested weight than salmon in 1987 (Table 6-24). In 2013, salmon harvests surpassed large land mammals in weight by roughly 25,200 lb. A lack of success is reflected in the amount of large land mammals harvested per capita in 1987 (43 lb) versus 2013 (31 lb per capita). This low success rate for large land mammal harvests is also subtly reflected in the increased per capita salmon harvest in 2013 (a 64 lb increase from 1987). Many households noted that they concentrated on harvesting salmon more actively to compensate for a lack of large land mammals. Nonsalmon fish made up the third most harvested resource category in both years, however considerably fewer nonsalmon fish were harvested in 2013 (10 lb per capita in 2013, which is down from 19 lb per capita in 1987). Many people who harvested nonsalmon fish noted that they seemed to be less abundant in 2013. People were still catching them, but they were catching less than they used to in the past. Small land mammals harvested by weight (not including harvests just for fur) decreased dramatically from 766 lb in 1987 to 113 lb in 2013 (2 lb per capita to less than one-half lb per capita). This is probably due to most people no longer trapping small land mammals for food, but rather hunting them opportunistically. Vegetation harvests were similar, with a slight per capita increase in 2013. Marine invertebrates and birds and eggs both stayed close to 1 lb per capita in each study year with no eggs being harvested. Current and Historical Harvest Areas During the 1983 and 1984 fieldwork seasons, ADF&G researchers conducted interviews with more than 200 hunters and fishers in 20 communities in or near the Copper River Basin to map areas where hunting, Table 6-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, Tazlina, 1987 and 2013. Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP All resources ––0.0%39,182.0 107.5 22.0%52,880.3 150.1 14.6% Salmon ––13,783.0 37.8 35,993.8 102.1 Nonsalmon fish ––6,741.0 18.5 3,409.5 9.7 Large land mammals ––15,480.0 42.5 10,740.8 30.5 Small land mammals ––766.0 2.1 113.3 0.3 Birds and eggs ––371.0 1.0 362.6 1.0 Marine invertebrates ––368.0 1.0 446.4 1.3 Vegetation ––1,673.0 4.6 1,813.9 5.1 Note No data are available for 1982 because Tazlina was surveyed as part of Glennallen for that study year. Sources For 2013, ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014; for previous study years, ADF&G Division of Subsistence Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS), accessed 2014. 1982 1987 2013 Estimated harvest in pounds usable weight Resource 317 Figure 6-26.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, Tazlina, 1987 and 2013. 0 50 100 150 200 1982 1987 2013Estimated per capita harvestStudy year Vegetation Marine invertebrates Birds and eggs Small land mammals Large land mammals Nonsalmon fish Salmon Note Error bars represent the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval. No data are available for 1982 because Tazlina was surveyed as part of Glennallen for that study year. fishing, trapping, and gathering of wild resources occurred between 1964 and 1984 (Stratton and Georgette 1985). However, Tazlina was included in the Glennallen area and therefore the information produced from this field season is not comparable to those earlier harvest assessments. In spite of not having historical maps to compare to this study’s search and harvest area locations to past areas, surveyors recorded notes from respondents about changes in harvest areas. In Tazlina, people commented that they have to travel farther from the community using the road system to harvest some types of resources, such as moose, caribou, game birds, small mammals, and wood. However, based on trends from other Copper River Basin communities where historical mapping data are available, the actual distance traveled might be greater today than in decades past but the overall area traveled is most likely less than in previous years. This is due to people hunting predominantly from the road system and only venturing off the road by a short distance. Others stated that they no longer harvest particular resources because those resources are no longer available to harvest near the community. local coMMentS and concernS The following is a summary of local observations of concerns regarding wild resource harvests, populations, and trends that were recorded during the surveys in Tazlina. Comments included both general concerns regarding access and cost of living, while others were resource-specific. Some households did not offer any additional information during the survey interviews, so not all households are represented in the summary. In addition, respondents expressed their concerns about wild resources during the community review meeting of preliminary data. These concerns have been included in the summary. 318 Fish Tazlina residents expressed concern about the state of the salmon runs in the Copper River Basin. Overall, people felt that there were fewer salmon in the river than in previous years. Most people attributed declining salmon runs to a changing environment. Later breakup, later snow, rivers not freezing, longer summers, and warmer falls all might be impacting the fish. The river condition was also thought to have impacted the runs—mainly the high water level that persisted through the early summer made it difficult for people to put in their fish wheels. Many people felt that commercial sockeye salmon fishing at the mouth of the river was responsible for overharvesting salmon. However, some felt that the commercial fishermen were not responsible, but rather that fault lies with the regulations that the commercial fishermen operated under. The condition of the fish was mentioned by harvesters who noticed that the sockeye salmon seemed to be more “beat up” than usual and that the meat was softer. Others noted “weird white spots” on the filets, lots of parasites, scrapes, and holes. This has been described in other southern Alaska communities as well, such as Kenai and Egegik. Most people who commented on the physical condition of the fish wondered if the Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011 affected the fish. Lastly, accessing fish resources was also a concern for people in Tazlina. More access to fish wheels and allowing fish wheels in the Tazlina River were seen as ways to increase people’s ability to successfully harvest salmon. Community members also hoped that ADF&G would begin to or continue stocking nonsalmon fish in lakes near the community as it did in the past because the nonsalmon fish populations have been less abundant. Large Land Mammals Large land mammals were of particular concern for the people in the Tazlina area. Many people had strong opinions about the state and federal hunting regulations for large land mammals, specifically moose, caribou, and Dall sheep. In regard to federal regulations, many people preferred the federal hunt because of the “any bull” opportunity for moose. People commented that they avoided the state hunts because of the regulations—including boundaries, hunting location restrictions placed on Tier I hunters, and antler size restrictions. One respondent summed up her sentiment about regulations by stating, “To hunt these days around here [Copper Basin], you need a lawyer and a surveyor.” People expressed the opinion that moose were becoming increasingly difficult to find, especially 4-brow tine bulls, and that there was too much pressure on the moose population by non-local residents. Other regulatory issues that were factors for discontent included difficulties with determining which moose were eligible (e.g., hard to determine between 50 inches and 49 inches) and the belief that the moose season is too early in the fall. Many of these same factors impacting moose harvests were viewed to be impacting caribou hunting efforts as well—particularly that there was too much competition by non-local hunters. By far the most commented-upon issue regarding large land mammals was the “Copper Basin Moose Community Subsistence Harvest Permit Program.”14 The community subsistence hunt originally specified a local community preference. Due to litigation brought against the State of Alaska, in 2011 the community subsistence hunt opportunity was made available to all Alaska residents. The community hunts for moose occur in GMUs 11 and 13 and in a portion of GMU 12. The community hunt for caribou occurs only in GMU 13. People almost exclusively mentioned this hunt in relation to moose. There are fall and winter seasons. At least 25 people are needed to constitute a “community” or group. Many local residents felt that the community hunt now represents the exact opposite of why it was established: they stated that this hunt gives urban hunters the chance to participate in an “any bull” hunt and is not being used for subsistence. Poor success rates when harvesting moose have been largely attributed to the influx of people using a highly sought-after resource. People in the community felt they were being out-competed by better equipped, non- local, non-rural people who had the means to take off work on opportune days (like during the season opener 14. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, n.d. “Cultural and Subsistence Harvest Permits.” Accessed December 2014. http:// www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=huntlicense.cultural 319 or for extended periods of time until successful). Respondents said non-local hunters brought expensive equipment that they had the means to run for extended periods of time, thus allowing them to get farther in to the backcountry quicker, and for an extended duration. Those who were hiking in from the road and manually packing out their meat said that they could not compete. Small Land Mammals/Furbearers The large investment needed run a trapline and the lack of profit in doing so prevent many people in Tazlina from participating in small land mammal harvesting. Many people spoke about having trapped in the past, or that their parents used to trap, but it cost too much money and took too much time to continue trapping today. Other younger people in the community said they did not know how to trap, but expressed a desire in learning. Overall, harvesters thought that small land mammals were in decline from in the past. Trappers in the community noted that some furbearer species were down (lynx) and others were up (wolves). This was attributed to natural cycles. Birds and Eggs In the view of respondents, ptarmigan are becoming less common in the area. Because of this, some perceived spruce grouse as more available to harvest. Waterfowl were not in areas where they usually are and this change impacted people’s ability to harvest migratory bird species. Others commented that all bird populations are down sharply. When people who have lived in the Tazlina area for their entire lives reflected on the status of birds in the area, they said they used to see more. This change, particularly for migratory waterfowl, was thought to have been caused by a warming climate forcing birds to migrate to different areas. Vegetation Access was a major concern for people who heated a portion of their homes with wood. People commented that firewood was becoming harder and harder to come by. In order to get firewood people said that they had to drive quite far to the closest wood lot. This problem was compounded by more people harvesting wood to offset high home heating costs. More people harvesting wood meant that there was less deadfall available. Many people felt the solution to this was for the state to make more wood lots available. A mushroom harvester said that the dry summer reduced mushroom numbers. Another respondent was concerned with the chemicals that the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities was using along the roadside and thought that those were hurting the vegetation. Cost of Harvesting The high use of gas/fuel-powered vehicles restricted people’s harvesting efforts. Fuel and maintenance costs associated with ATVs, snowmachines, boats, cars, and other vehicles impacted people’s harvesting patterns. For example, some people mentioned only being able to go out 1 or 2 weekends to look for moose (this issue was compounded by time restraints, like work, that many people had). If they were unsuccessful in harvesting an animal on those weekends, they did not get any for the season. Those who did not use alternative modes of transportation for getting into the backcountry also felt that they were at a severe disadvantage in their ability to harvest large land mammals compared to the well-equipped non-local hunters. Energy Many residents of Tazlina said that some of the most expensive energy in the country can be found in the Copper River Basin. This high cost of heating was seen as taking away monetary resources that could have 320 otherwise gone to wild resource harvesting. One respondent noted that having to supplement his heating oil stove with so much wood was time-consuming and prevented him from engaging in other harvesting activities. However, high energy costs did not translate into support for the Susitna-Watana dam energy project. This was mainly due to the perception that their area would not benefit from the energy being produced and because many people used the area for hunting and harvesting and were worried about the dam’s impacts. One community member commented, “Alaska is always behind the rest of the country. In the time when all other states are taking dams down, why are we considering putting in dams when they can be so destructive for the environment and the community?” People wondered if the dam would further strain already scarce resources like caribou and moose. This high cost of energy was considered a contributor to the larger overall issue of high cost of living and few economic opportunities. Some people were being “priced out” of the area. This contributed to reinforcing conditions that were forcing people out of the community: fewer people caused job opportunities to become scarcer, which in turn caused schools to close, which again forced more people out of the community. Climate Change People have been noticing later breakups, less reliability in rivers freezing over, snow coming later and lasting longer, but less snow in total. A warmer fall and general warming trends have all been noticed as factors negatively effecting resource harvest. This was thought to be contributing to fewer birds and fish. Rivers not freezing also limit people’s ability to travel in the wintertime off the road system. Subsistence opportunity In regard to subsistence, many people felt that there should be a state rural priority for people in the Copper River Basin for gathering resources in the Copper River Basin. The most common sentiment regarding subsistence was that people coming out with “thousand-dollar operations” from the Matanuska–Susitna Valley, Anchorage, and Fairbanks were not subsistence hunters. Local people felt that they have to compete with lots of toys (i.e., ATVs or tracked vehicles) and money and in the end there is nothing left for them. Others felt that adjustments assisting local residents would give local harvesters more equitable access to resources. This was important to people in the community who described wild resource harvesting as more than food security, but rather part of family traditions, personal identity, and a way to connect generations to the land. Resource Availability The 1987 harvest assessment of the Copper River Basin noted that wild resources were already highly competed for, and predicted that an increase in population would further strain already limited availability (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988). Although the population in the Copper River Basin has remained fairly stable over the past 27 years, as comments in this report show, time has not alleviated this issue. Competition for resources is still one of the biggest concerns for local residents. ACKNoWLEDGMENTS The Division of Subsistence researchers would like to thank the hard working local researchers that made this project possible. We would also like to thank community residents who participated in the survey; the Native Village of Tazlina for their generous support and the use of their facilities; the Alaska Copper River Bed and Breakfast for providing stellar accommodations; and Ahtna, Inc., for their continued assistance. 321 7. ToNSiNA Robbin La Vine and Eric Schacht coMMunity Background Tonsina is situated within the sloping foothills of the Chugach Mountains in the southwest portion of the Copper River Basin and is the last census designated place (CDP) on the Richardson Highway before the city of Valdez. Much of the community is settled in the upper Tonsina watershed where the Tonsina River, Little Tonsina River, and Bernard and Squirrel creeks run together. Tonsina borders the Richardson Highway from its junction with the New Edgerton Highway at Pippin Lake (mile 82) then stretches south to Pump Station 12 (mile 65). The CDP also encompasses the Tonsina controlled use area extending across the mountains east of the Richardson Highway; no private residences were found there. Included in this survey are the small cluster of private properties and homes locally referred to as Serendipity that is located where the Tiekel and Tsina rivers meet in the Chugach Mountains at mile 46 of the Richardson Highway; these households are located south of the Tonsina CDP boundary but outside the Valdez CDP. The upper Tonsina River watershed has long been part of Ahtna Athabascan traditional territory (Bleakley 2014; Reckord 1983a). Tonsina Lake, which drains into the Tonsina River, was the site of a permanent winter village at the time of contact with Euro-Americans in the mid-1800s through the early part of the 20th century, and sites of archaeological significance are scattered along its shore. The southern extension of the upper Tonsina River watershed leading to and through Thompson Pass was used as a seasonal trading route between the Ahtna and their coastal neighbors, the Chugach (Bleakley 2014). The same corridor that served the Ahtna was later used by the military as an access route from Port Valdez to Fort Egbert in Eagle and to serve the needs of prospectors and entrepreneurs seeking fortune in the new American territory. Construction of the trail to Eagle began in 1899 and was complete by 1901. Roadhouses sprang up along the route that were built and operated by private citizens. One of these was the Tonsina Roadhouse, which was built in 1901. Although the original structure burned down in 1928, it was rebuilt in 1929 and still stands today (albeit empty and unused) (Bleakley 2014; Phillips 1984). Contemporary accommodations were built next to the old facility and operate as the Tonsina River Lodge offering a full- service restaurant, bar, and year-round accommodations. Aside from the Tonsina River Lodge parcel and the properties lining the road corridor, the majority of land within the CDP is federally-owned or land belonging to Chugach Native Corporation. Tonsina community households can be found clustered in 3 areas: Tonsina Lodge south, along a small road to the north of and westward along Squirrel Creek, and the remaining residences stretch along the Richardson Highway from the Tonsina River bluff north to the junction with the Edgerton Highway and along the southern and western shore of Pippin Lake. According to a key respondent, much of the contemporary neighborhood of Tonsina Lodge south between Bernard Creek and the highway comes from a single subdivided 80-acre homestead. The upper Tonsina River area shares most primary services with the neighboring communities of Kenny Lake and Willow Creek. Children in the area all attend school in Kenny Lake where there is also a volunteer fire department, a small library, a gas station, and a grocery store. Additionally, lodges and eating establishments along with seasonal gift shops can be found stretched along the Richardson Highway south through Willow Creek. In addition to the Tonsina River Lodge there is the Squirrel Creek State Recreation Site located one-half mile north of the lodge. Residents run small businesses and services from their homes along the road. 322 Households 39 30 39.0 Population 78 71 89.9 Population 8 39 10.2 Percentage 10.3%54.9%11.3% Sources U.S. Census Bureau (2011) for 2010 estimate; U.S. Census Bureau for American Community Survey 5-year survey estimate; and ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014, for 2013 estimate. Total population Alaska Native Note The term "households" means occupied housing units. Alaska Native population data from the American Community Survey and 2010 census come from the category "race alone or in combination with one or more other races." Census (2010) 5-year American Community Survey (2008–2012) This study (2013) Table 7-1.–Population estimates, Tonsina, 2010 and 2013. deMograPhy According to the federal census, in 2010 the Tonsina CDP had 78 residents and 39 households (Table 7-1). The household survey conducted in 2014 found an estimated 2013 population of 90 residents, of which 11% were Alaska Native, and 39 households. These data were derived from a slightly expanded survey area than the Tonsina CDP boundary used for the federal census. Researchers learned that a small emerging community of 12 households that is locally referred to as Serendipity existed south of the Tonsina CDP boundaries but outside the Valdez CDP. On further investigation, only 4 of the 12 households were permanent, year-round residences. After consultation with community members and ADF&G team members, it was determined that these 4 households would be included with the Tonsina survey effort for this study since they identified themselves as Tonsina residents. Figure 7-1 shows the population of Tonsina over time, starting with the 1980 federal census and includes estimates from the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development and data from previous Division of Subsistence surveys that are recorded in the CSIS. The challenge with this particular figure and the population trendline is that boundaries for the CDP changed over time and thus, at least from 1990 to 2000, the CDP area increased resulting in a larger population. In addition, a major difference exists between the boundaries used for all other sources and the earlier Division of Subsistence studies for 1983 and 1987. During the 1980s, Tonsina was surveyed as the stretch of the Richardson Highway from the present-day CDP through the road portion of contemporary Willow Creek to the boundary of the Copper Center CDP. This large sample area more than doubled the population estimates of the 2 earlier division studies. Considering the amount of inter-study discrepancies that exist between decades, the most reliable and comparable data points for this study begin in 2000 and continue to the 2013 study year; these data demonstrate a relatively consistent population over the last 13 years. Prior to the study, the Division of Subsistence researchers consulted with community representatives to identify 39 year-round households of the Tonsina CDP, including Serendipity (Table 7-2). Of these, 23 households (59%) were interviewed. The following data are expanded to cover the remaining households not surveyed. The mean number of years of residency for the entire Tonsina population was 16 years, with the maximum length of residency being 50 years (Table 7-3). The mean number of years of residency for the household head was slightly higher at 20 years. The average age of the Tonsina resident was 42 and the eldest resident at the time of the survey was 87. A larger portion of the population was male; 51 of the 90 323 Figure 7-1.–Historical population estimates, Tonsina, 1980–2013. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Number of peopleAlaska Department of Labor (estimate)This study (estimate) CSIS (estimate)U.S. Census (count) Trendline Note The demography narrative provides details about changed survey areas for study years 1982, 1987, and 2013. Table 7-2.–Sample achievement, Tonsina, 2013. Tonsina Number of dwelling units 46 Interview goal 46 Households interviewed 23 Households failed to be contacted 12 Households declined to be interviewed 4 Households moved or occupied by nonresident 7 Total households attempted to be interviewed 27 Refusal rate 14.8% Final estimate of permanent households 39 Percentage of total households interviewed 59.0% Interview weighting factor 1.7 Sampled population 53 Estimated population 89.9 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 324 Table 7-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Tonsina, 2013. Characteristics Sampled population 53 Estimated community population 90 Mean 2.3 Minimum 1 Maximum 6 41.8 0 87 45 Total population Mean 16.1 Minimuma 0 Maximum 50 Heads of household Mean 20.1 Minimuma 0 Maximum 50 Estimated householdsb Number 5.1 Percentage 13.0% Estimated population Number 10 Percentage 11.3% Mean Household size Age b.The estimated number of households in which at least 1 head of household is Alaska Native. Alaska Native Minimuma Maximum Median Length of residency a.A minimum age of 0 (zero) is used for infants who are less than 1 year of age. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. residents. The largest age cohort of the entire population was women between the ages of 60 and 64 (17% of the female population) and the largest age cohort for men (20%) fell between the ages of 50 and 59 (Table 7-4; Figure 7-2). The largest cohort for the entire community population combined (30%) was between the ages of 50 and 64, however a significant portion of the population (24%) was between the ages of 25 and 39, with17% of the population represented by youths between the ages of 0 and 14. Very few of the household heads in Tonsina were born in the Copper River Basin—just 8%—and a vast majority were born elsewhere in the U.S. (70%), or outside the U.S. (8%) (Table 7-5). A larger portion of the entire population was born in the Copper River Basin (25%) most of whom were born in Tonsina (19% of the entire population) (Appendix Table E7-1). 325 Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage 0–4 5.1 10.0%10.0%1.7 4.3%4.3%6.8 7.5%7.5% 5–9 3.4 6.7%16.7%0.0 0.0%4.3%3.4 3.8%11.3% 10–14 1.7 3.3%20.0%3.4 8.7%13.0%5.1 5.7%17.0% 15–19 0.0 0.0%20.0%0.0 0.0%13.0%0.0 0.0%17.0% 20–24 1.7 3.3%23.3%1.7 4.3%17.4%3.4 3.8%20.8% 25–29 3.4 6.7%30.0%3.4 8.7%26.1%6.8 7.5%28.3% 30–34 5.1 10.0%40.0%1.7 4.3%30.4%6.8 7.5%35.8% 35–39 3.4 6.7%46.7%5.1 13.0%43.5%8.5 9.4%45.3% 40–44 1.7 3.3%50.0%0.0 0.0%43.5%1.7 1.9%47.2% 45–49 1.7 3.3%53.3%1.7 4.3%47.8%3.4 3.8%50.9% 50–54 5.1 10.0%63.3%5.1 13.0%60.9%10.2 11.3%62.3% 55–59 5.1 10.0%73.3%1.7 4.3%65.2%6.8 7.5%69.8% 60–64 3.4 6.7%80.0%6.8 17.4%82.6%10.2 11.3%81.1% 65–69 5.1 10.0%90.0%0.0 0.0%82.6%5.1 5.7%86.8% 70–74 1.7 3.3%93.3%0.0 0.0%82.6%1.7 1.9%88.7% 75–79 0.0 0.0%93.3%1.7 4.3%87.0%1.7 1.9%90.6% 80–84 1.7 3.3%96.7%0.0 0.0%87.0%1.7 1.9%92.5% 85–89 0.0 0.0%96.7%1.7 4.3%91.3%1.7 1.9%94.3% 90–94 0.0 0.0%96.7%0.0 0.0%91.3%0.0 0.0%94.3% 95–99 0.0 0.0%96.7%0.0 0.0%91.3%0.0 0.0%94.3% 100–104 0.0 0.0%96.7%0.0 0.0%91.3%0.0 0.0%94.3% Missing 1.7 3.3%100.0%3.4 8.7%100.0%5.1 5.7%100.0% Total 50.9 100.0%100.0%39.0 100.0%100.0%89.9 100.0%100.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Age Male Female Total Table 7-4.–Population profile, Tonsina, 2013. 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 0–4 5–9 10–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65–69 70–74 75–79 80–84 85–89 90–94 95–99 100–104 Missing Number of people Female Male Figure 7-2.–Population profile, Tonsina, 2013. 326 Table 7-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Tonsina, 2013. Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 2.7% Glennallen 2.7% Juneau 2.7% Kenny Lake 2.7% Petersburg 2.7% Tonsina 2.7% Other U.S.70.3% Foreign 8.1% Missing 5.4% Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. caSh eMPloyMent and Monetary incoMe Table 7-6 is a summary of the estimated earned income as well as other sources of income for residents of Tonsina in 2013. The total community income for the 2013 study year was $3,328,007, of which $2,996,836 was earned income from employment. Other income derived from retirement, rental property, the sale of personal items and other assistance and dividends amounted to $331,171 for the entire community. During the study year the average household total income was approximately $85,334, of which earned income accounted for an average of $76,842 per household, or approximately 90% of the total community income. The estimated per capita earned income was $37,032. Other income contributed approximately 10% of the total community income, or $8,492 per household. The greatest contributing job sectors by percentage of total community income were services (36% of total community income) and agriculture, forestry, and fishing (27% of total community income). The largest sources of other income were Social Security and Alaska Permanent Fund dividends, which provided approximately 5% and 2% of the total community income, respectively. In 2013, most of the jobs held by Tonsina residents (approximately 40%) came from the services sector and provided approximately 41% of the earned income (Table 7-7). Other employment sectors of significance included local and tribal governments (including employment at schools) (17% of jobs but only 7% of the earned income) and agriculture, forestry, and fishing (10% of jobs but 30% of the earned income). An estimated 70 adults were of working age (over 16) in Tonsina, of which 65 (or 93%) were employed at some point throughout the study year (Table 7-8). Of these employed adults 55% were employed year- round with the mean length of employment averaging just less than 9 months during the study year. There were 95 jobs reported by the community with some individuals holding as many as 3 different jobs over the course of the 2013 study year and the mean being 1.5 jobs per working adult. On the household level, 37 of the 39 households (95%) contained at least 1 adult who was employed during 2013. The average number of jobs during the study year per employed household was 2.4; the average number of employed adults per employed household was 1.8. 327 Table 7-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Tonsina, 2013. Percentage of Number Number Total Mean Per total of of for per capita community Income source people households community household income income Earned income Services 25.4 18.5 $1,214,664 $370,495 –$2,741,307 $31,145 36.5% Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 8.5 8.2 $883,612 $18,193 –$2,290,515 $22,657 26.6% Mining 5.1 6.2 $210,846 $50,914 –$553,522 $5,406 6.3% Local government, including tribal 11.9 14.4 $203,443 $21,606 –$376,662 $5,216 6.1% Construction 3.4 4.1 $197,382 $40,569 –$582,483 $5,061 5.9% Federal government 5.1 4.1 $115,735 $35,654 –$312,511 $2,968 3.5% Retail trade 1.7 2.1 $101,136 $48,563 –$259,242 $2,593 3.0% State government 5.1 6.2 $55,658 $953 –$189,971 $1,427 1.7% Manufacturing 1.7 2.1 $10,669 $1,306 –$26,671 $274 0.3% Transportation, communication, and utilities 1.7 2.1 $3,690 $2,139 –$10,527 $95 0.1% Earned income subtotal 54.3 36.9 $2,996,836 $1,800,992 –$5,010,061 $76,842 $33,347 90.0% other income Social Security 10.2 $152,249 $40,114 –$300,626 $3,904 4.6% Alaska Permanent Fund dividend 37.3 $74,778 $54,939 –$93,091 $1,917 2.2% Rental income 4.3 $27,529 $120 –$98,526 $706 0.8% Other 1.7 $20,348 $12,000 –$40,696 $522 0.6% Unemployment 5.1 $17,727 $10,455 –$44,318 $455 0.5% Sales (property/garage sales, etc.)2.6 $13,000 $89 –$43,875 $333 0.4% Pension/retirement 5.1 $6,686 $3,943 –$22,168 $171 0.2% Disability 3.4 $6,382 $3,764 –$20,057 $164 0.2% Longevity bonus 3.4 $6,003 $3,540 –$14,243 $154 0.2% Heating assistance 5.1 $2,586 $1,525 –$6,189 $66 0.1% Native corporation dividend 1.7 $2,543 $1,500 –$5,087 $65 0.1% Veterans assistance 3.4 $1,340 $790 –$4,576 $34 0.0% 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Adult public assistance (OAA, APD)0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Supplemental Security income 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Food stamps 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Workers' compensation/insurance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Child support 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Foster care 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% CITGO fuel voucher 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Meeting honoraria 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% other income subtotal 37.5 $331,171 $182,563 –$514,098 $8,492 $3,685 10.0% Community income total $3,328,007 $2,092,798 –$5,309,959 $85,334 $37,032 100.0% -/+ 95% CI Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) 328 Table 7-7.–Employment by industry, Tonsina, 2013. Jobs Households Individuals Percentage of wage earnings 95.2 36.9 64.8 6.3%11.1%9.4%3.9% Technologists and technicians, except health 2.1%5.6%3.1%0.1% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 2.1%5.6%3.1%1.2% Service occupations 2.1%5.6%3.1%2.5% 6.3%16.7%9.4%1.9% Technologists and technicians, except health 4.2%11.1%6.3%0.1% Transportation and material moving occupations 2.1%5.6%3.1%1.8% 16.7%38.9%21.9%6.8% Teachers, librarians, and counselors 10.4%22.2%12.5%5.1% Writers, artists, entertainers, and athletes 2.1%5.6%3.1%0.2% Service occupations 4.2%11.1%6.3%1.5% 10.4%22.2%15.6%29.5% Agricultural, forestry, and fishing occupations 10.4%22.2%15.6%29.5% 6.3%16.7%9.4%7.0% Construction and extractive occupations 4.2%11.1%6.3%5.3% Transportation and material moving occupations 2.1%5.6%3.1%1.8% 8.3%11.1%6.3%6.6% Mechanics and repairers 4.2%5.6%3.1%1.1% Construction and extractive occupations 4.2%11.1%6.3%5.5% 2.1%5.6%3.1%0.4% Writers, artists, entertainers, and athletes 2.1%5.6%3.1%0.4% 2.1%5.6%3.1%0.1% Transportation and material moving occupations 2.1%5.6%3.1%0.1% 2.1%5.6%3.1%3.4% Executive, administrative, and managerial 2.1%5.6%3.1%3.4% 39.6%50.0%46.9%40.5% Executive, administrative, and managerial 20.8%22.2%31.3%31.5% Engineers, surveyors, and architects 2.1%5.6%3.1%2.5% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 4.2%11.1%6.3%2.7% Service occupations 4.2%5.6%3.1%0.2% Mechanics and repairers 2.1%5.6%3.1%0.9% Construction and extractive occupations 2.1%5.6%3.1%2.5% Transportation and material moving occupations 4.2%11.1%6.3%0.2% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated total number Industry Federal government Mining Services Retail trade Transportation, communication, and utilities Manufacturing Construction Agriculture, forestry, and fishing Local government, including tribal State government 329 Community Tonsina 69.5 35.9 64.8 93.2% 95.2 1.5 1 3 8.9 4 12 54.9% 38.5 39 36.9 94.7% 2.4 2 6 1.8 1.7 1 6 40.8 Characteristic Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. All adults Number Mean weeks employed Employed adults Number Households Mean Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs per employed household Maximum Percentage employed year-round Maximum Employed adults Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs Number Mean person-weeks of employment Minimum Maximum Minimum Total households Number Employed Mean Employed households Months employed Maximum Number Mean weeks employed Table 7-8.–Employment characteristics, Tonsina, 2013. 330 levelS oF individual ParticiPation in the harveSting and ProceSSing oF wild reSourceS Table 7-9 reports the expanded levels of individual participation in the harvest and processing of wild resources by all Tonsina residents in 2013. Approximately 83% of all residents participated in the harvest of wild resources while 89% participated in the processing of wild resources. With reference to specific resource categories, more people processed than harvested resources, which is a common pattern in particular for the harvesting and processing of large land mammals and salmon. It is less commonly seen when there is opportunistic harvesting of plants and berries. In Tonsina, 83% of community members gathered vegetation while 85% processed; 60% of community members participated in the harvest of fish while 72% processed; 38% participated in hunting large land mammals while about 51% processed large land mammals; about 25% participated in hunting birds and 30% processed; and about 9% participated in hunting and trapping small land mammals while 17% processed harvests. The survey included questions about individual participation in wild harvest activities such as working with fish wheels, handicrafts, and cooking wild foods. In Tonsina, 6% of residents built or repaired fish wheels or helped to place or remove a fish wheel. In 2013, 13% of residents sewed skins or cloth and 72% of residents cooked wild foods (Table 7-10). houSehold reSource harveSt and uSe PatternS and Sharing oF wild reSourceS Table 7-11 summarizes resource harvest and use characteristics for Tonsina in 2013 at the household level. Most households (96%) used wild resources in 2013, while 87% attempted to harvest and 87% harvested resources. The average harvest was 459 lb usable weight per household, or 199 lb per capita. During the study year, community households harvested an average of 8 kinds of resources and used an average of 11 kinds of resources. The maximum number of resources used by any household was 29. In addition, households gave away an average of 3 kinds of resources with 78% of households sharing resources with other households and 87% of households receiving resources from others. Overall, as many as 117 species were available for households to harvest in the study area; this included species that survey respondents identified but were not asked about in the survey instrument. Previous studies by the Division of Subsistence (Wolfe 1987; Wolfe et al. 2010) have shown that in most rural Alaska communities, a relatively small portion of households produces most of the community’s fish and wildlife harvests, which they share with other households. A recent study of 3,265 households in 66 rural Alaska communities found that about 33% of the households accounted for 76% of subsistence harvests (Wolfe et al. 2010). Although overall the set of very productive households was diverse, factors that were associated with higher levels of subsistence harvests included larger households with a pool of adult male labor, higher wage income, involvement in commercial fishing, and community location. As shown in Figure 7-3, in the 2013 study year in Tonsina, about 69% of the harvested wild resource as estimated in usable pounds was harvested by 22% of the community’s households. Further analysis of the study findings, beyond the scope of this report, might identify characteristics of the highly productive households in Tonsina and the other study communities. The survey included questions about residents’ use of alternative or motorized modes of transportation to access wild food harvest areas as well as the use of portable motors for harvesting activities. Figure 7-4 demonstrates the percentage of community households that used an alternate means of transportation (in addition to or aside from using cars, trucks, or traveling on foot). Approximately 52% of the Tonsina households used an ATV when harvesting wild foods and the same percentage (52%) used snowmachines. About 30% of households used a boat, and 4% of households each used aircraft and a dog sled when harvesting wild resources. Seventy percent of households used a chain saw, 48% used an ice auger, 30% used a generator, and 26% of households used a winch (Figure 7-5). 331 89.9 Number 54.3 Percentage 60.4% Number 64.4 Percentage 71.7% Number 33.9 Percentage 37.7% Number 45.8 Percentage 50.9% Number 8.5 Percentage 9.4% Number 15.3 Percentage 17.0% Number 22.0 Percentage 24.5% Number 27.1 Percentage 30.2% Number 74.6 Percentage 83.0% Number 76.3 Percentage 84.9% Number 74.6 Percentage 83.0% Number 79.7 Percentage 88.7% Process Gather Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Process Total number of people Birds and eggs Fish Large land mammals Hunt Process Attempt harvest Small land mammals Vegetation Any resource Process Fish Process Hunt/gather Process Hunt or trap Table 7-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Tonsina, 2013. 332 Table 7-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Tonsina, 2013. 89.9 Building, maintaining, or moving fish wheels Number 5.1 Percentage 5.7% Number 11.9 Percentage 13.2% Number 64.4 Percentage 71.7% Total number of people Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Sewing skins or cloth Cooking wild foods Figure 7-6 demonstrates the percentage of households that used natural materials for handicrafts; 9% used antlers and 4% used bark. Significantly, 22% of households used other raw natural materials, most of which were fur and skins. In most Copper River Basin communities, firewood is commonly used to supplement home heating if not used as the primary source. Table 7-12 demonstrates the percentage of sampled households that used wood for home heating in Tonsina. Approximately 17% of the sampled households used only firewood to heat their homes, while the same number (17%) did not use wood at all. The vast majority of sampled households (approximately 83%) used at least some firewood, or solely used firewood, to heat their homes, and the average cost of home heating was estimated to be around $2,001 a year. harveSt QuantitieS and coMPoSition Table 7-13 reports estimated wild resource harvests and uses by Tonsina residents in 2013 and is organized first by general category and then by species. All edible resources are reported in pounds usable weight (see Appendix B for conversion factors[1]). The “harvest” category includes resources harvested by any member of the surveyed household during the study year. The “use” category includes all resources taken, given away, or used by a household, and resources acquired from other harvesters, either as gifts, by barter or trade, through hunting partnerships, or as meat given by hunting guides and non-local hunters. Purchased foods are not included but resources such as firewood are included because they are an important part of the subsistence way of life. Differences between harvest and use percentages reflect sharing among households, which results in a wider distribution of wild foods. In 2013, residents of Tonsina harvested an estimated total of 17,913 lb, or 199 lb per capita, of wild resources (Table 7-13). In terms of pounds harvested, salmon constituted the largest portion of the community harvest (51%) totaling 9,145 lb, or 102 lb per capita (Figure 7-7; Table 7-13). Large land mammals as a category contributed the second most usable weight to the 2013 harvest (30%) (Figure 7-7). The community harvested approximately 5,461 lb of large land mammals, or 61 lb per capita (Table 7-13). Nonsalmon fish contributed 11% of the harvest with 1,883 lb total, or 21 lb per capita. Vegetation and small land mammals/furbearers both made up 3% of the harvest with 6 lb per capita each, and marine invertebrates and birds each made up approximately 1% or less of the harvest (Figure 7-7; Table 7-13). 1. Resources that are not eaten, such as firewood and some furbearers, are included in the table but are given a conversion factor of zero. 333 Table 7-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Tonsina, 2013. 11.4 Minimum 0 Maximum 29 95% confidence limit (±)19.0% Median 10 8.7 Minimum 0 Maximum 28 95% confidence limit (±)26.8% Median 7 8.2 Minimum 0 Maximum 27 95% confidence limit (±)27.1% Median 7 3.7 Minimum 0 Maximum 11 95% confidence limit (±)21.8% Median 3 3.2 Minimum 0 Maximum 13 95% confidence limit (±)30.0% Median 2 Minimum 0 Maximum 2,706 Mean 459.3 Median 276 17,912.9 199.3 95.7% 87.0% 87.0% 87.0% 78.3% 23 117 Mean number of resources used per household Mean number of resources attempted to harvest per household Mean number of resources harvested per household Mean number of resources received per household Characteristic Percentage using any resource Percentage attempting to harvest any resource Percentage harvesting any resource Mean number of resources given away per household Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Percentage receiving any resource Percentage giving away any resource Number of households in sample Number of resources asked about and identified voluntarily by respondents Household harvest (pounds) Total harvest weight (lb) Community per capita harvest (lb) 334 30% 52%52% 4%4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Boat Snowmachine ATV Dogsled AircraftPercentage of sampled householdsTransportation type Figure 7-4.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Tonsina, 2013. Figure 7-3.–Household specialization, Tonsina, 2013. 22% of households took 69% percent of the harvest 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cumulative percent of pounds harvestedPercentage of households 335 30% 70% 48% 26% 0%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Generator Chain saw Ice auger Winch Other portable motors or motorized equipmentPercentage of sampled householdsEquipment type Figure 7-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Tonsina, 2013. Figure 7-6.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Tonsina, 2013. 4%0% 9% 22% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Birch bark Horns Antlers Other natural materialPercentage of sampled householdsMaterial 336 Table 7-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Tonsina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageTonsina$2,001417.4%313.0%521.7%417.4%313.0%417.4%Average annual cost of home heatingHousehold use of wood for home heating as a percentage of total fuel for heating0%1%–25%26%–50%51%–75%76%–99%100%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Community337 Table 7-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Tonsina, 2013.Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per householdAll resources95.787.087.087.078.317,912.9459.3199.339.9 Salmon87.052.252.273.943.59,145.0234.5101.845.5 Chum salmon4.34.34.30.00.08.70.20.11.7ind0.0132.8 Coho salmon30.421.721.717.417.4569.014.66.391.6ind2.363.8 Chinook salmon43.530.430.430.413.0535.513.76.039.0ind1.063.6 Pink salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sockeye salmon87.052.252.260.943.58,031.8205.989.41,751.6ind44.949.2 Landlocked salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown salmon4.30.00.04.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Nonsalmon fish82.656.556.556.530.41,882.748.320.955.2 Pacific herring0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring sac roe0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring spawn on kelp0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Eulachon (hooligan, candlefish)4.34.34.30.04.3169.64.31.952.2gal1.3132.8 Unknown smelt0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific (gray) cod4.30.00.04.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pacific tomcod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Starry flounder0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown flounder4.34.34.30.00.025.40.70.38.5ind0.2132.8 Lingcod8.74.34.34.34.316.30.40.26.8ind0.2132.8 Pacific halibut65.213.013.056.513.0512.113.15.7512.1lb13.1131.9 Arctic lamprey4.34.34.34.30.01.00.00.01.7ind0.0132.8 Unknown rockfish26.113.013.013.04.3203.55.22.350.9ind1.374.2 Unknown sculpin0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Salmon shark4.30.00.04.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Burbot17.417.417.40.04.3150.63.91.762.7ind1.691.4 Brook trout4.34.34.30.04.335.60.90.425.4ind0.7132.8 Dolly Varden17.417.417.40.04.387.02.21.096.7ind2.587.2 Lake trout17.417.417.40.013.0159.44.11.879.7ind2.069.2 Arctic grayling21.721.721.70.00.093.82.41.0134.0ind3.487.0 Northern pike0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Percentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amountaResource95% confidence limit (±) -continued-338 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Longnose sucker4.34.34.30.00.01.20.00.01.7ind0.0132.8 Cutthroat trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Rainbow trout21.721.721.70.04.3427.311.04.8305.2ind7.8110.2 Unknown trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Broad whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Least cisco0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Humpback whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Round whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whitefishes0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Large land mammals82.647.830.456.539.15,460.8140.060.852.7 Bison4.30.00.04.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black bear21.717.413.08.713.0393.410.14.46.8ind0.278.2 Brown bear4.34.34.30.04.3239.16.12.71.7ind0.0132.8 Caribou47.830.426.126.121.73,086.179.134.323.7ind0.654.4 Deer4.34.34.30.04.3216.25.52.45.1ind0.1132.8 Mountain goat4.30.00.04.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Moose69.634.88.747.817.41,526.139.117.03.4ind0.191.8 Dall sheep8.74.30.08.70.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Small land mammals26.121.721.74.38.7531.813.65.9128.5 Beaver8.78.78.70.04.3381.59.84.227.1ind0.7132.8 Coyote8.78.78.70.00.00.00.00.018.7ind0.5101.6 Red fox–cross phase8.78.78.70.00.00.00.00.010.2ind0.391.8 Red fox–red phase8.78.78.70.00.00.00.00.020.3ind0.591.8 Snowshoe hare4.34.34.30.00.017.00.40.28.5ind0.2132.8 North American river (land) otter4.34.34.30.00.00.00.00.010.2ind0.3132.8 Lynx17.413.013.04.38.781.42.10.989.9ind2.3132.8 Marmot4.34.34.30.00.00.00.00.01.7ind0.0132.8 Marten13.013.013.00.00.00.00.00.088.2ind2.387.5 Mink4.34.34.30.00.00.00.00.017.0ind0.4132.8 Muskrat8.78.78.70.04.351.91.30.6334.0ind8.6132.8 Porcupine4.34.34.30.00.00.00.00.08.5ind0.2132.8 Nonsalmon fish, continuedTable 7-13.–Page 2 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) -continued-339 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Arctic ground (parka) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red (tree) squirrel4.34.34.30.00.00.00.00.01.7ind0.0132.8 Least weasel13.013.013.00.00.00.00.00.095.0ind2.490.4 Gray wolf8.78.78.70.00.00.00.00.011.9ind0.3114.6 Wolverine8.78.78.70.00.00.00.00.011.9ind0.3100.6 Marine mammals0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Fur seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Harbor seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sea otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Steller sea lion0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whale0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Birds and eggs34.839.134.84.38.7212.65.52.470.4 Canvasback0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spectacled eider0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Goldeneye4.34.34.30.04.35.40.10.16.8ind0.2132.8 Mallard8.78.78.70.08.718.70.50.218.7ind0.5120.8 Northern pintail0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black scoter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Green-winged teal4.34.34.30.00.01.00.00.03.4ind0.1132.8 Unknown ducks0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brant0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cackling goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Canada goose0.04.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown Canada/ cackling geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Emperor goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snow goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 White-fronted goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Small land mammals, continuedTable 7-13.–Page 3 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) -continued-340 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Tundra (whistling) swan0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sandhill crane0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spruce grouse30.434.830.40.00.053.41.40.676.3ind2.065.4 Sharp-tailed grouse4.34.34.30.04.37.10.20.110.2ind0.3132.8 Ruffed grouse13.013.013.04.34.317.80.50.225.4ind0.793.8 Unknown ptarmigan17.417.417.40.04.3109.22.81.2156.0ind4.079.6 Unknown duck eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown goose eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown gull eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marine invertebrates39.113.013.026.14.3144.13.71.680.1 Freshwater clams0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Razor clams0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Dungeness crab4.30.00.04.30.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown king crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown tanner crab4.30.00.04.30.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Octopus4.30.00.04.30.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Shrimp34.813.013.021.74.3144.13.71.6144.1lb3.780.1 Squid0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Vegetation91.387.087.017.443.5535.813.76.050.8 Blueberry52.247.847.84.313.0211.15.42.352.8gal1.445.3 Lowbush cranberry34.830.430.44.313.054.31.40.613.6gal0.356.9 Highbush cranberry13.013.013.00.08.7135.73.51.533.9gal0.9107.1 Crowberry4.34.34.30.00.06.80.20.11.7gal0.0132.8 Nagoonberry4.34.34.30.00.01.70.00.00.4gal0.0132.8 Raspberry43.543.543.50.017.483.12.10.920.8gal0.547.0 Other wild berry0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea4.34.34.30.00.00.80.00.00.8gal0.0132.8 Sourdock4.34.34.30.00.01.70.00.01.7gal0.0132.8 Other wild greens4.34.34.30.00.01.70.00.01.7gal0.0132.8 Unknown mushrooms26.126.126.10.08.731.40.80.331.4gal0.876.1 Birds and eggs, continuedHarvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) Table 7-13.–Page 4 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)-continued-341 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per householdVegetation, continued Fireweed13.08.78.74.38.77.60.20.17.6gal0.2118.3 Alder4.34.34.30.00.00.00.00.01.7cord0.0132.8 Other wood87.073.973.913.013.00.00.00.0179.7cord4.630.5Table 7-13.–Page 5 of 5.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±) Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Note Resources where the percentage using is greater than the combined received and harvest indicate use from resources obtained during a previous year.Note For small land mammals, species that are not typically eaten show a non-zero harvest amount with a zero harvest wight. Harvest weight is not calculated for species harvested but not eaten.a. Summary rows that include incompatible units of measure have been left blank.342 Figure 7-7.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013. Salmon 51% Nonsalmon fish 11% Large land mammals 30% Small land mammals 3% Birds and eggs 1% Marine invertebrates 1%Vegetation 3% Note Categories having 0 lb of usable weight are not included. SeaSonal round Residents of Tonsina harvest a wide variety of resources and like most rural Alaska communities they often target specific species during certain times of the year following a cyclical harvest pattern that is in part defined by seasonal availability and in part by laws, regulations, and land access. Harvest efforts for particular resources are not defined by a calendar year; for example, trapping is an activity that bridges one year to the next, connected by a season that begins in the late fall (usually once the snow has arrived) and extends through February and sometimes into March. In the spring once waterways are clear of ice, most Copper River Basin communities turn their attention to preparing for the harvest of salmon; in 2013, more than 50% of the Tonsina harvest was salmon. Chinook and sockeye salmon arrive in the Copper River watershed by late May. Some salmon can be harvested close to the community on the Tonsina River, but the majority of the salmon harvest is taken from the Copper River by fish wheel near Chitina and Copper Center. Salmon are harvested intensively from mid-June through July; the late-run coho salmon are harvested locally or out of Valdez into August. Other late spring and mid-summer activities include hunting for bears and migratory waterfowl, trapping for water-based furbearers such as muskrats and beavers, and rod-and-reel fishing for nonsalmon fish at the local ponds, lakes, and waterways. Of particular importance for some Tonsina residents is the chartering of deep sea boats out of Valdez to fish for Pacific halibut, rockfish, lingcod, and other saltwater species through the summer months. Plants and berries are harvested in the community and locally along the Richardson Highway mostly during the summer months and into early fall. As in most places throughout the Copper River Basin and the rest of Alaska, fall is hunting season and the second most important annual opportunity to fill freezers in preparation for winter (the first being salmon). While some caribou were harvested in the winter months most of the animals were harvested in September and October. Many Tonsina residents hunt for moose locally, but most travel north to Paxson and the Denali Highway to hunt for caribou. Fall is also when the bulk of the bird harvests take place for both migratory 343 Figure 7-8.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, Tonsina, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaLake LouiseTokHopeKnikEyakEsterHealyKenaiHomerSlanaBelugaTelidaNenanaValdezGakonaWillow SuttonPalmerSewardTetlinPortageNikolaiChickenKasilofCordovaNabesnaChitinaEklutnaSusitnaHoustonNikiskiSterlingAndersonNorthwayWhittierSeldoviaTatitlekMcCarthyCantwellSkwentnaDot LakeDry CreekFairbanksBig DeltaTanacrossTalkeetnaNinilchikPedro BayAnchorageClam GulchMoose PassKenny LakeNikolaevskHealy LakeEagle RiverChistochinaChenega BayPetersvilleHappy ValleyAnchor PointPort AlsworthCopper CenterMentasta LakeMcKinley ParkDelta JunctionCooper LandingLake MinchuminaManley Hot SpringsWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve07537.5MilesTONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Search and harvest areasHighway/roadPark and preserve boundarySearch and harvest locations All resources Tyonek344 Table 7-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Tonsina, 2013. Ranka Resource Percentage of households using 1.Sockeye salmon 87.0% 2.Moose 69.6% 3.Pacific halibut 65.2% 4.Blueberry 52.2% 5.Caribou 47.8% 6.Chinook salmon 43.5% 6.Raspberry 43.5% 8.Shrimp 34.8% 8.Lowbush cranberry 34.8% 10.Coho salmon 30.4% a.Resources used by the same percentage of households share the lowest rank value instead of having sequential rank values. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. waterfowl and upland game birds; additionally, a significant proportion of the upland game birds harvests occur during winter. The community of Tonsina has a few households that actively engage in trapping both as a way of life and a means of supplementing income. As noted earlier, trapping for furbearers occurs primarily during the winter months after the first snow with the productive months extending from November through February. Harvesting firewood is a year-round activity and occurs mostly locally and south along the Richardson Highway. While the majority of Tonsina 2013 harvest activities occurred within the community and the Copper River Basin, residents traveled as far north as the Fairbanks area to harvest upland game birds, southwest to the Kenai Peninsula for salmon and nonsalmon fish, and throughout Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska for fish and deer (Figure 7-8). uSe and harveSt characteriSticS By reSource category Table 7-13 helps identify the roles sharing and receiving resources play in use patterns of resources harvested in 2013. Estimates of sharing indicate that 87% of Tonsina households received wild resources from other households and 78% of households gave resources away. Salmon, large land mammals, and vegetation were the most commonly shared resources. Salmon were used by 87% of households, given away by 44% of households, and received by 74% of households. Large land mammals were used by 83% of households, given away by 39% of households, and received by 57% of households. Vegetation was used by 91% of households—the most of any resource category—and 44% of households gave away while 17% received vegetation resources. Table 7-14 lists the top resources used by Tonsina households and Figure 7-9 depicts the resources with the largest harvests (1% or more of the total harvest composition as estimated in pounds usable weight per person) during the 2013 study year. Sockeye salmon was the most used resource (89% of the households) and made the largest contribution to the community harvest (45% of harvest). Moose was the second most used resource in Tonsina (70% of the households) but contributed far less to the overall harvest (9%). In addition, despite caribou’s large contribution to the per capita harvest (17% of harvest), Pacific halibut and blueberries were used by more households: 65% and 52%, respectively. Of interest, some resources that made the list of the top ranked resources used did not contribute enough per capita weight to contribute more than 1% to the total harvest and appear on Figure 7-9; those resources include blueberries, raspberries 345 Figure 7-9.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013.Sockeye salmon45%Caribou17%Moose9%Coho salmon3%Chinook salmon3%Pacific halibut3%Rainbow trout3%Black bear2%Beaver2%Brown bear1%All other resources12%NoteThe "allother resources" category represents all species that contributed less than 1% to the total harvest weight.346 Figure 7-10.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013. Chum salmon < 1% Coho salmon 6% Chinook salmon 6% Sockeye salmon 88% (used in 44% of households), shrimp (used in 35% of the households), and lowbush cranberries (also used in 35% of the households). Salmon Salmon composed 51% of the Tonsina harvest in pounds usable weight for 2013 totaling 9,145 lb, or 102 lb per capita (Figure 7-7; Table 7-13). Sockeye salmon made up 88% (8,032 lb, or 89 lb per capita) of the total salmon harvest with the remaining harvest composition as follows: 6% coho salmon (569 lb total) and 6% Chinook salmon (536 lb total) (Figure 7-10). An estimated 2 chum salmon were harvested (Table 7-13). Sockeye salmon were used in more households than any other kind of salmon (87% of households in Tonsina used sockeye salmon), and sockeye salmon was the most successfully harvested (52% of households), received (61% of households) and shared (44%) of the salmon species used in the community. Chinook salmon was the second most used salmon species (44% of households) followed by coho salmon (30% of households). During the 2013 study year, Tonsina residents harvested the bulk of their salmon by fish wheel (71% of usable pounds) (Table 7-15). The remaining gear types used for salmon harvests included dip net (22% of usable pounds), rod and reel (7% of usable pounds), and other methods using subsistence gear. Most of the sockeye and Chinook salmon were harvested locally from fish wheels along the Copper River with some harvests by rod and reel occurring along the Klutina River for sockeye and in Port Valdez for Chinook salmon (Figure 7-11). One family reported harvesting a Chinook salmon by hand in the upper Tonsina River. Additionally, dip nets were used to harvest sockeye salmon at the outlets of Haley and O’Brien creeks as well as at the outlet of the Kenai River (Table 7-15; Figure 7-11). Of the coho salmon harvested, a little more than one-half (56% of usable pounds) were harvested by subsistence gear, including dip nets and fish wheels, and rod and reel were used to harvest 44% of the harvest. Tonsina households harvested coho salmon locally by fish wheel in the Copper River Basin or traveled to Valdez to rod and reel fish for coho. 347 Table 7-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Tonsina, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsSalmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%71.3%70.7%23.0%22.4%0.1%0.3%94.4%93.3%5.6%6.7%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%71.3%70.7%23.0%22.4%0.1%0.3%94.4%93.3%5.6%6.7%100.0%100.0%Chum salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.6%1.4%0.1%0.1%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.1%0.1%0.1%0.1%Coho salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.3%1.6%7.8%10.3%0.0%0.0%2.9%3.7%38.7%41.4%4.9%6.2%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%18.5%18.5%37.0%37.0%0.0%0.0%55.6%55.6%44.4%44.4%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.9%1.2%1.8%2.3%0.0%0.0%2.7%3.5%2.2%2.8%4.9%6.2%Chinook salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.3%6.5%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%1.8%5.2%6.5%15.2%2.1%5.9%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%78.3%78.3%0.0%0.0%4.3%4.3%82.6%82.6%17.4%17.4%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.6%4.6%0.0%0.0%0.1%0.3%1.7%4.8%0.4%1.0%2.1%5.9%Pink salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Sockeye salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%96.5%91.9%92.2%89.7%0.0%0.0%95.3%91.1%53.2%42.0%93.0%87.8%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%74.0%74.0%22.8%22.8%0.0%0.0%96.8%96.8%3.2%3.2%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%68.8%65.0%21.2%20.1%0.0%0.0%90.0%85.0%3.0%2.8%93.0%87.8%Landlocked salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Any methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodFish wheelDip netResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reel348 Figure 7-11.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, Tonsina, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tazlina RiverCopper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverLakeelnaLakeCanyon CreekkTebayRiverO'Brien CreekHaley CreekEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson HighwayKlawasiRiver Moose CreekwayTonsinaTazlinaGlennallenChitinaKenny LakeLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesKenaiSockeye salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryKenai RiverCook InletSterling Highway349 Figure 7-12.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013. Eulachon (hooligan, candlefish) 9% Pacific halibut 27% Unknown rockfish 11%Burbot 8% Brook trout 2% Dolly Varden 5% Lake trout 8% Arctic grayling 5% Rainbow trout 23% Other 2% Nonsalmon Fish Tonsina households harvested an estimated total of 1,883 lb, or 21 lb per capita, of nonsalmon fish; this harvest made up 11% of the total wild resource harvest in 2013 (Table 7-13; Figure 7-7). The harvest composition of nonsalmon fish was split almost equally between freshwater and marine species (Figure 7-12). In terms of total pounds and percentages, the largest portion of the nonsalmon fish harvest (27%) was composed of Pacific halibut (512 lb, or about 6 lb per capita) and rainbow trout contributed the second largest portion of the nonsalmon fish harvest (23%; 427 lb, or 5 lb per capita) (Figure 7-12; Table 7-13). Other species of significance for the 2013 nonsalmon fish harvest include unspecified species of rockfish (11%), eulachon (9%), burbot and lake trout (both composing 8% each of the nonsalmon fish harvest), and Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden (both composing 5% each of the nonsalmon harvest). The majority of the nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds (52%) was harvested by rod and reel (Table 7-16). Subsistence methods used included gillnet or seine (9% of usable pounds and used only to harvest eulachon), ice fishing (used to harvest rainbow trout, burbot, lake trout, and Dolly Varden), and other subsistence gear. During the 2013 study year, Tonsina residents reported harvesting nonsalmon freshwater fish both locally in the Copper River watershed and on the Kenai Peninsula. Rainbow trout were harvested in the upper Tonsina River within the Tonsina community, Pippin Lake off the Richardson Highway, in the small roadside lakes just north of Chitina, and east of Chitina in Silver Lake (Figure 7-13). Burbot were harvested in Lake Louise, Crosswind Lake, and at Tanada and Goat creeks. Arctic grayling were harvested within the community of Tonsina and just north of Chitina. Lake trout were harvested locally in the upper fork of Bernard Creek as well as on the Kenai Peninsula, and the Dolly Varden harvested by Tonsina community households came only from Dolly Varden Lake on the Kenai Peninsula. Marine fish were harvested in Prince William Sound, 350 Table 7-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Tonsina, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNonsalmon fishGear type0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%3.9%9.0%35.0%38.6%0.1%0.1%39.0%47.6%61.0%52.4%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%3.9%9.0%35.0%38.6%0.1%0.1%39.0%47.6%61.0%52.4%100.0%100.0%Pacific herringGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring sac roeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%10.0%18.9%0.0%0.0%3.9%9.0%Resource0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%3.9%9.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.9%9.0%0.0%0.0%3.9%9.0%Unknown smeltGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific (gray) codGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific tomcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Starry flounderGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown flounderGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.0%2.6%0.6%1.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.6%1.4%0.6%1.4%LingcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.8%1.7%0.5%0.9%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.5%0.9%0.5%0.9%Pacific halibutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%62.8%51.9%38.3%27.2%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%38.3%27.2%38.3%27.2%Arctic lampreyGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.3%0.1%0.0%0.0%0.1%0.1%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.1%0.1%0.1%0.1%0.0%0.0%0.1%0.1%Pacific herring spawn on kelpEulachon (hooligan, candlefish)Any methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodIce fish-continued-ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reel351 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsUnknown rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%6.2%20.6%3.8%10.8%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.8%10.8%3.8%10.8%Unknown sculpinGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Salmon sharkGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%BurbotGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%13.4%20.7%0.0%0.0%12.0%16.8%0.0%0.0%4.7%8.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.7%8.0%0.0%0.0%4.7%8.0%0.0%0.0%4.7%8.0%Brook troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.1%3.6%1.9%1.9%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.9%1.9%1.9%1.9%Dolly VardenGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%12.7%7.4%0.0%0.0%11.4%6.0%4.6%3.4%7.2%4.6%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%61.4%61.4%0.0%0.0%61.4%61.4%38.6%38.6%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.4%2.8%0.0%0.0%4.4%2.8%2.8%1.8%7.2%4.6%Lake troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%13.4%17.3%0.0%0.0%12.0%14.0%2.1%3.4%6.0%8.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%78.7%78.7%0.0%0.0%78.7%78.7%21.3%21.3%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.7%6.7%0.0%0.0%4.7%6.7%1.3%1.8%6.0%8.5%Arctic graylingGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%16.4%9.5%10.0%5.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%10.0%5.0%10.0%5.0%Northern pikeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Longnose suckerGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.2%0.1%0.1%0.1%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.1%0.1%0.1%0.1%Cutthroat troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rainbow troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%60.5%54.6%0.0%0.0%54.3%44.2%2.7%3.1%22.8%22.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%92.8%92.8%0.0%0.0%92.8%92.8%7.2%7.2%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%21.2%21.1%0.0%0.0%21.2%21.1%1.6%1.6%22.8%22.7%Unknown troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rod and reelAny methodPercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodTable 7-16.–Page 2 of 3.-continued-Resource352 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsBroad whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Least ciscoGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Humpback whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Round whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown whitefishesGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Any methodGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodSubsistence methodsRod and reelResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Table 7-16.–Page 3 of 3.353 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Copper RiverTonsinSilver LakeStrelna LakekeCanyon CreekmitLakeTe rO'Brien CreekHaley CreekWood CanyonEdgerton HighwayRichardsonHighway PippBernard CreekRichardson HighwayTonsinaChitinaKenny LakeLower TonsinaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve084MilesRainbow trout search and harvest areaRainbow trout search and harvest areaRainbow trout search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryPippin LakeOld Edgerton HighwayFigure 7-13.–Fishing and harvest locations of rainbow trout, Tonsina, 2013.354 Figure 7-14.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013. Black bear 7% Brown bear 4% Caribou 57% Deer 4% Moose 28% the Gulf of Alaska, and in waters lining the north and south shores of the Kenai Peninsula (see maps in Appendix D). Large Land Mammals In 2013, large land mammals made up 30% of the Tonsina wild resource harvest by weight, contributing 5,461 lb total, or 61 lb per capita (Figure 7-7; Table 7-13). Caribou provided 57% (3,086 lb) of the large land mammal harvest and moose provided 28% (1,526 lb) of the harvest, which is significant considering caribou are smaller animals than moose (Figure 7-14; Table 7-13). Additionally of interest is that, despite the smaller 2013 harvest, moose was used in more households than caribou; 70% of Tonsina households used moose while only 48% of households used caribou (Table 7-13). Other large land mammals contributing to the 2013 harvest include black bears (7% of the harvest or 4 lb per capita), brown bears (4% or just under 3 lb per capita), and deer (also 4% of the harvest). Representative of their contribution to the harvest, black bears were used in 22% of the households (13% harvested black bears, 13% gave and 9% received this resource), and brown bears and deer were used by 4% of households. Other large land mammals used in 2013 but not harvested by households included bison, mountain goats, and Dall sheep (Table 7-13). All the species used but not harvested in 2013 were reported as received by surveyed households and use can be attributed to sharing (Table 7-13). In 2013, Tonsina households harvested approximately 24 caribou (22 males and 2 females); 8 caribou were harvested in March and 16 in the fall/early winter hunt (Table 7-17). In contrast, only 3 moose (all males) were harvested and all harvests were in the fall. Black bears were harvested in May, June, and September, brown bears were harvested in June, and deer were harvested in November and December. During the study year, Tonsina households reported searching for caribou along the Richardson Highway from Sourdough to Paxson, and along the Denali Highway as far west as Tangle Lakes (Figure 7-15). Moose were hunted primarily along the Richardson Highway from Tonsina to Stuart Creek, and bears were hunted on the slopes south of the upper Tonsina River, on the Richardson Highway north of Thompson Pass, and on the Copper River above Wood Canyon. Tonsina households also reported hunting deer on Montague Island in Prince William Sound. 355 Table 7-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Tonsina, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All large land mammals 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 1.7 5.1 0.0 3.4 10.2 5.1 5.1 1.7 0.0 40.7 Bison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 Brown bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 Caribou 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 6.8 5.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 23.7 Caribou, male 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 5.1 5.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 22.0 Caribou, female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 Deer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.7 0.0 5.1 Mountain goat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Moose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 Moose, bull 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 Moose, cow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dall sheep 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Estimated harvest by month Total 356 Figure 7-15.–Hunting locations of caribou, Tonsina, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeGakona RiverSummit LakeTulsonaCreekTangle LakesDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichar ds o n Hi g h SourdoughRichardson Hig h w a y Fielding LakePaxson13B13C13A084MilesCaribou search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit.357 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers As listed in Table 7-13, the harvest of small land mammals by Tonsina households used for food was 532 lb total (6 lb per capita) and contributed 3% of the overall community harvest (Figure 7-7). The animals used for food in addition to their fur include beavers (382 lb total), lynx (81 lb), muskrats (52 lb), and snowshoe hares (17 lb) (Figure 7-16; Table 7-13). Figure 7-16 compares, by number of individual animals harvested, the total harvest of small land mammals with the number of animals harvested for fur only. For example, of the 27 beavers harvested in 2013 approximately 25 were used for both food and fur; and of the 334 muskrats harvested about 29 were used for both food and fur. However most furbearers (coyotes, foxes, marmots, martens, minks, otters, porcupines, weasels, gray wolves, and wolverines) were harvested for their fur only. Figure 7-17 represents the harvest composition of all small land mammals hunted or trapped in 2013 by number of individual animals harvested (rather than by weight) and Table 7-18 describes the harvest of small land mammals by month of harvest. Muskrats were harvested most (44% of small land mammal harvest, or 334 individuals), followed by weasels (13% of harvest, or 95 individuals), lynx (12% of harvest, or 90 individuals), and martens (12% of harvest, or 88 individuals). Most furbearer harvests follow a standard trapping season, which usually starts in November and extends through February. With the exception of muskrat harvests (all of which were in April and May), the majority of harvests took place in January (142 animals) and February (112 animals). Since the majority of the small land mammals harvest is conducted by those few households that actively trap, use was not as pervasive; only 26% reported use and 22% reported harvesting small land mammal species (Table 7-13). The search and harvest areas for small land mammals and furbearers in 2013 included local areas west of the Richardson Highway around Pippin Lake and the upper Tonsina River. Other trappers had lines in the Tolsona community area, to the west of the Gulkana River near Sourdough, and off the Nabesna Road along the Goat Creek watershed (Figure 7-18). In addition, some trappers had lines north of Chitina, east of Chitina along McCarthy Road, and south of Chitina along the Copper River. Figure 7-16.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Tonsina, 2013. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Individual animals harvestedTotal harvest Fur only 358 Table 7-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Tonsina, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All small land mammals 142.4 111.9 3.4 174.7 188.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.4 57.7 69.5 0.0 754.6 Beaver 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.1 Coyote 13.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 18.7 Red fox–cross phase 5.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 10.2 Red fox–red phase 13.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 20.3 Snowshoe hare 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 North american river (land) otter 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 10.2 Lynx 42.4 33.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 11.9 0.0 89.9 Marmot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 Marten 23.7 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 27.1 0.0 88.2 Mink 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 17.0 Muskrat 0.0 0.0 0.0 173.0 161.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 334.0 Porcupine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 8.5 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red (tree) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.7 Least weasel 28.8 30.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 20.3 0.0 95.0 Gray wolf 3.4 5.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 Wolverine 3.4 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 11.9 Estimated harvest by month Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Total Beaver 4% Coyote 2%Red fox–red phase 3% Lynx 12% Marten 12% Mink 2% Muskrat 44% Least weasel 13% Gray wolf 1% Wolverine 2% Other 5% Figure 7-17.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Tonsina, 2013. 359 Figure 7-18.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, Tonsina, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.Gakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeTyoneLakeSusitnEwan LakeSuslota CreekAhtellTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekTanada CreekNizina RiverChitina RiverChitinaRiverMcCarthy RoadleLakesChakina RiverKlu RiverSkull CreekHanagita RiverWestFor TanaRiverNabesna RiverSilver LakeStrelna LakeCanyon CreekSummit LakeTebay LakeTebay RiverLake LouiseSourdoughO'Brien CreekHaley CreekFireweed MntEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y Richardson HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffOlNelchina RiverSucker LakeTolsona CreekPortValdezKlawasi RiverMoose CreekPippin LakeBernard CreekHurtle CreekTonsina LakeRichardson HighwayTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaMendeltnaLake LouiseSlanaGakonaNabesnaChitinaMcCarthyKenny LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve02010MilesTONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013 Small land mammal and furbearersearch and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryS mall land mammal and furbearersearch and harvest area360 Goldeneye 3%Mallard 9% Green-winged teal 1% Spruce grouse 25% Sharp-tailed grouse 3%Ruffed grouse 8% Unknown ptarmigan 51% Note No bird eggs were harvested. Figure 7-19.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013. Birds and Eggs Birds were hunted and used by 35% of Tonsina households and made up approximately 1% of the total community harvest (Table 7-13; Figure 7-7). The total bird harvest was approximately 213 lb, or about 2 lb per capita. Ptarmigan accounted for 51% of the bird harvest by the community (109 lb total), followed by spruce grouse (25%, or 53 lb total), and mallards (9%, or 19 lb total) (Figure 7-19; Table 7-13). More households attempted to harvest birds (39%) than those claiming a successful harvest (35%), and while 9% of households shared birds only 4% of Tonsina households said they received birds. The majority of the Tonsina community’s bird harvests took place in the fall; 151 of the 297 birds harvested were taken during this time (Table 7-19). The second most prolific season was winter (122 birds harvested). Areas of harvest for upland game birds included locations in or close to the community of Tonsina in the mountains south, west, and east of the Richardson Highway (Figure 7-20). Tonsina households also harvested upland game birds in Kenny Lake, Bernard Creek, on the Denali Highway west of Paxson, and as far away the Fairbanks North Star Borough near Fairbanks and Ester. Migratory waterfowl were harvested locally in Tonsina, and north in Paxson and Tangle Lakes. Marine invertebrates A small amount of marine invertebrates were harvested during the study year. As listed in Table 7-13, the total harvest of marine invertebrates by Tonsina households in 2013 was made up of shrimp (144 lb, or just less than 2 lb per capita). Shrimp were harvested by 13% of the households but used by 39% of Tonsina households. Some sharing occurred; 4% of households gave away marine invertebrates and 26% received marine invertebrates. Species other than shrimp were used in households as well; Dungeness crab, unknown tanner crab, and octopus were used in 4% of Tonsina homes, all of which was received from others. No harvest areas were documented. 361 Table 7-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Tonsina, 2013. Winter Spring Summer Fall Season unknown All birds 122.1 10.2 13.6 150.9 0.0 296.7 Canvasback 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spectacled eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Goldeneye 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 6.8 Mallard 0.0 0.0 1.7 17.0 0.0 18.7 Northern pintail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black scoter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Green-winged teal 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 Unknown ducks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cackling goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Canada goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown Canada/cackling geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Emperor goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snow goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White-fronted goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tundra (whistling) swan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandhill crane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spruce grouse 0.0 5.1 11.9 59.3 0.0 76.3 Sharp-tailed grouse 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 Ruffed grouse 0.0 1.7 0.0 23.7 0.0 25.4 Unknown ptarmigan 111.9 0.0 0.0 44.1 0.0 156.0 Unknown duck eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown goose eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown gull eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated harvest by season TotalResource 362 Figure 7-20.–Hunting and harvest locations of migratory waterfowl and upland game birds, Tonsina, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013SusiTyone RiverPaxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana River Sanford RiverCopper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverkeCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeSummit LakeMankomen LakeSuslota CreekAhtell CreekOshetna RiverTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekMentastaLakeTanada CreekMcCarthy RoadTangle LakesDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichards o kiverSilver LakeStrelna LakeCanyon CreekSummit LakeTebay LakeSourdoughO'Brien CreekHaley CreekFireweedMntEdgerton HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y Richardson Highway Nickoli LakeTolsona CreekFielding LakeKlawasi RiverBernard CreekHurtle CreekTonsina LakeRichardson HighwayPaxsonTolsonaGulkanaKenny Lake TazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaLake LouiseSlanaGakonaChitinaChistochinaLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve02010MilesEsterFairbanksMigratory waterfowl search and harvest areaUpland game bird search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryMigratory waterfowl search and harvest areaTonsinaBernard Creek.George Parks HighwaySteese HighwaySheep Creek Road363 Berries 92% Plants and greens 2% Mushrooms 6% Figure 7-21.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Tonsina, 2013. Vegetation In 2013, Tonsina households harvested 536 lb, or 6 lb per capita, of edible vegetation that made up approximately 3% of the community harvest (Table 7-13; Figure 7-7). The majority of the vegetation harvest was berries (92%) followed by mushrooms (6%) and other plants and greens (2%) (Figure 7-21). Most households in Tonsina (91%) used vegetation during the 2013 study year; blueberries, which had the highest harvest of all the berries (211 lb total), was used in 52% of the households and raspberries, despite a lower harvest weight (83 lb total) were used by the second most households (44% of the households) (Table 7-13). Wood, however, was the most used and harvested of all the vegetation resources. While not contributing to the community harvest estimate by weight, 180 cords of wood were harvested by 74% of the households and used by 87% of households (Table 7-13). Plants and berries were harvested locally within Tonsina and along the Richardson Highway as far as Stuart Creek and Tiekel River (Figure 7-22). Wood was harvested locally in Tonsina and south along the Richardson Highway toward Valdez. 364 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Copper Tonsina RiverKlutina RiverTazlinaLakeCopperRiverCanyonEdgerton Highwayhwa Pippin LakeBernard CreekHurtle CreekTonsina LakeRichardson HighwayTonsinaKenny LakeWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesBerry harvest areaPlant harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryTiekel RiverStuart Creek Figure 7-22.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, Tonsina, 2013.365 coMParing harveStS and uSeS in 2013 with PreviouS yearS Harvest Assessments For 10 resource categories and for all resources combined, survey respondents were asked to assess whether their uses and harvests in the 2013 study year were less, more, or about the same as other recent years. “Other recent years” was defined as about the last 5 years. Table 7-20 reports the number of valid responses for each category, the number of households that did not respond, and the number of households that did not use a resource category or all resources combined. In Table 7-20, response percentages are based on the number of valid responses for each category to contextualize these assessments within the set of community households that typically use each category. Figure 7-23 depicts responses to the “less, same, more” assessment question for each resource category. Households that said they did not ordinarily “use” something are not included within the results. This results in fewer responses for less commonly used categories such as bird eggs or marine mammals, and manifests in the chart as a very short set of colored bars (or none at all) compared to categories such as salmon or large land mammals which are ordinarily used by most households. Some households did not respond to the question. All sampled households in Tonsina (23) were asked to take their entire year of harvest into consideration and assess whether their use of all resources was less, same, or more than in recent years. Of those 23 households, 19 (or 86%) said they used the same amounts of wild resources in general over the previous 12 months as compared to recent years (Table 7-20). Nine percent of responding sampled households said they used less and only 5% said they used more. Both Table 7-20 and Figure 7-23 demonstrate responses for individual resource categories. The majority of responding households reported their use of vegetation (57%), salmon (52%), nonsalmon fish (57%), and large land mammals (65%) was the same during the study year as compared to recent years (Figure 7-23). Use of other birds was evenly split (13% for each category) between less, same, and more assessments when compared to recent years, while marine invertebrate use was primarily the same or less, and small land mammals use was primarily less than recent years. Table 7-21 and Table 7-22 depict, by resource category, the reasons Tonsina respondents gave for less or more use. This was an open-ended question and respondents could provide more than one reason for each resource category. Project staff grouped the responses into categories, such as regulations hindering residents from harvesting resources, sharing of harvests, effects of weather on animals and subsistence activities, changes in the animal populations, personal reasons such as work and health, and other outside effects on residents’ opportunities to engage in hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. Of the surveyed Tonsina households that provided assessments for the 2013 study year, 13 households reported their use of at least 1 resource (“any resource”) was less. The reasons most cited for less use of any resource were working/no time (46%), less resources available (38%), and did not need (31%) (Table 7-21). Working/no time and did not need were the main reasons 4 households reported for why their use of salmon was less and working/no time and lack of equipment were the reasons cited by the households reporting less use of migratory birds. Eighty percent of those households reporting less use of small land mammals cited less resources being available as the main reason their use had declined during the study year. Of those households that reported their use of any resource was more during the study year as compared to recent years (11 households of the 23), increased availability, received more, and increased effort were the main reasons cited for more use of any resource (Table 7-22). The impact to households from not getting enough wild resources is reported in Table 7-23. The impact from not getting enough nonsalmon fish was noted as minor by 5 households out of 6 households reporting that they did not get enough nonsalmon fish. The only resources where residents noted a major impact were large land mammals (2 households of 3 that did not get enough) and also vegetation (1 household of 5 that did not get enough). For all resources only 9% of households (out of 23) said that they did not get enough resources in 2013. 366 Table 7-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tonsina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource232323100.0%1356.5%2191.3%1147.8%23100.0%All resources23222295.7%29.1%1986.4%14.5%00.0%Salmon23232191.3%417.4%1252.2%521.7%28.7%Nonsalmon fish23232087.0%313.0%1356.5%417.4%313.0%Large land mammals23231982.6%28.7%1565.2%28.7%417.4%Small land mammals2322626.1%522.7%14.5%00.0%1672.7%Marine mammals232200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%22100.0%Migratory waterfowl2322417.4%29.1%00.0%29.1%1881.8%Other birds2323939.1%313.0%313.0%313.0%1460.9%Bird eggs232300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%23100.0%Marine invertebrates2322730.4%313.6%313.6%14.5%1568.2%Vegetation23232295.7%521.7%1356.5%417.4%14.3%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.a.Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response.Households not usingSampled householdsResource categoryMoreSameLessValid responsesaTotal householdsHouseholds reporting use367 Figure 7-23.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tonsina, 2013.17%13%9%23%9%13%14%22%52%57%65%5%13%14%57%22%17%9%9%13%5%17%9%13%17%73%100%82%61%100%68%SalmonNonsalmon fishLarge land mammalsSmall land mammalsMarine mammalsMigratory waterfowlOther birdsBird eggsMarine invertebratesVegetationPercentage of surveyed households providing a valid response. Unlabeled percentages are less than 5%.Households used LESS in 2013Households used SAME in 2013Households used MORE in 2013Households normally do not use368 Table 7-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tonsina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource231317.7%538%00.0%215%18%323%All resources222150.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Salmon23400.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Nonsalmon fish233133.3%00%00.0%00%133%267%Large land mammals232150.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Small land mammals22500.0%480%00.0%00%00%00%Marine mammals22000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Migratory waterfowl22200.0%00%00.0%150%00%00%Other birds23300.0%133%00.0%00%00%00%Bird eggs23000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Marine invertebrates22300.0%00%00.0%00%133%267%Vegetation235120.0%120%00.0%120%00%00%Table 7-21.–Continued.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource231317.7%323.1%00.0%646.2%00.0%17.7%All resources22200.0%00.0%00%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon23400.0%00.0%00%250.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish23300.0%00.0%00%133.3%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals232150.0%00.0%00%150.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals22500.0%120.0%00%120.0%00.0%120.0%Marine mammals22000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl22200.0%00.0%00%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds233133.3%133.3%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs23000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates22300.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation23500.0%120.0%00%120.0%00.0%00.0%-continued--continued-Small/diseased animalsOther reasonsWorking/no timeRegulationsResource categoryHouseholds reporting reasons for less useFamily/personalResources less availableToo far to travelValid responsesaLack of equipmentLess sharingLack of effortResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useUnsuccessfulWeather/environment369 Table 7-21.–Page 2 of 2.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource231300.0%430.8%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources22200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon23400.0%250.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish23300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals23200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals22500.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals22000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl22200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds23300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs23000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates22300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation23500.0%240.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%a. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never using the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Did not needResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useEquipment/fuel expenseUsed other resourcesLess competitionDid not get enough370 Table 7-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tonsina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource2311545.5%00.0%19.1%436.4%218.2%All resources22100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon235240.0%00.0%00.0%120.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish234125.0%00.0%00.0%125.0%00.0%Large land mammals23200.0%00.0%00.0%150.0%00.0%Small land mammals22000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals22000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl222150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds233133.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs23000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates22100.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%Vegetation234125.0%00.0%125.0%00.0%250.0%NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource2311436.4%218.2%00.0%00.0%19.1%All resources2211100.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon235240.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish234250.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals23200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals22000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals22000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl22200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds233266.7%133.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs23000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates22100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation23400.0%125.0%00.0%00.0%125.0%Needed moreUsed other resourcesFavorable weatherReceived moreTable 7-22.–Continued.Households reporting reasons for more useIncreased availabilityResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more useIncreased effortHad more helpOtherRegulationsTraveled farther-continued--continued-Resource categoryValid responsesa371 NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource2311218.2%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources22100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon235120.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish23400.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals232150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals22000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals22000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl22200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds23300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs23000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates22100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation23400.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Store-bought expenseGot/fixed equipmentSubstituted resourcesMore successNeeded lessa. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never use.Table 7-22.–Page 2 of 2.Resource categorySource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Valid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more use372 Table 7-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Tonsina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageSalmon232191.3%29.5%00.0%00.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish231982.6%631.6%116.7%00.0%583.3%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates23730.4%457.1%00.0%00.0%4100.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals231982.6%315.8%00.0%00.0%133.3%266.7%00.0%Marine mammals2300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals23626.1%116.7%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl23417.4%250.0%00.0%00.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds23939.1%111.1%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs2300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation232295.7%522.7%00.0%00.0%480.0%120.0%00.0%All resources2323100.0%28.7%00.0%150.0%150.0%00.0%00.0%a. Does not includes households failing to respond to the question or those households that never used the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Resource categorySample householdsHouseholds not getting enough _______ .Impact to those not getting enough ______ .Valid responsesaDid not get enoughNo responseNot noticeableMinorMajorSevere373 Harvest Data Changes in the harvest of resources by Tonsina residents can also be discerned through comparisons with findings from other study years. Comprehensive subsistence harvest surveys were conducted in Tonsina in 1983 (for a study year spanning June 1982 through May 1983) and 1988 (for a study year spanning June 1987 through May 1988) by the Division of Subsistence (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). Although the survey areas differ from the earlier study years to the later, the community characteristics remain consistent and comparable. For more detail refer to the Tonsina discussion in the subsection “Household Survey Implementation” in the chapter “Introduction.” Figure 7-24 demonstrates the change in harvest composition in pounds per capita over time and Table 7-24 demonstrates changes in total and per capita harvests over time. Both graphics demonstrate an overall increase in per capita harvest from 1982 to the present study year; from 99 lb per capita in 1982, to 156 lb per capita in 1987, to 199 lb per capita in 2013 (Table 7-24). With regard to individual resource categories, salmon, large land mammals, and nonsalmon fish composed the majority of the harvest over all study years (Figure 7-24). Salmon per capita harvests almost doubled between 1982 and 2013 (55 lb per capita to 102 lb per capita; a 47 lb per capita increase). Between 1982 and 1987, the large land mammal harvest increased significantly from 24 lb to 74 lb per capita, then decreased by 13 lb to 61 lb per capita in 2013. The nonsalmon fish harvest remained consistent between 1982 and 1987 with 8 lb per capita harvested for both years, then increased to 21 lb per capita in 2013. Vegetation and small land mammal per capita harvests fluctuated over time, while birds and eggs and marine invertebrate harvests increased slightly. Figure 7-24.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, Tonsina, 1982, 1987, and 2013. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1982 1987 2013Estimated per capita harvestStudy year Vegetation Marine invertebrates Birds and eggs Small land mammals Large land mammals Nonsalmon fish Salmon Note Error bars represent the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval. 374 Table 7-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, Tonsina, 1982, 1987, and 2013. Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP All resources 22,644.0 99.3 50.0%46,310.0 155.7 26.0%17,912.9 199.3 39.9% Salmon 12,624.0 55.4 19,238.0 64.7 9,145.0 101.8 Nonsalmon fish 1,911.0 8.4 2,492.0 8.4 1,882.7 20.9 Large land mammals 5,535.0 24.3 22,003.0 74.0 5,460.8 60.8 Small land mammals 874.0 3.8 402.0 1.4 531.8 5.9 Birds and eggs 271.0 1.2 554.0 1.9 212.6 2.4 Marine invertebrates ––326.0 1.1 144.1 1.6 Vegetation 1,429.0 6.3 1,296.0 4.4 535.8 6.0 Note "–" indicates no harvest. Sources For 2013, ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014; for previous study years, ADF&G Division of Subsistence Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS), accessed 2014. 1982 1987 2013 Estimated harvest in pounds usable weight Resource Current and Historical Harvest Areas During the 1983 and 1984 fieldwork seasons, ADF&G researchers conducted interviews with more than 200 hunters and fishers in 20 communities in or near the Copper River Basin to map areas where hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering of wild resources occurred between 1964 and 1984 (Stratton and Georgette 1985). This effort produced 2 separate publications by 2 different ADF&G divisions; the Division of Habitat published the maps and the Division of Subsistence published a description of the project and mapping methods. The maps depicting the harvest and use areas used by study community residents during this 20-year span are published in Alaska Habitat Management Guide Southcentral Region: Reference Maps—Volume 3. Community Use of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants (Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat 1985).2 Information about the mapping project is available in Copper Basin Resource Use Map Index and Methodology (Stratton and Georgette 1985). A total of 8 harvest and use (referred to in this report as “search”) maps were produced that show activities for Tonsina area residents for 1964–1984. These maps cover harvest and use areas for select large land mammal species (moose, caribou, and Dall sheep), waterfowl, furbearers (small land mammals), fish (salmon and freshwater fish), and vegetation. Absent from these maps are harvest and use areas for upland game birds, and black and brown bears. Changes in the resource harvest and use/search areas by Tonsina residents can be discerned through limited comparisons between the maps published in 1985, which depict a 20-year harvest and use pattern, and the maps produced from this study, which only reflect search and harvest areas for the study year 2013. Additional caveats to keep in mind; map data for the 1964–1984 time period were restricted to the Copper River Basin and no effort was made to map resources outside this special extent; also, the historical maps document extensive use across wide swaths of land off the road system and in Unit 11 in what is now the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. With regard to specific species, the most noticeable differences in the harvest and use/search areas of the 2 map sets were visible with moose, caribou, and in particular Dall sheep. In 2013, the maps show caribou were hunted and harvested only in Unit 13B from Sourdough north along the Richardson Highway to Paxson, and then from Paxson west along the Denali Highway to the Tangle Lakes area. The historical maps show some activity north of Sourdough but demonstrate the majority of harvest and use areas occurred mostly in units 13A and 13C, and portions of Unit 11, and while road corridors were significant for caribou harvests most of the hunting area occurred off the road system. Historically, in Unit 13A caribou were hunted west of the Richardson Highway from Sourdough to Gulkana and north of the Glenn Highway in sections around Tolsona, Lake Louise and the Lake Louise access road, Mendeltna, and west of Nelchina. In units 13C and 11, caribou harvest areas lined the entire Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff from Gulkana to Slana and up the extent of the Nabesna Road then west along the northern flank of the Mount Sanford 2. A complete index of documents published in 1985 and 1986 as part of Alaska Habitat Management Guide is available online: http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/C/AHMG/index.html. 375 foothills. There was some hunting activity for caribou documented in Unit 11 up the Dadina River from its confluence with the Copper River. Moose hunting for the 2013 year occurred along the Richardson Highway corridor from Tonsina southbound, and for a short stretch of highway south of Paxson. Some hunting was reported as occurring off the Denali Highway near Tangle Lakes. The historical maps demonstrate extensive harvest and search areas off the road corridors mainly in units 13C and 13D and into Unit 11 on the Nabesna Road corridor and in areas north and south of McCarthy Road. Moose were indicated as being hunted along the Copper River south of Chitina and where it is joined by the Tasnuna and Bremner rivers. No sheep hunting areas were documented for the 2013 survey but the historical maps document extensive harvest and use in Unit 11 along the west and southern flanks of Mount Wrangell and Mount Drum as well as on the mountains east of McCarthy and those mountains south of the Chitina River. The historical maps also documented sheep hunting and search areas in the mountains surrounding Tonsina to the west, south, and east. Salmon fishing locations showed little variation between the 2013 maps and the 20-year maps. Fishing effort for both sets of maps was concentrated around Chitina (both upriver and downriver from the bridge) and Copper Center, with some fishing occurring around Tonsina. Differences in salmon harvest patterns include 2013 fishing areas of Valdez and Copperville that were not historically used, and the 20-year mapped areas along the Gulkana, Klutina, and Tonsina rivers were not fished in the 2013 harvest year. Tonsina harvest patterns for nonsalmon fish had some crossover between the 2 sets of maps; both demonstrate harvest effort locally in Tonsina and the small rivers and lakes in the mountains surrounding the community and in the roadside lakes approaching Chitina and in Strelna and Silver lakes east of Chitina. In addition, both sets of maps demonstrate harvest effort in the watershed south of Nabesna Road and at Crosswind Lake. The differences in harvest and search/use areas between the 2 map sets is seen in the expanded harvest areas throughout the basin’s waterways for the 20-year maps; including the entire navigable Gulkana River, waterways around Mentasta and Chistochina, tributaries and waterways around Klutina Lake, and Moose Creek in Glennallen. Additionally, Tonsina residents fished in Ewan Lake, the mountains south of the Chitina River, the small lakes south of McCarthy, and in the upper Kotsina River. The harvest of furbearers was documented by both sets of maps; however the 20-year maps focused on trapping activity alone while the 2013 maps included those species such as hares that could be harvested without a trapline. There are differences and similarities between the 2 sets of maps. The most obvious difference is that the 20-year maps include no trapping activity north of Copper Center while some of the 2013 mapped trapping activity occurred north of Copper Center. Both sets of maps include areas of harvests close to the Tonsina community, but the 20-year maps extend harvest areas west and south of Tonsina, west and east of Copper Center, and in the upper Chitina River valley to the south of McCarthy. Similarities between the 2 sets of maps include search areas south of Chitina along the Copper River, in the mountains east of the Copper River from Kenny Lake, and east of Chitina and north from McCarthy Road. Migratory waterfowl were harvested within or near the Tonsina community in both sets of maps; however 2013 maps demonstrate effort in Paxson and Tangle Lakes while the 20-year maps demonstrate effort in Lake Louise, St. Anne Lake, which drains into Klutina Lake, and areas just east of Chitina along McCarthy Road. Vegetation was harvested locally in Tonsina as demonstrated by both sets of maps and south along the Richardson Highway. Additionally, both sets of maps document harvest effort on the Denali Highway just west of Paxson. Differences include extended areas of harvest in the 20-year maps from Tonsina north and areas west of the Richardson Highway, harvests along the road to Lake Louise, and areas around Chitina and Chistochina. 376 local coMMentS and concernS Following is a summary of local observations of wild resource populations and trends that were recorded during the surveys in Tonsina. Some households did not offer any additional comments or concerns during the survey interviews, so not all households are represented in the summary. In addition, respondents expressed their concerns about wild resources during the community review meeting of preliminary data. These concerns have been included in the summary. Fish Considering that halibut composed more than one-quarter of Tonsina’s nonsalmon harvest, it is not surprising that many households expressed concern over the reduction of the halibut bag limit on sport-fishing charters out of Valdez. A number of respondents said that reducing the halibut bag limit to 1 fish was cost prohibitive for Alaska residents who rely on the fish to help fill their freezers. Other households were concerned over the decline in Chinook salmon and expressed support for a temporary moratorium on commercial and sport harvests in order to allow the stocks to recover. Large Land Mammals Local residents expressed concern that the bulk of moose and caribou harvests in Unit 13 are by urban hunters and non-area residents. Local residents observed that urban hunters are often better equipped with ATVs and can out-compete many rural residents, especially those locals who rely upon road vehicles, to access hunting areas. A few households observed that predation by bears and wolves is impacting the moose population in Unit 13 and they advocate for intensive management of bears and wolves in the area. Small Land Mammals/Furbearers Some trappers in the community preferred not to map their trapline locations for fear of possible sabotage by those individuals or organizations who they allege want to restrict or eliminate trapping in the area. A few households did comment that traplines set near public trails were an endangerment to pets and children. In addition, all trappers surveyed commented on the lack of small land mammals during the study year and stressed that the 2013 year was not representative of the past 5 years. One trapper and resident of Tonsina for the past 45 years said, “I’ve trapped here since the first grade and 2013 was the worst year I’ve ever experienced.” Most of the trappers in the community blamed the low abundance of small land mammals on a combination of weather conditions, habitat, and population cycles. Wood Firewood contributed to the heating of many Tonsina residences and for 4 sampled households was the sole source of home heat. Many households expressed concern that the accessible wood lots were over harvested and some areas traditionally harvested were no longer accessible due to the transfer of land along the road corridors to Ahtna, Inc., which restricts access to their lands. Several Tonsina community members complained about residents from Valdez harvesting wood in the Tonsina area. In addition, a reliable and affordable source of firewood for purchase went out of business before surveys were administered in 2014. other Some residents expressed concern that local toxic dumping, trash burning, and mining can impact natural resources and water quality; in particular for those residents that pull their drinking water directly out of local rivers and streams within the same drainage. Many households discussed the impacts that the high costs of living were having on the Tonsina community and others in the Copper River Basin; families were leaving the area and the local school population 377 had declined. The expense of fuel and electricity was a particular hardship on residents. Some residents recommended pro-rating energy costs year-round rather than having a cheaper per kilowatt price in summer when residents need less and spend less. However most of the residents who stay year-round told researchers that despite the expense and challenge of rural life they prefer it over urban life, and wild foods over store- bought foods. ACKNoWLEDGMENTS Robbin La Vine would like to thank the wonderful local research assistants Sarah Dolge, Sue Moore, and Carla Somerville, the welcoming hosts of the Tonsina River Lodge, and those gracious residents who participated in key respondent interviews and shared their local and personal histories. 378 8. EAST GLENN HiGHWAy: MENDELTNA Bronwyn Jones and Joshua T. Ream introducing the eaSt glenn highway coMMunitieS The East Glenn Highway complex is an amalgamation of 3 communities, all of which are census designated places (CDPs) that were surveyed separately for this project. Each community is small; they contain no obvious population centers or business districts, and they are interconnected residentially and economically. Most of the survey findings are discussed by community. However, for selected survey results (e.g., resource search and harvest areas and historical harvest comparisons) this report combined these communities since previous surveys for study years 1982 and 1987 also combined these communities. At the time those studies were conducted, the U.S. Census Bureau had not established separate CDP boundaries for each community so the area households were grouped for the surveys and referred to as the “East Glenn Highway”; data were not collected at the community level (i.e., Mendeltna) for study years 1982 and 1987 (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). Consequently, historical comparisons in this study required combining some of the 2013 community data (see chapter “East Glenn Highway: Tonsina”). For the 2013 study year, the East Glenn Highway complex comprises the CDPs of Nelchina, Mendeltna, and Tolsona, as defined by the 2010 federal census, occurring from Glenn Highway mile marker 137 to mile marker 173 (Figure 8-1). Nelchina is the westernmost member of the complex stretching from Glenn Highway mile 137, at its westernmost border with the Matanuska–Susitna Borough, to mile 150, at its easternmost border with the Mendeltna CDP. Mendeltna continues from mile marker 150 through mile 166 of the Glenn Highway. This CDP also includes miles 1 through 15 of the Lake Louise Road where its northern border is shared with the southern border of the Lake Louise CDP. The third member of the complex is Tolsona, which is located from Glenn Highway mile 167 through mile 173. The easternmost border of the CDP runs along Tolsona Creek and is shared with the westernmost border of the Glennallen CDP. Interestingly, community members’ perception of the community boundaries did not necessarily align with the CDP areas; this topic is discussed further in the “Local Comments and Concerns” sections in the East Glenn Highway chapters. In general, study methods include surveying communities separately by CDP to allow for individual analysis of communities, as presented in this and the following 2 chapters, as well as facilitate comparison analysis that identifies changes between study years. However, there are complications associated with comparing 2013 study results to previous survey data. As mentioned previously, none of the communities were part of a CDP in the 1980s. The East Glenn Highway communities were part of the Valdez-Cordova Census Area in 1990, but only the Mendeltna CDP was delineated; both Nelchina and Tolsona were designated as part of the “balance” of the census area at that time.1 The division’s prior studies in these communities defined the easternmost border of the East Glenn Highway complex as occurring at mile 180 of the Glenn Highway, which was at the westernmost border of the Glennallen CDP (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). Between 1990 and 2000 the westernmost CDP boundary for Glennallen shifted west from Glenn Highway mile 180 to Glenn Highway mile 173 (U.S. Census Bureau 2003:III- 12). This caused households between these mile markers (those that were previously included within the East Glenn Highway complex and located in what is now Tolsona) to be redesignated as Glennallen households for this study. This is an important consideration when comparing 2013 and historical data since the redesignation caused a decrease in the number of Tolsona households; this is a small community and shifting just a few households can make a significant difference to harvest patterns and quantities. For example the findings for Tolsona, as described in chapter 10 “East Glenn Highway: Tolsona,” describe an 1. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADLWD) Research and Analysis Section. Juneau. n.d. “Population & Census: Maps & GIS.” Accessed August 19, 2014. http://laborstats.alaska.gov/census/maps.htm 379 Glenn HighwayLake Louise RoadRichardson HighwayMP15MP180MP173MP166MP150MP137MendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseTolsonaNelchinaMatanuska-Susitna Borough boundaryCensus designated placeEast Glenn HighwayHighway milepostHighway/roadwaySusitna-Watana Project Year 20105MilesFigure 8-1.–Map of study community and census designated place boundaries, East Glenn Highway.380 increase in per capita harvests for that community. While the impact of these redesignations may be greater for Tolsona specifically, the impact is likely lesser on the East Glenn Highway complex as a whole. The most recent CDP boundary separating Tolsona from Glennallen follows Tolsona Creek at Glenn Highway mile 173, but this also conflicts with some physical attributes of the community. The Tolsona Wilderness Campground is located along the eastern edge of Tolsona Creek and is therefore now considered to be in Glennallen. In another example, an Alaska Department of Transportation road sign indicates that the easternmost boundary of Tolsona begins approximately at Glenn Highway mile 176. The westernmost border of the East Glenn Highway complex is at Glenn Highway mile 137, and this has not changed since the 1987 study year. This border has remained the western boundary of the Valdez-Cordova Census Area, but in 2000 it also became the westernmost boundary of the Nelchina CDP. The boundary is aligned with the easternmost boundary of the Matanuska–Susitna Borough. Also consistent with previous studies is the northernmost boundary of the East Glenn Highway complex, which has also followed the Matanuska–Susitna Borough boundary markers over time. North of this line is the Lake Louise CDP (the Matanuska–Susitna Borough’s easternmost community). Given the above information, the East Glenn Highway complex designation may better reflect the overall harvest patterns of area residents that may not be fully elucidated when analyzing data for the individual communities. Discussing selected survey results of the combined East Glenn Highway complex also provides the ability to compare harvest patterns over time considering the availability of historical combined data. These data are largely comparable given only minor spatial changes in CDP boundaries along the eastern and northern extents of the complex. Spatial harvest data were combined for all 3 communities and are therefore reported at the East Glenn Highway level. Therefore, unlike the other chapters, there will be no discussion of hunting, fishing, and gathering areas until the final East Glenn Highway chapter. This amalgamated harvest location data will be reported in the subsection “Current and Historical Harvest Areas” in the section “Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years” in the chapter “East Glenn Highway: Tolsona.” Following is a brief discussion that highlights community features and geographical attributes of the East Glenn Highway complex; the remainder of this chapter discusses community information specific to Mendeltna as well as Mendeltna’s individual 2013 comprehensive survey results. The next 2 chapters will similarly review individual community background and survey results for Nelchina and Tolsona. As mentioned previously, selected study findings will appear for the combined East Glenn Highway complex at the conclusion of chapter 10 “East Glenn Highway: Tolsona.” Most households in the East Glenn Highway complex are near the road system. The CDPs include a much greater spatial extent of largely uninhabited land that is lacking structures. The complex is bordered to the west and north by the Matanuska–Susitna Borough and to the east by the community of Glennallen, a larger regional community hub for the area. The East Glenn Highway lies on the western edge of the Copper River Basin; it is approximately 10 miles north of the Chugach Mountains and approximately 5 miles east of the Talkeetna Mountains. The topography of the area consists largely of rolling hills with a single prominent peak. Slide Mountain is on the western edge of this complex and has an elevation of approximately 4,000 feet.2 Two small yet important ridges occur to the west including Tolsona Ridge and another along Lake Louise Road. Most of the habitat is boreal forest and the landscape is spotted with freshwater lakes, ponds, and streams. Old Man Lake, Nickolai Lake, Tolsona Lake, and Sucker Lake are among the largest bodies of water in the complex. Two larger and regionally significant lakes occur on the margins of the complex—Lake Louise to the north and Tazlina Lake to the south. The Nelchina River, Mendeltna Creek, and Tolsona Creek are also hydrologically significant features of the region. The land in this area was historically occupied by Ahtna Athabascans and many Ahtna settlements existed in the area prior to the 20th century (Stratton and Georgette 1984), though few Alaska Natives inhabit this area today. 2. Peakbagger.com, “Slide Mountain, Alaska,” http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=419 (accessed August 20, 2014). 381 Mendeltna (Bendilna’ in Ahtna) was perhaps the most important upland settlement in the area with a permanent population of between 20 and 30 people prior to the 20th century (Stratton and Georgette 1984). It was located on Mendeltna Creek where salmon were traditionally caught using fish traps and eventually fish wheels (Stratton and Georgette 1984). The community was also a stop along a trail from Tyone Lake to Tazlina Lake.3 The discovery of gold brought settlers and prospectors to the area in the late 19th century.4 The Ahtna population of the area was decimated by influenza in the early 20th century (Reckord 1983a) and homesteading eventually lead to primarily Euro-American land ownership (Stratton and Georgette 1984). Among the 3 communities today, Mendeltna has the fewest year-round residents. The modern community of Nelchina extends along the Glenn Highway approximately between miles 137 and 150. However, the historical community of Nelchina was originally a mining establishment (circa 1913) at the mouth of Crooked Creek (Chapin 1915). There were several trails into the Chugach Mountains from there that provided miners with access to the streams where gold was discovered in the late 1800s.5 The community was first reported in 1915 in a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publication authored by Theodore Chapin (Chapin 1915). Tolsona is located east of Mendeltna. The history of this community is less well documented than it is for the other communities in the complex. The name Tolsona first appears in a 1915 USGS publication (Chapin 1915) and refers to a creek and a large lake in the community. Many of the homes in the area are only seasonally occupied. Glennallen is a regional hub community located approximately 40 miles east of Tolsona at the junction of the Glenn and Richardson highways and is an important economic center for the region. Many residents of the East Glenn Highway communities use services available in Glennallen, including a post office, grocery stores, gas stations, libraries, and schools. Some residents of Nelchina opt to send their children to school at Glacier View, which is located approximately 40 miles west of the community in the Matanuska– Susitna Borough. Lake Louise is also a small community with which East Glenn Highway residents interact frequently. The community sits on a large lake of the same name and is a popular recreation area. The Glenn Highway is the major anthropogenic feature of the East Glenn Highway complex. It links each of the communities and is the major transportation corridor between the Matanuska and Susitna river basins and the Copper River Basin. This highway was originally planned in the 1930s but road construction did not begin until 1941 in response to Pacific defense buildup activity for World War II. The highway is named after Capt. Edwin F. Glenn who led exploratory expeditions to Cook Inlet and the Copper River in 1898 and 1899.6 Mendeltna coMMunity Background The community of Mendeltna is at approximately mile 153 of the Glenn Highway near Mendeltna Creek, and is about 30 miles southwest of Glennallen. Mendeltna is located approximately10 miles west of Nelchina and 30 miles west of Eureka. The Mendeltna CDP stretches along the Glenn Highway from mile 150 through mile 166 as well as south of the highway along the Nelchina River bordering Tazlina Lake and north of the highway toward Lake Louise (Figure 8-1). Mendeltna lies along black spruce-covered flatlands in the west portion of the Copper River Basin. Tremendous views of the Wrangell Mountains are showcased 3. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (ADCCED) Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau. n.d. “Alaska Community Database Online: Community Information.” Accessed August 2014. http://commerce.alaska.gov/cra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/d925935e-37ce-42e8-b601-c8c8c0970eaa 4. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (ADCCED) Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau. n.d. “Alaska Community Database Online: Community Information.” Accessed August 2014. http://commerce.alaska.gov/cra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/d925935e-37ce-42e8-b601-c8c8c0970eaa 5. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (ADCCED) Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau. n.d. “Alaska Community Database Online: Community Information.” Accessed August 2014. http://commerce.alaska.gov/cra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/fd739f87-b93f-4be1-9dc9-68dfc375f97e 6. Archives and Special Collections Department, University of Alaska Anchorage–Alaska Pacific University Consortium Library, “Guide to the Edwin F. Glenn Papers: 1889–1917,” http://consortiumlibrary.org/archives/FindingAids/hmc-0116.html (accessed August 20, 2014). 382 Households 19 14 14.0 Population 39 19 33.6 Population 3 0 0.0 Percentage 7.7%0.0%0.0% Note The term "households" means occupied housing units. Alaska Native population data from the American Community Survey and 2010 census come from the category "race alone or in combination with one or more other races." Census (2010) 5-year American Community Survey (2008–2012) This study (2013) Sources U.S. Census Bureau (2011) for 2010 estimate; U.S. Census Bureau for American Community Survey 5-year survey estimate; and ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014, for 2013 estimate. Total population Alaska Native Table 8-1.–Population estimates, Mendeltna, 2010 and 2013. to the east. As part of Interior Alaska, the climate can range from the upper 80s ˚F in the summer to -50 ˚F in the winter. At the end of the 19th century, Mendeltna was the only permanent upland village in the western part of the Ahtna territory. Historians estimate the permanent population of Mendeltna during this time was between 20 and 30 people (Reckord 1983a). In the summer months, Ahtna residents of Mendeltna used fish traps in Mendeltna Creek to catch salmon. In the fall, hunters and their families from the Copper River area traveled to Mendeltna to hunt for game. Mendeltna was a popular gathering place and many potlatches were held during the fall gatherings. In the early 20th century, Mendeltna village played an important role in the fur trade. It was an essential stopping point for fur trappers in Interior Alaska who were heading to trading posts in the Cook Inlet region. The spread of disease in the early 20th century decimated the small population and the village site was abandoned early in the 20th century around the 1930s (Reckord 1983a). The Mendeltna Creek Lodge was built by Jack and Marge Bates in 1940 to serve the Army Corps of Engineers who were building the Glenn Highway.7 The Mendeltna Creek Lodge is still in operation. Today, Mendeltna is a primarily road-based community with no discernible center. However, some services are available (the Mendeltna Creek Lodge has a gas station, restaurant, and lodging). Additionally, Mendeltna has a church that serves the community. deMograPhy Like many road-based rural Alaska communities, the community of Mendeltna encompasses a large geographic area with most of the residences bordering the road. The survey area for this project aligns with the federal Mendeltna CDP boundaries. Many Mendeltna homes, as well the Mendeltna Creek Lodge, are located off the road but generally within sight of the roadway; most residents access their homes with highway vehicles via private driveways. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Mendeltna had 39 residents in 19 households in 2010 (Table 8-1). For 2013, this survey found a somewhat smaller population in Mendeltna of 34 people in 14 households. The 2010 federal census found that 8% of Mendeltna’s population was Alaska Native (3 residents), and this survey found that none of the Mendeltna residents were Alaska Native. 7. Groundspeak, Inc., “Geocaching: Roadhouse Stop # 13–Mendeltna Creek,” http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/ GC2DCW1_roadhouse-stop-12-mendeltna-creek (accessed August 20, 2014). 383 Figure 8-2 portrays Mendeltna population estimates over time (since the 1950s) based on U.S. Census Bureau data, data collected by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADLWD), and the ADF&G Division of Subsistence’s estimate for this study. The chart demonstrates that the Mendeltna population has had a declining trend since 2000; according to ADLWD, the community reached its population peak in 1999 with approximately 80 people residing in the community. The chart also shows that during the 21st century, Mendeltna’s population has continued to experience annual fluctuations. Prior to the survey, researchers, in consultation with community officials and other knowledgeable respondents, estimated and confirmed 14 year-round households in Mendeltna. Table 8-2 describes the sample achievement of this study; the survey staff were able to interview 10 of the 14 Mendeltna households. The survey staff were unable to make contact with 3 households and 1 household declined to be interviewed. The total percentage of surveyed Mendeltna households was approximately 71%. The following data are expanded to cover the remaining households not surveyed. The estimated mean age of the community population was 46 years of age and the mean household size was 2 people (Table 8-3). For the total estimated Mendeltna population (34), the mean length of residency was 17 years; for heads of households the corresponding estimate was a few years more at 19 years. Table 8-4 and Figure 8-3 profile the population for the community in 2013. According to the survey results, approximately 54% of Mendeltna’s population was male and 46% female in study year 2013 (Table 8-4). For the male population, the largest age cohort was 60–64 years of age (23% of the male population) followed by age cohorts 50–54 and 55–59 years of age (each were 15% of the male population). For the female population, the largest age cohorts were 55–59 years of age (27% of the female population), 45–49 and 0–4 years of age (each were 18% of the female population). It should be mentioned that in 2013, there were no residents of either sex between the ages of 5–24 years of age (Figure 8-3). This lack of a younger population may be tied with the absence of easily accessible schools to attend. The majority (74%) of the Mendeltna household heads interviewed were born outside Alaska in other U.S. locations (Table 8-5). Approximately 5% of the Mendeltna household heads were born in other Alaska towns such as Anchorage, Glennallen, Nikiski, and Palmer. Of the aforementioned Alaska communities, Glennallen is within a short driving distance from Mendeltna. The birthplaces of the overall population are available in Appendix Table E8-1. 384 Figure 8-2.–Historical population estimates, Mendeltna, 1990–2013. Table 8-2.–Sample achievement, Mendeltna, 2013. Mendeltna Number of dwelling units 14 Interview goal 14 Households interviewed 10 Households failed to be contacted 3 Households declined to be interviewed 1 Households moved or occupied by nonresident 0 Total households attempted to be interviewed 11 Refusal rate 9.1% Final estimate of permanent households 14 Percentage of total households interviewed 71.4% Interview weighting factor 1.4 Sampled population 24 Estimated population 33.6 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Number of peopleAlaska Department of Labor (estimate)This study (estimate) U.S. Census (count) Trendline Note Population data for this community are not available prior to 1990. 385 Table 8-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Mendeltna, 2013. Characteristics Sampled population 24 Estimated community population 34 Mean 2.4 Minimum 1 Maximum 4 45.6 0 75 53.5 Total population Mean 17.2 Minimuma 1 Maximum 55 Heads of household Mean 18.8 Minimuma 5 Maximum 55 Estimated householdsb Number 0.0 Percentage 0.0% Estimated population Number 0 Percentage 0.0% Mean Household size Age b.The estimated number of households in which at least 1 head of household is Alaska Native. Alaska Native householdsb Minimuma Maximum Median Length of residency a.A minimum age of 0 (zero) is used for infants who are less than 1 year of age. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 386 Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage 0–4 1.4 7.7%7.7%2.8 18.2%18.2%4.2 12.5%12.5% 5–9 0.0 0.0%7.7%0.0 0.0%18.2%0.0 0.0%12.5% 10–14 0.0 0.0%7.7%0.0 0.0%18.2%0.0 0.0%12.5% 15–19 0.0 0.0%7.7%0.0 0.0%18.2%0.0 0.0%12.5% 20–24 0.0 0.0%7.7%0.0 0.0%18.2%0.0 0.0%12.5% 25–29 1.4 7.7%15.4%0.0 0.0%18.2%1.4 4.2%16.7% 30–34 1.4 7.7%23.1%1.4 9.1%27.3%2.8 8.3%25.0% 35–39 1.4 7.7%30.8%0.0 0.0%27.3%1.4 4.2%29.2% 40–44 0.0 0.0%30.8%1.4 9.1%36.4%1.4 4.2%33.3% 45–49 1.4 7.7%38.5%2.8 18.2%54.5%4.2 12.5%45.8% 50–54 2.8 15.4%53.8%1.4 9.1%63.6%4.2 12.5%58.3% 55–59 2.8 15.4%69.2%4.2 27.3%90.9%7.0 20.8%79.2% 60–64 4.2 23.1%92.3%0.0 0.0%90.9%4.2 12.5%91.7% 65–69 0.0 0.0%92.3%0.0 0.0%90.9%0.0 0.0%91.7% 70–74 0.0 0.0%92.3%1.4 9.1%100.0%1.4 4.2%95.8% 75–79 1.4 7.7%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%1.4 4.2%100.0% 80–84 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 85–89 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 90–94 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 95–99 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 100–104 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Missing 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Total 18.2 100.0%100.0%15.4 100.0%100.0%33.6 100.0%100.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Age Male Female Total Table 8-4.–Population profile, Mendeltna, 2013. 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0–4 5–9 10–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65–69 70–74 75–79 80–84 85–89 90–94 95–99 100–104 Missing Number of people Female Male Figure 8-3.–Population profile, Mendeltna, 2013. 387 Table 8-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Mendeltna, 2013. Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 5.3% Glennallen 5.3% Nikiski 5.3% Palmer 5.3% Other Alaska 5.3% Other U.S.73.7% Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. caSh eMPloyMent and Monetary incoMe While local employment opportunities in Mendeltna are limited, the location of Mendeltna—along the Glenn Highway approximately 30 miles southwest of Glennallen, which is the regional hub for the large Copper River region—enables community residents to travel on the state-maintained highways to nearby communities for work. The majority of income available to Mendeltna households during study year 2013 came from employment (90%) (Table 8-6). According to survey results, the mean earned annual household income from jobs for a Mendeltna household was $86,277. Most of the earned income (43%) came from employment in the transportation, communication, and utilities sector (Table 8-7). In comparison, the mean other income per Mendeltna household was $9,973 coming mostly from Social Security, pensions or retirement, Alaska Permanent Fund dividends, or disability (Table 8-6). Social Security and pensions or retirement were the 2 largest sources of other income for Mendeltna households; per household income from Social Security was $3,878 for 2013 and income from pensions or retirement averaged $2,017 per household that year. The mean annual income for a Mendeltna household during the study year was $96,250. The per capita income for Mendeltna was $40,104. In 2013, the majority of earned income for Mendeltna households came from the transportation, communication, and utilities industry (43% of earned income) (Table 8-7). Other important employment sectors were state government (20% of earned income), mining (21%), and services (10%). Retail trade provided 26% of the jobs held by Mendeltna residents during the study year and provided 5% of the earned income for the community. Manufacturing wages provided 1% of the earned income in Mendeltna. Table 8-8 describes the employment characteristics of Mendeltna adults for study year 2013. The survey estimated there was a total of 30 adults over the working age of 16 in Mendeltna; the mean length of employment for all working-age adults in Mendeltna was approximately 8 months (32 weeks). The survey found 26 of the 30 adults were employed in 2013. The minimum duration of employment for the 26 employed adults was 6 months and the maximum 12 months. Approximately 65% of the employed adults worked year-round. At the household level, 100% of households (14) in the community contained at least 1 household member who was employed. The mean number of jobs per employed Mendeltna household was 2.5. 388 Table 8-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Mendeltna, 2013. Percentage of Number Number Total Mean Per total of of for per capita community Income source people households community household income income Earned income Transportation, communication, and utilities 4.2 3.5 $519,756 $203,226 –$1,322,312 $37,125 38.6% Mining 1.4 1.8 $257,305 $214,772 –$783,207 $18,379 19.1% State government 4.2 5.3 $238,007 $71,786 –$518,009 $17,001 17.7% Services 4.2 5.3 $114,501 $15,823 –$376,923 $8,179 8.5% Retail trade 7.0 3.5 $60,946 $9,672 –$187,236 $4,353 4.5% Manufacturing 2.8 1.8 $8,362 $7,005 –$22,255 $597 0.6% Construction 1.4 1.8 $5,146 $4,321 –$13,337 $368 0.4% Local government, including tribal 1.4 1.8 $3,860 $3,268 –$10,969 $276 0.3% Earned income subtotal 19.6 14.0 $1,207,882 $555,020 –$2,139,000 $86,277 $35,949 89.6% other income Social Security 1.4 $54,298 $38,784 –$108,595 $3,878 4.0% Pension/retirement 2.8 $28,241 $20,172 –$81,682 $2,017 2.1% Alaska Permanent Fund dividend 12.6 $26,460 $16,380 –$31,500 $1,890 2.0% Disability 1.4 $25,200 $18,000 –$50,400 $1,800 1.9% Veterans assistance 1.4 $3,080 $2,200 –$6,160 $220 0.2% CITGO fuel voucher 4.2 $2,345 $1,675 –$4,760 $168 0.2% 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Adult public assistance (OAA, APD)0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Supplemental Security income 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Food stamps 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Longevity bonus 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Heating assistance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Workers' compensation/insurance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Unemployment 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Native corporation dividend 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Child support 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Other 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Foster care 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Meeting honoraria 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% other income subtotal 12.6 $139,623 $41,020 –$282,440 $9,973 $4,155 10.4% Community income total $1,347,506 $737,288 –$2,200,346 $96,250 $40,104 100.0% -/+ 95% CI Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) 389 Table 8-7.–Employment by industry, Mendeltna, 2013. Jobs Households Individuals Percentage of wage earnings 34.9 14.0 25.7 15.8%37.5%21.4%19.7% Technologists and technicians, except health 5.3%12.5%7.1%5.9% Transportation and material moving occupations 10.5%25.0%14.3%13.8% 5.3%12.5%7.1%0.3% Technologists and technicians, except health 5.3%12.5%7.1%0.3% 5.3%12.5%7.1%21.3% Construction and extractive occupations 5.3%12.5%7.1%21.3% 5.3%12.5%7.1%0.4% Construction and extractive occupations 5.3%12.5%7.1%0.4% 10.5%12.5%14.3%0.7% Writers, artists, entertainers, and athletes 5.3%12.5%7.1%0.4% Production working occupations 5.3%12.5%7.1%0.3% 15.8%25.0%21.4%43.0% Executive, administrative, and managerial 5.3%12.5%7.1%12.8% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 5.3%12.5%7.1%5.8% Transportation and material moving occupations 5.3%12.5%7.1%24.5% 26.3%25.0%35.7%5.0% Executive, administrative, and managerial 10.5%12.5%14.3%2.6% Marketing and sales occupations 15.8%25.0%21.4%2.4% 15.8%37.5%21.4%9.5% Executive, administrative, and managerial 10.5%25.0%14.3%8.9% Service occupations 5.3%12.5%7.1%0.5% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated total number Industry State government Mining Local government, including tribal Services Retail trade Transportation, communication, and utilities Manufacturing Construction 390 Community Mendeltna 29.4 32.2 25.7 87.5% 34.9 1.4 1 3 8.5 6 12 65.3% 36.8 14 14.0 100.0% 2.5 1 4 1.8 1.8 1 3 41.6 Characteristic Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. All adults Number Mean weeks employed Employed adults Number Households Mean Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs per employed household Maximum Percentage employed year-round Maximum Employed adults Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs Number Mean person-weeks of employment Minimum Maximum Minimum Total households Number Employed Mean Employed households Months employed Maximum Number Mean weeks employed Table 8-8.–Employment characteristics, Mendeltna, 2013. 391 levelS oF individual ParticiPation in the harveSting and ProceSSing oF wild reSourceS Table 8-9 reports the expanded levels of individual participation in the harvesting and processing of wild resources by all Mendeltna residents in 2013. All Mendeltna residents attempted to harvest some wild resources in 2013. With reference to specific resource categories, 92% of all residents gathered plants (including berries), 67% fished, 46% hunted for large land mammals, 13% hunted or trapped for small land mammals, and 4% hunted for birds. Similarly, a high percentage (92%) of Mendeltna residents engaged in processing some wild resources. Most residents (83%) participated in processing plants followed by 79% of the population participating in processing fish. Compared with fish processing, fewer individuals (46%) participated in processing large land mammals, and 8% participated in processing birds. The least number of individuals (4%) participated in processing small land mammals. For the most part, Mendeltna residents’ individual participation in harvesting and processing of wild resources was evenly distributed among the different resource categories; a few more individuals participated in processing birds rather than hunting for them. In comparison, a few more Mendeltna residents hunted for small land mammals rather than processed them. The survey included questions about individual participation in wild harvest activities such as working with fish wheels, handicrafts, and cooking wild foods. In Mendeltna, 8% of residents built or repaired fish wheels or helped to place or remove a fish wheel (Table 8-10). In 2013, 13% of residents sewed skins or cloth and 79% of residents cooked wild foods. houSehold reSource harveSt and uSe PatternS and Sharing oF wild reSourceS Table 8-11 summarizes resource harvest and use characteristics for Mendeltna in 2013 at the household level. All households (100%) used wild resources in 2013, and 100% also attempted to harvest or harvested resources. The average harvest was 126 lb usable weight per household, or 53 lb per capita. During the study year, community households harvested an average of 8 kinds of resources and used and average of 11 kinds of resources. The maximum number of resources used by any household was 17 out of a possible 115 resources identified as locally available. In addition, households gave away an average of 3 kinds of resources and 90% of households reported sharing resources with other households. Previous studies by the Division of Subsistence (Wolfe 1987; Wolfe et al. 2010) have shown that in most rural Alaska communities, a relatively small portion of households produces most of the community’s fish and wildlife harvests, which they share with other households. A recent study of 3,265 households in 66 rural Alaska communities found that about 33% of the households accounted for 76% of subsistence harvests (Wolfe et al. 2010). Although overall the set of very productive households was diverse, factors that were associated with higher levels of subsistence harvests included larger households with a pool of adult male labor, higher wage income, involvement in commercial fishing, and community location. As shown in Figure 8-4, in the 2013 study year in Mendeltna, about 68% of the harvest of wild resources as estimated in usable pounds was harvested by 40% of the community’s households. Further analysis of the study findings, beyond the scope of this report, might identify characteristics of the highly productive households in Mendeltna and the other study communities. The survey included questions about residents’ use of alternative or motorized modes of transportation to access wild food harvest areas as well as the use of portable motors in harvesting wild resources. Figure 8-5 demonstrates the percentage of community households that used an alternate means of transportation (in addition to or aside from using cars, trucks, or traveling on foot). All Mendeltna households used an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) when harvesting wild foods. About 60% of households used a boat, 30% used snowmachines, and 20% used an aircraft when harvesting wild resources. Eighty percent of households used a chain saw, 40% used a winch, 30% used an ice auger, and generators were used by 20% of households (Figure 8-6). 392 33.6 Number 22.4 Percentage 66.7% Number 26.6 Percentage 79.2% Number 15.4 Percentage 45.8% Number 15.4 Percentage 45.8% Number 4.2 Percentage 12.5% Number 1.4 Percentage 4.2% Number 1.4 Percentage 4.2% Number 2.8 Percentage 8.3% Number 30.8 Percentage 91.7% Number 28.0 Percentage 83.3% Number 33.6 Percentage 100.0% Number 30.8 Percentage 91.7% Fish Process Hunt/gather Process Hunt or trap Process Gather Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Process Total number of people Birds and eggs Fish Large land mammals Hunt Process Attempt harvest Small land mammals Vegetation Any resource Process Table 8-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Mendeltna, 2013. 393 Table 8-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Mendeltna, 2013. 33.6 Building, maintaining, or moving fish wheels Number 2.8 Percentage 8.3% Number 4.2 Percentage 12.5% Number 26.6 Percentage 79.2% Total number of people Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Sewing skins or cloth Cooking wild foods Figure 8-7 demonstrates the percentage of households that used natural materials for handicrafts; 30% used antlers, 20% used horns, and 20% used other raw natural materials. For the community of Mendeltna, firewood is used widely as a primary, or supplemental, source of heating in homes by a few households. Survey results indicate that during the 2013 study year, approximately 50% of the 10 interviewed Mendeltna households heated their home mostly with firewood (76–100% of home heat source) (Table 8-12). A smaller percentage (20%) used firewood as a supplemental source of home heat (1–25% of home heating source). Thirty percent of interviewed Mendeltna households said they had not used any firewood in 2013 to heat their home. According to survey results, the overall average annual cost of home heating in Mendeltna was $1,782 during study year 2013. harveSt QuantitieS and coMPoSition Table 8-13 reports estimated wild resource harvests and uses by Mendeltna residents in 2013 and is organized first by general category and then by species. All edible resources are reported in pounds usable weight (see Appendix B for conversion factors[8]). The “harvest” category includes resources harvested by any member of the surveyed household during the study year. The “use” category includes all resources taken, given away, or used by a household, and resources acquired from other harvesters, either as gifts, by barter or trade, through hunting partnerships, or as meat given by hunting guides and non-local hunters. Purchased foods are not included but resources such as firewood are included because they are an important part of the subsistence way of life. Differences between harvest and use percentages reflect sharing among households, which results in a wider distribution of wild foods. According to survey results, Mendeltna residents harvested an estimated total of 1,769 lb of wild resources in 2013 (Table 8-13). At the household level, the average harvest was 126 lb and at the individual level the per capita harvest was 53 lb. Salmon made up most (48%) of the overall harvest totaling 856 lb, or 26 lb per capita (Figure 8-8; Table 8-13). Large land mammals was the second most harvested resource category (21% of the harvest) with the community harvest totaling 364 lb, or 11 lb per capita. The third most harvested resource category was vegetation at 16% of the harvest, or approximately 8 lb per capita. Following vegetation, nonsalmon fish was the fourth most harvested resource category at 14% of the harvest. The only remaining resource category—birds and eggs—contributed to the overall harvest substantially less than the 4 categories listed above. Birds and eggs composed 1% of the overall harvest; the total community harvest was 15 lb, or less than 1 lb per capita (Figure 8-8; Table 8-13). There were no successful harvests of small land mammals and marine invertebrates by residents of Mendeltna in 2013 and no attempt to harvest marine mammals (Table 8-13). 8. Resources that are not eaten, such as firewood and some furbearers, are included in the table but are given a conversion factor of zero. 394 Table 8-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Mendeltna, 2013. 10.5 Minimum 5 Maximum 17 95% confidence limit (±)14.0% Median 10 9.9 Minimum 5 Maximum 14 95% confidence limit (±)11.1% Median 10.5 7.6 Minimum 4 Maximum 11 95% confidence limit (±)11.9% Median 8 4.1 Minimum 0 Maximum 11 95% confidence limit (±)28.3% Median 4 2.5 Minimum 0 Maximum 4 95% confidence limit (±)21.9% Median 3 Minimum 19 Maximum 274 Mean 126.4 Median 112 1,769.0 52.6 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 90.0% 90.0% 10 115 Mean number of resources used per household Mean number of resources attempted to harvest per household Mean number of resources harvested per household Mean number of resources received per household Characteristic Percentage using any resource Percentage attempting to harvest any resource Percentage harvesting any resource Mean number of resources given away per household Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Percentage receiving any resource Percentage giving away any resource Number of households in sample Number of resources asked about and identified voluntarily by respondents Household harvest (pounds) Total harvest weight (lb) Community per capita harvest (lb) 395 60% 30% 100% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Boat Snowmachine ATV AircraftPercentage of sampled householdsTransportation type Figure 8-5.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Mendeltna, 2013. Figure 8-4.–Household specialization, Mendeltna, 2013. 40% of households took 68% percent of the harvest 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cumulative percent of pounds harvestedPercentage of households 396 20% 80% 30% 40% 0%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Generator Chain saw Ice auger Winch Other portable motors or motorized equipmentPercentage of sampled householdsEquipment type Figure 8-6.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Mendeltna, 2013. Figure 8-7.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Mendeltna, 2013. 0% 20% 30% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Birch bark Horns Antlers Other natural materialPercentage of sampled householdsMaterial 397 Table 8-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Mendeltna, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageMendeltna$1,782330.0%220.0%00.0%00.0%330.0%220.0%Average annual cost of home heatingHousehold use of wood for home heating as a percentage of total fuel for heating0%1%–25%26%–50%51%–75%76%–99%100%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Community398 Table 8-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Mendeltna, 2013.Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per householdAll resources100.0100.0100.090.090.01,769.0126.452.627.3 Salmon100.070.070.070.060.0856.461.225.550.2 Chum salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Coho salmon40.020.020.020.010.034.82.51.05.6ind0.480.6 Chinook salmon30.020.020.030.020.057.74.11.74.2ind0.386.0 Pink salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sockeye salmon90.060.060.060.060.0763.954.622.7166.6ind11.956.0 Landlocked salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Nonsalmon fish90.090.090.040.010.0257.518.47.769.9 Pacific herring0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring sac roe0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring spawn on kelp0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown smelt0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific (gray) cod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pacific tomcod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Starry flounder0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lingcod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pacific halibut50.020.020.020.010.0154.011.04.6154.0lb11.0109.3 Arctic lamprey0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Yelloweye rockfish10.010.010.00.00.02.80.20.11.1ind0.1120.9 Unknown rockfish10.010.010.00.00.07.00.50.21.8ind0.1120.9 Unknown sculpin0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Burbot20.020.020.010.00.023.51.70.79.8ind0.7103.2 Dolly Varden0.010.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lake trout20.020.020.010.00.028.02.00.814.0ind1.097.1 Arctic grayling40.040.040.010.00.024.51.80.735.0ind2.562.5 Northern pike0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Longnose sucker0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cutthroat trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Rainbow trout40.030.030.020.00.017.61.30.512.6ind0.981.2 Unknown trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Broad whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Percentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amountaResource95% confidence limit (±)-continued-399 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Least cisco0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Humpback whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Round whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whitefishes0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Large land mammals100.080.010.090.040.0364.026.010.8120.9 Bison0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black bear10.010.00.010.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brown bear0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Caribou50.070.010.040.020.0364.026.010.82.8ind0.2120.9 Deer0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mountain goat0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Moose100.080.00.090.030.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Dall sheep0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Small land mammals0.020.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Beaver0.010.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Coyote0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red fox–cross phase0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red fox–red phase0.010.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snowshoe hare0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 North American river (land) otter0.010.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lynx0.010.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marmot0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marten0.010.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mink0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Muskrat0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Porcupine0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red (tree) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Least weasel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Gray wolf0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Wolverine0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Table 8-13.–Page 2 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±)-continued- Nonsalmon fish, continued400 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Marine mammals0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Fur seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Harbor seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sea otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Steller sea lion0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whale0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Birds and eggs20.010.010.020.00.015.41.10.5120.9 Canvasback0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spectacled eider0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Goldeneye0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mallard0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Northern pintail0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black scoter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Northern shoveler10.010.010.00.00.01.70.10.12.8ind0.2120.9 Green-winged teal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 American wigeon10.010.010.010.00.011.80.80.416.8ind1.2120.9 Unknown ducks0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brant0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cackling goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Canada goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown Canada/ cackling geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Emperor goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snow goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 White-fronted goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Tundra (whistling) swan0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sandhill crane0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spruce grouse10.00.00.010.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Ruffed grouse0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown ptarmigan10.010.010.010.00.02.00.10.12.8ind0.2120.9 Unknown duck eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Table 8-13.–Page 3 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±)-continued-401 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Unknown goose eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown gull eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marine invertebrates20.010.00.020.00.00.00.00.00.0 Freshwater clams0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Razor clams10.010.00.010.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Dungeness crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown king crab10.00.00.010.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown tanner crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Octopus0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Shrimp10.00.00.010.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Squid0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Vegetation100.0100.0100.020.050.0275.719.78.229.2 Blueberry100.0100.0100.020.050.0157.511.34.739.4gal2.842.7 Lowbush cranberry70.070.070.010.030.043.43.11.310.9gal0.848.8 Highbush cranberry10.010.010.00.010.011.20.80.32.8gal0.2120.9 Crowberry50.050.050.00.00.018.21.30.54.6gal0.378.1 Cloudberry10.010.010.00.00.00.40.00.00.1gal0.0120.9 Raspberry40.040.040.00.010.026.61.90.86.7gal0.560.3 Salmonberry20.020.020.00.00.011.60.80.32.9gal0.2116.9 Other wild berry0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea10.010.010.00.00.00.10.00.00.1gal0.0120.9 Wild rose hips20.020.020.00.00.06.00.40.21.5gal0.1113.2 Other wild greens10.010.010.00.00.00.20.00.00.2gal0.0120.9 Unknown mushrooms0.010.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Fireweed10.010.010.00.00.00.70.10.00.7gal0.1120.9 Other wood90.090.090.00.00.00.00.00.079.5cord5.737.1a.Summary rows that include incompatible units of measure have been left blank. Birds and eggs, continuedSource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Note Resources where the percentage using is greater than the combined received and harvest indicate use from resources obtained during a previous year.Note For small land mammals, species that are not typically eaten show a non-zero harvest amount with a zero harvest wight. Harvest weight is not calculated for species harvested but not eaten.Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±)Table 8-13.–Page 4 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)402 SeaSonal round For eaSt glenn highway Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona residents harvest wild resources throughout the year and, like most rural Alaska communities, they target specific species at certain seasons of the year following a cyclical harvest pattern. This seasonal harvest pattern is in part defined by seasonal resource availability, and in part by laws, regulations, and land access. A small number of residents from these communities have access to small airplanes or marine boats and use these modes of transportation to travel to more distant wild resource search and harvest areas. However, the majority of residents’ resource search and harvest activities take place within the community boundaries or in the larger Copper River Basin area (Figure 8-9). Besides airplanes and boats, motorized vehicles, such as highway vehicles, ATVs, and snowmachines are commonly used modes of transportation used by residents of these 3 communities, as was discussed above. Another reported mode of transportation employed by community residents was walking; residents commented that they often walked to harvesting areas that were only a short distance from their home, or might not have been accessible by other means. While harvest activities are ongoing throughout the year, early June marks the beginning of salmon harvesting efforts for these communities. Chinook salmon are the first salmon species to arrive in the Copper River watershed, followed quickly by sockeye salmon. The majority of community members actively harvest salmon species in the Copper River by mid-June and fishing continues through the coho salmon run that occurs into September. Most residents harvest their salmon by fish wheel or dip net and less often by rod and reel. Some residents may travel to Valdez for rod and reel fishing of coho and pink salmon later in the season. Nonsalmon freshwater fish are harvested all throughout the year and across a large area extending north of the East Glenn community complex to lakes around Lake Louise and Crosswind Lake. For some families, freshwater fish precede salmon as the first resource harvested for the summer season. Once the ice clears Figure 8-8.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Mendeltna, 2013. Salmon 48% Nonsalmon fish 14% Large land mammals 21% Birds and eggs 1% Vegetation 16% Note Categories having 0 lb of usable weight are not included. 403 Figure 8-9.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, East Glenn Highway: Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona, 2013.Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013PaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaLake LouiseTokHopeKnikEyakHealyKenaiHomerSlanaBelugaValdezGakonaWillowSuttonPalmerSewardTetlinPortageKasilofCordovaNabesnaChitinaEklutnaSusitnaHoustonNikiskiSterlingGirdwoodNorthwayWhittierSoldotnaSeldoviaTatitlekMcCarthyCantwellSkwentnaNanwalekKachemakTanacrossTalkeetnaNinilchikAnchorageClam GulchChickaloonMoose PassKenny LakeNikolaevskEagle RiverChistochinaChenega BayPetersvilleHappy ValleyAnchor PointCopper CenterMentasta LakeMcKinley ParkCooper LandingWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve06030MilesSearch and harvest areasHighway/roadPark and preserve boundarySearch and harvest locations All resources 404 from local lakes and streams residents may target freshwater fish as early as May using rod and reel. This type of fishing takes place in smaller creeks near the communities. Many kinds of nonsalmon fish are also harvested during the fall using rod and reel, and during winter and spring months by jigging through the ice. Large land mammal hunting is an important fall activity that starts in August; depending on the resource and regulations, hunting efforts can stretch through November with some opportunities existing for a spring harvest. During the study year most of the harvests took place between August and October with much of the effort taking place along the Glenn and Richardson highways. The majority of small land mammals are trapped for their fur during the winter months when snow is on the ground but others are harvested for their meat as well as their fur all throughout the year. An average trapping season most commonly extends from November through February—depending on the snow conditions and the quality of the fur on the animals that the trappers are harvesting. Migratory birds and upland game birds are both harvested at different times throughout the year. Waterfowl are hunted in the spring , while upland game birds—such as the different species of ptarmigan and grouse— are locally harvested from early fall through the winter months and are often harvested opportunistically throughout the year while hunting for other resources, such as moose and caribou. Community residents harvest plants, mushrooms, and berries during summer and fall. For example, blueberries, raspberries, crowberries, and salmonberries began to ripen in late July and are gathered during late summer; highbush and lowbush cranberries are gathered during fall. Depending on the year, the harvest of wild mushrooms, such as shaggy manes, milk caps, puff balls, and orange delicious, takes place throughout the summer and harvesting activities stretch into early fall. Harvesting firewood for home heating is an important year-round activity for these 3 communities. Once the lakes in the Copper River Basin freeze, some residents ice fish for nonsalmon species such as burbot, lake trout, and rainbow trout. Typically in May after the snow on lower elevations has fully melted harvesting activities of vegetation such as spring mushrooms and fiddlehead ferns occurs. In 2013, only a few residents harvested locally available mushrooms. uSe and harveSt characteriSticS By reSource category Table 8-13 helps identify the roles sharing and receiving resources play in use patterns of resources harvested in 2013. Estimates of sharing indicate that 90% Mendeltna households received wild resources from other households and 90% of households gave resources away. Salmon, large land mammals, and vegetation were the most commonly shared and received resources. Salmon were used by 100% of households, given away by 60% of households, and received by 70% of households. Large land mammals were used by 100% of households, given away by 40% of households, and received by 90% of households. Vegetation was used by 100% of households and 50% of households gave away and 20% received vegetation resources. Table 8-14 lists the top resources used by Mendeltna households and Figure 8-10 depicts the resources with the largest harvests (1% or more of the total harvest composition as estimated in pounds usable weight per person) during the 2013 study year. Moose was used by 100% of Mendeltna households and was tied with blueberries for the most used wild resource in 2013 (Table 8-14). Interestingly, no household harvested a moose during the study year (Table 8-13); this indicates that households used moose resources that were either received from residents from other communities or the Alaska Moose Salvage Program (road-killed moose), or that households had used leftover meat harvested in previous years. Blueberries contributed 9% to the overall harvest of resources. Sockeye salmon made the largest contribution to the community harvest (43% of total harvest) and 90% of households used sockeye salmon (Figure 8-10; Table 8-14). Caribou was the second most harvested wild resource and contributed 21% to the overall harvest. Even though caribou made up a large portion of the total harvest, it was used by just one-half (50%) of Mendeltna households in 2013 (Table 8-14). Another important contribution to the community in terms of usable weight was Pacific halibut (9%). 405 Table 8-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Mendeltna, 2013. Ranka Resource Percentage of households using 1.Moose 100.0% 1.Blueberry 100.0% 3.Sockeye salmon 90.0% 4.Lowbush cranberry 70.0% 5.Pacific halibut 50.0% 5.Caribou 50.0% 5.Crowberry 50.0% 8.Coho salmon 40.0% 8.Arctic grayling 40.0% 8.Rainbow trout 40.0% a.Resources used by the same percentage of households share the lowest rank value instead of having sequential rank values. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 406 Figure 8-10.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Mendeltna, 2013.Sockeye salmon43%Caribou21%Blueberry9%Pacific halibut9%Chinook salmon3%Lowbush cranberry2%Coho salmon2%Lake trout2%Raspberry2%Arctic grayling1%All other resources6%NoteThe "allother resources" category represents all species that contributed less than 1% to the total harvest weight.407 Figure 8-11.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Mendeltna, 2013. Coho salmon 4% Chinook salmon 7% Sockeye salmon 89% Salmon Salmon composed 48% of the Mendeltna harvest in pounds usable weight for 2013, totaling 856 lb, or 26 lb per capita, most of which was sockeye salmon (Figure 8-8; Table 8-13). Sockeye salmon made up 89% (764 lb, or 23 lb per capita) of the total salmon harvest; the remaining composition of the salmon harvest was as follows: 7% Chinook salmon (58 lb, or 2 lb per capita) and 4% coho salmon (35 lb, or 1 lb per capita) (Figure 8-11; Table 8-13). Sockeye salmon were used in more households than any other kind of salmon (90% of households in Mendeltna used sockeye salmon), and sockeye salmon was the most successfully harvested (60% of households), received (60% of households), and shared (60% of households) of the salmon species used in the community (Table 8-13). Coho salmon was the second most used salmon species (40% of households) followed by Chinook salmon (30% of households). During study year 2013, Mendeltna households harvested the majority (83% of the salmon harvest in pounds usable weight) of their salmon with fish wheels. The remaining salmon harvest (17%) was taken with rod and reel (Table 8-15). Fish wheels were used to take 91% of the sockeye salmon harvest and 33% of Chinook salmon harvest. 408 Table 8-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Mendeltna, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsSalmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%86.5%83.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%86.5%83.2%13.5%16.8%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%86.5%83.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%86.5%83.2%13.5%16.8%100.0%100.0%Chum salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Coho salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%23.5%24.2%3.2%4.1%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.2%4.1%3.2%4.1%Chinook salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.9%2.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.9%2.7%11.8%26.7%2.4%6.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%33.3%33.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%33.3%33.3%66.7%66.7%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.8%2.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.8%2.2%1.6%4.5%2.4%6.7%Pink salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Sockeye salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%99.1%97.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%99.1%97.3%64.7%49.1%94.4%89.2%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%90.8%90.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%90.8%90.8%9.2%9.2%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%85.7%81.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%85.7%81.0%8.7%8.2%94.4%89.2%Landlocked salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Any methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodFish wheelDip netResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reel409 Figure 8-12.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Mendeltna, 2013. Pacific halibut 60% Yelloweye rockfish 1% Unknown rockfish 3% Burbot 9% Lake trout 11% Arctic grayling 9% Rainbow trout 7% Nonsalmon Fish Mendeltna households harvested an estimated total of 258 lb, or 8 lb per capita, of nonsalmon fish; this harvest made up 14% of the total wild resource harvest in 2013 (Table 8-13; Figure 8-8). In terms of total pounds and percentages, the largest portion of the nonsalmon fish harvest (60%) was composed of Pacific halibut (154 lb, or 5 lb per capita) (Figure 8-12; Table 8-13). The remaining 40% of the nonsalmon fish harvest was mostly composed of freshwater species such as lake trout (28 lb, or less than 1 lb per capita), Arctic grayling (25 lb), burbot (24 lb), and rainbow trout (18 lb). The remaining portion of the total nonsalmon fish harvest was made up of rockfish (10 lb). Nonsalmon fish were harvested either by rod and reel or while ice fishing. Table 8-16 reports the gear types used by Mendeltna households to harvest nonsalmon fish in 2013. In terms of pounds usable weight, the majority (87%) of the nonsalmon fish harvest was taken with rod and reel. Sixty-nine percent of the nonsalmon fish harvest weight caught by rod and reel was Pacific halibut, which was caught in Prince William Sound. The remaining nonsalmon fish harvest weight caught by rod and reel included Arctic grayling (11 %), rainbow trout (8%), lake trout (6%), rockfish (4%), and burbot (2%). A small percentage (13%) of the pounds usable weight of all nonsalmon fish was harvested by ice fishing. This harvest was composed of burbot (59% of ice fishing harvest) and lake trout (41%). 410 Table 8-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Mendeltna, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNonsalmon fishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%6.7%13.3%0.0%0.0%6.7%13.3%93.3%86.7%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%6.7%13.3%0.0%0.0%6.7%13.3%93.3%86.7%100.0%100.0%Pacific herringGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring sac roeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown smeltGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific (gray) codGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific tomcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Starry flounderGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%LingcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific halibutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%72.4%69.0%67.5%59.8%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%67.5%59.8%67.5%59.8%Arctic lampreyGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Yelloweye rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.5%1.3%0.5%1.1%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.5%1.1%0.5%1.1%Unknown rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.8%3.1%0.8%2.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.8%2.7%0.8%2.7%Pacific herring spawn on kelpAny methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodIce fish-continued-ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reel411 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsUnknown sculpinGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%BurbotGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%54.5%59.0%0.0%0.0%54.5%59.0%0.7%1.5%4.3%9.1%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%85.7%85.7%0.0%0.0%85.7%85.7%14.3%14.3%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.7%7.8%0.0%0.0%3.7%7.8%0.6%1.3%4.3%9.1%Dolly VardenGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Lake troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%45.5%41.0%0.0%0.0%45.5%41.0%3.3%6.3%6.1%10.9%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%50.0%50.0%0.0%0.0%50.0%50.0%50.0%50.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.1%5.4%0.0%0.0%3.1%5.4%3.1%5.4%6.1%10.9%Arctic graylingGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%16.4%11.0%15.3%9.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%15.3%9.5%15.3%9.5%Northern pikeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Longnose suckerGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Cutthroat troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rainbow troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%5.9%7.9%5.5%6.9%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%5.5%6.9%5.5%6.9%Unknown troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Broad whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Least ciscoGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Humpback whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rod and reelAny methodPercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodTable 8-16.–Page 2 of 3.-continued-Resource412 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsRound whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown whitefishesGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Any methodGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodSubsistence methodsRod and reelResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Table 8-16.–Page 3 of 3.413 Large Land Mammals In 2013, the harvest of large land mammals made up 21% of Mendeltna residents’ overall wild resource harvest (Figure 8-8). In pounds usable weight, the estimated total harvest was 364 lb, or approximately 11 lb per capita (Table 8-13). Caribou made up 100% of the total large land mammal harvest in 2013. Seventy percent of households attempted to harvest caribou in 2013 and 10% of community households successfully harvested caribou. Mendeltna households were successful at harvesting caribou during January and October; it is estimated that 1 caribou was harvested in January and 1 in October (Table 8-17). According to survey results, 80% of Mendeltna households attempted to harvest moose, but none were successful. Regardless of a small number of Mendeltna households successfully harvesting the 2 most targeted large land mammal species (moose and caribou), many community households used these resources after receiving some either from other households in Mendeltna or other Alaska communities. According to the survey, 90% of Mendeltna households received some moose and 100% used moose during the study year (Table 8-13). In comparison, 40% of community households received some caribou and 50% used caribou in 2013.There was a small effort to harvest black bears by Mendeltna households (10%), but no households harvested bears in 2013. Table 8-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Mendeltna, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All large land mammals 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Bison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brown bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Caribou 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Caribou, male 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Caribou, female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Deer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mountain goat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Moose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Moose, bull 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Moose, cow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dall sheep 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Estimated harvest by month Total 414 Small Land Mammals/Furbearers Twenty percent of households reported attempting to harvest small land mammals; targeted species included: beavers, red foxes, North American river otters, lynx, and martens. However, there were no successful harvests of small land mammals/furbearers by Mendeltna residents in 2013 (Table 8-13; Table 8-18). There was no sharing and no use of small land mammals during the 2013 study year. Table 8-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Mendeltna, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All small land mammals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Beaver 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coyote 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red fox–cross phase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red fox–red phase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snowshoe hare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 North American river (land) otter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lynx 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marmot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marten 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muskrat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Porcupine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red (tree) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Weasel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gray wolf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wolverine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Estimated harvest by month Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2013. Resource Total 415 Northern shoveler 11% American wigeon 76% Unknown ptarmigan 13% Note No bird eggs were harvested. Figure 8-13.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Mendeltna, 2013. Birds and Eggs For study year 2013, the harvest of birds totaled approximately 15 lb, or less than1 lb per capita, and made up 1% of Mendeltna households’ total wild resource harvest (Table 8-13; Figure 8-8). In terms of pounds usable weight, the majority of the harvest (14 lb) was migratory birds—consisting of American wigeons (12 lb) and northern shovelers (2 lb) (Table 8-13). The remaining 13% of the bird harvest (2 lb) was composed of ptarmigan (Figure 8-13; Table 8-13). Mendeltna households harvested all birds during the fall months (Table 8-19). No bird egg harvests were reported by Mendeltna residents in 2013. Marine invertebrates As listed in Table 8-13, 10% of Mendeltna households attempted to harvest razor clams, but there were no successful harvests of marine invertebrates by Mendeltna households in 2013. However, 20% of Mendeltna households received some marine invertebrates and 20% used some marine invertebrates in 2013. Three species of marine invertebrates were received by Mendeltna households from households outside of Mendeltna. The species of received and used marine invertebrates included: razor clams, king crab, and shrimp. 416 Table 8-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Mendeltna, 2013. Winter Spring Summer Fall Season unknown All birds 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 22.4 Canvasback 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spectacled eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Goldeneye 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mallard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Northern pintail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black scoter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Northern shoveler 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 Green-winged teal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 American wigeon 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 16.8 Unknown ducks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cackling goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Canada goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown Canada/cackling geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Emperor goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snow goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White-fronted goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tundra (whistling) swan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandhill crane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spruce grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ruffed grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown ptarmigan 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 Unknown duck eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown goose eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown gull eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated harvest by season TotalResource 417 Berries 97% Plants and greens 3% Figure 8-14.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Mendeltna, 2013. Vegetation In study year 2013, vegetation made up 16% of the total wild food harvest in Mendeltna; 100% of Mendeltna households used some vegetation resources and 100% harvested some (Figure 8-8; Table 8-13). Mendeltna residents harvested an estimated total of 276 lb, or 8 lb per capita, of vegetation in 2013, the majority of which was berries (97% of total vegetation harvest) (Table 8-13; Figure 8-14). In terms of total pounds harvested, the majority of the berry harvest was composed of blueberries (158 lb, or 5 lb per capita) followed by lowbush cranberries (43 lb, or 1 lb per capita), raspberries (27 lb), crowberries (18 lb), salmonberries (12 lb), and highbush cranberries (11 lb) (Table 8-13). In comparison, the majority of the other vegetation harvest was composed of wild rose hips (6 lb, or less than 1 lb per capita); the remaining other vegetation harvested were fireweed (1 lb), other wild greens (less than 1 lb), and Hudson’s Bay (Labrador) tea (less than 1 lb). As discussed above, vegetation resources are widely harvested and used in Mendeltna. Numbers of households sharing and receiving indicate that during study year 2013 berries were shared more than plants, greens, and mushrooms; 50% of community households gave away some berries while none shared other vegetation resources (Table 8-13). Similarly, 20% of Mendeltna households received some berries and none received any plants, greens, or mushrooms. Blueberries were the most widely shared berry species (50% of households gave some away) and was also the most received berry (20% of households received some). Almost all households (90%) in Mendeltna harvested and used firewood in 2013. The total community harvest was 80 cords and the mean number of firewood cords harvested per household was 6. 418 coMParing harveStS and uSeS in 2013 with PreviouS yearS Harvest Assessments For 10 resource categories and for all resources combined, survey respondents were asked to assess whether their uses and harvests in the 2013 study year were less, more, or about the same as other recent years. “Other recent years” was defined as about the last 5 years. Table 8-20 reports the number of valid responses for each category, the number of households that did not respond, and the number of households that did not use a resource category or all resources combined. In Table 8-20, response percentages are based on the number of valid responses for each category to contextualize these assessments within the set of community households that typically use each category. Figure 8-15 depicts responses to the “less, same, more” assessment question. Households that said they did not ordinarily “use” something are not included within the results. This results in fewer responses for less commonly used categories such as bird eggs or marine mammals or migratory waterfowl, which manifests in the chart as a very short set of colored bars compared to categories such as salmon or large land mammals, which are ordinarily used by most households. Some households did not respond to the question. Taking all the resource categories into consideration, most Mendeltna households (40%) said they used the same amount of wild resources in general over the previous 12 months compared to recent years (Table 8-20). A smaller number, 30% of households, said they used less, and 30% said they used more in 2013. For salmon use, 10 valid responses were provided and one-half of those responses (5 households, or 50%) reported the same level of use of salmon in the study year as compared to recent years, while 4 households reported less use and 1 household reported more use (Table 8-20). Similarly, of the 10 valid responses provided by respondents regarding level of use of large land mammals, 6 households (or 60%) reported the same level of use in 2013 than in recent years; this was the resource category with the largest percentage of households reporting the same level of use in 2013. Unlike the responses for salmon use, more households reported using more large land mammals (3 households) than reported using less (1 household). For nonsalmon fish and vegetation, 4 of 10 households (or 40%) reported using those resources at the same level compared to recent years. Table 8-21 reports the reasons why, according to their assessments, Mendeltna households’ use of wild resources was less in 2013; correspondingly Table 8-22 reports the reasons why Mendeltna households’ use of resources was more. This was an open-ended question and respondents could provide more than 1 reason for each resource category. Project staff grouped the responses into categories, such as regulations hindering residents from harvesting resources, sharing of harvests, effects of weather on animals and subsistence activities, changes in the animal populations, personal reasons such as work and health, and other outside effects on residents’ opportunities to engage in hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. Looking at all resources combined, 3 households reported that their use was less; 67% cited unsuccessful efforts and 33% cited family/personal circumstances as the main reasons for using less wild resources in 2013 (Table 8-21). In comparison, increased effort, needed more, more success, and store-bought food expense were the 4 reasons cited for increased use of all wild resources during 2013 by Mendeltna households that responded to this question (2 households) (Table 8-22). Looking at the reasons cited for using less birds (migratory and other birds combined), resources being less available was cited by all responding Mendeltna households (Table 8-21). Increased availability was the primary reason cited by households for increased use of vegetation during the study year; favorable weather and increased effort were also cited (Table 8-22). The impact to households from not getting enough wild resources is reported in Table 8-23. The most noticeable impact was for large land mammals for which 4 households reported not getting enough resources; 2 households noted a minor impact while 2 households reported that the impact was major. Only 3 caribou (estimated) were harvested and no moose during 2013. For all resources 30% of households (out of 10) said that they did not get enough resources in 2013 and of those respondents 68% said that the impact from not getting enough resources was minor while another 33% said it was major. 419 Table 8-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Mendeltna, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource101010100.0%660.0%990.0%880.0%10100.0%All resources101010100.0%330.0%440.0%330.0%00.0%Salmon101010100.0%440.0%550.0%110.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish101010100.0%440.0%440.0%220.0%00.0%Large land mammals101010100.0%110.0%660.0%330.0%00.0%Small land mammals1010220.0%220.0%00.0%00.0%880.0%Marine mammals101000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%10100.0%Migratory waterfowl1010110.0%110.0%00.0%00.0%990.0%Other birds1010220.0%220.0%00.0%00.0%880.0%Bird eggs101000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%10100.0%Marine invertebrates1010220.0%110.0%00.0%110.0%880.0%Vegetation101010100.0%220.0%440.0%440.0%00.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.a. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response.Households not usingSampled householdsResource categoryMoreSameLessValid responsesaTotal householdsHouseholds reporting use420 Figure 8-15.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Mendeltna, 2013.40%40%10%20%10%20%10%20%50%40%60%40%10%20%30%10%40%80%100%90%80%100%80%SalmonNonsalmon fishLarge land mammalsSmall land mammalsMarine mammalsMigratory waterfowlOther birdsBird eggsMarine invertebratesVegetationPercentage of surveyed households providing a valid response. Unlabeled percentages are less than 5%.Households used LESS in 2013Households used SAME in 2013Households used MORE in 2013Households normally do not use421 Table 8-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Mendeltna, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource106116.7%233%00.0%00%117%233%All resources103133.3%00%00.0%00%00%00%Salmon104125.0%00%00.0%00%00%125%Nonsalmon fish10400.0%00%00.0%00%125%125%Large land mammals10100.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Small land mammals10200.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Marine mammals10000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Migratory waterfowl10100.0%1100%00.0%00%00%00%Other birds10200.0%2100%00.0%00%00%00%Bird eggs10000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Marine invertebrates10100.0%00%00.0%00%00%1100%Vegetation10200.0%150%00.0%00%00%150%Table8-21.–Continued.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource106350.0%233.3%00.0%233.3%00.0%00.0%All resources103266.7%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon10400.0%00.0%00%125.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish10400.0%00.0%00%125.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals1011100.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals102150.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals10000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl10100.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds10200.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs10000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates10100.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation10200.0%2100.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Resource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useUnsuccessfulWeather/environmentLack of equipmentLess sharingLack of effortResource categoryHouseholds reporting reasons for less useFamily/personalResources less availableToo far to travelValid responsesa-continued--continued-Small/diseased animalsOther reasonsWorking/no timeRegulations422 Table8-21.–Page 2 of 2.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource106116.7%233.3%00.0%116.7%00.0%All resources10300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon10400.0%250.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish10400.0%125.0%00.0%125.0%00.0%Large land mammals10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals102150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds10200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation10200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Resource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useEquipment/fuel expenseUsed other resourcesLess competitionDid not get enoughDid not needa.Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never using the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.423 Table 8-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Mendeltna, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource106233.3%116.7%116.7%00.0%116.7%All resources10200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%150.0%Salmon10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals10300.0%133.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation103266.7%00.0%133.3%00.0%00.0%NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource106233.3%00.0%116.7%00.0%00.0%All resources102150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish1011100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals10300.0%00.0%133.3%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation103133.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%-continued--continued-Resource categoryValid responsesaTable 8-22.–Continued.Households reporting reasons for more useIncreased availabilityResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more useIncreased effortHad more helpOtherRegulationsTraveled fartherNeeded moreUsed other resourcesFavorable weatherReceived more424 NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource106233.3%116.7%116.7%00.0%00.0%All resources102150.0%00.0%150.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish10100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals103133.3%133.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates10000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation10300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Valid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more usea. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never use.Table 8-22.–Page2 of 2.Resource categoryStore-bought expenseGot/fixed equipmentSubstituted resourcesMore successNeeded less425 Table 8-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Mendeltna, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageSalmon1010100.0%330.0%00.0%00.0%3100.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish1010100.0%330.0%00.0%00.0%3100.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates10220.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals1010100.0%440.0%00.0%00.0%250.0%250.0%00.0%Marine mammals1000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals10220.0%150.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl10110.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds10220.0%150.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs1000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation1010100.0%440.0%00.0%00.0%375.0%00.0%125.0%All resources1010100.0%330.0%00.0%00.0%266.7%133.3%00.0%a. Does not includes households failing to respond to the question or those households that never used the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Resource categorySample householdsHouseholds not getting enough _______ .Impact to those not getting enough ______ .Valid responsesaDid not get enoughNo responseNot noticeableMinorMajorSevere426 Harvest Data Changes in the harvest of resources by Mendeltna residents can also be discerned through comparisons with findings from other study years. These comparisons will be discussed in the chapter “East Glenn Highway: Tolsona.” Current and Historical Harvest Areas Discussion of comparisons between current and historical search and harvest areas can be found in the subsection “Current and Historical Harvest Areas” in the section “Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years” in the chapter “East Glenn Highway: Tolsona.” local coMMentS and concernS Following is a summary of local observations of wild resource populations and trends that were recorded during the surveys in Mendeltna. Some households did not offer any additional comments or concerns during the survey interviews, so not all households are represented in the summary. In addition, respondents expressed their concerns about wild resources during the community review meeting of preliminary data. These concerns have been included in the summary. Fish Salmon was the most harvested wild resource by Mendeltna households and many harvested their salmon from fish wheels they share with other households in the Copper River or by dip net in the Chitina dip net fishery. Residents commented that 2013 was an unusual year for the Copper River fishery due to a flooding event that changed the course of the river and affected the placement of the fish wheel. Mendeltna households expressed concern regarding the future of Chinook salmon fishing in the Copper River. Many commented that Chinook salmon return rates have been noticeably decreasing over the past decade. Large Land Mammals Many Mendeltna respondents expressed concerns about not having enough opportunity to hunt for large land mammals such as moose and caribou in the Copper River Basin. Lack of opportunity was attributed to competition and crowding by residents from around the state who arrive to hunt in the local area. Several households expressed a desire for a rural residency preference for large mammal hunting due to increased hunting pressure from non-local residents. Community Boundaries With regard to the East Glenn Highway complex communities, research found that residents’ perceptions of community affiliation were fluid and often did not reflect the boundaries of the respective community CDPs. Many residents were surprised at the official CDP boundaries and they were confused as to why the U.S. Census Bureau decided to spatially delineate the communities in the manner it had. Among the 3 combined communities, Mendeltna has the largest CDP in terms of area but the fewest resident households. Some of the Mendeltna CDP residents self-identify with Nelchina, some with Tolsona, and even fewer with Mendeltna as their place of residence. Mendeltna separates Nelchina from Tolsona and thus residents of the latter communities rarely self-identify with one another. 427 Cost of Heating Fuel The cost of fuel for heating homes was a concern brought up by many Mendeltna households during the survey. These households expressed concern about the continuing rise of fuel costs and several expressed concerns that they may need to relocate if the trend continues. ACKNoWLEDGMENTS The ADF&G staff would like to thank Mabel and Russ Wimmer from the Mendeltna Creek Lodge for letting ADF&G use their facilities to host meetings, training sessions, and conduct surveys. Also, thanks are extended to Erin Fingle for her help as the local research assistant. 428 9. EAST GLENN HiGHWAy: NELCHiNA Malla Kukkonen A broad overview of the East Glenn Highway area, as well as the reasons and methods for consolidating some data for the communities of Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona, was included in the previous chapter. This chapter will only include specific background and findings for Nelchina. Spatial harvest data were combined with Mendeltna and Tolsona and will be reported in the subsection “Current and Historical Harvest Areas” in the section “Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years” in chapter 10 “East Glenn Highway: Tolsona.” Additionally, harvest data comparisons with previous years will be included in chapter 10. coMMunity Background The name Nelchina is the traditional Ahtna Athabascan name for the area and the name was applied to the historical community developed around a mining settlement established at the mouth of Crooked Creek around 1913. Despite a government exploration party to the area in 1898, and the activities of a small number of trappers and prospectors working in the area, the Nelchina–Susitna region had remained largely unexplored up until the time it was settled. What is now known as the historic Chickaloon–Knik– Nelchina trail system, which originally was an Ahtna trail, was the only access trail into the region in the beginning of the 20th century. Large amounts of supplies were freighted up to the developing Nelchina– Susitna gold fields along this trail, which served as the only access route into the Copper River Basin until the construction of the Glenn Highway in the early 1940s (Bauer 1987; Chapin 1915:118–130, 1918; Orth 1971rep.:680; Wendt 1997). Theodore Chapin (1918:20), a United States Geological Survey (USGS) employee studying the region’s geology and mineral resources in the summer of 1914, described the early settlement of Nelchina as: “[…] the seat of the Nelchina recording precinct and the general headquarters of the neighboring region.” During his visit in 1914, Chapin documented between 15–20 small cabins in Nelchina (Chapin 1915:122). Most of the population in the early Nelchina settlement was documented as Euro-American. The majority of the Ahtna population living in the Copper River Basin was either permanently residing in Copper Center, which was the principal settlement in the region at the time, or continued to live seasonally in cabins as well as hunting and fishing camps while harvesting wild resources around throughout the Copper River Basin (Chapin 1918:7–20). The Nelchina–Susitna gold fields were the destinations of some of the last gold rushes that took place in Alaska after 1910 and according to Wendt (1997), the gold strikes at Nelchina were small in comparison to the majority of Alaska’s previous gold discoveries. While there were approximately 400 men prospecting on the tributaries of the Little Nelchina River, Tyone Creek, and Oshetna River during the 1914 season, only a small number of them stayed and were able to make a reasonable living from their claims in the long run. In fact, many struggled and ended up selling their claims to other interested miners (Chapin 1918:59; Wendt 1997). Although the initial boom was over soon, a few miners continued to live and mine the Nelchina area gold fields after 1916. The historical settlement was finally abandoned in the early 1940s (Bauer 1987). A number of homesteaders and young families settled in the Nelchina area during the 1970s and early 1980s when new privately-owned land became available for purchase along the Glenn Highway. Like many current rural Alaska road-based communities, the present community of Nelchina is not located in a centralized location but rather is composed of a collection of households stretched along the Glenn Highway from approximately mile 137 to 150. Since 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau has included Nelchina as a census designated place (CDP) in the Valdez-Cordova Census Area (U.S. Census Bureau 2003:III-1–III-15). Most of the households considering Nelchina their permanent place of residence are located along the highway; only a few households live off the road and access their property with an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) or a snowmachine. There is no organized local government in the community but the Nelchina-Mendeltna Community Corporation, a not-for-profit corporation established in 1987, organizes and advocates for local 429 issues and planning. One of the essential services provided by the community corporation to Nelchina and Mendeltna households is organizing and maintaining a local transfer station for household refuse (Mary Odden, Nelchina resident, personal communication, January 2014). In 2013, Nelchina had a small general store, a car repair and towing service, and a lodge, which has been in operation since the mid-1960s. The closest post office and other services, such as medical care, a larger grocery store, and gas stations, are available in Glennallen, which is approximately 45 miles east of Nelchina. The community school, Lottie Sparks Elementary, was closed in 2002 after functioning as both a school and a community center for more than 15 years. During the past 5 years, new land offerings by the State of Alaska have provided new subdivision development and subsequent construction in different parts of the larger Nelchina area. Long-time community residents said that before the new land openings, the community population had fluctuated very little because there was only a limited number of land plots available for anyone interested in settling in the community. With the new land openings and subdivision development, a number of young families with children have moved to Nelchina. Community residents commented that the cost of living in the area has been, and continues to be, high. In fact, the high cost of living is a factor that in the past forced many families to leave Nelchina. A number of the current Nelchina households, with or without children, are faced with the same challenge. Furthermore, several of the community households are also fully retired; in comparison some retired households continue to work seasonal jobs in the Copper River Basin or at other locations. deMograPhy The households included in the Nelchina sample surveyed for this study were located approximately between mile 137 and mile 150 of the Glenn Highway (Figure 8-1). In addition, 2 households located in the Tolsona CDP identified themselves as Nelchina residents and requested that they be included in the Nelchina findings. Since the East Glenn Highway communities were going to be combined for analysis the research staff accepted this change. The section “Local Comments and Concerns” includes a discussion about residents’ perception about community boundaries. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Nelchina had 59 residents in 30 households in 2010 (Table 9-1). In comparison, the household survey conducted for this study found an estimated a population of 76 people in 29 households in the community in 2013. The number of Alaska Natives residing in Nelchina has remained small; in 2010 the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that approximately 12% (or 7 people) of the total Nelchina population were Alaska Native. According to results from this survey, in 2013, 9% of Nelchina residents (or approximately 6 people) were Alaska Native. Figure 9-1 portrays Nelchina population changes since year 2000 (when the Nelchina CDP was formed) and is based on U.S. Census Bureau counts, population estimates produced by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADLWD), and this study. The figure shows that over time, Nelchina’s population has remained reasonably steady with the number of residents in the community increasing slightly since 2010. Before the survey effort, researchers, in collaboration with knowledgeable community residents, estimated and confirmed that there were 30 housing units in Nelchina, 1 of which was vacant. The survey staff were able to interview 18 (62%) of the 29 year-round households in Nelchina, making the total sampled Nelchina population 47 (Table 9-2). The survey team was unable to contact 9 households and 2 households declined to be interviewed. The following data are expanded to cover the households not surveyed. According to survey results, the mean number of years of residency in Nelchina for the total population was 18 years; the maximum length of residence was 53 years (Table 9-3). In 2013, the average household size in Nelchina was small—approximately 3 people per household. In general, 55% of the population was female and 45% male (Table 9-4). The largest age cohort of the entire Nelchina population was males and females between ages 55–59 years of age; this age cohort made up approximately 24% of the total Nelchina male population, and 19% of community’s female population (Figure 9-2; Table 9-4). Age cohorts of both sexes were fairly evenly distributed among age ranges 5 to 19 and 65 to 74 years of age (Figure 9-2). However, there were no males or females between ages 20 to 24 or 40 to 44 years of age residing in Nelchina in 2013 (Table 9-4; Figure 9-2). Furthermore, the mean age of community residents was 40 years of age (Table 9-3). It is also 430 Households 30 19 29.0 Population 59 80 75.7 Population 7 0 6.4 Percentage 11.9%0.0%8.5% Note The term "households" means occupied housing units. Alaska Native population data from the American Community Survey and 2010 census come from the category "race alone or in combination with one or more other races." Census (2010) 5-year American Community Survey (2008–2012) This study (2013) Sources U.S. Census Bureau (2011) for 2010 estimate; U.S. Census Bureau for American Community Survey 5-year survey estimate; and ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014, for 2013 estimate. Total population Alaska Native Table 9-1.–Population estimates, Nelchina, 2010 and 2013. Figure 9-1.–Historical population estimates, Nelchina, 2000–2013. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Number of peopleAlaska Department of Labor (estimate)This study (estimate) U.S. Census (count)Trendline Note Population data for this community are not available prior to 2000. 431 Table 9-2.–Sample achievement, Nelchina, 2013. Nelchina Number of dwelling units 30 Interview goal 30 Households interviewed 18 Households failed to be contacted 9 Households declined to be interviewed 2 Households moved or occupied by nonresident 1 Total households attempted to be interviewed 20 Refusal rate 10.0% Final estimate of permanent households 29 Percentage of total households interviewed 62.1% Interview weighting factor 1.6 Sampled population 47 Estimated population 75.7 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. noteworthy that while a number of females between 75 and 89 years of age resided in Nelchina in 2013, the oldest males were between ages 70 and 74 years of age (Table 9-4; Figure 9-2). The survey also asked about the birthplaces of household members. According to survey results, the majority (87%) of Nelchina household heads were born outside Alaska in other parts of the United States (Table 9-5). A small percentage of Nelchina household heads (approximately 7%) were born in Anchorage. For the Nelchina population overall, the majority (approximately 60%) of the community residents were born somewhere else in the United States (Appendix Table E9-1). In comparison, 19% of Nelchina residents claimed Nelchina as their birthplace, 6% cited nearby Chickaloon, and 4% cited either Anchorage or Chugiak as their birthplace. 432 Table 9-3.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Nelchina, 2013. Characteristics Sampled population 47 Estimated community population 76 Mean 2.6 Minimum 1 Maximum 7 39.8 0 85 39 Total population Mean 18.0 Minimuma 0 Maximum 53 Heads of household Mean 23.6 Minimuma 0 Maximum 53 Estimated householdsb Number 3.2 Percentage 11.1% Estimated population Number 6 Percentage 8.5% Mean Household size Age b.The estimated number of households in which at least 1 head of household is Alaska Native. Alaska Native Minimuma Maximum Median Length of residency a.A minimum age of 0 (zero) is used for infants who are less than 1 year of age. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 433 Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage 0–4 0.0 0.0%0.0%3.2 7.7%7.7%3.2 4.3%4.3% 5–9 3.2 9.5%9.5%4.8 11.5%19.2%8.1 10.6%14.9% 10–14 3.2 9.5%19.0%4.8 11.5%30.8%8.1 10.6%25.5% 15–19 3.2 9.5%28.6%3.2 7.7%38.5%6.4 8.5%34.0% 20–24 0.0 0.0%28.6%0.0 0.0%38.5%0.0 0.0%34.0% 25–29 1.6 4.8%33.3%1.6 3.8%42.3%3.2 4.3%38.3% 30–34 4.8 14.3%47.6%1.6 3.8%46.2%6.4 8.5%46.8% 35–39 0.0 0.0%47.6%3.2 7.7%53.8%3.2 4.3%51.1% 40–44 0.0 0.0%47.6%0.0 0.0%53.8%0.0 0.0%51.1% 45–49 1.6 4.8%52.4%0.0 0.0%53.8%1.6 2.1%53.2% 50–54 0.0 0.0%52.4%3.2 7.7%61.5%3.2 4.3%57.4% 55–59 8.1 23.8%76.2%8.1 19.2%80.8%16.1 21.3%78.7% 60–64 4.8 14.3%90.5%0.0 0.0%80.8%4.8 6.4%85.1% 65–69 1.6 4.8%95.2%1.6 3.8%84.6%3.2 4.3%89.4% 70–74 1.6 4.8%100.0%1.6 3.8%88.5%3.2 4.3%93.6% 75–79 0.0 0.0%100.0%1.6 3.8%92.3%1.6 2.1%95.7% 80–84 0.0 0.0%100.0%1.6 3.8%96.2%1.6 2.1%97.9% 85–89 0.0 0.0%100.0%1.6 3.8%100.0%1.6 2.1%100.0% 90–94 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 95–99 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 100–104 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Missing 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Total 33.8 100.0%100.0%41.9 100.0%100.0%75.7 100.0%100.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Age Male Female Total Table 9-4.–Population profile, Nelchina, 2013. 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0–4 5–9 10–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65–69 70–74 75–79 80–84 85–89 90–94 95–99 100–104 Missing Number of people Female Male Figure 9-2.–Population profile, Nelchina, 2013. 434 Table 9-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Nelchina, 2013. Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 6.7% Cube Cove 3.3% Other U.S.86.7% Missing 3.3% Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. caSh eMPloyMent and Monetary incoMe Nelchina is located approximately 45 miles west of Glennallen and 137 miles northeast of Anchorage. Glennallen, which is the regional hub for the Copper River Basin, is the closest center with local, tribal, state, and federal government agency offices, and a variety of services that offer both year-round and seasonal wage earning opportunities for area residents. The number of permanent employment opportunities in Nelchina has always been very limited and many community residents work in Glennallen, or even farther away in other Alaska communities. A number of the community households are fully retired, or choose to work seasonal jobs in the Copper River Basin or to work at other locations. Table 9-6 summarizes the estimated earned and other income sources for residents of Nelchina in 2013. The table shows that in 2013 the average earned income per Nelchina household was $58,022, or 88% of the total community income. In comparison, other income averaged $8,284 per household and made up 13% of the total community income. The per capita income was $25,394. Wages earned in employment with state government, the services sector, and the mining industry contributed the most to the total community income. The largest sources of other income were pension/retirement and Alaska Permanent Fund dividends. Pension/retirement accounted for 6% and the dividends for 3% of the total community income in 2013. In 2013, the majority (50%) of jobs held by Nelchina residents were with the services sector (Table 9-7). Other important employment sectors in 2013 were state government (20%) and mining (10%). Federal, local, and tribal government, as well as construction employers each provided 5% of the jobs held by Nelchina residents during the study year. It needs to be noted that an additional 5% of the employment by industry data were not indicated. In comparison, income earned from employment with state government and services occupations provided most (27% and 26%, respectively) of the earned income by industry category. The remaining earned income provided by industry category was earned from employment in mining (17%), local and tribal government (7%), and federal government (2%) positions. An additional 15% of community earned income was from unspecified industries. The study found 55 working-age adults over the age of 16 in Nelchina in 2013; the calculated average length of employment for all Nelchina adults was 24.5 weeks or approximately 6 months (Table 9-8). According to survey results, of the 55 adults in Nelchina, 41 were employed in 2013. For the employed adults, the mean length of employment was approximately 7.5 months. In comparison, 51% of the adults in Nelchina were employed year-round in 2013. At the household level, all 29 Nelchina households had an adult household member employed at some point during the study year. The mean number of jobs held by an employed household in 2013 was 1.6. Furthermore, there was an average of 1.4 employed adults in each Nelchina household during study year 2013. 435 Table 9-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Nelchina, 2013. Percentage of Number Number Total Mean Per total of of for per capita community Income source people households community household income income Earned income State government 6.4 9.7 $461,528 $130,829 –$1,264,847 $15,915 24.0% Services 16.1 16.9 $437,618 $101,178 –$717,578 $15,090 22.8% Mining 3.2 4.8 $284,078 $30,786 –$956,383 $9,796 14.8% Other employment 1.6 2.4 $254,636 $66,540 –$1,026,706 $8,781 13.2% Local government, including tribal 1.6 2.4 $109,494 $90,827 –$222,059 $3,776 5.7% Construction 1.6 2.4 $103,446 $83,525 –$195,450 $3,567 5.4% Federal government 1.6 2.4 $31,830 $25,700 –$64,238 $1,098 1.7% Earned income subtotal 29.0 29.0 $1,682,630 $985,636 –$3,002,600 $58,022 $22,221 87.5% other income Pension/retirement 6.4 $112,588 $1,058 –$278,400 $3,882 5.9% Alaska Permanent Fund dividend 27.4 $62,350 $42,050 –$81,200 $2,150 3.2% Social Security 6.4 $36,178 $1,633 –$91,563 $1,248 1.9% Child support 3.2 $13,920 $8,640 –$32,480 $480 0.7% Longevity bonus 3.2 $8,217 $5,100 –$22,233 $283 0.4% Unemployment 3.2 $4,094 $2,541 –$13,050 $141 0.2% Native corporation dividend 3.2 $1,450 $900 –$3,383 $50 0.1% Medicare/Medicaid 1.8 $1,301 $808 –$3,793 $45 0.1% Other 1.6 $144 $89 –$1,074 $5 0.0% TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Supplemental Security income 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Food stamps 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Heating assistance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Workers' compensation/insurance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Disability 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Veterans assistance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Foster care 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% CITGO fuel voucher 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Meeting honoraria 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% other income subtotal 27.5 $240,242 $126,395 –$407,551 $8,284 $3,173 12.5% Community income total $1,922,872 $1,230,366 –$3,167,638 $66,306 $25,394 100.0% -/+ 95% CI Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Adult public assistance (OAA, APD) 436 Table 9-7.–Employment by industry, Nelchina, 2013. Jobs Households Individuals Percentage of wage earnings 45.6 29.0 41.1 5.0%8.3%5.6%1.9% Technologists and technicians, except health 5.0%8.3%5.6%1.9% 20.0%33.3%22.2%27.4% Technologists and technicians, except health 5.0%8.3%5.6%5.7% Service occupations 5.0%8.3%5.6%0.9% Transportation and material moving occupations 5.0%8.3%5.6%5.7% Occupation not indicated 5.0%8.3%5.6%15.1% 5.0%8.3%5.6%6.5% Teachers, librarians, and counselors 5.0%8.3%5.6%6.5% 10.0%16.7%11.1%16.9% Engineers, surveyors, and architects 5.0%8.3%5.6%1.7% Occupation not indicated 5.0%8.3%5.6%15.1% 5.0%8.3%5.6%6.1% Construction and extractive occupations 5.0%8.3%5.6%6.1% 50.0%58.3%55.6%26.0% Executive, administrative, and managerial 5.0%8.3%5.6%2.8% Writers, artists, entertainers, and athletes 5.0%8.3%5.6%0.1% Health technologists and technicians 5.0%8.3%5.6%3.8% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 10.0%16.7%11.1%2.7% Service occupations 10.0%16.7%11.1%6.1% Mechanics and repairers 5.0%8.3%5.6%4.2% Transportation and material moving occupations 10.0%16.7%11.1%6.4% 5.0%8.3%5.6%15.1% Occupation not indicated 5.0%8.3%5.6%15.1% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated total number Industry Federal government industry not indicated Services Construction Mining Local government, including tribal State government 437 Community Nelchina 54.8 24.5 41.1 75.0% 45.6 1.1 1 2 7.5 2 12 51.0% 32.6 29 29.0 100.0% 1.6 1 4 1.4 1.4 1 2 31.8 Characteristic Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. All adults Number Mean weeks employed Employed adults Number Households Mean Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs per employed household Maximum Percentage employed year-round Maximum Employed adults Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs Number Mean person-weeks of employment Minimum Maximum Minimum Total households Number Employed Mean Employed households Months employed Maximum Number Mean weeks employed Table 9-8.–Employment characteristics, Nelchina, 2013. 438 levelS oF individual ParticiPation in the harveSting and ProceSSing oF wild reSourceS Table 9-9 reports the expanded levels of individual participation in the harvest and processing of wild resources by all Nelchina residents in 2013. Approximately 87% of community residents harvested some wild resources. With reference to specific resource categories, most (87%) residents harvested some vegetation resources, followed by 53% of residents fishing, and 45% hunting for large land mammals. A smaller number of Nelchina residents hunted for birds (19%), and even fewer (9%) hunted or trapped small land mammals. According to survey results, 89% of Nelchina residents processed some wild resources during 2013. Nearly as many residents (85%) processed vegetation. Fewer individuals were involved in processing fish (57%) and large land mammals (53%). An even smaller number processed some birds (15%), and the least number of community members (11%) were involved in processing small land mammals. It is interesting to note that more Nelchina residents processed large land mammals (53%) than hunted for them (45%); this indicates that some households, or household members, likely assisted with processing of a successfully harvested animal at some point during 2013. The survey included questions about individual participation in wild harvest activities such as working with fish wheels, handicrafts, and cooking wild foods. In Nelchina, 4% of residents built or repaired fish wheels or helped to place or remove a fish wheel (Table 9-10). In 2013, a similar small percentage (4%) of residents sewed skins or cloth and 87% of residents cooked wild foods. houSehold reSource harveSt and uSe PatternS and Sharing oF wild reSourceS Table 9-11 summarizes resource harvest and use characteristics for Nelchina in 2013 at the household level. Most households (94%) used wild resources in 2013; in addition 83% attempted to harvest, or harvested resources. The average harvest was 335 lb usable weight per household, or 128 lb per capita. During the study year, community households harvested an average of 7 kinds of resources and used an average of 8 kinds of resources. The maximum number of resources used by any Nelchina household was 19. In addition, households gave away an average of 3 kinds of resources; furthermore, 83% of households shared resources with other households. Previous studies by the Division of Subsistence (Wolfe 1987; Wolfe et al. 2010) have shown that in most rural Alaska communities, a relatively small portion of households produces most of the community’s fish and wildlife harvests, which they share with other households. A recent study of 3,265 households in 66 rural Alaska communities found that about 33% of the households accounted for 76% of subsistence harvests (Wolfe et al. 2010). Although overall the set of very productive households was diverse, factors that were associated with higher levels of subsistence harvests included larger households with a pool of adult male labor, higher wage income, involvement in commercial fishing, and community location. As shown in Figure 9-3, in the 2013 study year in Nelchina, about 72% of the harvests of wild resources as estimated in usable pounds was harvested by 33% of the community’s households. Further analysis of the study findings, beyond the scope of this report, might identify characteristics of the highly productive households in Nelchina and the other study communities. The survey included questions about residents’ use of alternative and motorized modes of transportation to access wild food harvest areas and the use of portable motors. Figure 9-4 demonstrates the percentage of community households that used an alternate means of transportation (in addition to or aside from using cars, trucks, or traveling on foot). Approximately 67% of the Nelchina households used an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) when harvesting wild foods. About 33% of households used a boat, 33% used snowmachines, and 11% used an aircraft. Fifty-six percent of Nelchina households used a chain saw, 33% used a winch, 28% used an ice auger, and generators were used by 11% of households (Figure 9-5). Figure 9-6 demonstrates the percentage of Nelchina households that used natural materials for handicrafts; 11% used antlers, another 11% used horns, but no household reported using bark. Furthermore, 17% of households used other raw natural materials, including furs, skins, and diamond willow. 439 75.7 Number 40.3 Percentage 53.2% Number 43.5 Percentage 57.4% Number 33.8 Percentage 44.7% Number 40.3 Percentage 53.2% Number 6.4 Percentage 8.5% Number 8.1 Percentage 10.6% Number 14.5 Percentage 19.1% Number 11.3 Percentage 14.9% Number 66.1 Percentage 87.2% Number 64.4 Percentage 85.1% Number 66.1 Percentage 87.2% Number 67.7 Percentage 89.4% Process Gather Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Process Total number of people Birds and eggs Fish Large land mammals Hunt Process Attempt harvest Small land mammals Vegetation Any resource Process Fish Process Hunt/gather Process Hunt or trap Table 9-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Nelchina, 2013. 440 Table 9-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Nelchina, 2013. 75.7 Building, maintaining, or moving fish wheels Number 3.2 Percentage 4.3% Number 3.2 Percentage 4.3% Number 66.1 Percentage 87.2% Total number of people Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Sewing skins or cloth Cooking wild foods Like in many rural Alaska communities, firewood is used widely as a primary, or supplemental, source of home heating in Nelchina. Survey results indicate that during 2013 approximately 39% of the interviewed Nelchina households heated their home mostly with firewood (76–99% of home heating source) (Table 9-12). A smaller percentage (17%) used firewood as a supplemental source of home heat (26–50% of home heating source); in comparison, a similar number (17%) of interviewed Nelchina households said they had not used any firewood in 2013 to heat their home. Furthermore, only 1 household reported relying entirely on firewood as a source of home heating. According to survey results, the overall average annual cost of home heating in Nelchina was $2,023 during study year 2013. harveSt QuantitieS and coMPoSition Table 9-13 reports estimated wild resource harvests and uses by Nelchina residents in 2013 and is organized first by general category and then by species. All edible resources are reported in pounds usable weight (see Appendix B for conversion factors[1]). The “harvest” category includes resources harvested by any member of the surveyed household during the study year. The “use” category includes all resources taken, given away, or used by a household, and resources acquired from other harvesters, either as gifts, by barter or trade, through hunting partnerships, or as meat given by hunting guides and non-local hunters. Purchased foods are not included but resources such as firewood are included because they are an important part of the subsistence way of life. Differences between harvest and use percentages reflect sharing among households, which results in a wider distribution of wild foods. In 2013, Nelchina households harvested an estimated total of 9,720 lb, or 128 lb per capita of wild resources (Table 9-13). The majority of this harvest (5,675 lb, or 75 lb per capita) was composed of large land mammals, which as a single resource category contributed 58% of the community’s total wild resource harvest in 2013 (Table 9-13; Figure 9-7). Fish was the second most harvested resource category with a total harvest of 2,738 lb, or 36 lb per capita; the overall wild resource harvest comprises 22% salmon resources and 7% nonsalmon fish resources. Marine invertebrates made up 7% of the estimated overall community harvest totaling 666 lb, or 9 lb per capita. The harvest of a variety of vegetation resources was nearly as large, making up 6% of the overall harvest and totaling 583 lb, or 8 lb per capita. Only a few Nelchina households harvested small land mammals or birds. The total harvest of small land mammals was 32 lb and the total harvest of birds 26 lb; the per capita harvest of resources from both of these resource categories was less than 1 lb per capita. Nelchina households did not report harvesting any bird eggs or marine mammals during study year 2013. 1. Resources that are not eaten, such as firewood and some furbearers, are included in the table but are given a conversion factor of zero. 441 Table 9-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Nelchina, 2013. 8.3 Minimum 0 Maximum 19 95% confidence limit (±)21.7% Median 7.5 8.3 Minimum 0 Maximum 21 95% confidence limit (±)22.2% Median 8.5 6.9 Minimum 0 Maximum 16 95% confidence limit (±)21.4% Median 7 2.8 Minimum 0 Maximum 11 95% confidence limit (±)34.8% Median 1 3.0 Minimum 0 Maximum 9 95% confidence limit (±)30.1% Median 2 Minimum 0 Maximum 1,082 Mean 335.2 Median 215 9,720.1 128.4 94.4% 83.3% 83.3% 83.3% 83.3% 18 116 Percentage using any resource Percentage attempting to harvest any resource Percentage harvesting any resource Mean number of resources given away per household Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Percentage receiving any resource Percentage giving away any resource Number of households in sample Number of resources asked about and identified voluntarily by respondents Household harvest (pounds) Total harvest weight (lb) Community per capita harvest (lb) Mean number of resources used per household Mean number of resources attempted to harvest per household Mean number of resources harvested per household Mean number of resources received per household Characteristic 442 33%33% 67% 11% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Boat Snowmachine ATV AircraftPercentage of sampled householdsTransportation type Figure 9-4.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Nelchina, 2013. Figure 9-3.–Household specialization, Nelchina, 2013. 33% of households took 72% percent of the harvest 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cumulative percent of pounds harvestedPercentage of households 443 11% 56% 28%33% 0%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Generator Chain saw Ice auger Winch Other portable motors or motorized equipmentPercentage of sampled householdsEquipment type Figure 9-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Nelchina, 2013. Figure 9-6.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Nelchina, 2013. 0% 11%11%17% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Birch bark Horns Antlers Other natural materialPercentage of sampled householdsMaterial 444 Table 9-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Nelchina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNelchina$2,023316.7%211.1%316.7%211.1%738.9%15.6%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.CommunityAverage annual cost of home heatingHousehold use of wood for home heating as a percentage of total fuel for heating0%1%–25%26%–50%51%–75%76%–99%100%445 Table 9-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Nelchina, 2013.Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per householdAll resources94.483.383.383.383.39,720.1335.2128.430.2 Salmon66.755.650.038.938.92,098.672.427.751.6 Chum salmon5.65.65.60.00.0198.96.92.638.7ind1.3129.9 Coho salmon16.727.85.616.711.1200.26.92.632.2ind1.1129.9 Chinook salmon16.711.111.111.15.688.53.11.26.4ind0.2100.9 Pink salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sockeye salmon55.644.438.927.827.81,610.955.521.3351.3ind12.165.2 Landlocked salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Nonsalmon fish61.161.150.050.033.3639.022.08.447.2 Pacific herring0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring sac roe0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring spawn on kelp0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown smelt0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific (gray) cod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pacific tomcod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Starry flounder0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lingcod5.65.65.60.00.03.90.10.11.6ind0.1129.9 Pacific halibut33.311.111.122.25.6235.18.13.1235.1lb8.1113.4 Arctic lamprey0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown rockfish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown sculpin0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Burbot33.327.827.816.716.7112.13.91.546.7ind1.653.4 Dolly Varden11.116.711.10.00.017.40.60.219.3ind0.790.5 Lake trout44.450.038.911.111.1177.26.12.388.6ind3.151.9 Arctic grayling27.827.827.811.15.635.01.20.549.9ind1.759.4 Northern pike0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Longnose sucker0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cutthroat trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Rainbow trout16.733.316.75.60.035.81.20.525.6ind0.991.7 Unknown trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Broad whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Percentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amountaResource95% confidence limit (±)-continued-446 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Least cisco0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Humpback whitefish5.65.65.65.65.616.90.60.29.7ind0.3129.9 Round whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whitefishes5.65.65.65.60.05.60.20.13.2ind0.1129.9 Large land mammals72.266.755.644.455.65,675.1195.774.935.9 Bison0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black bear11.15.60.011.10.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brown bear0.05.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Caribou44.438.927.827.822.21,256.743.316.69.7ind0.354.6 Deer11.15.65.65.60.068.52.40.91.6ind0.1129.9 Mountain goat0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Moose61.161.133.338.950.04,350.0150.057.49.7ind0.344.6 Dall sheep0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Small land mammals16.722.216.70.011.132.21.10.491.1 Beaver0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Coyote0.05.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red fox–cross phase0.05.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red fox–red phase0.05.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snowshoe hare5.65.65.60.05.619.30.70.39.7ind0.3129.9 North American river (land) otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lynx5.611.15.60.05.612.90.40.23.2ind0.1129.9 Marmot0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marten5.611.15.60.00.00.00.00.01.6ind0.1129.9 Mink0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Muskrat0.05.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Porcupine0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red (tree) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Least weasel5.65.65.60.00.00.00.00.09.7ind0.3129.9 Gray wolf0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Wolverine0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Nonsalmon fish, continuedHarvest amounta95% confidence limit (±)-continued-ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Table 9-13.–Page 2 of 4.447 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Marine mammals0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Fur seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Harbor seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sea otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Steller sea lion0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whale0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Birds and eggs27.822.222.25.60.025.90.90.387.3 Canvasback0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spectacled eider0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Goldeneye0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mallard0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Northern pintail0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black scoter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Green-winged teal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 American wigeon0.05.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown ducks0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brant0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cackling goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Canada goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown Canada/ cackling geese5.60.00.05.60.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Emperor goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snow goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 White-fronted goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Tundra (whistling) swan0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sandhill crane0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spruce grouse22.222.222.20.00.015.80.50.222.6ind0.870.9 Ruffed grouse5.65.65.60.00.06.80.20.19.7ind0.3129.9 Unknown ptarmigan5.65.65.60.00.03.40.10.04.8ind0.2129.9 Unknown duck eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown goose eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0Harvest amounta95% confidence limit (±)-continued-Table 9-13.–Page 3 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)448 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Unknown gull eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marine invertebrates16.711.111.116.711.1666.023.08.895.2 Butter clams11.111.111.111.111.161.92.10.820.6gal0.7103.8 Freshwater clams0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Razor clams11.111.111.15.611.1604.220.88.0201.4gal6.994.5 Dungeness crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown king crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown tanner crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Octopus0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Shrimp5.60.00.05.60.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Squid0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Vegetation83.383.383.316.744.4583.220.17.732.9 Blueberry72.272.272.25.622.2293.210.13.973.3gal2.534.0 Lowbush cranberry44.444.444.45.611.189.43.11.222.4gal0.855.0 Highbush cranberry16.716.716.75.611.190.23.11.222.6gal0.894.1 Crowberry16.716.716.75.65.68.10.30.12.0gal0.1104.0 Currants11.111.111.10.011.133.81.20.48.5gal0.3123.5 Huckleberry5.65.65.60.00.02.40.10.00.4gal0.0129.9 Cloudberry5.65.65.60.00.00.20.00.00.1gal0.0129.9 Raspberry44.444.444.40.016.756.82.00.814.2gal0.552.6 Other wild berry0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Wild rose hips5.65.65.60.00.06.40.20.11.6gal0.1129.9 Other wild greens5.65.65.60.00.00.10.00.00.1gal0.0129.9 Unknown mushrooms11.111.111.10.00.01.70.10.01.7gal0.1122.1 Fireweed5.65.65.65.60.00.80.00.00.8gal0.0129.9 Plantain5.65.65.60.00.00.10.00.00.1gal0.0129.9 Other wood83.383.383.35.929.40.00.00.0177.4cord6.128.4 Birds and eggs, continuedHarvest amounta95% confidence limit (±)Table 9-13.–Page 4 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Note Resources where the percentage using is greater than the combined received and harvest indicate use from resources obtained during a previous year.Note For small land mammals, species that are not typically eaten show a non-zero harvest amount with a zero harvest wight. Harvest weight is not calculated for species harvested but not eaten.a. Summary rows that include incompatible units of measure have been left blank.449 Figure 9-7.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. Salmon 22% Nonsalmon fish 7% Large land mammals 58% Small land mammals < 1% Birds and eggs < 1% Marine invertebrates 7% Vegetation 6% Note Categories having 0 lb of usable weight are not included. SeaSonal round A complete description of the seasonal round for this community can be found in the chapter “East Glenn Highway: Mendeltna.” uSe and harveSt characteriSticS By reSource category Nelchina households use a variety of wild resources throughout the year and sharing and receiving of resources is common among community households. According to survey results, 83% Nelchina households both received and gave away some wild resources during study year 2013 (Table 9-13). Fish, large land mammals, and vegetation were the most shared resources. In comparison, fish, large land mammals, marine invertebrates, and vegetation were resources received by most Nelchina households. With regard to most used resources, vegetation, which was the most used category of all, was used by approximately 83% of Nelchina households, large land mammals by 72% of households, salmon by 67% of households, and nonsalmon fish by 61% of households. Table 9-14 lists the top resources used by Nelchina households and Figure 9-8 depicts the resources with the largest harvests (1% or more of the total harvest composition as estimated in pounds usable weight per person) in 2013. The harvest of moose made the largest contribution (45%) to the total Nelchina wild resource harvest followed by sockeye salmon (17%), and caribou (13%) (Figure 9-8). All 3 resources also appeared among the most used resources in Nelchina in 2013; moose ranked second (61% of households used moose), sockeye salmon ranked third (56% of households used sockeye salmon), and caribou shared fourth place with lake trout, lowbush cranberries, and raspberries (44% of households used each resource) (Table 9-14). However, the most widely used resource in Nelchina in study year 2013 was blueberries (72% 450 Table 9-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Nelchina, 2013. Ranka Resource Percentage of households using 1.Blueberry 72.2% 2.Moose 61.1% 3.Sockeye salmon 55.6% 4.Lake trout 44.4% 4.Caribou 44.4% 4.Lowbush cranberry 44.4% 4.Raspberry 44.4% 8.Pacific halibut 33.3% 8.Burbot 33.3% 10.Arctic grayling 27.8% a.Resources used by the same percentage of households share the lowest rank value instead of having sequential rank values. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. of households used blueberries), which in terms of total per capita harvest placed fifth among the most harvested wild resources for contributing 3% of the harvest. While 7 of the most harvested resources also appeared on the list of top ranked resources used, razor clams, which in terms of the per capita harvest were ranked the fourth most harvested resource (6% of harvest), were used only by a small number (11%) of Nelchina households (Figure 9-8; Table 9-14; Table 9-13). It is also noteworthy that while the 4 nonsalmon fish species (lake trout, Pacific halibut, burbot, and Arctic grayling) that appeared on the top used resources list each contributed a lesser per capita harvest to the total harvest of wild resources (between 2% to less than 1% of the total harvest). Three of these 4 resources (lake trout, Pacific halibut, and burbot) were used by more households than harvested them—this is likely due to households sharing the resources. 451 Figure 9-8.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013.Moose45%Sockeye salmon17%Caribou13%Razor clams6%Blueberry3%Pacific halibut2%Coho salmon2%Chum salmon2%Lake trout2%Burbot1%All other resources7%NoteThe "allother resources" category represents all species that contributed less than 1% to the total harvest weight.452 Figure 9-9.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. Chum salmon 9% Coho salmon 10% Chinook salmon 4% Sockeye salmon 77% Salmon Salmon made up 22% of the Nelchina wild resource harvest in 2013 totaling 2,099 lb, or 28 lb per capita (Figure 9-7; Table 9-13). The majority (77%) of the salmon harvest was sockeye salmon totaling 1,611 lb, or 21 lb per capita (Figure 9-9; Table 9-13). The rest of the salmon harvest was made up as follows: 10% coho salmon (200 lb total, or 3 lb per capita), 9% chum salmon (199 lb total, or 3 lb per capita), and 4% Chinook salmon (89 lb total, or 1 lb per capita) (Figure 9-9; Table 9-13). Sockeye salmon was the most widely used, harvested, and shared salmon species in Nelchina in 2013; approximately 56% of community households used sockeye salmon, 39% harvested sockeye salmon, and 28% shared some sockeye salmon at some point during the study year. Coho and Chinook salmon were the second most used salmon species (each species were used by 17% of households); in comparison only approximately 6% of Nelchina households used chum salmon (Table 9-13). Highlighting the importance of sockeye salmon, survey results also indicate that a substantially smaller number of Nelchina households attempted to harvest other salmon species than sockeye salmon; only 6% of households attempted to harvest chum salmon, 11% of households attempted to harvest Chinook salmon, and 28% of households attempted to harvest coho salmon (Table 9-13). During study year 2013, Nelchina households harvested the majority (55% of the salmon harvest in pounds usable weight) of their salmon with fish wheels; the remaining harvest was largely taken with dip nets (29% of the salmon harvest in pounds usable weight) (Table 9-15). In addition, a smaller portion of the salmon harvest weight (16%) was taken using rod and reel. Fish wheels were used to take 67% of the sockeye salmon harvest and 75% of Chinook salmon harvest. In comparison, all the chum salmon harvested by Nelchina households in 2013 were taken with rod and reel and all the coho salmon were harvested with dip nets. 453 Table 9-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Nelchina, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsSalmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%56.4%54.9%27.4%28.9%0.0%0.0%83.8%83.8%16.2%16.2%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%56.4%54.9%27.4%28.9%0.0%0.0%83.8%83.8%16.2%16.2%100.0%100.0%Chum salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%55.7%58.6%9.0%9.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%9.0%9.5%9.0%9.5%Coho salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%27.4%33.0%0.0%0.0%9.0%11.4%0.0%0.0%7.5%9.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%7.5%9.5%0.0%0.0%7.5%9.5%0.0%0.0%7.5%9.5%Chinook salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.0%5.8%1.4%3.6%0.0%0.0%1.8%5.0%0.0%0.0%1.5%4.2%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%75.0%75.0%25.0%25.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.1%3.2%0.4%1.1%0.0%0.0%1.5%4.2%0.0%0.0%1.5%4.2%Pink salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Sockeye salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%98.0%94.2%71.2%63.3%0.0%0.0%89.2%83.6%44.3%41.4%82.0%76.8%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%67.4%67.4%23.8%23.8%0.0%0.0%91.3%91.3%8.7%8.7%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%55.3%51.7%19.5%18.3%0.0%0.0%74.8%70.1%7.2%6.7%82.0%76.8%Landlocked salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reelSource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Any methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodFish wheelDip net454 Figure 9-10.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. Pacific halibut 37% Burbot 17% Dolly Varden 3% Lake trout 28% Arctic grayling 5% Rainbow trout 6% Humpback whitefish 3% Other 1% Nonsalmon Fish In 2013, Nelchina households harvested an estimated total of 639 lb, or 8 lb per capita, of nonsalmon fish from both fresh and marine water environments; the total nonsalmon fish harvest made up 7% of the community’s total wild resource harvest for that year (Table 9-13; Figure 9-7). In terms of total pounds harvested, the largest portion (37%) of the harvest was Pacific halibut totaling 235 lb, or 3 lb per capita (Table 9-13; Figure 9-10). The remaining harvest was largely composed of 2 other species: 28% lake trout (177 lb total, or 2 lb per capita) and 17% burbot (112 lb total, or 2 lb per capita). The harvests of rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, humpback whitefish, and other nonsalmon fish each contributed less than 1 lb per capita to the total harvest of nonsalmon fish in 2013 by Nelchina households (Table 9-13). While Pacific halibut contributed the most to Nelchina households’ total harvest of nonsalmon fish, lake trout were harvested and used more widely in the community; 39% of Nelchina households harvested lake trout and 44% of households used some during 2013 (Table 9-13). In addition, lake trout was the most sought-after nonsalmon fish species with 50% of Nelchina households attempting to harvest some in 2013. Of note, a larger number of Nelchina households also harvested burbot (28% of households harvesting) than Pacific halibut (11% of households harvesting) yet a similar number (33% of households) used both resources. This is likely due to more households receiving Pacific halibut than either burbot or lake trout. Table 9-16 reports the gear types used by Nelchina households to harvest their nonsalmon fish in 2013. In terms of pounds usable weight, the majority (88%) of the nonsalmon fish harvest was taken with rod and reel. Thirty-seven percent of the nonsalmon fish harvest weight was Pacific halibut, which was caught by rod and reel in marine environments that are located substantial distances from Nelchina. In addition, Nelchina households reported harvesting most (59%) of their burbot by jigging through the ice, or ice fishing. 455 Table 9-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Nelchina, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNonsalmon fishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%5.7%10.3%2.4%1.8%8.1%12.1%91.9%87.9%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%5.7%10.3%2.4%1.8%8.1%12.1%91.9%87.9%100.0%100.0%Pacific herringGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring sac roeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown smeltGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific (gray) codGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific tomcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Starry flounderGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%LingcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.4%0.7%0.3%0.6%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.3%0.6%0.3%0.6%Pacific halibutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%53.3%41.9%49.0%36.8%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%49.0%36.8%49.0%36.8%Arctic lampreyGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown sculpinGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring spawn on kelpResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reelAny methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodIce fish-continued-456 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsBurbotGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%70.3%84.9%4.4%8.3%9.7%17.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%58.6%58.6%0.0%0.0%58.6%58.6%41.4%41.4%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%5.7%10.3%0.0%0.0%5.7%10.3%4.0%7.3%9.7%17.5%Dolly VardenGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.4%3.1%4.0%2.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.0%2.7%4.0%2.7%Lake troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%20.1%31.6%18.5%27.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%18.5%27.7%18.5%27.7%Arctic graylingGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%55.7%38.6%16.5%5.8%9.9%5.4%10.4%5.5%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%12.9%12.9%12.9%12.9%87.1%87.1%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.3%0.7%1.3%0.7%9.1%4.8%10.4%5.5%Northern pikeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Longnose suckerGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Cutthroat troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rainbow troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%44.3%61.4%13.1%9.3%4.6%5.1%5.3%5.6%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%20.0%20.0%20.0%20.0%80.0%80.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.1%1.1%1.1%1.1%4.3%4.5%5.3%5.6%Unknown troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Broad whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Least ciscoGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Humpback whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.2%3.0%2.0%2.6%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.0%2.6%2.0%2.6%Round whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Any methodGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodSubsistence methodsRod and reelResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchTable 9-16.–Page 2 of 3.-continued-457 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsUnknown whitefishesGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.7%1.0%0.7%0.9%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.7%0.9%0.7%0.9%Any methodGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodSubsistence methodsRod and reelResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchTable 9-16.–Page 3 of 3.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.458 Large Land Mammals In 2013, moose made up the largest portion (77%) of Nelchina households’ large land mammal harvest totaling 4,350 lb, or 57 lb per capita (Figure 9-11; Table 9-13). The remaining harvest was composed of caribou (22%) and deer (1%) (Figure 9-11). Moose were also the most successfully harvested (33% of households harvesting), used (61% of households using), received (39% of households receiving), and shared (50% of households sharing) large land mammal species in the community during the study year (Table 9-13). According to survey results, Nelchina households were successful at harvesting moose during the fall hunt; an estimated 2 moose were harvested in August and an additional 8 animals in September (Table 9-17). During the study year 2013, Nelchina households harvested an estimated 10 caribou, which by usable weight totaled 1,257 lb, or 17 lb per capita (Table 9-13). According to survey results, 28% of Nelchina households successfully harvested caribou, 22% of households shared some, and 44% of households used caribou during the study year. Furthermore, fewer Nelchina households received caribou (28%) than moose. Regarding receiving caribou, it needs to be noted that a few Nelchina households received some caribou from the roadkill salvage program during study year 2013. With regard to caribou harvests, Nelchina households harvested most of their caribou in September (an estimated 6 animals) with an additional estimated 2 caribou harvested in October (Table 9-17). It is noteworthy that while a much smaller number of Nelchina households (6% of households) attempted to harvest deer in 2013, they all were successful at their hunting (Table 9-13). Nelchina households harvested an estimated 2 deer during the study year, which in terms of pounds usable weight totaled 69 lb, or less than 1 lb per capita. Survey results indicate that no sharing of deer took place among Nelchina households, yet a larger number of Nelchina households used deer than successfully harvested any in 2013 (11% of households used deer but only 6% of households harvested) (Table 9-13). The difference is likely due to some Nelchina households receiving deer meat from households outside Nelchina, or using deer meat that was harvested in previous years. Caribou 22% Deer 1% Moose 77% Figure 9-11.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. 459 Table 9-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Nelchina, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All large land mammals 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 14.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 Bison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brown bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Caribou 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 Caribou, male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 Caribou, female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Deer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 Mountain goat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Moose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 Moose, bull 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 Moose, cow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dall sheep 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Estimated harvest by month Total Small Land Mammals/Furbearers The harvest and use of small land mammals, either to be consumed as food, or trapped for furs to be sold for income, is a traditional activity for Copper River Basin residents. The number of active trappers in the Copper River Basin communities has declined over the past 3 decades and Nelchina is no exception; in study year 2013 only 17% of Nelchina households either used or harvested small land mammals (Table 9-13). Thus it is not unexpected that the overall harvest of small lands mammals contributed less than 1% to the estimated total harvest of wild resources in the community (Figure 9-7). In terms of pounds usable weight harvested, the harvests of small land mammals totaled only 32 lb, or less than 1 lb per capita (Table 9-13). Figure 9-12 shows the composition of the small land mammal harvest in terms of numbers of animals harvested; the harvests of weasels and snowshoe hares each contributed 40% to the total number of animals. The remaining small land mammal harvest was composed of lynx (13%) and martens (7%). Survey results indicate that of these 4 resources, snowshoe hares and lynx were harvested for their furs but also consumed as food; in comparison, the weasels and martens were taken for their fur only (Figure 9-13). Nelchina households harvested an estimated 10 snowshoe hares (5 in September and 5 in October); in comparison, the estimated 10 weasels were all harvested in February (Table 9-18). In addition, an estimated 3 lynx were harvested in January and an estimated 2 martens in December (Table 9-18). 460 Snowshoe hare 40% Lynx 13% Marten 7% Least weasel 40% Figure 9-12.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Nelchina, 2013. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Individual animalsharvestedTotal harvest Fur only Figure 9-13.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Nelchina, 2013. 461 Table 9-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Nelchina, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All small land mammals 3.2 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 24.2 Beaver 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coyote 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red fox–cross phase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red fox–red phase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snowshoe hare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 North american river (land) otter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lynx 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 Marmot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marten 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 Mink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muskrat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Porcupine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red (tree) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Least weasel 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 Gray wolf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wolverine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Estimated harvest by month Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Total 462 Spruce grouse 61% Ruffed grouse 26% Unknown ptarmigan 13% Note No bird eggs were harvested. Figure 9-14.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. Birds and Eggs In 2013, birds were hunted and harvested by 22% of Nelchina households and used by 28% of households (Table 9-13). The total harvest of birds by Nelchina households was very small; in terms of pounds usable weight, the harvest of birds contributed less than 1% to the community’s overall harvest of wild resources in study year 2013 (Figure 9-7). The total bird harvest was 26 lb, or less than 1 lb per capita (Table 9-13). Furthermore, the entire bird harvest was composed solely of upland game birds; specifically spruce grouse (totaling 16 lb), ruffed grouse (totaling 7 lb), and ptarmigan (totaling 3 lb) (Table 9-13; Figure 9-14). Nelchina households harvested spruce grouse during summer and fall months; in comparison all the ruffed grouse and ptarmigan were harvested in the fall (Table 9-19). No bird eggs were harvested or used by Nelchina households in 2013 (Table 9-13). 463 Table 9-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Nelchina, 2013. Winter Spring Summer Fall Season unknown All birds 0.0 0.0 8.1 29.0 0.0 37.1 Canvasback 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spectacled eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Goldeneye 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mallard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Northern pintail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black scoter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Green-winged teal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 American wigeon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown ducks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cackling goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Canada goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown Canada/cackling geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Emperor goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snow goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White-fronted goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tundra (whistling) swan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandhill crane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spruce grouse 0.0 0.0 8.1 14.5 0.0 22.6 Ruffed grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 9.7 Unknown ptarmigan 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 4.8 Unknown duck eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown goose eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown gull eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated harvest by season TotalResource 464 Marine invertebrates The harvest of marine invertebrates contributed 7% to Nelchina households’ overall harvest of wild resources in 2013; the total estimated harvest was 666 lb, or 9 lb per capita (Figure 9-7; Table 9-13). When compared to other resource categories in terms of pounds usable weight harvested, the harvest of marine invertebrates contributed more to Nelchina households’ overall harvest of wild resources than nonsalmon fish and vegetation (Figure 9-7; Table 9-13). Furthermore, the value of the marine invertebrates harvest is notable in that substantial travel to a marine environment is required from Nelchina households to harvest these resources. The majority of the marine invertebrates harvest was razor clams (totaling 604 lb) followed by butter clams (totaling 62 lb) (Figure 9-15; Table 9-13). It is noteworthy that the sizable clam harvest was gathered by a few Nelchina households (11% of households harvesting) who shared their harvest with other households (11% of households gave some away) (Table 9-13). Overall, an estimated 17% of Nelchina households used marine invertebrates, some of which were shrimp received by a small number of households from outside the community. Butter clams 9% Razor clams 91% Figure 9-15.–Composition of marine invertebrates harvest in pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. 465 Berries 99% Plants and greens 1% Mushrooms < 1% Figure 9-16.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Nelchina, 2013. Vegetation In 2013, vegetation resources, including berries, plants, and mushrooms, were both harvested and used by 83% of Nelchina households—the most of any resource category (Table 9-13). It needs to be noted that while wood is included in the vegetation resource category, and appears as the most harvested and used single resource in that category (83% of households harvesting and using), the harvest of wood did not contribute to the overall community harvest estimate of pounds usable weight. During study year 2013, the harvest of vegetation contributed 6% to Nelchina households’ overall wild resource harvest totaling 583 lb, or 8 lb per capita (Figure 9-7; Table 9-13). Nearly all (99%) of the harvest was berries, particularly blueberries (293 lb total, or 4 lb per capita), highbush cranberries (90 lb total, or 1 lb per capita), and lowbush cranberries (90 lb total, or 1 lb per capita) (Figure 9-16; Table 9-13). Blueberries (72% of households harvesting) as well as lowbush cranberries and raspberries (44% of households harvesting each species) were the 3 most harvested berry species; all 3 berry species also appeared on the top ranked resources used by Nelchina households with blueberries being the most widely used single resource (excluding wood) during study year 2013 (Table 9-13; Table 9-14). Regarding sharing and receiving, survey results indicate that more Nelchina households gave away some vegetation resources than received any (44% of households gave some away but 17% received some) (Table 9-13). The most widely shared resource was blueberries with 22% of Nelchina households giving some away. In comparison, a small number of community households received a variety of other types of vegetation resources—including wood. Of note, more Nelchina households harvested and used mushrooms (11% of households harvested and used some) than wild plants such as wild rose hips, fireweed, or other wild greens (6% of households harvested and used each resource) (Table 9-13). 466 coMParing harveStS and uSeS in 2013 with PreviouS yearS Harvest Assessments For 10 resource categories and for all resources combined, survey respondents were asked to assess whether their uses and harvests in the 2013 study year were less, more, or about the same as other recent years. “Other recent years” was defined as about the last 5 years. Table 9-20 reports the number of valid responses for each category, the number of households that did not respond, and the number of households that did not use a resource category or all resources combined. In Table 9-20, response percentages are based on the number of valid responses for each category to contextualize these assessments within the set of community households that typically use each category. Figure 9-17 depicts responses to the “less, same, more” assessment question. Households that said they did not ordinarily “use” something are not included within the results. This results in fewer responses for less commonly used categories such as migratory waterfowl, or marine invertebrates, and manifests in the chart as a very short set of colored bars compared to categories such as large land mammals, salmon, or nonsalmon fish, which are ordinarily used by most households. Some households did not respond to the question. Taking all the resource categories into consideration, most Nelchina households, 44%, said they used less subsistence resources in general over the previous 12 months compared to recent years (Table 9-20). A smaller number, 39%, of responding households that used resources, said they used about the same amount, and only 11% said they used more. Looking at the use of large land mammals, 18 valid responses were received with 3 households reporting not using any large land mammals. The majority (8, or 44%) of the 15 households that used large land mammals in 2013 said they had used the same amount of large land mammals during the study year as compared to recent years (Table 9-20; Figure 9-17). Also, for salmon and vegetation, the majority of the received valid responses indicated that Nelchina households’ use of these resources had been the same in 2013 as in recent years. Regarding use of other birds and small land mammals, the majority of Nelchina households reported using less of these resources in 2013 than in previous years. In comparison, the received valid responses regarding use of migratory waterfowl and nonsalmon fish were divided. Only 2 households reported using migratory birds in 2013; of these 2 households, 1 reported using less migratory birds and 1 used more migratory birds. For nonsalmon fish use, of the 15 households reporting use of these resources, 6 reported using less and 6 used the same amount in 2013 as in recent years. The only resource category for which the majority of the valid responses indicated the level of use was more during the study year than in recent years was marine invertebrates. However, it needs to be noted that only a small number of Nelchina households (3 of 18 households) reported using marine invertebrates in 2013. Of these 3 households, 2 said that they had used more marine invertebrates and 1 said their use had been the same in 2013 than in recent years. Table 9-21 and Table 9-22 list the reasons Nelchina households gave for using less or more of wild resources from the different resource categories. This was an open-ended question and respondents could provide more than 1 reason for each resource category. Researchers grouped the responses into categories, such as regulations hindering residents from harvesting resources, sharing of harvests, effects of weather on animals and subsistence activities, changes in the animal populations, personal reasons such as work and health, and other outside effects on residents’ opportunities to engage in hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. According to survey results, the main reasons Nelchina households’ use of wild resources overall was less in 2013 were not having enough time/working (25% of 8 responding households), or related to personal/family affairs (25% of 8 responding households) (Table 9-21).The main reasons stated by Nelchina households that responded to the question about using more of all resources were grouped as “other” (50% of 2 responding households) or the need to harvest more (50% of 2 responding households) (Table 9-22). Looking at Nelchina households’ assessments regarding changes in their use of any wild resource, the main reasons cited for using less were lack of effort (54% of 13 responding households), and fewer resources available (23% of 13 responding households) (Table 9-21). Likewise, the main reasons stated for using 467 Table 9-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Nelchina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource18181794.4%1372.2%1477.8%950.0%18100.0%All resources18181794.4%844.4%738.9%211.1%15.6%Salmon18181477.8%422.2%738.9%316.7%422.2%Nonsalmon fish18181583.3%633.3%633.3%316.7%316.7%Large land mammals18181583.3%527.8%844.4%211.1%316.7%Small land mammals1818633.3%316.7%211.1%15.6%1266.7%Marine mammals181800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%18100.0%Migratory waterfowl1818211.1%15.6%00.0%15.6%1688.9%Other birds1818844.4%738.9%15.6%00.0%1055.6%Bird eggs181800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%18100.0%Marine invertebrates1818316.7%00.0%15.6%211.1%1583.3%Vegetation18181583.3%211.1%950.0%422.2%316.7%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.a.Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response.Households not usingSampled householdsResource categoryMoreSameLessValid responsesaTotal householdsHouseholds reporting use468 Figure 9-17.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Nelchina, 2013.22%33%28%17%6%39%11%39%33%44%11%6%6%50%17%17%11%6%6%11%22%22%17%17%67%100%89%56%100%83%17%SalmonNonsalmon fishLarge land mammalsSmall land mammalsMarine mammalsMigratory waterfowlOther birdsBird eggsMarine invertebratesVegetationPercentage of surveyed households providing a valid response. Unlabeled percentages are less than 5%.Households used LESS in 2013Households used SAME in 2013Households used MORE in 2013Households normally do not use469 Table 9-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Nelchina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource1813215.4%323%00.0%215%00%754%All resources188225.0%113%00.0%113%00%113%Salmon18400.0%00%00.0%250%00%00%Nonsalmon fish185120.0%00%00.0%00%00%240%Large land mammals185240.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Small land mammals18300.0%00%00.0%00%00%267%Marine mammals18000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Migratory waterfowl18100.0%00%00.0%00%00%1100%Other birds187114.3%229%00.0%00%00%343%Bird eggs18000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Marine invertebrates18000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Vegetation182150.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Table 9-21.–Continued.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource1813215.4%00.0%00.0%215.4%00.0%00.0%All resources188112.5%00.0%00%225.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon18400.0%00.0%00%250.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish18500.0%00.0%00%120.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals185240.0%00.0%00%120.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals183133.3%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals18000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl18100.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds18700.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs18000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates18000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation18200.0%00.0%00%150.0%00.0%00.0%-continued--continued-Small/diseased animalsOther reasonsWorking/no timeRegulationsResource categoryHouseholds reporting reasons for less useFamily/personalResources less availableToo far to travelValid responsesaLack of equipmentLess sharingLack of effortResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useUnsuccessfulWeather/environment470 Table 9-21.–Page 2 of 2.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource181317.7%215.4%17.7%00.0%00.0%All resources18800.0%112.5%112.5%00.0%00.0%Salmon18400.0%00.0%125.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish18500.0%120.0%120.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals18500.0%00.0%120.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals18300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals18000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl18100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds187114.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs18000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates18000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation18200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%a.Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never using the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Did not needResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useEquipment/fuel expenseUsed other resourcesLess competitionDid not get enough471 Table 9-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Nelchina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource189333.3%00.0%00.0%222.2%111.1%All resources18200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%150.0%Salmon183133.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish18300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%133.3%Large land mammals18200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%150.0%Small land mammals18100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals18000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl18100.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%Other birds18000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs18000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates18200.0%00.0%00.0%150.0%00.0%Vegetation184250.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%125.0%NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource189222.2%00.0%111.1%00.0%00.0%All resources18200.0%00.0%150.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon183133.3%00.0%133.3%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish183133.3%00.0%133.3%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals18200.0%00.0%150.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals18100.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals18000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl18100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds18000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs18000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates182150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation18400.0%00.0%125.0%00.0%00.0%Needed moreUsed other resourcesFavorable weatherReceived moreTable 9-22.–Continued.Households reporting reasons for more useIncreased availabilityResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more useIncreased effortHad more helpOtherRegulationsTraveled farther-continued--continued-Resource categoryValid responsesa472 NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource189111.1%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources18200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon18300.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish183133.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals18200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals18100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals18000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl18100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds18000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs18000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates18200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation18400.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Store-bought expenseGot/fixed equipmentSubstituted resourcesMore successNeeded lessa. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never use.Table 9-22.–Page 2 of 2.Resource categorySource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Valid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more use473 Table 9-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Nelchina, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageSalmon181372.2%753.8%114.3%00.0%571.4%114.3%00.0%Nonsalmon fish181372.2%430.8%00.0%00.0%375.0%125.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates18316.7%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals181583.3%533.3%00.0%00.0%360.0%240.0%00.0%Marine mammals1800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals18527.8%120.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl18211.1%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds18844.4%562.5%00.0%00.0%5100.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs1800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation181477.8%750.0%00.0%00.0%7100.0%00.0%00.0%All resources181688.9%637.5%00.0%00.0%350.0%350.0%00.0%a. Does not includes households failing to respond to the question or those households that never used the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Resource categorySample householdsHouseholds not getting enough _______ .Impact to those not getting enough ______ .Valid responsesaDid not get enoughNo responseNot noticeableMinorMajorSevere474 more of any wild resource were increased resource availability (33% of 9 responding households), and increased effort as well as receiving more (22% of 9 responding households citing each) (Table 9-22). In considering individual resource categories, the reasons most cited for less use of large land mammals were family/personal related (40% of 5 responding households) and unsuccessful hunting (40% of 5 responding households) and (Table 9-21). In addition, cost of equipment and fuel were given as a reason for using less salmon, nonsalmon fish, and large land mammals. Lack of effort was the reason most Nelchina households cited for using less nonsalmon fish, small land mammals, and birds. In comparison, family/personal reasons as well as work interfering with harvesting activities were given as the reasons for using less vegetation. Furthermore, work interfering and lack of equipment were reasons Nelchina households cited most as reasons for using less salmon during study year 2013. Looking at reasons Nelchina households attributed to using more resources from individual resource categories, reasons categorized as “other” were related to using more salmon, nonsalmon fish, large and small land mammals, as well as vegetation (Table 9-22). For the increased use of migratory waterfowl and marine invertebrates, receiving more was the main reason indicated by community households. Furthermore, increased effort was named as a reason for using more salmon, nonsalmon fish, and marine invertebrates. In comparison, increased resource availability was a reason Nelchina households said had increased their use of salmon and vegetation during study year 2013. The impact to households from not getting enough wild resources is reported in Table 9-23. The most notable impact was for large land mammals, which is the category that had the most respondents cite that a supply shortage caused a major impact. For large land mammals, 5 out of 15 households reported that they did not get enough in 2013. Of these responses 3 noted the impact as minor and 2 as major. Another notable impact was a lack of nonsalmon fish with 3 households that did not get enough noting that the impact was minor and 1 other household saying that it was a major impact. For all resources 38% of households (out of 16 households) said that they did not get enough resources in 2013 and of those respondents 50% said that the impact of not getting enough resources was minor while another 50% said it was major. Harvest Data Changes in the harvest of resources by Nelchina residents can also be discerned through comparisons with findings from other study years. These comparisons will be discussed in the chapter “East Glenn Highway: Tolsona.” Current and Historical Harvest Areas Discussion of comparisons between current and historical search and harvest areas can be found in the subsection “Current and Historical Harvest Areas” in the “Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years” section in the chapter “East Glenn Highway: Tolsona.” local coMMentS and concernS Following is a summary of local observations of wild resource populations and trends that were recorded during the surveys in Nelchina. Some households did not offer any additional comments or concerns during the survey interviews, so not all households are represented in the summary. In addition, respondents expressed their concerns about wild resources during the community review meeting of preliminary data. These concerns have been included in the summary. Fish Fish, particularly salmon, are important wild resources used by most Nelchina households. A few households expressed concerns about the large number of fish that households in general are allowed to harvest with 475 a fish wheel; to them the existing limits for salmon harvests by fish wheel of 500 for a household of 2 or more persons seem too high. In comparison, other households argued in favor of the existing allowable fish wheel salmon harvest limits and said that for large households, these salmon are essential food to be consumed throughout the year. Another respondent commented that during his time living in the Copper River Basin, many previously available sport fishing opportunities for salmon in areas farther away from the road system have been closed and this forces people to fish along the road system thus making certain areas very crowded. The same household was also critical about the continuously changing sport fishing regulations by saying that they appear to make catching fish more and more difficult for all Alaska residents. Large Land Mammals Overall, Nelchina residents expressed most concerns about the continuously increasing hunting pressure they experience from non-local hunters when hunting for large game animals, particularly moose. One long-time community resident commented that in his experience, hunting pressure from non-local hunters looking to harvest large land mammals, particularly moose, has been growing for the past 15 years. Community members expressed their deep frustrations about seeing increasing numbers of non-local hunters coming to Game Management Unit (GMU) 13 every fall. In particular, non-local hunters are accessing the larger Eureka–Nelchina area, which survey respondents consider their traditional hunting grounds, to hunt for large land mammals using large motorhomes and noisy ATVs. Nelchina residents feel that the existing management system should be changed to better accommodate the needs of local, rural residents to hunt and harvest large game first before opening the hunting season for other user groups. Community members emphasized that subsistence-harvested moose and caribou are essential sources of protein for them. During the community review meeting, a few Nelchina residents said that they would like to see the fall hunting season delayed to October because of increasingly warm weather. They said that the warm fall weather makes it challenging to keep the harvested moose or caribou meat from spoiling. Other households were of the opposite opinion; in their view, delaying the hunt would just encourage more non-local hunters to come to the area. Another suggestion, brought up during the community review meeting, was for ADF&G to allow a registration moose and/or caribou hunt during the winter months. Many community members also said that the area’s moose populations are in decline; a few Nelchina households said that an unreported number of animals get killed by inexperienced non-local hunters who shoot and kill non-legal moose (moose with an antler spread less than 50 inches or with fewer than 4 brow tines). Concerned residents added that these kills do not always get reported to the correct wildlife management agency, and in the worst case that residents have observed the killed animal is hidden and the valuable meat left to waste in the field. Nelchina residents were also highly critical about the community hunts that have provided additional hunting opportunity for non-local hunters to come hunt in the Copper River Basin; they feel that these additional hunting opportunities are an unnecessary stress for the local moose and caribou populations, and that if allowed to take place, the hunts should not be open to non-local residents. A small number of Nelchina households were also critical about the large number of moose allowed by ADF&G to be harvested by Alaska Natives living in the basin for their religious ceremonies during 2013.2 A few Nelchina households suggested that until the area moose population has stabilized, moose hunting regulations should limit legal moose harvests to bulls with antler spreads larger than 50 inches, and not provide an “any bull” opportunity through the community subsistence hunt. Another concern expressed by many Nelchina households was the loss of important moose habitat in the larger Nelchina area due the new subdivision development, which they said poses a long-term threat to the health of the area moose population. During the community review meeting, a few Nelchina residents called for improved communication between the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and ADF&G regarding the subdivision development in the area. In addition, a few community members commented that the noise pollution from recreational activities such as driving an ATV in the summer and fall months, and snowmachining in the winter, may cause unnecessary stress for the area moose population. In the 2. According to ADF&G records, in 2013 there were 7 moose ceremonial (potlatch) permits issued in the Copper River Basin and 2 caribou ceremonial (potlatch) permits. The reported harvest was 5 moose and 1 caribou. 476 community review meeting, a number of meeting participants expressed opposing arguments; in their opinion bears and wolves are the bigger problem for the area moose population because the animals are so used to sounds resulting from human activities in the area year-round. During the community meeting, some participants commented that if new roads were built toward the west coast of Alaska, some of the hunting pressure for GMU 13 would possibly ease up. Another resident summarized frustration with the large number of non-local hunters coming to the area by saying the following: “This is a big state and you can’t have everyone harvesting moose in a postage-stamp size area of land.” Small Land Mammals/Furbearers Only a few Nelchina households trapped in 2013, but a number of community residents expressed their concerns about some road trapping that appears to be done by non-local residents. Nelchina residents said that they had noticed some new traps appearing very close to the edge of the highway and that according to their observations these traps are not checked or maintained regularly. While being morally questionable to Nelchina residents, the traps are also a safety concern for community dog owners since a small number of animals had already been caught in the traps. Community residents pointed out that in the worst case the domestic animal caught in the trap will lose its leg(s) that were caught in the trap. During the community review meeting, participants also commented that they believe that area hare, wolf, coyote, and lynx populations were down in 2013 due to a low cycle in their long-term population patterns. Residents believe that they will see more of all of these species in the area in the future. Birds Similarly to a range of small land mammal and furbearer species, Nelchina residents commented that both upland game bird species and migratory waterfowl have been on the decline in the past few years. According to Nelchina residents, 2013 was a particularly bad year for migratory waterfowl due to a very wet spring. Community members said that they had seen more grouse in the area lately; furthermore, they believe that the upland game bird populations will return in larger numbers in the near future. Vegetation According to Nelchina residents, 2013 was a good year for berries, particularly for blueberries. While many households said they had done well with their berry harvest during the study year, a small number commented that they believe that competition for wild berries growing in the area is also increasing. They explained that this is because of the many non-local hunters who come to the area for moose and caribou hunting with their families and also pick berries while looking for large game. Community Boundaries The residents of Nelchina, Mendeltna, and Tolsona do not necessarily identify themselves as residents of a certain community with defined borders. Rather they see themselves as residents of the Copper River Basin. Prior to the survey effort, researchers discussed the sample borders of Nelchina with knowledgeable, long- term residents of the community. During the discussions community members identified the geographic area of Nelchina as stretching from the Matanuska–Susitna Borough border at approximately mile 137 of the Glenn Highway to approximately mile 160, which is about a mile past the Lake Louise road junction. This area is different from the CDP borders identified for the Nelchina CDP by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010; according to the 2010 census block map for the Nelchina CDP, the CDP covers an area from milepost 137 to approximately milepost 150.3 3. U.S. Census Bureau 2010. Geography section: Maps & Data; Census reference maps from the 2010 Census, Census 2000 and the 1990 Census; 2010 Census Block maps searchable map database. https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/maps/block/2010/. Accessed September 12, 2014. 477 Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC)4 Another topic that Nelchina residents expressed deep concerns about is the development of JPARC, a military training and testing environment, which includes lands and airspace in the larger Nelchina area. A few residents questioned the need for the military to use and take over such a large area in the Copper River Basin; a number of households also said that they believe their input in the federally required Environmental Impact Statement process had been overlooked. Community members said that sharing airspace with military personnel would make a huge impact on hunting in Nelchina. Others pointed out that some military planes are already flying very low (at tree level) when passing through the area, which is very upsetting for local residents and animals alike due to noise pollution. Community residents were very worried about their current, and potentially increasing long-term exposure, to continuous noise pollution, which they think is harmful for the well-being of the area human and animal populations alike. A few residents also pointed out that the increased number of low-flying military planes in the area airspace is a potential safety hazard for small planes that are commonly used for business and personal use in the Copper River Basin. ACKNoWLEDGMENTS The research team would like to thank the people of Nelchina for their participation in the study; without your contributions we would not have been able to collect and update the valuable baseline wild resource harvest data that we now have. Our thanks also go to Teresa Noble and Stephanie Littleton, our great local research assistants whose work contacting community residents and getting the surveys completed with ease was instrumental. 4. According to Alaska Command FAQ release*, and the Executive summary of the JPARC Modernization and Enhancement Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the JPARC consists of all the land, air, sea, space and cyberspace used for military training in Alaska. Presently, the JPARC area covers 65,000 square miles of available airspace, 2,490 square miles of land space with 1.5 million acres of maneuver land, and 42,000 square nautical miles of sea and airspace in the Gulf of Alaska. In addition to home-station training provided for Alaska-based units, joint, inter-agency and multi-national training has taken place, and is planned to take place in JPARC in the future. The purpose of the proposed modernization and enhancement actions in the JPARC area are aimed to best support the military exercises in and near Alaska. For further information about JPARC and the proposed changes including the full EIS, see the JPARC Modernization and enhancement EIS website at http://www.jparceis.com/ or http:// www.jber.af.mil/jparc.asp. (U.S. Army Alaska and U.S. 11th Air Force, Alaskan Command 2013). *Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex Frequently Asked Questions, version 1.2. Alaska Command Public Affairs online publication. n.d. http://www.jber.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120214-039.pdf (Accessed September 11, 2014). 478 10. EAST GLENN HiGHWAy: ToLSoNA Joshua T. Ream, Dustin Murray, and Malla Kukkonen A broad overview of the East Glenn Highway area, as well as the reasons and methods for consolidating some data for the communities of Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona, was included in chapter 8 “East Glenn Highway: Mendeltna.” This chapter will only include specific background and findings for Tolsona. Spatial harvest data were combined with Mendeltna and Nelchina and will be reported in the subsection “Current and Historical Harvest Areas” in the section “Comparing Harvests and Uses in 2013 with Previous Years” in this chapter. Additionally, harvest data comparisons with previous years will be included in this chapter for all 3 communities. coMMunity Background The small community of Tolsona is located near mile 170 of the Glenn Highway at the base of the 2,974- foot Tolsona Mountain. Tolsona is about a 4-hour drive from Anchorage. The closest communities to Tolsona are Glennallen, which lies 14 miles to the east, and Mendeltna, which lies 16 miles to the west. Tolsona was not a CDP in 1990, but by 2000 it had been designated an unincorporated community in the Valdez-Cordova Census Area. Tolsona’s climate is characteristic of a continental climate zone. On average, Tolsona receives 39 inches of snowfall annually. While the average temperature in January is -10 °F, July brings an average temperature of 56 °F.1 Being situated between the Chugach and Talkeetna mountains, it is not surprising that Tolsona’s surroundings are rich with wildlife. Moose, caribou, and bear, in addition to small game, are common to the area. Various fish species also populate the numerous creeks, rivers, and lakes around Tolsona. Although Tolsona is not a Native community, the name “Tolsona” is Athabascan in origin and was associated with both Tolsona River and Tolsona Lake. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) first referenced the name Tolsona in a 1915 publication.2 Only a few services are available in Tolsona, one of which is Tolsona Lake Seaplane Base. This base was established in 1967 and it is owned by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.3 Tolsona Lake Resort, located about 17 miles west of Glennallen, is perhaps the largest structure in Tolsona. The resort claims that “Tolsona Lake is the Float Plane Hub of the Copper River Basin.” Both Copper Valley Air Service and Lee’s Air Taxi provide access to Tolsona Lake.4 Tolsona Lake, as well as Moose Lake, are accessible by Tolsona Lake Road.5 A campground called Tolsona Wilderness Campground can also be found in Tolsona. It is located on the banks of Tolsona Creek at about mile 173 of the Glenn Highway. deMograPhy The community of Tolsona is relatively small and this study found an estimated 2013 population of 12 households and 24 individuals (Table 10-1). This estimate is slightly lower than the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau survey, which reported 18 households and 30 individuals in that year. Since 2000, when the CDP 1. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (ADCCED) Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau. n.d. “Alaska Community Database Online: Community Information.” Accessed September 2014. http://com- merce.alaska.gov/cra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/c825b514-f3ce-4aa5-b5f4-998c17902236 2. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (ADCCED) Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau. n.d. “Alaska Community Database Online: Community Information.” Accessed September 2014. http://com- merce.alaska.gov/cra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/c825b514-f3ce-4aa5-b5f4-998c17902236 3. AirNav.com, “Tolsona Lake Seaplane Base,” http://www.airnav.com/airport/58A (accessed September 10, 2014). 4. Tolsona Lake Resort, “Area Info,” www.tolsonalakeresort.com (accessed September 10, 2014). 5. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (ADCCED) Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau. n.d. “Alaska Community Database Online: Community Information.” Accessed September 2014. http://com- merce.alaska.gov/cra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/c825b514-f3ce-4aa5-b5f4-998c17902236 479 Households 18 0 12.0 Population 30 0 24.0 Population 0 0 0.0 Percentage 0.0%0.0%0.0% a. The ACS estimate is based on a random sample. Although uncertain, the population estimate of zero (0) may be the result of a random sample consisting entirely of vacant households. Sources U.S. Census Bureau (2011) for 2010 estimate; U.S. Census Bureau for American Community Survey 5-year survey estimate; and ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014, for 2013 estimate. Total population Alaska Native Note The term "households" means occupied housing units. Alaska Native population data from the American Community Survey (ACS) and 2010 census come from the category "race alone or in combination with one or more other races." Census (2010) 5-year American Community Survey (2008–2012)a This study (2013) Table 10-1.–Population estimates, Tolsona, 2010 and 2013. was established, the population of Tolsona has remained relatively constant as shown in Figure 10-1. Of the 12 permanent Tolsona households identified in this study, 8 were interviewed, resulting in a sample achievement of 67% (Table 10-2). Two households could not be contacted during the study and 2 households declined to participate. Most of Tolsona’s residents were between the ages of 45 and 79 with a relatively even distribution overall of males and females in that age range (Figure 10-2). Approximately 19% of the community falls within the 60–64 age range (Table 10-3); this is the highest percentage for any 5-year category. No one was found to be 80 years old or older in the community. A few individuals in their late twenties and early thirties resided in the community. Only 3 children, all female, were estimated to reside in Tolsona. The mean household size in Tolsona is 2 persons; the mean age of community residents is 47 years old; and the mean length of residency is 23 years (Table 10-4). No households in Tolsona identified as being Alaska Native. None of the surveyed household heads in Tolsona reported that their parents were living in the community when they were born (Table 10-5). Only 8% of household heads were born in Alaska (all in Fairbanks). When considering all residents of Tolsona, 75% were born outside of Alaska (Appendix Table E10-1). Of the total population only 13% had parents who resided in Tolsona when they were born. Thus most adult residents moved to Tolsona during their lifetime and the inter-generational presence in the area is extremely limited. 480 Figure 10-1.–Historical population estimates, Tolsona, 2000–2013. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Number of peopleAlaska Department of Labor (estimate)This study (estimate) U.S. Census (count)Trendline Note Population data for this community are not available prior to 2000. Table 10-2.–Sample achievement, Tolsona, 2013. Tolsona Number of dwelling units 14 Interview goal 14 Households interviewed 8 Households failed to be contacted 2 Households declined to be interviewed 2 Households moved or occupied by nonresident 2 Total households attempted to be interviewed 10 Refusal rate 20.0% Final estimate of permanent households 12 Percentage of total households interviewed 66.7% Interview weighting factor 1.5 Sampled population 16 Estimated population 24.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 481 Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage Number Percentage Cumulative percentage 0–4 0.0 0.0%0.0%1.5 12.5%12.5%1.5 6.3%6.3% 5–9 0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%12.5%0.0 0.0%6.3% 10–14 0.0 0.0%0.0%1.5 12.5%25.0%1.5 6.3%12.5% 15–19 0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%25.0%0.0 0.0%12.5% 20–24 0.0 0.0%0.0%0.0 0.0%25.0%0.0 0.0%12.5% 25–29 1.5 12.5%12.5%0.0 0.0%25.0%1.5 6.3%18.8% 30–34 1.5 12.5%25.0%1.5 12.5%37.5%3.0 12.5%31.3% 35–39 0.0 0.0%25.0%0.0 0.0%37.5%0.0 0.0%31.3% 40–44 0.0 0.0%25.0%0.0 0.0%37.5%0.0 0.0%31.3% 45–49 3.0 25.0%50.0%0.0 0.0%37.5%3.0 12.5%43.8% 50–54 0.0 0.0%50.0%3.0 25.0%62.5%3.0 12.5%56.3% 55–59 1.5 12.5%62.5%1.5 12.5%75.0%3.0 12.5%68.8% 60–64 3.0 25.0%87.5%1.5 12.5%87.5%4.5 18.8%87.5% 65–69 0.0 0.0%87.5%0.0 0.0%87.5%0.0 0.0%87.5% 70–74 0.0 0.0%87.5%1.5 12.5%100.0%1.5 6.3%93.8% 75–79 1.5 12.5%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%1.5 6.3%100.0% 80–84 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 85–89 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 90–94 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 95–99 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% 100–104 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Missing 0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0%0.0 0.0%100.0% Total 12.0 100.0%100.0%12.0 100.0%100.0%24.0 100.0%100.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Age Male Female Total Table 10-3.–Population profile, Tolsona, 2013. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 0–4 5–9 10–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65–69 70–74 75–79 80–84 85–89 90–94 95–99 100–104 Missing Number of people Female Male Figure 10-2.–Population profile, Tolsona, 2013. 482 Table 10-4.–Sample and demographic characteristics, Tolsona, 2013. Characteristics Sampled population 16 Estimated community population 24 Mean 2.0 Minimum 1 Maximum 4 47.2 1 76 53 Total population Mean 23.1 Minimuma 1 Maximum 50 Heads of household Mean 25.8 Minimuma 1 Maximum 50 Estimated householdsb Number 0.0 Percentage 0.0% Estimated population Number 0 Percentage 0.0% b. The estimated number of households in which at least 1 head of household is Alaska Native. Alaska Native Minimuma Maximum Median Length of residency a. A minimum age of 0 (zero) is used for infants who are less than 1 year of age. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Mean Household size Age Table 10-5.–Birthplaces of household heads, Tolsona, 2013. Birthplace Percentage Fairbanks 7.7% Other U.S.92.3% Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 483 caSh eMPloyMent and Monetary incoMe Table 10-6 provides a summary of the estimated earned income in addition to various other sources of income for residents of Tolsona in 2013. The table shows that the total community earned income for Tolsona in 2013 was $537,515 and other income totaled $352,500. The average household income for Tolsona was $74,168 and the per capita income was $37,084. Table 10-6 also shows that in 2013 earned income averaged $44,793 per household. This equates to about 60% of the total community income, with other income sources contributing on average $29,375 per household (40% of total community income). The largest source of other income was pension/retirement funds, which accounted for almost 23% of the total community income in 2013, followed by rental income, which accounted for 10% of the total community income in 2013. Table 10-7 shows that the employment industries that contributed the most to the community earned income were services (85% of wage earnings), followed by construction (9% of wage earnings), and federal government (5% of wage earnings). In 2013, 100% of the adults in Tolsona were employed at some point during the year (Table 10-8). These adults were employed for an average of 8 months. On average in 2013, 100% of households contained at least 1 adult who was employed. The mean number of jobs per employed household was 1.8. 484 Percentage of Number Number Total Mean Per total of of for per capita community Income source people households community household income income Earned income Services 13.5 10.3 $456,267 $200,502 –$917,870 $38,022 51.3% Construction 1.5 1.7 $49,889 $42,521 –$188,473 $4,157 5.6% Federal government 1.5 1.7 $28,508 $24,298 –$107,699 $2,376 3.2% Transportation, communication, and utilities 1.5 1.7 $2,851 $2,282 –$9,036 $238 0.3% Earned income subtotal 18.0 12.0 $537,515 $208,058 –$1,003,797 $44,793 $22,396 60.4% other income Pension/retirement 4.5 $205,500 $137,000 –$432,000 $17,125 23.1% Rental income 3.0 $90,000 $60,000 –$210,000 $7,500 10.1% Social Security 3.0 $28,500 $19,000 –$67,500 $2,375 3.2% Alaska Permanent Fund dividend 10.5 $18,900 $10,800 –$25,650 $1,575 2.1% Unemployment 1.5 $5,250 $3,500 –$10,500 $438 0.6% Heating assistance 1.5 $3,900 $2,600 –$7,800 $325 0.4% Child support 1.5 $450 $300 –$900 $38 0.1% 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Supplemental Security income 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Food stamps 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Longevity bonus 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Workers' compensation/insurance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Disability 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Veterans assistance 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Native corporation dividend 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Other 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Foster care 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% CITGO fuel voucher 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% Meeting honoraria 0.0 $0 $0 –$0 $0 0.0% other income subtotal 12.0 $352,500 $98,400 –$643,350 $29,375 $14,688 39.6% Community income total $890,015 $419,438 –$1,552,605 $74,168 $37,084 100.0% -/+ 95% CI Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Adult public assistance (OAA, APD) Table 10-6.–Estimated earned and other income, Tolsona, 2013. Table 10-7.–Employment by industry, Tolsona, 2013. Jobs Households Individuals Percentage of wage earnings 21.0 12.0 21.0 8.3%14.3%8.3%5.3% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 8.3%14.3%8.3%5.3% 8.3%14.3%8.3%0.5% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 8.3%14.3%8.3%0.5% 8.3%14.3%8.3%9.3% Executive, administrative, and managerial 8.3%14.3%8.3%9.3% 75.0%85.7%75.0%84.9% Executive, administrative, and managerial 33.3%42.9%33.3%43.8% Service occupations 16.7%28.6%16.7%16.8% Mechanics and repairers 8.3%14.3%8.3%18.6% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 16.7%28.6%16.7%5.7% Services Transportation, communication, and utilities Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated total number Industry Federal government Construction 485 Community Tolsona 21.0 34.0 21.0 100.0% 21.0 1.0 1 1 7.9 2 12 50.0% 34.0 12 12.0 100.0% 1.8 1 3 1.8 1.8 1 3 36.3Mean person-weeks of employment Minimum Maximum Minimum Total households Number Employed Mean Employed households Months employed Maximum Number Mean weeks employed Maximum Employed adults Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs Number Characteristic Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. All adults Number Mean weeks employed Employed adults Number Households Mean Mean Minimum Percentage Jobs per employed household Maximum Percentage employed year-round Table 10-8.–Employment characteristics, Tolsona, 2013. 486 levelS oF individual ParticiPation in the harveSting and ProceSSing oF wild reSourceS Table 10-9 reports the expanded levels of individual participation in the harvest and processing of wild resources by all Tolsona residents in 2013. Nearly 94% of residents attempted to harvest some sort of resource in 2013. In terms of distinct resource categories, approximately 81% of residents attempted to gather plants, 75% fished, 50% hunted for large land mammals, about 31% hunted for birds, and 6% hunted for small land mammals. In comparison, 100% of Tolsona residents processed some type of resource in 2013. In regard to specific resource categories, 88% of residents participated in the processing of both fish and vegetation. Half of the community was involved in the processing of large land mammals. Additionally, 38% of individuals participated in processing birds. Finally, only 6% of Tolsona residents processed small land mammals. The number of individuals helping to process wild resources was equal to or slightly higher than those harvesting the resource for most resource categories. The category with the greatest difference between harvesting and processing was fish, with 88% of individuals helping to process and 75% harvesting, a difference of only 13%. The survey included questions about participation in craft activities relating to the harvest and use of wild resources. In Tolsona, more than 12% of individuals built or repaired fish wheels or helped to place or remove a fish wheel (Table 10-10). In 2013, about 6% of residents sewed skins or cloth and 75% of residents cooked wild foods. 487 24.0 Number 18.0 Percentage 75.0% Number 21.0 Percentage 87.5% Number 12.0 Percentage 50.0% Number 12.0 Percentage 50.0% Number 1.5 Percentage 6.3% Number 1.5 Percentage 6.3% Number 7.5 Percentage 31.3% Number 9.0 Percentage 37.5% Number 19.5 Percentage 81.3% Number 21.0 Percentage 87.5% Number 22.5 Percentage 93.8% Number 24.0 Percentage 100.0% Fish Process Hunt/gather Process Hunt or trap Process Gather Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Process Total number of people Birds and eggs Fish Large land mammals Hunt Process Attempt harvest Small land mammals Vegetation Any resource Process Table 10-9.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, Tolsona, 2013. 488 Table 10-10.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, Tolsona, 2013. 24.0 Building, maintaining, or moving fish wheels Number 3.0 Percentage 12.5% Number 1.5 Percentage 6.3% Number 18.0 Percentage 75.0% Total number of people Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Sewing skins or cloth Cooking wild foods houSehold reSource harveSt and uSe PatternS and Sharing oF wild reSourceS Table 10-11 summarizes resource harvest and use characteristics for Tolsona in 2013 at the household level. All households (100%) used wild resources in 2013, while 88% attempted to harvest or harvested resources. The average harvest was 622 lb usable weight per household, or 311 lb per capita. During the study year, households harvested an average of 9 kinds of resources and used and average of 14 kinds of resources. The maximum number of resources used by any household was 35. In addition, households gave away an average of 6 kinds of resources and 75% of households shared resources with other households. Since Tolsona is a small community the figure that appears in other community results chapters showing that a small number of households harvested a large percentage of the community harvest is not included in this chapter for confidentiality reasons. The survey included questions about residents’ use of alternative and motorized transportation to access harvest areas as well as the use of portable motors. Figure 10-3 demonstrates the percentage of community households that used an alternate means of transportation (in addition to or aside from using cars, trucks, or traveling on foot). Approximately 50% of the Tolsona households used a boat when harvesting wild foods, 50% used a snowmachine, 38% used an ATV, and 38% used an aircraft. Portable motors used included a chain saw (75%), winch (38%), ice auger (38%), generator (13%), and 25% of households used other portable motors (Figure 10-4). Figure 10-5 demonstrates the percentage of households that used natural materials for handicrafts; 13% used bark, antlers, and horns. Firewood is very important for heating homes in many rural communities. Tolsona households had an average annual cost of heating their homes of $2,292 (Table 10-12). Though 38% of households had none of their household heat come from firewood, the remaining 63% of households had greater than 25% of their household heat provided by firewood. Importantly, 75% of households used and harvested wood in 2013 (Table 10-13), though this includes wood collected for other purposes as well. 489 Table 10-11.–Resource harvest and use characteristics, Tolsona, 2013. 13.9 Minimum 2 Maximum 35 95% confidence limit (±)34.7% Median 13 9.8 Minimum 0 Maximum 32 95% confidence limit (±)52.2% Median 8.5 9.0 Minimum 0 Maximum 31 95% confidence limit (±)53.9% Median 8.5 7.5 Minimum 2 Maximum 12 95% confidence limit (±)23.1% Median 7 5.5 Minimum 0 Maximum 18 95% confidence limit (±)51.6% Median 5 Minimum 0 Maximum 3,995 Mean 621.5 Median 72 7,458.2 310.8 100.0% 87.5% 87.5% 100.0% 75.0% 8 114 Mean number of resources used per household Mean number of resources attempted to harvest per household Mean number of resources harvested per household Mean number of resources received per household Characteristic Percentage using any resource Percentage attempting to harvest any resource Percentage harvesting any resource Mean number of resources given away per household Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Percentage receiving any resource Percentage giving away any resource Number of households in sample Number of resources asked about and identified voluntarily by respondents Household harvest (pounds) Total harvest weight (lb) Community per capita harvest (lb) 490 50%50% 38%38% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Boat Snowmachine ATV AircraftPercentage of sampled householdsTransportation type Figure 10-3.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access wild resources, Tolsona, 2013. 13% 75% 38%38% 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Generator Chain saw Ice auger Winch Other portable motors or motorized equipmentPercentage of sampled householdsEquipment type Figure 10-4.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting wild resources, Tolsona, 2013. 491 Figure 10-5.–Natural materials used by sampled households for making handicrafts, Tolsona, 2013. 13%13%13%13% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Birch bark Horns Antlers Other natural materialPercentage of sampled householdsMaterial harveSt QuantitieS and coMPoSition Table 10-13 reports estimated wild resource harvests and uses by Tolsona residents in 2013 and is organized first by general category and then by species. All edible resources are reported in pounds usable weight (see Appendix B for conversion factors[6]). The harvest category includes resources harvested by any member of the surveyed household during the study year. The use category includes all resources taken, given away, or used by a household, and resources acquired from other harvesters, either as gifts, by barter or trade, through hunting partnerships, or as meat given by hunting guides and non-local hunters. Purchased foods are not included but resources such as firewood are included because they are an important part of the subsistence way of life. Differences between harvest and use percentages reflect sharing among households, which results in a wider distribution of wild foods. The total harvest for Tolsona in 2013 as recorded in pounds usable weight was 7,458 lb (Table 10-13). This equals a total harvest of approximately 622 lb per household and 311 lb per capita for all resources combined. Salmon made up the greatest proportion of this harvest—41% of the total harvest—and approximately 128 lb of salmon were harvested per capita (Figure 10-6; Table 10-13). Large land mammals were also a significant proportion of the total harvest, representing 37%, followed by nonsalmon fish (15%), vegetation (6%), and birds (1%). The per capita harvests of large land mammals, nonsalmon fish, vegetation, and birds were 116 lb, 45 lb, 19 lb, and 2 lb, respectively. A per capita harvest of less than 1 lb of small land mammals was estimated. No marine mammal or marine invertebrate harvest was reported. SeaSonal round A complete description of the seasonal round for this community can be found in the chapter “East Glenn Highway: Mendeltna.” 6. Resources that are not eaten, such as firewood and some furbearers, are included in the table but are given a conversion factor of zero. 492 Table 10-12.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, Tolsona, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageTolsona$2,292337.5%00.0%337.5%00.0%225.0%00.0%76%–99%100%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.CommunityAverage annual cost of home heatingHousehold use of wood for home heating as a percentage of total fuel for heating0%1%–25%26%–50%51%–75%493 Table 10-13.–Estimated use and harvests of fish, game, and vegetation resources, Tolsona, 2013.Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per householdAll resources100.087.587.5100.075.07,458.2621.5310.8107.1 Salmon87.550.050.087.550.03,060.5255.0127.5120.0 Chum salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Coho salmon12.50.00.012.50.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Chinook salmon50.012.512.537.512.5123.610.35.19.0ind0.8136.5 Pink salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sockeye salmon87.550.050.087.550.02,936.9244.7122.4640.5ind53.4119.3 Landlocked salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown salmon0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Nonsalmon fish100.075.075.0100.037.51,074.789.644.895.6 Pacific herring0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring sac roe0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific herring spawn on kelp0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown smelt0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Pacific (gray) cod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Pacific tomcod0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Starry flounder0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lingcod25.012.512.50.012.57.20.60.33.0ind0.3136.5 Pacific halibut75.025.025.062.525.0420.035.017.5420.0lb35.099.7 Arctic lamprey0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown rockfish25.012.512.512.512.560.05.02.515.0ind1.3136.5 Unknown sculpin0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Burbot75.050.050.050.025.0244.820.410.2102.0ind8.597.5 Dolly Varden0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lake trout37.537.537.512.525.0111.09.34.655.5ind4.690.5 Arctic grayling25.037.525.00.012.526.32.21.137.5ind3.191.7 Northern pike0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Longnose sucker0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cutthroat trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Rainbow trout62.562.562.512.50.079.86.73.357.0ind4.862.6 Unknown trout0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Broad whitefish0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Least cisco0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0-continued-Percentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amountaResource95%confidence limit (±)494 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Humpback whitefish12.512.512.512.512.5118.19.84.967.5ind5.6136.5 Round whitefish12.512.512.50.012.57.50.60.37.5ind0.6136.5 Unknown whitefishes12.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Large land mammals87.550.025.075.050.02,787.0232.3116.1104.0 Bison25.00.00.012.512.50.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Black bear37.525.012.525.025.087.07.33.61.5ind0.1136.5 Brown bear0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Caribou25.012.50.025.012.50.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Deer0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mountain goat0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Moose87.550.025.075.050.02,700.0225.0112.56.0ind0.5103.2 Dall sheep0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Small land mammals12.512.512.50.012.518.01.50.8136.5 Beaver0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Coyote0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red fox–cross phase12.512.512.50.012.50.00.00.03.0ind0.3136.5 Red fox–red phase12.512.512.50.012.50.00.00.04.5ind0.4136.5 Snowshoe hare12.512.512.50.00.018.01.50.89.0ind0.8136.5 North American river (land) otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Lynx0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marmot0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marten12.512.512.50.00.00.00.00.04.5ind0.4136.5 Mink0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Muskrat0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Porcupine0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Red (tree) squirrel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Least weasel0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Gray wolf0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Wolverine0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marine mammals0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Fur seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Nonsalmon fish, continued-continued-Table 10-13.–Page 2 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95%confidence limit (±)495 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Harbor seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown seal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sea otter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Steller sea lion0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown whale0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Birds and eggs37.537.537.512.512.552.14.32.2100.1 Canvasback0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spectacled eider0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Goldeneye0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Mallard12.50.00.012.50.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Northern pintail12.512.512.50.00.04.80.40.26.0ind0.5136.5 Black scoter0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Green-winged teal0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown ducks0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Brant0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Cackling goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Canada goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown Canada/ cackling geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Emperor goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Snow goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 White-fronted goose0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown geese0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Tundra (whistling) swan0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Sandhill crane0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Spruce grouse25.025.025.00.00.038.93.21.655.5ind4.6103.9 Sharp-tailed grouse12.512.512.50.00.02.10.20.13.0ind0.3136.5 Ruffed grouse25.025.025.012.512.54.20.40.26.0ind0.589.4 Unknown ptarmigan12.512.512.50.00.02.10.20.13.0ind0.3136.5 Unknown duck eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown goose eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown gull eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Unknown eggs0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Marine mammals, continuedTable 10-13.–Page 3 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)Harvest amounta95%confidence limit (±)-continued-496 Use %Attempt %Harvest %Receive %Give %TotalMean per householdPer capitaTotalUnitMean per household Marine invertebrates25.00.00.025.00.00.00.00.00.0 Butter clams12.50.00.012.50.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Freshwater clams0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Razor clams12.50.00.012.50.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Dungeness crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown king crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown tanner crab0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Unknown mussels12.50.00.012.50.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Octopus0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0ind0.00.0 Shrimp12.50.00.012.50.00.00.00.00.0lb0.00.0 Squid0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Vegetation87.575.075.087.575.0466.038.819.490.6 Blueberry87.562.562.587.562.5135.011.35.633.8gal2.878.6 Lowbush cranberry62.562.562.537.537.590.07.53.822.5gal1.987.2 Highbush cranberry37.525.025.012.512.539.03.31.69.8gal0.8125.0 Crowberry25.012.512.512.512.512.01.00.53.0gal0.3136.5 Huckleberry12.512.512.50.00.00.60.00.00.1gal0.0136.5 Raspberry87.562.562.550.050.0120.810.15.030.2gal2.577.9 Salmonberry25.025.025.00.00.06.40.50.31.6gal0.1127.6 Other wild berry25.025.025.00.00.036.83.11.59.2gal0.8133.4 Wild rhubarb12.512.512.50.00.03.00.30.13.0gal0.3136.5 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0gal0.00.0 Other wild greens25.025.025.00.00.09.00.80.49.0gal0.8135.7 Unknown mushrooms12.512.512.50.00.013.51.10.613.5gal1.1136.5 Other wood75.075.075.025.037.50.00.00.0259.5cord21.680.1Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Note Resources where the percentage using is greater than the combined received and harvest indicate use from resources obtained during a previous year.Note For small land mammals, species that are not typically eaten show a non-zero harvest amount with a zero harvest wight. Harvest weight is not calculated for species harvested but not eaten.a. Summary rows that include incompatible units of measure have been left blank.Harvest amounta95%confidence limit (±)Table 10-13.–Page 4 of 4.ResourcePercentage of householdsHarvest weight (lb)497 Figure 10-6.–Composition of harvest by resource category in pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013. Salmon 41% Nonsalmon fish 15% Large land mammals 37% Small land mammals < 1% Birds and eggs 1% Vegetation 6% Note Categories having 0 lb of usable weight are not included. uSe and harveSt characteriSticS By reSource category Table 10-13 reports estimated wild resource harvests and uses by Tolsona residents in 2013 and is organized first by general category and then by species. This table also reports the sharing of each resource by percentage of households receiving each resource and the percentage of households giving away each resource. Considering all resources combined, sharing appears to have been an important activity for Tolsona residents in 2013. All households received resources in 2013, and 75% of households gave away resources. Nonsalmon fish was the resource category most frequently received by Tolsona residents in 2013. All households received nonsalmon fish. This was followed closely by receipt of salmon and vegetation (88% of households) and receipt of large land mammals (75% of households). Importantly, there was no harvest of marine invertebrates, but 25% of households received these resources. Vegetation was the resource category most frequently given away by Tolsona households (75% of households) (Table 10-13). Fifty percent of households gave away salmon and large land mammals; following those categories, 38% of households gave away nonsalmon fish and only 12% of households gave away small land mammals or birds. No households gave away marine invertebrates or marine mammals. Table 10-14 lists the top resources used by Tolsona households and Figure 10-7 depicts the resources with the largest harvests (1% or more of the total harvest composition as estimated in pounds usable weight per person) during the 2013 study year. A majority of households (88%) used sockeye salmon, moose, blueberries, and raspberries (Table 10-14). These resources are locally available. Seventy-five percent of households used Pacific halibut and burbot. Importantly, 3 species of berries received a top harvest rank (Figure 10-7). 498 Table 10-14.–Top ranked resources used by households, Tolsona, 2013. Ranka Resource Percentage of households using 1.Sockeye salmon 87.5% 1.Moose 87.5% 1.Blueberry 87.5% 1.Raspberry 87.5% 5.Pacific halibut 75.0% 5.Burbot 75.0% 7.Rainbow trout 62.5% 7.Lowbush cranberry 62.5% 9.Chinook salmon 50.0% 10.Lake trout 37.5% a.Resources used by the same percentage of households share the lowest rank value instead of having sequential rank values. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. The number of households using a resource is not always directly proportional to the top resources harvested by per capita harvest weight. For instance, blueberries and raspberries each made up 2% of the overall harvest even though they were used by most households (Table 10-13; Figure 10-7). This suggests that certain resources are important to households despite being harvested in relatively small quantities. Sockeye salmon made up the largest percentage of the harvest (39%), followed by moose (36%), and Pacific halibut (6%) (Figure 10-7). 499 Figure 10-7.–Top species harvested by percentage of total harvest in pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013.Sockeye salmon39%Moose36%Pacific halibut6%Burbot3%Blueberry2%Chinook salmon2%Raspberry2%Humpback whitefish2%Lake trout1%Lowbush cranberry1%All other resources6%NoteThe "allother resources" category represents all species that contributed less than 1% to the total harvest weight.500 Figure 10-8.–Composition of salmon harvest in pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013. Chinook salmon 4% Sockeye salmon 96% Salmon Of the 3,061 lb of salmon harvested by Tolsona residents in 2013, 96% of the harvest was composed of sockeye salmon and the remaining 4% was Chinook salmon (Figure 10-8). No other type of salmon was reported harvested by Tolsona residents in 2013 (Table 10-13). The per capita harvest weights, by species, were 122 lb for sockeye salmon and 5 lb for Chinook salmon. Sockeye salmon were used by 88% of Tolsona households and Chinook salmon were used by 50% of households (Table 10-13). Fifty percent of households attempted to harvest sockeye salmon and all of these were successful. Only 13% of households attempted to harvest Chinook salmon, but all of these households were successful. Much of the household use of both species was derived from sharing, with 88% of households receiving sockeye salmon, and 38% of households receiving Chinook salmon. These species were given away with slightly less frequency—50% of households gave away sockeye salmon and 13% of households gave away Chinook salmon. The majority of Tolsona’s salmon harvest (94%) in 2013 was achieved using subsistence methods and gear (Table 10-15). For sockeye salmon, 92% of fish were harvested with a fish wheel, 2% were harvested with a dip net, and 6% were harvested with rod and reel. For Chinook salmon, 67% of fish were harvested with a fish wheel and the remaining 33% were harvested with rod and reel. Fish wheels and dip nets are allowable gear under state and federal subsistence regulations. 501 Table 10-15.–Estimated percentages of salmon harvested by gear type, resource, and total harvest, Tolsona, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsSalmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%91.5%90.8%2.1%2.0%0.0%0.0%93.5%92.8%6.5%7.2%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%91.5%90.8%2.1%2.0%0.0%0.0%93.5%92.8%6.5%7.2%100.0%100.0%Chum salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Coho salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Chinook salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.0%3.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.0%2.9%7.1%18.7%1.4%4.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%66.7%66.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%66.7%66.7%33.3%33.3%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.9%2.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.9%2.7%0.5%1.3%1.4%4.0%Pink salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Sockeye salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%99.0%97.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%99.0%97.1%92.9%81.3%98.6%96.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%91.8%91.8%2.1%2.1%0.0%0.0%93.9%93.9%6.1%6.1%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%90.5%88.1%2.1%2.0%0.0%0.0%92.6%90.1%6.0%5.8%98.6%96.0%Landlocked salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown salmonGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Any methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodFish wheelDip netResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reel502 Figure 10-9.–Composition of nonsalmon fish harvest in pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013. Pacific halibut 39% Unknown rockfish 6%Burbot 23% Lake trout 10% Arctic grayling 3% Rainbow trout 7% Humpback whitefish 11% Other 1% Nonsalmon Fish Nine species of nonsalmon fish were harvested by Tolsona residents in 2013 representing a total harvested weight of 1,075 lb (Table 10-13). All households used at least 1 species of nonsalmon fish. For the nonsalmon fish harvest, 39% of the usable weight was provided by Pacific halibut, 23% by burbot, 11% by humpback whitefish, 7% by rainbow trout, 6% by unspecified species of rockfish, 4% by Arctic grayling, and 1% by other fish (Figure 10-9). Marine fish made up 45% of the nonsalmon fish harvest and locally available freshwater nonsalmon fish made up 55% (Table 10-13). Among the marine nonsalmon fish used in Tolsona in 2013, Pacific halibut was used by the most households (75%) followed by both lingcod and rockfish—each were used by 25% of households (Table 10-13). Pacific halibut was harvested by only 25% of households but this species was received by 63% of households. Only 13% of households harvested lingcod and rockfish, and no households received lingcod and 13% received rockfish. The per capita harvests of Pacific halibut, lingcod, and rockfish species were 18 lb, less than 1 lb, and 3 lb, respectively. All of the households that attempted to harvest these species were successful, and each of these marine fish were harvested entirely with rod and reel (Table 10-16). Among the freshwater nonsalmon fish used in Tolsona in 2013, burbot was used by the most households (75%), followed by rainbow trout (63%), lake trout (38%), and Arctic grayling (25%) (Table 10-13). Humpback whitefish, round whitefish, and unspecified species of whitefishes were each used by 13% of households. All households that attempted to harvest freshwater nonsalmon fish species (except Arctic grayling) were successful. By order of per capita harvest weight for freshwater nonsalmon fish, burbot had the greatest per capita harvest (10 lb), followed by humpback whitefish (5 lb), lake trout (5 lb), rainbow trout (3 lb), Arctic grayling (1 lb), and round whitefish (less than 1 lb). Burbot were received by 50% of households and given away by 25% of households, but most other freshwater nonsalmon fish were shared minimally. Lake trout, rainbow trout, and humpback whitefish were received by 13% of households. No other species was received by any household. Lake trout was given away by 25% of households. Arctic grayling, humpback whitefish, and round whitefish were given away by 13% of households. No other species was given away by any household. 503 Table 10-16.–Estimated percentages of nonsalmon fish harvested by gear type, resource, and total nonsalmon fish harvest, Tolsona, 2013.NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNonsalmon fishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%16.7%27.5%9.8%11.7%26.5%39.2%73.5%60.8%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%16.7%27.5%9.8%11.7%26.5%39.2%73.5%60.8%100.0%100.0%Pacific herringGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring sac roeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Gear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown smeltGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific (gray) codGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific tomcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Starry flounderGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%LingcodGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.5%1.1%0.4%0.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.4%0.7%0.4%0.7%Pacific halibutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%74.7%64.3%54.9%39.1%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%54.9%39.1%54.9%39.1%Arctic lampreyGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Unknown rockfishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.7%9.2%2.0%5.6%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.0%5.6%2.0%5.6%Unknown sculpinGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Pacific herring spawn on kelpAny methodGillnet or seineOtherSubsistence gear, any methodIce fish-continued-ResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsRod and reel504 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsBurbotGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%80.0%82.8%0.0%0.0%50.4%58.1%0.0%0.0%13.3%22.8%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%13.3%22.8%0.0%0.0%13.3%22.8%0.0%0.0%13.3%22.8%Dolly VardenGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Lake troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%20.0%17.2%0.0%0.0%12.6%12.1%5.3%9.2%7.3%10.3%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%45.9%45.9%0.0%0.0%45.9%45.9%54.1%54.1%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.3%4.7%0.0%0.0%3.3%4.7%3.9%5.6%7.3%10.3%Arctic graylingGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%6.7%4.0%4.9%2.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.9%2.4%4.9%2.4%Northern pikeGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Longnose suckerGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Cutthroat troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Rainbow troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%10.1%12.2%7.5%7.4%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%7.5%7.4%7.5%7.4%Unknown troutGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Broad whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Least ciscoGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Humpback whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%90.0%94.0%33.3%28.0%0.0%0.0%8.8%11.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%8.8%11.0%8.8%11.0%0.0%0.0%8.8%11.0%Round whitefishGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%10.0%6.0%3.7%1.8%0.0%0.0%1.0%0.7%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.0%0.7%1.0%0.7%0.0%0.0%1.0%0.7%Rod and reelAny methodPercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSubsistence methodsGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodTable 10-16.–Page 2 of 3.-continued-Resource505 NumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsNumberPoundsUnknown whitefishesGear type0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Resource0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Any methodGillnet or seineIce fishOtherSubsistence gear, any methodSubsistence methodsRod and reelResourcePercentage baseRemoved from commercial catchSource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Table 10-16.–Page 3 of 3.506 Black bear 3% Moose 97% Figure 10-10.–Composition of large land mammal harvest in pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013. Freshwater nonsalmon fish were harvested with a variety of gear types (Table 10-16). Burbot were harvested exclusively by ice fishing. Arctic grayling and rainbow trout were harvested exclusively by rod and reel. Humpback whitefish and round whitefish were harvested exclusively with other subsistence gear. Fifty-four percent of lake trout were harvested with a rod and reel while the remaining 46% were harvested by ice fishing. All of the unspecified species of whitefishes used in 2013 were harvested by an unknown method in a previous year. Large Land Mammals Large land mammals were used by 88% of households in Tolsona in 2013 (Table 10-13). Only 2 species were harvested in 2012: moose (97% of large mammal harvest) and black bear (3% of large mammal harvest) (Figure 10-10). Fifty percent of households hunted large land mammals but only 25% of Tolsona households successfully harvested an animal in this category. Moose were the most frequently used (88% of households) and harvested (25% of households) animal in this category. Moose was also the most frequently shared species in this category, with approximately 75% of households receiving moose and 50% of households giving it away. An estimated 113 lb of moose was harvested per capita and this represents an estimated 6 harvested animals, all of which were bulls harvested in the fall (Table 10-17). Interestingly, black bears were the second most frequently used species in the large land mammal category, with 38% of households using this resource (Table 10-13). One black bear was harvested in May (Table 10-17). Despite the limited harvest, 25% of households received and 25% of households gave away black bears demonstrating that households that received black bear also then gave it away to others. Caribou are locally considered an important subsistence resource but were used by a relatively low proportion of Tolsona households (25%) in 2013 (Table 10-13). Only 13% of households hunted caribou and none were successful. Twenty-five percent of households received caribou and 13% gave caribou away. Some residents suggested that the minimal use of this resource was related to a preference for moose both in terms of size per unit of harvest effort and in palatability. At least 1 resident suggested that greater effort to harvest caribou would have been made if the moose harvest had been unsuccessful. 507 Table 10-17.–Estimated large land mammal harvests by month and sex, Tolsona, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All large land mammals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 Bison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Black bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Brown bear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Caribou 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Caribou, male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Caribou, female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Deer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mountain goat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Moose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Moose, bull 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Moose, cow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dall sheep 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Estimated harvest by month Total Bison were used by 25% of Tolsona households in 2013, but no households attempted to harvest this species, which does not occur locally (Table 10-13). This species was shared between households, with 13% of households receiving bison and 13% giving it away. Small Land Mammals/Furbearers The harvest of small land mammals by Tolsona residents was minimal in 2013. Only 13% of households used small land mammals (Table 10-13). The same percentage attempted to harvest, harvested, and gave away these species. Among those species harvested were red fox–cross phase, red fox–red phase, snowshoe hare, and marten. Both phases of red fox were given away by 13% of households, but no small land mammal resource was received by any household. All foxes and martens harvested were used for fur only, but snowshoe hares were harvested and consumed (Figure 10-11). Those animals harvested for fur receive a conversion factor of 0 (zero) in Table 10-13 and are thus not included in calculations for usable harvest weight. Snowshoe hares made up 43% (9 animals) of the harvest for this category, followed by red foxes–red phase (22%; 5 animals), martens (21%; 5 animals), and red foxes–cross phase (14%; 3 animals) (Figure 10-12: Table 10-13). All of the animals were harvested in January except for snowshoe hares, which were all harvested in June (Table 10-18). 508 Red fox–cross phase 14% Red fox–red phase 22% Snowshoe hare 43% Marten 21% Figure 10-11.–Composition of small land mammal/furbearer harvest by individual animals harvested, Tolsona, 2013. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Individual animalsharvestedTotal harvest Fur only Figure 10-12.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests for fur and food only, Tolsona, 2013. 509 Table 10-18.–Estimated small land mammal/furbearer harvests by month, Tolsona, 2013. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unk All small land mammals 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 Beaver 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coyote 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red fox–cross phase 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Red fox–red phase 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 Snowshoe hare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 North american river (land) otter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lynx 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marmot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marten 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 Mink 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muskrat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Porcupine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red (tree) squirrel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Least weasel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gray wolf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wolverine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Estimated harvest by month Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Resource Total 510 Birds and Eggs Birds were used by 38% of households in Tolsona in 2013 (Table 10-13). No eggs were used, harvested, or shared. Thirty-eight percent of households hunted birds and 38% of Tolsona households were successful in harvesting birds. Sharing of birds in the community was minimal; mallards and ruffed grouse were received by 13% of households, and only ruffed grouse was given away (also by 13% of households). The per capita harvest of birds was approximately 2 lb for this community. All birds were harvested in the fall except for northern pintails, all of which were harvested in the spring (Table 10-19). Spruce grouse and ruffed grouse were used by the greatest proportion of households with 25% of households using each of these (Table 10-13). Spruce grouse made up 75% of the harvest for this category (Figure 10- 13). The per capita harvest of spruce grouse was 2 lb (represented by 56 birds) and the per capita harvest of ruffed grouse was less than 1 lb (represented by 6 birds) (Table 10-13). Upland game birds as a whole made up 91% of the per capita bird harvest. Ducks and geese were used and harvested by fewer households than were grouse and ptarmigan and made up less than 10% of the per capita harvest for this category (Table 10-13). Only mallards and northern pintails were used by Tolsona residents in 2013, and each of these by 13% of households. The mallards Table 10-19.–Estimated bird and bird egg harvests by season, Tolsona, 2013. Winter Spring Summer Fall Season unknown All birds 0.0 6.0 0.0 67.5 0.0 73.5 Canvasback 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spectacled eider 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Goldeneye 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mallard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Northern pintail 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Black scoter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Green-winged teal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown ducks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cackling goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Canada goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown Canada/cackling geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Emperor goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snow goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White-fronted goose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown geese 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tundra (whistling) swan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandhill crane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spruce grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.5 0.0 55.5 Sharp-tailed grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 Ruffed grouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 6.0 Unknown ptarmigan 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 Unknown duck eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown goose eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown gull eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Estimated harvest by season TotalResource 511 Northern pintail 9% Spruce grouse 75% Sharp-tailed grouse 4% Ruffed grouse 8% Unknown ptarmigan 4% Note No bird eggs were harvested. Figure 10-13.–Composition of bird and bird egg harvest in pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013. were received and there was no attempt at harvest. The northern pintails were harvested but not shared, and the usable harvest weight was less than 1 lb per capita. Marine invertebrates Tolsona residents did not attempt to harvest marine invertebrates in 2013 but several species were used by 25% of households (Table 10-13). These species include butter clams, razor clams, unknown mussels, and shrimp, each of which were used and received by 13% of households. Among the primary reasons for the lack of harvest and minimal use of marine invertebrates is the distance that must be traveled to access these resources. Vegetation Vegetation was used by a large proportion (88%) of Tolsona households in 2013 (Table 10-13). All households that attempted to harvest individual species were successful. The vast majority of the harvest in this category was berries (94%) (Figure 10-14). Plants and greens as well as mushrooms each made up only 3% of the harvest for this category. Eight species of berries were used by Tolsona households (Table 10-13). Blueberries and raspberries were used by the greatest percentage of households (88%), followed by lowbush cranberries (63%), and highbush cranberries (38%). The per capita harvest of blueberries was 6 lb and for raspberries it was 5 lb. Other berry types harvested were lowbush cranberries (4 lb per capita), highbush cranberries (2 lb per capita), and other wild berries (2 lb per capita); those berries with a harvest of less than 1 lb per capita included crowberries, salmonberries, and huckleberries. 512 Berries 94% Plants and greens 3% Mushrooms 3% Figure 10-14.–Composition of vegetation harvest by type and pounds usable weight, Tolsona, 2013. Sharing of berries and berry products is commonplace in Tolsona, especially for blueberries and raspberries. Eighty-seven percent of households received blueberries and 63% of households gave away blueberries (Table 10-13). Fifty percent of households both received and gave away raspberries. Neither huckleberries nor salmonberries were shared by Tolsona households. Plants were used and shared far less frequently than berries. Twenty-five percent of households used and harvested “other wild greens,” which includes all plants that are not specifically asked about in the survey (Table 10-13). Wild rhubarb was used and harvested by 13% of households. Mushrooms were also used and harvested by only 13% of households. No plants, greens, or mushrooms were shared in Tolsona in 2013. Overall, plants, greens, and mushrooms combined contributed about 1 lb per capita to the Tolsona harvest for 2013. This study also collected information on the harvest of wood. Wood is often considered an important resource and can play a critical role in the seasonal round of communities. As mentioned in previous sections, firewood is also often an important source of fuel for heating homes. Table 10-13 included “other wood” and this includes all wood harvested for firewood, handicrafts, smoke houses, and other purposes. Seventy-five percent of Tolsona households used and harvested wood in 2013 (Table 10-13). Twenty-five percent of households received wood and 38% of households gave away wood. A total of 260 cords of firewood were reportedly harvested by the community as a whole in 2013. 513 coMParing harveStS and uSeS in 2013 with PreviouS yearS Harvest Assessments For 10 resource categories and for all resources combined, survey respondents were asked to assess whether their uses and harvests in the 2013 study year were less, more, or about the same as other recent years. “Other recent years” was defined as about the last 5 years. Table 10-20 reports the number of valid responses for each category, the number of households that did not respond, and the number of households that did not use a resource category or all resources combined. In Table 10-20, response percentages are based on the number of valid responses for each category to contextualize these assessments within the set of community households that typically use each category. Figure 10-15 depicts responses to the “less, same, more” assessment question. Households that said they did not ordinarily “use” something are not included within the results. This results in fewer responses for less commonly used categories such as migratory waterfowl or small land mammals, and manifests in the chart as a very short set of colored bars compared to categories such as salmon, nonsalmon fish, large land mammals, and vegetation, which are ordinarily used by most households. Some households did not respond to the question. Taking all resources into consideration, few Tolsona households, 25%, said they used fewer wild resources in general compared to recent years (Table 10-20). A greater number, 50%, said they used about the same amount, and 25% said they used more. Two households reported less use of all resources; one of these reported the reason as being family/personal and the other reported that they did not need the same amount as previous years (Table 10-21). Two households reported more use of all resources; one household reported the reason as increased availability and the other reported the reason as increased effort (Table 10-22). Considering individual categories of wild foods, salmon and nonsalmon fish were reported by the greatest percentage of households as being used less in 2013 than in recent years (Table 10-20). For salmon, 63% of households reported using less, while 50% of households reported using less nonsalmon fish. Two households reported that the reason for harvesting less salmon was a lack of equipment, while less sharing, lack of effort, and working/no time were each reported by 1 household (Table 10-21). For nonsalmon fish, less sharing and lack of effort were each reported by 2 households, while lack of equipment and working/ no time were each reported by 1 household as reasons for less use. Three households reported using less marine invertebrates in 2013 than in recent years; 1 household reported the reason was less sharing and 1 household reported the reason was working/no time (Table 10-20; Table 10-21). Salmon, nonsalmon fish, and large land mammals were each reportedly used more by 2 Tolsona households in 2013 than they were in recent years (Table 10-20). For salmon, 1 household reported the reason for using more as having received more salmon (Table 10-22). For nonsalmon fish, 1 household reported the reason for using more as increased availability while 1 household reported the reason was increased effort. For large land mammals, 1 household reported the reason was increased availability while 1 household reported the reason was more success. Interestingly, 50% of households reported using more vegetation than in recent years, with 2 households reporting the reason was increased availability, 1 household reporting the reason was increased effort, and 1 household reporting the reason was greater success (Table 10-20; Table 10-22). The impact to households from not getting enough wild resources is reported in Table 10-23. The most notable impact for not getting enough resources was for nonsalmon fish as a category with 4 out of 8 households noting an impact. Of those responses 3 households noted a minor impact while one household noted a major impact. For all resources 38% of households (out of 8 households) said that they did not get enough resources in 2013 and of those respondents all said the impact was minor. 514 Table 10-20.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tolsona, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource888100.0%787.5%562.5%675.0%8100.0%All resources888100.0%225.0%450.0%225.0%00.0%Salmon88787.5%562.5%00.0%225.0%112.5%Nonsalmon fish888100.0%450.0%225.0%225.0%00.0%Large land mammals88787.5%112.5%450.0%225.0%112.5%Small land mammals88225.0%225.0%00.0%00.0%675.0%Marine mammals8800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%8100.0%Migratory waterfowl88225.0%00.0%225.0%00.0%675.0%Other birds88337.5%225.0%112.5%00.0%562.5%Bird eggs8800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%8100.0%Marine invertebrates88337.5%337.5%00.0%00.0%562.5%Vegetation88787.5%00.0%337.5%450.0%112.5%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.a.Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response.Households not usingSampled householdsResource categoryMoreSameLessValid responsesaTotal householdsHouseholds reporting use515 Figure 10-15.–Changes in household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tolsona, 2013.63%50%13%25%25%38%25%50%25%13%38%25%25%25%50%13%13%75%100%75%63%100%63%13%SalmonNonsalmon fishLarge land mammalsSmall land mammalsMarine mammalsMigratory waterfowlOther birdsBird eggsMarine invertebratesVegetationPercentage of surveyed households providing a valid response. Unlabeled percentages are less than 5%.Households used LESS in 2013Households used SAME in 2013Households used MORE in 2013Households normally do not use516 Table 10-21.–Reasons for less household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tolsona, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource87114.3%229%00.0%343%457%343%All resources82150.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Salmon8500.0%00%00.0%240%120%120%Nonsalmon fish8400.0%00%00.0%125%250%250%Large land mammals8100.0%00%00.0%00%00%1100%Small land mammals8200.0%00%00.0%00%00%150%Marine mammals8000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Migratory waterfowl8000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Other birds8200.0%2100%00.0%00%00%00%Bird eggs8000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Marine invertebrates8200.0%00%00.0%00%150%00%Vegetation8000.0%00%00.0%00%00%00%Table 10-21.–Continued.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource8700.0%00.0%114.3%228.6%00.0%00.0%All resources8200.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon8500.0%00.0%00%120.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish8400.0%00.0%00%125.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals8100.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals8200.0%00.0%150%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals8000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl8000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds8200.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs8000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates8200.0%00.0%00%150.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation8000.0%00.0%00%00.0%00.0%00.0%-continued--continued-Small/diseased animalsOther reasonsWorking/no timeRegulationsResource categoryHouseholds reporting reasons for less useFamily/personalResources less availableToo far to travelValid responsesaLack of equipmentLess sharingLack of effortResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useUnsuccessfulWeather/environment517 Table 10-21.–Page 2 of 2.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource8700.0%114.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources8200.0%150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon8500.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish8400.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals8100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals8200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds8200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates8200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%a. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never using the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Did not needResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for less useEquipment/fuel expenseUsed other resourcesLess competitionDid not get enough518 Table 10-22.–Reasons for more household uses of resources compared to recent years, Tolsona, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource86350.0%00.0%00.0%116.7%00.0%All resources82150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon8200.0%00.0%00.0%150.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish82150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals82150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation84250.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource86233.3%00.0%116.7%00.0%00.0%All resources82150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon8200.0%00.0%150.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish82150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals8200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation84125.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Needed moreUsed other resourcesFavorable weatherReceived moreTable 10-22.–Continued.Households reporting reasons for more useIncreased availabilityResource categoryValid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more useIncreased effortHad more helpOtherRegulationsTraveled farther-continued--continued-Resource categoryValid responsesa519 NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageAny resource86233.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources8200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Salmon8200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish8200.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals82150.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates8000.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation84125.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Store-bought expenseGot/fixed equipmentSubstituted resourcesMore successNeeded lessa. Valid responses do not include households that did not provide any response and households reporting never use.Table 10-22.–Page 2 of 2.Resource categorySource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Valid responsesaHouseholds reporting reasons for more use520 Table 10-23.–Reported impact to households reporting that they did not get enough of a type of resource, Tolsona, 2013.NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageSalmon8787.5%228.6%00.0%00.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Nonsalmon fish88100.0%450.0%00.0%00.0%375.0%125.0%00.0%Marine invertebrates8225.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Large land mammals8787.5%228.6%00.0%00.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Marine mammals800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Small land mammals8225.0%150.0%00.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%00.0%Migratory waterfowl8225.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Other birds8337.5%266.7%00.0%00.0%2100.0%00.0%00.0%Bird eggs800.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%Vegetation8787.5%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%All resources88100.0%337.5%00.0%00.0%3100.0%00.0%00.0%a. Does not include households failing to respond to the question or those households that never used the resource.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.Resource categorySample householdsHouseholds not getting enough _______ .Impact to those not getting enough ______ .Valid responsesaDid not get enoughNo responseNot noticeableMinorMajorSevere521 Harvest Data for East Glenn Highway As described in the beginning of the chapter “East Glenn Highway: Mendeltna,” prior to this study, the Division of Subsistence has conducted 2 similar comprehensive surveys that included the East Glenn Highway communities of Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona. The first survey was conducted for study year 1982 (Stratton and Georgette 1984) and the second for study year 1987 (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988). The East Glenn Highway survey unit was the same in both previous studies and extended from mile 137 to mile 180 along the Glenn Highway. In this study, the households included in the study resided between miles 137 and 173, and from mile 1 to mile 15 of Lake Louise Road. As noted previously, the eastern boundary for the 2013 study changed due to the extension of the western boundary of the Glennallen CDP to mile 173. Table 10-24 summarizes the total estimated wild resource harvests in pounds usable weight for each major resource category, as well as per capita harvests, from the 2 previous studies in 1982, 1987, and from this study. For the purposes of this comparison, the 3 study communities were combined. Figure 10-16 portrays the changes in harvest composition by resource category from the 3 studies in terms of per capita harvest. In 1982, the estimated total harvest of wild resource in pounds usable weight was 27,898 lb, or 153 lb per capita (Table 10-24). For that study year, large land mammals, salmon, and nonsalmon fish (in the listed order) contributed the most to the total harvest, at 50 lb, 49 lb, and 31 lb, respectively (Table 10-24; Figure 10-16). In 1987, the total harvest had increased slightly to 28,800 lb. The per capita harvest had, however declined to 132 lb. For the 1987 study year, salmon made up the largest portion of the total harvest with an estimated per capita harvest of 72 lb, followed by large land mammals (44 lb) and nonsalmon fish (10 lb). Compared to the results from the 2 previous studies, the total wild resource harvest declined substantially in 2013—totaling 18,947 lb (Table 10-24). This was primarily a consequence of a drop in population from 182 in 1983 and a high of 217 in 1987 to 133 in 2013. In comparison, the per capita harvest of 142 lb in 2013 was larger than the 132 lb recorded in 1987, yet it remained smaller than the 154 lb per capita harvest estimated in 1982. Looking at the harvest composition in 2013, in terms of usable pounds harvested, large land mammals again contributed the most to the total harvest (66 lb) , followed by salmon (45 lb) and nonsalmon fish (15 lb) (Table 10-24; Figure 10-16). As described above, large land mammals, salmon, and nonsalmon fish are the 3 resource categories East Glenn Highway communities have relied on and harvested in the largest quantities in the 3 study years. By further comparing the data from the 3 studies, one can make some additional observations. Regarding large land mammals, the per capita harvest of 66 lb estimated in 2013 was the highest for the 3 study years, yet the percentages of East Glenn Highway households attempting to harvest and harvesting these resources has remained very similar in all 3 studies. The 1982 data do not provide the percentage of households attempting to harvest these resources but indicate that 40% of East Glenn Highway communities harvested some large land mammals (Stratton and Georgette 1984). According to results from the 1987 study, 63% of households hunted and 43% were successful at harvesting large land mammals (CSIS). The corresponding numbers for the 2013 study are 66% households hunting and 37% harvesting large land mammals (Table 10-25). At the species level, moose and caribou have continued to be the 2 land mammal species targeted by most East Glenn Highway households since the first survey. Comparing the numbers of households hunting and successfully harvesting moose shows a relatively similar level of hunting throughout the 3 studies; according to Stratton and Georgette (1984:72), 87% of East Glenn Highway households hunted moose but only 13% were successful in 1982. For study year 1987, the percentage of households hunting moose had declined to 53% but again only 13% were successful (CSIS). In 2013 approximately 64% of households hunted and 23% harvested moose, which is the highest percentage of successful households recorded in the 3 studies (Stratton and Georgette 1984:72; Table 10-25; CSIS). As for caribou, according to the 1982 study, 33% of households were successful at harvesting caribou and at least the same number of households can said to have hunted caribou (Stratton and Georgette 1984:71). In 1987, approximately 52% of households hunted and 42% harvested caribou (CSIS). Results for study year 2013 indicate that 41% of East Glenn Highway households hunted caribou yet only 17% were successful 522 Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP Total Per capita CIP All resources 27,898.0 153.3 39.0%28,800.0 132.4 48.0%18,947.3 142.1 60.2% Salmon 8,846.0 48.6 15,743.0 72.4 6,015.4 45.1 Nonsalmon fish 5,621.0 30.9 2,144.0 9.9 1,971.2 14.8 Large land mammals 9,139.0 50.2 9,532.0 43.8 8,826.1 66.2 Small land mammals 2,256.0 12.4 143.0 0.7 50.2 0.4 Birds and eggs 213.0 1.2 448.0 2.1 93.4 0.7 Marine invertebrates ––169.0 0.8 666.0 5.0 Vegetation 1,825.0 10.0 621.0 2.9 1,324.9 9.9 Note "East Glenn Highway" is a composite community consisting of the following 3 communities: Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona. It is presented here for the purpose of comparing current data with historical data. Note "–" indicates no harvest. Sources For 2013, ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014; for previous study years, ADF&G Division of Subsistence Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS), accessed 2014. 1982 1987 2013 Estimated harvest in pounds usable weight Resource Table 10-24.–Comparison of harvest composition, East Glenn Highway, 1982, 1987, and 2013. 0 50 100 150 200 250 1982 1987 2013Estimated per capita harvestStudy year Vegetation Marine invertebrates Birds and eggs Small land mammals Large land mammals Nonsalmon fish Salmon Note Error bars represent the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval. Figure 10-16.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, East Glenn Highway, 1982, 1987, and 2013. 523 Use % Attempt % Harvest % Receive % Give % All resources 97.1 88.5 88.5 88.7 83.2 Salmon 79.7 58.0 55.1 57.4 46.7 Nonsalmon fish 76.9 71.5 65.6 58.4 28.3 Large land mammals 82.6 66.4 37.3 62.7 50.4 Caribou 41.6 41.1 17.2 30.3 19.5 Moose 76.8 63.5 23.0 59.8 44.9 Small land mammals 11.5 19.5 11.5 0.0 8.6 Marine mammals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Birds and eggs 27.9 22.4 22.4 10.7 2.7 Marine invertebrates 19.3 8.4 5.9 19.3 5.9 Vegetation 88.5 85.8 85.8 33.0 52.5 Percentage of households Note "East Glenn Highway" includes combined findings for Tolsona, Nelchina, and Mendeltna. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Note Resources where the percentage using is greater than the combined received and harvest indicate use from resources obtained during a previous year. Resource Table 10-25.–Estimated uses of fish, game, and vegetation resources, East Glenn Highway, 2013. at harvesting (Table 10-25). After the first survey in 1982, Stratton and Georgette (1984:72) in general described more East Glenn Highway households being successful at harvesting caribou than moose. This assessment seems to have changed for study year 2013 because the numbers of households hunting and successfully harvesting caribou appear to have declined since the 1980s. However, it needs to be added that during the household surveys conducted for the 2013 study year in January 2014, several East Glenn Highway households commented that caribou had only just started to return to the areas where they had traditionally been seen in larger numbers after a decade or so of returning in much smaller numbers. Community residents also commented that a number of caribou had been hit and killed by motorists traveling on the Glenn Highway during the last few months of 2013 and several households had received caribou meat salvaged from these road-killed animals before the end of the year. These 2 local observations could help explain the decline in the number of East Glenn Highway households hunting and harvesting caribou during 2013. While there are notable fluctuations in the per capita harvest of salmon in the 3 study years, the harvest of salmon, particularly sockeye and Chinook salmon, continues to be very important for East Glenn Highway households. Looking at the numbers of households attempting to harvest and harvesting salmon, study year 1987 had the most households fishing for and harvesting salmon with 80% of the households attempting to harvest and harvesting salmon (CSIS). In 1982, an estimated 67% of East Glenn Highway households harvested salmon and at least the same amount fished for salmon (CSIS). In 2013, which has the lowest per capita harvest of salmon (45 lb) for the 3 study years, 58% of households reported attempting to harvest salmon and 55% were successful (Table 10-24; Table 10-25). During the household survey effort, a few East Glenn Highway households commented that they had not been able to fish for salmon as much as they would have liked in 2013 due to having no access to a fish wheel after the flooding events in the Copper River. Unusually limited access to fishing locations and essential fishing gear such as fish wheels could explain the decline in the harvest attempts and actual harvesting in 2013. Of the 3 resource categories that have contributed the most to East Glenn Highway households’ harvests in all 3 studies, nonsalmon fish shows the most fluctuation and decline in the per capita harvest since the first study in 1982 (Table 10-24; Figure 10-16). In 1982, approximately 93% of households harvested 524 nonsalmon fish and the same number attempted to harvest nonsalmon fish (CSIS). According to the 1987 study, the number of East Glenn Highway households fishing for and harvesting nonsalmon fish had declined substantially to approximately 40% (CSIS). For study year 2013, the corresponding numbers increased with approximately 72% of households attempting to harvest and 66% harvesting some nonsalmon fish (Table 10-25). Despite the increased fishing effort and harvest of nonsalmon fish in the 2013 study, the per capita harvest of nonsalmon fish (15 lb) continued to be substantially lower than the level recorded in the 1982 study. Interestingly, locally available freshwater fish, such as lake trout, rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, and burbot, continue to be the most harvested fish species among East Glenn Highway households throughout the 3 study years. Looking at the harvest data since the first study, marine fish, such as Pacific halibut and various species of rockfish, have been contributing to the total harvest of nonsalmon fish in all 3 study years in relatively small amounts (CSIS). In addition to the described changes in harvest of large land mammals, salmon, and nonsalmon fish, notable fluctuations in harvest composition over time have also taken place in other resource categories. The most visible change is the substantial, and continuing, decline of harvest of small land mammals (Table 10-24; Figure 10-16). Between 1982 and 1987, the harvest of small land mammals declined from a total of 2,256 lb, or 12 lb per capita in 1982, to a total 143 lb, or less than 1 lb per capita in 1987. According to the 2013 survey results, the harvest of small land mammals has continued to decline—totaling only 50 lb, or less than 1 lb per capita for the most recent study year. At the same time, there is a noteworthy increase in the harvest of marine invertebrates; the survey in 1982 did not record any harvest of these resources yet in 1987 the total harvest of marine invertebrates was 169 lb, or less than 1 lb per capita. For study year 2013, the harvest of marine invertebrates had increased to 666 lb, or 5 lb per capita. The value of the increased marine invertebrates harvest becomes highlighted when taking into consideration that substantial travel to a marine environment is required from East Glenn Highway community households to harvest these resources. Due to the large time gap (26 years) spanning the 2 previous studies and the most recent study, it is hard to tell whether there has been a shift in East Glenn Highway community residents’ harvest preferences toward marine invertebrates over some other resources. According to community members who participated in the data review meetings in the fall of 2014, the marked increase in the per capita harvest of marine invertebrates is likely a result of a few households from these 3 communities having the interest and time to attempt to harvest marine invertebrates and being successful at their harvest during 2013. Other observations of changes in the resource harvest composition of East Glenn Highway households include fluctuations in the harvest levels of birds and vegetation. Regarding birds, in 1982 the total harvest was 213 lb, or 1 lb per capita; for study year 1987 the harvest increased to 448 lb totaling 2 lb per capita. In the 2013 study year, the estimated harvest of birds totaled only 93 lb, or less than 1 lb per capita (Table 10- 24; Figure 10-16). During the survey effort, some East Glenn Highway community residents commented that they had avoided harvesting upland game birds, particularly any grouse, because they had not seen as many in the area during 2013.Other households pointed out that the late snow in spring 2013 could have resulted in smaller numbers of migratory waterfowl near their communities. In addition to bird population cycle-related reasons and individual hunters’ decisions not to harvest certain bird species due to concerns over the sustainability of these species, the survey data from the 3 studies show that East Glenn Highway communities’ bird harvest levels have fluctuated noticeably over time. Study year 2013 has the lowest per capita harvest of birds (less than 1 lb per capita (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). The harvest of vegetation resources declined from a total of 1,825 lb, or 10 lb per capita in 1982 to 621 lb total, or 3 lb per capita in 1987. In the 2013 study, the harvest of vegetation had increased to 1,325 lb, or 10 lb per capita. During the survey effort, several East Glenn Highway community households commented that 2013 was a good berry year, particularly for blueberries. While changes in annual availability of vegetation resources, particularly berries, can explain some of the fluctuation in the harvests, it is also worth noting that during the 2013 survey effort some East Glenn Highway community residents commented that during some years it is difficult to find time to harvest vegetation due to work interfering. However, survey data also show that overall the harvest and use levels of vegetation resources in East Glenn Highway communities have remained relatively high in all 3 studies (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). 525 The causes of changes and reasons for fluctuations in the levels of a community’s subsistence harvests are complex and therefore it is a challenge to make generalized statements about subsistence harvest trends based on only 3 studies over the course of 3 decades. Although harvests of certain wild resources, such as nonsalmon fish, small land mammals, and marine invertebrates, have changed over time, the 3 studies show that overall East Glenn Highway community residents continue to rely on their wild resource harvests. The same point was emphasized in the many discussions project staff had with residents of the East Glenn Highway communities during the household surveys: their reliance on wild resources has remained consistent over time and they would like to be able to continue relying on these resources in the future. Current and Historical Harvest Areas for East Glenn Highway It is possible to compare historical spatial harvest data with the 2013 study year to identify changes in search and harvest areas for wild food resources over time. For the East Glenn Highway, limited spatial data were collected as part of the 1982 and 1987 study year surveys (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). Additionally, during the 1983 and 1984 fieldwork seasons, ADF&G researchers conducted interviews with more than 200 hunters and fishers in 20 communities in or near the Copper River Basin to map areas where hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering of wild resources occurred between 1964 and 1984 (Stratton and Georgette 1985). This effort produced 2 separate publications by 2 different ADF&G divisions; the Division of Habitat published the maps and the Division of Subsistence published a description of the project and mapping methods. The maps depicting the harvest and use areas used by study community residents during this 20-year span are published in Alaska Habitat Management Guide Southcentral Region: Reference Maps—Volume 3. Community Use of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants (Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat 1985).7 Information about the mapping project is available in Copper Basin Resource Use Map Index and Methodology (Stratton and Georgette 1985). These maps did not record harvest and use areas for all wild food categories that were included in the 2013 survey. Changes in the resource harvest and use/search areas by East Glenn Highway area residents can be discerned through limited comparisons of the maps published in 1985, which depict harvest and use areas for 20 years, and the documentation of harvesting areas for the 1982 and 1987 studies. Map data for the period of 1964–1984 were restricted to the Copper River Basin. For the 2013 study year, however, resource harvest locations were mapped statewide, showing that residents of East Glenn Highway communities sought and harvested wild foods from areas along Cook Inlet and in Southeast Alaska (Figure 10-17). These non-Copper River Basin search and harvest areas were usually opportunistic and the travel was rarely solely for subsistence purposes. Considering only the search and harvest areas within the Copper River Basin, the extent of the search and harvest areas in 2013 appears significantly smaller than the 1964–1984 time frame. However, a 20-year time frame allows for harvesters to travel to more areas over time than the 1 year of harvesting effort shown in this study. In 2013, search and harvest areas were primarily along highway and road corridors, especially the Sourdough area south along the Richardson Highway to Valdez, and from Glennallen west along the Glenn Highway to Eureka. From 1964–1984, East Glenn Highway residents sought and harvested wild foods within larger areas more distant from the road system. They also harvested in many areas that are now within the boundaries of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. In 2013, East Glenn Highway search areas for moose included a large area of GMU 13D north of the Glenn Highway near Nelchina, a smaller area south of the Glenn Highway near Eureka Creek, the entire length of the Glenn Highway from Mendeltna to Glennallen, and a small area near Lake Louise Road. Another large search area farther from East Glenn Highway that encompasses parts of GMU 13B and 13C was along the Richardson Highway north of Sourdough, and a smaller area entirely within GMU 13B along the Richardson Highway near Summit Lake. 7. A complete index of documents published in 1985 and 1986 as part of Alaska Habitat Management Guide is available online: http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/C/AHMG/index.html. 526 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013PaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaLake LouiseTokHopeKnikEyakHealyKenaiHomerSlanaBelugaValdezGakonaWillowSuttonPalmerSewardTetlinPortageKasilofCordovaNabesnaChitinaEklutnaSusitnaHoustonNikiskiSterlingGirdwoodNorthwayWhittierSoldotnaSeldoviaTatitlekMcCarthyCantwellSkwentnaNanwalekKachemakTanacrossTalkeetnaNinilchikAnchorageClam GulchChickaloonMoose PassKenny LakeNikolaevskEagle RiverChistochinaChenega BayPetersvilleHappy ValleyAnchor PointCopper CenterMentasta LakeMcKinley ParkCooper LandingWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve06030MilesSearch and harvest areasHighway/roadPark and preserve boundarySearch and harvest locations All resources Figure 10-17.–Wild resources search and harvest areas, East Glenn Highway, 2013.527 Between 1964–1984, East Glenn Highway residents sought moose within a much larger area north of the Glenn Highway from the Little Nelchina River to the west, to the Susitna River to the north, and to the Richardson Highway to the east. Residents also sought moose within a large portion of what is now the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, especially along a stretch of the south shore of the Chitina River, east of the Richardson and Edgerton highways, and Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff from the Kenny Lake area north to Chistochina along the Copper River, and an area south of Nabesna Road between Slana and Nabesna. Many of these areas are east of the 2013 moose search and harvest areas (Figure 10-18). Additionally, a small search area to the east of the Richardson Highway near Paxson and another small area along the Chistochina River were hunted for moose in those years. Caribou were hunted in 2013 within an area north of the Glenn Highway along the Little Nelchina River, along the Glenn Highway from Mendeltna east to Glennallen, and in a large area to the east and west of the Richardson Highway north of Sourdough and south of Paxson. Two smaller areas where caribou were also sought were to the east of Lake Louise Road and in the vicinity of Tolsona Lake. During the 1964–1984 time period, caribou were sought within a much greater area in GMU 13A north of the Glenn Highway—as far north as the Susitna River. They were also hunted during those years within what is now the Wrangell- St. Elias National Park and Preserve, to the south and east of the Glenn Highway–Tok Cutoff, and to the south of Nabesna Road. The latter area is east of the 2013 caribou search areas (Figure 10-19). Bears were hunted by East Glenn Highway residents in 2013, usually opportunistically while in pursuit of other species. A large search area for both black bears and brown bears was reported to the east and west of the Richardson Highway, north of Sourdough and south of Paxson. Two additional search areas for black bears included a small area in the vicinity of Soup Lake, and an area near Potato Point on the north shore of Port Valdez. No hunting areas for bears were recorded for 1964–1984 (Stratton and Georgette 1985). No sheep hunting occurred in 2013 but they were sought during the period of 1964–1984 in a variety of areas across the Copper River Basin (Stratton and Georgette 1985). These areas include the Talkeetna Mountains near the Nelchina River, Slide Mountain, the Chugach Mountains near the Little Nelchina River, Tazlina Lake, and Klutina Lake, and within the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve near Nabesna, east of Copper Center, south of McCarthy Road near the Chitina River, and to the southeast of the community of McCarthy. Sockeye salmon were sought and harvested by East Glenn Highway residents in a variety of locations around the state in 2013 (Figure 10-20). In the Copper River Basin these areas included Tazlina Lake, the Gulkana River near Sourdough, the Klutina River both west of the Richardson Highway and at its confluence with the Copper River, in the Copper River just south of Gulkana, and in the Copper River near Chitina. Some households also reported harvesting sockeye salmon in Port Valdez as well as in the Kenai River upstream from Soldotna. Both coho salmon and Chinook salmon were sought and harvested from the Copper River near Chitina as well, but coho salmon were also sought and harvested in Port Valdez and in the Kenai River. East Glenn Highway residents also fished for Chinook salmon in the Klutina River near its confluence with the Copper River. Between 1964–1984, East Glenn Highway residents appear to have sought and harvested salmon in some different locations than where they did in 2013. The historical data are only available for all species of salmon combined. During this time period, salmon were harvested along Mendeltna Creek upstream of Old Man Lake as well as downstream of the lake to its confluence with Tazlina Lake. They also sought and harvested salmon from the mouth of Kaina Creek, the mouth of the Chulikana Creek where it empties into Klutina Lake, and along the Mahlo River and Manker Creek near their confluence with the Klutina River. Salmon fishing also occurred from the Gulkana River confluence with the Copper River and further upstream near where the middle fork and the west fork of the Gulkana River converge. In 2013, nonsalmon fish were sought and harvested by East Glenn Highway residents from a variety of locations. Residents fished for burbot in Tolsona Lake, Moose Lake, and Crosswind Lake (Figure 10-21). Rainbow trout were sought and harvested from Buffalo, Tex Smith, Tolsona, and Crosswind lakes, and from an unnamed lake to the east of Lake Louise Road, Tolsona Creek and from several ponds in the Anchorage 528 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Susitna RiverGakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverordRiververKlutina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeOshetnaRiverTulsona CreekLake LouiseGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway Lake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverNickoli LakeSucker LakeTwin LakesTolsona CreekTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake Louise1113A13B13C13D13E0105MilesMoose search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unitMoose search areaSourdough.Gakona.Eureka CreekTolsona LakeGakona RiverCopper Center .Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and PreserveFigure 10-18.–Hunting locations of moose, East Glenn Highway, 2013.529 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiverGakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverperRiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekLake LouiseGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway Old Man LakeNelchina RiverNickoli LakeSucker LakeTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake Louise13A13B13C13D0105MilesCaribou search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unitRichardson Highway SourdoughGakona..Little Nelchina RiverMendeltna CreekCopper Center.Lake Louise RoadTolsona CreekTwin Lakes11Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and PreserveFigure 10-19.–Hunting locations of caribou, East Glenn Highway, 2013.530 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013TyoneRiverkonaRiverGulkana RiverTazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekBoulder CreekSilverLakeCanyonCreekLake LouiseO'Brien CreekHaley CreekCopperRiverCaEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchinaRiverSucker LakeTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson High w a y Bernard CreekHurtle CreekTonsina LakeRichardsonHighwaySTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseChitinaKenny LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesSockeye salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGakonaWest Fork Gakona RiverSockeye salmon search and harvest areaSourdough.Figure 10-20.–Fishing and harvest locations of sockeye salmon, East Glenn Highway, 2013.531 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.Tyone RiverGakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverRiverrRiverKlutiCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekLake LouiseGlenn HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverNickoli LakeSucker LakeTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseGakonaCopper Center1113A13B13C13D0105MilesBurbot search and harvest areasHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unitMENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tolsona LakeMoore LakeFirst Hill LakeDeep LakeSourdough.Richardson Highway Gakona RiverFigure 10-21.–Fishing and harvest locations of burbot, East Glenn Highway, 2013.532 area (Figure 10-22). Arctic grayling were sought and harvested from Mendeltna Creek, Tolsona Lake, Lake Louise, Tolsona Creek, and Crosswind and Kaina lakes. Fishing for lake trout occurred in High, Kaina, First Hill, and Crosswind lakes, Lake Louise, and an unnamed lake to the east of Tyone Creek and to the northwest of Susitna Lake. Dolly Varden were only sought and harvested in the Klutina River near Klutina Lake. Both broad whitefish and humpback whitefish were sought and harvested from First Hill Lake. Fishing targeted 3 species of nonsalmon marine fish in 2013. Pacific halibut were sought and harvested within a large area of the Gulf of Alaska from the southeastern portion of Montague Island east to Middleton Island and north to Hinchinbrook Island; lingcod and rockfish fishing occurred there, too. Lingcod was also sought and harvested in a small area to the northeast of Green Island, while rockfish was also sought and harvested in an area south of the Resurrection Peninsula located southwest of Seward. Other search and harvest areas for Pacific halibut include the northern edge of Montague Island in Prince William Sound, an area near Jack Bay near Port Valdez, an area just south of the Resurrection Peninsula located southeast of Seward, an area near Sandy Bay located southwest of Seward, and in Kachemak Bay. Historical map data for nonsalmon fish are only available for freshwater species harvested in the Copper River Basin between 1964–1984. The map data for this period also combine all species. Generally, residents of East Glenn Highway appear to have traveled much farther for these species in the past than they did in 2013. Freshwater nonsalmon fish were historically harvested in many lakes, rivers, and streams south of the Denali Highway, north of the Glenn Highway, west of the Richardson Highway, and east of the Susitna River. Some of these areas include the west and middle forks of the Gulkana River, Lake Louise, Little Lake Louise, and Dog, Crosswind, Fish, Deep, and Solsona lakes, as well as Tolsona and Mendeltna creeks, among others. South of the Glenn Highway residents fished in Mendeltna Creek, Sucker Lake, Klutina Lake, Klutina River, St. Anne Creek, and Hudson Lake, among other bodies of water. Residents also fished along the Copper River and south of Nabesna Road between Slana and Nabesna. Small land mammals and furbearers were hunted and trapped by East Glenn Highway residents in 2013 primarily along the entirety of Lake Louise Road and along the Glenn Highway from its junction with Lake Louise Road to just east of Tolsona Creek (Figure 10-23). These species were also sought and harvested along Mendeltna Creek from the Glenn Highway south to Tazlina Lake, and in the vicinity of Tolsona and Moose lakes. Map data for the 1964–1984 time period are available for furbearers but it is unclear as to which species were included in this category; “small land mammals” were not included in the category “furbearers” and it is uncertain based on the report and data as to whether snowshoe hares were designated as furbearers and included (Stratton and Georgette 1985). During 1964–1984, furbearers were sought over a much larger area than in 2013, covering the majority of land between Slide Mountain to the west, Lake Louise to the north, the Klutina River to the east, and the northern edge of the Chugach Mountains to the south. Upland game birds and migratory waterfowl were hunted largely near the East Glenn Highway communities in 2013 (Figure 10-24). Waterfowl hunting occurred in 4 main areas, including an area west of the community of Nelchina along the Little Nelchina River, along the entirety of Lake Louise Road, along the Glenn Highway from its junction with Lake Louise Road to Tolsona Creek, and from the Glenn Highway north to the northern edge of Crosswind Lake and between Tolsona Creek and Moose Creek. Upland game birds hunted along the entirety of Lake Louise Road, along the Glenn Highway from its junction with Lake Louise Road to Tolsona Creek, and more distantly north of the Denali Highway between Tangle Lakes and the Maclaren River. Only waterfowl hunting areas were mapped for the period of 1964–1984. During that time, waterfowl were sought primarily along Mendeltna Creek north of the Glenn Highway, in Old Man Lake, in St. Anne Lake, along the northern edge of Fish Lake, and along the northern and southern edges of Crosswind Lake. Marine invertebrate harvest areas were recorded for study year 2013 but not for the period of 1964–1984. In 2013, marine invertebrates were harvested exclusively on the Kenai Peninsula along a stretch of beach north of Ninilchik and within an area on the southern edge of Kachemak Bay between Anisom Point and Peterson Bay. 533 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tazlina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeTyoneLakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverNickoli LakeSucker LakeTolsona CreekMoose CreekTolsonaNelchinaMendeltnaLake Louise084MilesRainbow trout search and harvest areaHighway/roadRainbow trout search and harvest areaTex-Smith LakeTolsona LakeFirst Hill LakeSt Anne LakeMendeltna CreekKaina LakeDog LakeBuffalo LakeFigure 10-22.–Fishing and harvest locations of rainbow trout, East Glenn Highway, 2013.534 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013TolsonaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake Louise063MilesHighway/road Small land mammal and furbearersearch and harvest area Small land mammal and furbearersearch and harvest areaTolsona LakeMoore LakeMendeltna CreekSlide MtnFigure 10-23.–Hunting and trapping locations of small land mammals/furbearers, East Glenn Highway, 2013.535 Susitna RiverSusitna RiverTyone RiverPaxson LakeGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverKlutiTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakemitLakeDeadmanLakeBOshetna RiverTulsonaCreekTangle LakesSevenmileLakeDenali HighwayLake LouiseSourdoughGlenn HighwayRichardson Hi g h w a y ighwayhway-TokCutoffLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchiSucker LakeTolsona CreekFieldingLakeKlawasiRiverMoose CreekSlide Mtn.PaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake Louise1113A13B13C13C13C13D13ESource: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 201301 05MilesUpland game bird search and harvest areaUpland game bird search and harvest areaMigratory waterfowl search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryMigratory waterfowl search and harvest areaFish LakeLittle Nelchi n a Ri v erGakona.Maclaren River Figure 10-24.–Hunting and harvest locations of migratory waterfowl and upland game birds, East Glenn Highway, 2013.536 In 2013, East Glenn Highway residents harvested vegetation primarily near the communities and usually close to their homes (Figure 10-25). Most vegetation harvests occurred within 2 miles of the Glenn Highway from just west of the Little Nelchina River to just east of Tolsona Creek. These areas include both plant and berry harvest locations. Three small additional berry harvest areas were also used to the east of Lake Louise Road. Berries were also harvested near the community of Kasaan on Prince of Wales Island. Between 1964–1984, vegetation was harvested in an area south of the Glenn Highway between the Matanuska River and the Nelchina River, in an area to the northeast of the junction of Lake Louise Road and the Glenn Highway, and along the Glenn Highway in the vicinity of Tolsona Lake. No distinction between harvest locations for berries and plants was made in the historical data. Firewood search and harvest area data are only available for study year 2013, when East Glenn Highway residents harvested firewood within relatively small areas near the community. These areas are close to the community of Nelchina, Snowshoe Lake, Tex Smith Lake, Soup Lake, Tolsona and Moose lakes, and Tolsona Creek. Two additional harvest areas include a location along the Glenn Highway to the east of Tolsona Creek, and another one to the east of Lake Louise Road. local coMMentS and concernS Following is a summary of local observations of Tolsona residents as they pertain to wild resource populations and trends that were recorded during the surveys. Some households did not offer any additional information during the survey interviews, so not all households are represented in the summary. In addition, respondents expressed their concerns about wild resources during the community review meeting of preliminary data. These concerns have been included in the summary. Community Boundaries Tolsona residents do not agree with the census designated place (CDP) boundaries established by the U.S. Census Bureau as a means of delineating the extent of their community. It is the opinion of many residents that the Tolsona CDP is too small, especially with concern to the easternmost and westernmost boundaries along the Glenn Highway. Many residents would like to see the CDP boundaries change to reflect their own sense of self-identification. Several households self-identify with the community of Tolsona but lie outside of the CDP boundaries, falling within either the Mendeltna CDP or the Glennallen CDP. For the purposes of this study, households that self-identify with Tolsona but that are located within the Mendeltna CDP are still part of the East Glenn Highway complex. This was less of a concern to community members compared to the households that fell within the Glennallen CDP and were thus excluded from being part of the East Glenn Highway complex. The Glennallen CDP gained territory in 2000 that encompassed households that were previously designated as the “balance” of the Valdez-Cordova Census Area in study years 1982 and 1987. Fish In general, survey respondents in Tolsona were pleased with their access to salmon resources and they expressed little concern for salmon stocks, especially for sockeye salmon. Several respondents reported hearing about statewide declines of Chinook salmon, and they commented that they would like to know more about the causes of this decline. At least 1 household that uses a fish wheel to harvest salmon indicated that they do not attempt to keep any Chinook salmon unless they are injured and unlikely to survive. They are released because “we know the population is struggling.” During the community data review meeting in August 2014, several attendees stated that they are happy with their sockeye salmon harvest and the resource availability in 2014. While salmon species make up a much larger percentage of Tolsona’s fish harvest, nonsalmon fish species are considered very important by many households in the community. Salmon are not available in the immediate area and nonsalmon fish are locally abundant in the plethora of local lakes, ponds, and streams. 537 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tazlina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeSusitna LakeEwanLakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverSucker LakeTwin LakesTolsona CreekSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans LakeSoup LakeTex-Smith LakeLittle Nelchina RiverSnowshoe LakeSt Anne LakeTolsonaNelchinaMendeltnaLake Louise084MilesHighway/roadPlant harvest areaPlant harvest areaBerry harvest areaBerry harvest areaFigure 10-25.–Gathering and harvest locations of berries and plants, greens, and mushrooms, East Glenn Highway, 2013.538 In addition, many lodges along the East Glenn Highway promote nonsalmon fishing and depend on tourism associated with this resource. In Tolsona, the greatest concerns regarding nonsalmon fish appear to be with species present in Tolsona Lake. Several households mentioned that Tolsona Lake used to be a very popular destination for ice fishing for burbot and rainbow trout, but that fishing success has declined substantially in recent years. In fact, 2013 was the first year in recent history that the lodge was closed for the winter due to limited successful ice fishing the year prior. Residents attribute this to a decline in nonsalmon fish in the lake. During the spring of 2013, several residents reported observing massive quantities of nonsalmon fish, mostly burbot, dead along the shores of Tolsona Lake immediately after the breakup of ice. A key respondent believes that this die-off was caused by depleted oxygen under the ice as a result of falling water volume in the lake. He attributes this water level drop to an eroding retaining wall at the northern end of the lake. The wall was reportedly maintained until recently by ADF&G as part of long-time fish hatchery operations in that area. The hatchery has since been moved to Moose Lake, and the retaining wall has not been maintained. In contrast to the decline in Tolsona Lake burbot populations, residents attending the community review meeting reported a rise in rainbow trout populations in the spring and summer of 2014. They appeared very pleased with the quantity, size, and health of this population, and 1 resident noted that it is the best trout fishing he has seen in the area in years. A final prominent comment regarding nonsalmon fish near the community of Tolsona pertains to the stocking of fish by ADF&G. Residents appear to support the hatchery and stocking programs, but they are confused as to the process for choosing which lakes to stock. Several residents noted that stocked lakes are often far from the road system and difficult to access. One resident stated, “If you can’t get to a stocked lake, why stock it?” This resident suggested that ADF&G reevaluate its stocking program and that ADF&G should consider stocking lakes closer to the road system, especially Tolsona Lake. Large Land Mammals State hunting regulations for large land mammals in GMU 13 are perhaps the most contentious set of issues pertaining to wild food harvests in the Tolsona area, and many residents have concerns about regulations, especially the “Copper Basin Moose Community Subsistence Harvest Permit Program” (CSH).8 While residents like the idea of being able to hunt for any bull moose prior to the regular season, many respondents indicated that the hunt has significantly increased hunting pressure due to participation by largely urban permit holders from Anchorage, Wasilla, and Palmer. A key respondent noted: Hundreds if not thousands of hunters come to Unit 13 for the CSH. They come in their $100,000 motorhomes and they bring multiple $10,000 all-terrain vehicles. They spend more per ounce of meat harvested than they spend all year at the grocery store. That is not subsistence. They’re competing with the people that actually need the meat and it’s wrong. Some residents cited competition for moose as a complaint, as well as safety issues pertaining to the number of hunters in the area. Several respondents noted that the quantity of ATVs on the landscape is pushing moose farther and farther from the road, making them more difficult to harvest for local residents. Two key respondent households mentioned that the problems with the CSH are the criteria used for issuing permits and that participants are not following the customary and traditional use patterns established in the CSH. Both households also mentioned a need for increased enforcement during the CSH, and that Alaska State Troopers need to be well versed on regulations pertaining to the hunt. Unless some effort is made to restrict the number of hunters having access to the CSH, the expressed sentiments toward this hunt were that the consequences currently outweigh the benefits of the program. Additionally, several households 8. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, “Cultural and Subsistence Harvest Permits” http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adf- g=huntlicense.cultural (accessed December 2014). 539 mentioned that they prefer and depend on federal regulations that provide rural preference for large land mammal hunts in the area. For caribou, residents of Tolsona reported that the spring of 2013 was difficult for the migrating Nelchina caribou herd due to an early breakup of freshwater systems in the area. One key respondent noted bearing witness to calf mortality related to drowning in rivers and lakes. This same respondent mentioned helping at least 1 calf that was found drowning in Tolsona Lake by taking it to shore in his boat. In the winter 2012–2013, most of the Nelchina caribou herd failed to migrate from the area to their winter foraging grounds to the northeast of Tolsona. The herd remained in the Tolsona area throughout the winter. Residents suggested that this is unusual, but that it tends to happen about once every 10 years. A major concern in these years is that the caribou congregate on and near the Glenn Highway, and vehicle collisions are common. A local roadkill salvage program is used to harvest meat and reduce waste. Small Land Mammals/Furbearers Few households in the Tolsona area reported harvests or observations of small land mammals and furbearers. At least 1 household traps regularly and uses the resulting furs to make clothes and handicrafts. Another household indicated that they do not accept gifts of furs because they are ethically opposed to pain experienced by some animals that are trapped. Birds and Eggs Two households reported observations of birds and eggs. One household reported that they avoid harvesting grouse because of local population declines. Another household reported that monitoring and recording song birds and birds of prey in the area has long been a popular pastime. This household provided several decades of observational records related to these birding activities. Vegetation The harvest of vegetation is considered by many households to be an important component of Tolsona’s seasonal round and subsistence activities. Most households in the area harvest berries of some quantity and sharing of these resources is commonplace. Juices, jams and jellies, and other culinary items are made and distributed among households. Residents report that good berry years are cyclical and that they do not have any major concerns regarding local berry populations. One of the key respondents for Tolsona noted the importance of firewood to the community. He indicated that wood is used on a daily basis by many households for a variety of purposes. He also stated that the harvest of firewood was once very economically important for the community since it was sold commercially on a large scale. According to this respondent, more than 75% of the wood harvested commercially in the Copper River Basin came from Tolsona. He indicated that commercial harvests are expected to once again increase with the opening of an additional woodlot in the area in the near future. ACKNoWLEDGEMNTS We would like to thank the Tolsona Community Corporation for support and assistance in making this research possible. We would also like to thank our local research assistant (LRA) Kristal Bengtson for all of her hard work in contacting individuals, encouraging participation, setting up and conducting interviews, and hosting project staff. Additionally, we thank our key respondent households for providing context and historical information to enhance our understanding of survey results and harvest patterns. 540 11. DiSCUSSioN AND CoNCLUSioNS Sarah M. Hazell, Robbin La Vine, and Davin Holen overview oF FindingS For the Study coMMunitieS, 2013 This report documents the wild resource harvest and use patterns of 9 study communities in the Copper River Basin: Glennallen, Gulkana, Lake Louise, Paxson, Tazlina, Tonsina, and the East Glenn Highway communities of Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona. The 2013 study year is the completion of a multi-year effort to update the harvest assessment for the entire area through funding from the WRST and the Alaska Energy Authority. A summary of the harvest update for all Copper River Basin communities will conclude this chapter. The 2013 communities are positioned along the Glenn and Richardson highways, with the exception of Lake Louise, which is located 18 miles north of the Glenn Highway. Glennallen is centrally located at the intersection of the 2 highways; Nelchina is the community farthest to the west (approximately 40 miles from Glennallen); Paxson is farthest north of Glennallen (approximately 70 miles); and Tonsina is the farthest south (approximately 40 miles). While most of the 2013 harvest occurred locally within the Copper River Basin, surveyed households extended their harvest activities north to the Fairbanks area, south into Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska, and west into the Cook Inlet watershed and along the Kenai Peninsula. A few Copper River Basin households traveled as far as Bristol Bay to hunt for moose, caribou, migratory waterfowl, and to fish with rod and reel. There are a few events of significance that influenced the 2013 harvest year and might possibly have impacted the level of harvest by the communities. There was significant flooding in the spring of 2013 just before the salmon harvest season opening. While some communities were only minimally affected, others lost stretches of bank, fish wheels, and in some cases full fish camps. Fish wheels are a point of access to fishing for entire communities, in addition to individual families; the loss of a fish wheel can impact multiple households. Additionally, many households reported a change in caribou migration patterns for the fall hunt that resulted in fewer caribou harvests for those who rely on the Denali Highway road corridor for access to the herd. Table 11-1 summarizes selected findings regarding demography, cash economy, and wild resource harvests and uses by all study communities in 2013. Glennallen had the largest population (384) and Tolsona had the smallest (24). Gulkana had the highest percentage of Alaska Native residents (70%), the highest percentage of household heads born in Alaska (83%), and the longest average length of residency in the community (30 years). Lake Louise, Mendeltna, Paxson, and Tolsona did not have any Alaska Native residents during the 2013 study year. In addition, Paxson and Tolsona had the lowest percentage of household heads born in Alaska (7% and 8%, respectively) and Tazlina had the lowest average length of residency for all communities (16 years). Although Glennallen is generally considered the commercial hub of the Copper River Basin, Lake Louise had the highest per capita income ($58,516) and Gulkana had the lowest ($17,500) (Table 11-1). Difference in per capita income estimates between communities can be explained in part by the difference in availability of wage employment and high levels of per capita income can also be explained by the high percentage of adults (16 years and older) who are employed year-round; Lake Louise was the only community in the study with 100% adults employed year-round. Mendeltna and Nelchina also had high rates of adult year-round employment (79% and 72%, respectively) while Tonsina and Tolsona had the lowest rates of adult year- round employment (56% and 58%, respectively). The average months of employment were comparable in the remaining 8 communities: employment duration ranged from just over 9 months in Tolsona to just under 11 months in Mendeltna. 541 GlennallenGulkanaLake TazlinaTonsinaMendeltnaPaxsonNelchinaTolsonaPopulation383.6103.626.6352.489.933.631.675.724.0Percentage of population that is Alaska Native17.8%70.0%0.0%39.2%11.3%0.0%0.0%8.5%0.0%Percentage of household heads born in Alaska15.6%83.0%6.7%40.0%21.6%26.3%7.1%13.3%7.7%Average length of residency of household heads (year)19.629.522.116.220.118.822.523.625.8Average number of months employed10.19.712.09.99.810.69.610.49.2Percentage of employed adults working year-round65.8%63.9%100.0%66.1%56.3%78.6%61.5%72.2%58.3%Percentage of income from sources other than employment11.8%19.7%37.1%10.4%10.0%10.4%20.7%12.5%39.6%Average household incomea$66,208$54,915$111,180$67,450$85,334$96,250$51,870$66,306$74,168Per capita incomea$24,161$17,500$58,516$22,968$37,032$40,104$18,042$25,394$37,084Per capita harvest, pounds usable weight97.6144.273.0150.1199.352.6214.0128.4310.8Average household harvest, pounds usable weight267.5452.5138.7440.7459.3126.4615.3335.2621.5Number of resources used by 50% or more households6.07.08.06.05.08.08.04.010.0Average number of resources used per household8.59.710.110.011.410.511.88.313.9Average number of resources attempted to be harvested per household6.85.58.48.58.79.911.48.39.8Average number of resources harvested per household5.54.76.67.08.27.69.86.99.0Average number of resources received per household3.65.93.94.13.74.12.62.87.5Average number of resources given away per household2.74.31.63.93.22.54.43.05.5Percentage of total harvest taken by top 25% ranked households75.7%78.1%61.8%64.4%69.4%43.3%59.9%53.7%93.0%Percentage of households that harvested 70% of harvest20.8%20.7%30.0%27.8%21.7%40.0%37.5%33.3%12.5%Per capita harvest by lowest ranked 50% of households1.81.410.812.915.417.159.716.910.1Percentage of total harvest taken by lowest ranked 50% of harvesting households1.9%1.0%14.8%8.6%7.7%32.5%27.9%13.2%3.2%Average number of resources used by lowest ranked 50% of households5.46.88.37.65.611.06.66.58.8Average number of resources used by top 25% ranked households12.916.417.014.722.48.527.514.526.5Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.a. Includes income from sources other than employment.CategoryDemographyCash economy Resource harvest and useCommunityTable 11-1.–Comparison of selected findings, study communities, 2013.542 As estimated in pounds usable weight, Tolsona had the highest per capita harvest in 2013 (311 lb) and Mendeltna had the lowest per capita harvest (53 lb) (Table 11-1). Other high harvesting communities for the 2013 study year include Paxson (214 lb per capita) and Tonsina (199 lb per capita) and Tazlina (150 lb per capita). In terms of average total household harvests of wild foods, Tolsona averaged 622 lb per household, Paxson averaged 615 lb per household, Tonsina averaged 459 lb per household, and Gulkana averaged 453 lb per household. Households in each community used a wide range of individual resources and species with the number used per household averaging between 8 and 14 types of resources (Table 11-1). The average number of species households attempted to harvest was between 6 and 11 per household and the average number of resources harvested per household ranged between 5 (Gulkana) and 10 (Paxson). Households in all 9 communities received between 3 (Paxson and Nelchina) and 8 (Tolsona) kinds of resources each, while households in each study community shared an average of 2 (Lake Louise) to 6 (Tolsona) resources with others. Table 11-1 illustrates how a relatively small portion of each community provides for the bulk of the community harvest (further detail on this common Alaska harvest pattern can be found in Wolfe [1987] and Wolfe et al. [2010]). In Tolsona, 93% of the harvest was taken by the top 25% ranked households (13% of households brought in 70% of the harvest) and in Gulkana 78% of the harvest was taken by the top 25% ranked households (21% of households brought in 70% of the harvest). High harvesting households, those ranked within the top 25%, used on average between 9 and 28 resources. The 50% of households with the lowest harvests used on average between 5 and 11 resources. Of interest, the pattern demonstrated by Paxson represents a community where household contribution to the overall community harvest is more equally distributed (38% of households took 72% of the harvest). Mendeltna shows a similar pattern with 40% of households harvesting 70% of resources, however, the per capita harvest between the 2 communities is very different with a per capita harvest of 214 lb in Paxson and 53 lb in Mendeltna. Table 11-2 reports the estimated levels of individual participation in the harvest and processing of wild resources by all residents in each study community for 2013. The communities of Lake Louise and Mendeltna had the highest rate of individual participation in attempted harvest of any resource (100%) and Tolsona had the highest rate of individual participation in the processing of any resource (100%). Paxson had the lowest rate of individual participation in both the harvesting of any resource and the processing of any resource (61%) despite having one of the highest per capita harvests for the study year. Lake Louise had the highest level of individual participation for fishing (80%) and Tolsona had the highest participation rate for processing fish (88%). Participation by individuals in all communities was highest for fishing and processing fish and the gathering and processing of plants, berries, or wood, and individual participation was lowest for hunting and processing small land mammals/furbearers or birds and eggs—depending on the community. Gulkana had the highest level of participation for hunting large land mammals (55%) and Glennallen the lowest (28%) while Paxson had the highest level of individual participation in the processing of large land mammals (57%) and Lake Louise the lowest (11%). Gulkana had the highest level of individual participation in the building or maintaining of fish wheels (34%) as well as sewing skins or cloth (20%), and Nelchina had the highest level of individual participation in the cooking of wild foods (87%) (Table 11-3). Figure 11-1 demonstrates participation at the household level in using, harvesting and sharing resources for each study community. During the 2013 study year all communities had a high percentage of households using wild resources. In Lake Louise, Mendeltna, Paxson, and Tolsona, all households (100%) used wild resources while Nelchina had the lowest percentage of households that used wild resources at 94% (which is still quite high). Lake Louise and Mendeltna also had 100% household participation in the harvest of wild resources; Lake Louise, Paxson, and Tolsona had 100% of households receiving wild resources; and Mendeltna had the highest level of household participation in the sharing of wild resources (90%). All communities had high levels of sharing of resources with at least 70% of households indicating that they received and gave away resources (Figure 11-1). 543 Table 11-2.–Individual participation in subsistence harvesting and processing activities, study communities, 2013. Glennallen Gulkana Lake Louise Tazlina Tonsina Mendeltna Paxson Nelchina Tolsona 383.6 103.6 26.6 352.4 89.9 33.6 31.6 75.7 24.0 Number 196.4 60.3 21.0 247.6 54.3 22.4 17.9 40.3 18.0 Percentage 51.2%58.2%78.9%70.3%60.4%66.7%56.5%53.2%75.0% Number 207.4 67.1 22.4 258.2 64.4 26.6 17.9 43.5 21.0 Percentage 54.1%64.8%84.2%73.3%71.7%79.2%56.5%57.4%87.5% Number 108.3 56.9 14.0 154.9 33.9 15.4 15.1 33.8 12.0 Percentage 28.2%54.9%52.6%44.0%37.7%45.8%47.8%44.7%50.0% Number 170.7 55.8 2.8 150.4 45.8 15.4 17.9 40.3 12.0 Percentage 44.5%53.8%10.5%42.7%50.9%45.8%56.5%53.2%50.0% Number 27.5 30.7 2.8 68.4 8.5 4.2 5.5 6.4 1.5 Percentage 7.2%29.7%10.5%19.4%9.4%12.5%17.4%8.5%6.3% Number 29.4 28.4 4.2 62.3 15.3 1.4 4.1 8.1 1.5 Percentage 7.7%27.5%15.8%17.7%17.0%4.2%13.0%10.6%6.3% Number 51.8 30.7 9.8 80.5 22.0 1.4 6.9 14.5 7.5 Percentage 13.5%29.7%36.8%22.8%24.5%4.2%21.7%19.1%31.3% Number 43.9 31.9 9.8 75.9 27.1 2.8 6.9 11.3 9.0 Percentage 11.4%30.8%36.8%21.6%30.2%8.3%21.7%14.9%37.5% Number 309.2 70.6 26.6 278.2 74.6 30.8 19.0 66.1 19.5 Percentage 80.6%68.1%100.0%78.9%83.0%91.7%60.0%87.2%81.3% Number 295.8 67.1 25.2 275.1 76.3 28.0 19.0 64.4 21.0 Percentage 77.1%64.8%94.7%78.1%84.9%83.3%60.0%85.1%87.5% Number 310.9 80.8 26.6 312.9 74.6 33.6 19.3 66.1 22.5 Percentage 81.0%78.0%100.0%88.8%83.0%100.0%60.9%87.2%93.8% Number 305.5 81.9 25.2 308.4 79.7 30.8 19.3 67.7 24.0 Percentage 79.6%79.1%94.7%87.5%88.7%91.7%60.9%89.4%100.0% Process Attempt harvest Small land mammals Vegetation Any resource Process Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Fish Process Hunt/gather Process Hunt or trap Process Gather Process Total number of people Birds and eggs Fish Large land mammals Hunt 544 Table 11-3.–Household member participation in subsistence craft activities, study communities, 2013. Glennallen Gulkana Lake Louise Tazlina Tonsina Mendeltna Paxson Nelchina Tolsona 383.6 103.6 26.6 352.4 89.9 33.6 31.6 75.7 24.0 Number 56.6 35.3 0.0 104.0 5.1 2.8 0.0 3.2 3.0 Percentage 14.8%34.1%0.0%29.5%5.7%8.3%0.0%4.3%12.5% Number 45.7 20.5 0.0 35.7 11.9 4.2 1.4 3.2 1.5 Percentage 11.9%19.8%0.0%10.1%13.2%12.5%4.3%4.3%6.3% Number 275.9 77.4 22.4 240.6 64.4 26.6 20.6 66.1 18.0 Percentage 71.9%74.7%84.2%68.3%71.7%79.2%65.2%87.2%75.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Total number of people Building fish wheels Sewing skins or cloth Cooking wild foods 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Percentage of householdsUse Harvest Receive Give Figure 11-1.–Estimated household participation in harvesting and using resources, study communities, 2013. 545 harveSt coMPoSition and uSeS in 2013 Figure 11-2 illustrates the harvest composition of each community in per capita usable weight and figures 2-7, 3-7, 4-7, 5-7, 6-7, 7-7, 8-8, 9-7, and 10-7 represent the harvest composition for each community as a percentage of usable weight. As discussed in the previous section the community with the highest per capita harvest was Tolsona (311 lb) and the community with the lowest per capita harvest (but part of the Tolsona community exchange network) was Mendeltna (53 lb). The category constituting most of the 2013 harvests in a majority of the communities was salmon followed by large land mammals. However large land mammals contributed the largest portion of the harvest in Lake Louise, Nelchina, and Paxson, while salmon contributed the second greatest portion. Another category of significance for most of the 2013 study communities was nonsalmon fish, which made notable contributions to the percentage of harvest to Lake Louise, Paxson, and Tolsona—all communities on or close to large bodies of fresh water. In regard to ranges in per capita harvests by resource group Tolsona had the highest per capita harvest of all resource groups with the exception of birds and eggs, marine invertebrates, and small land mammals (Figure 11-2). However, Tolsona represents a per capita harvest that is significantly shared with many households outside its CDP, including the communities of Mendeltna and Nelchina. Of the major categories, Tolsona harvested 128 lb per capita of salmon, 116 lb per capita of large land mammals, and 45 lb per capita of nonsalmon fish. Following Tolsona, Tazlina had the second highest per capita harvest of salmon (102 lb) followed by Tonsina (102 lb) and Gulkana (92 lb per capita); Lake Louise had the smallest per capita harvest of salmon (9 lb). Paxson had the second highest per capita harvest of large land mammals (84 lb) followed by Nelchina (75 lb) and Tonsina (61 lb). Paxson and Tonsina had the highest per capita harvests of small land mammals (15 lb and 6 lb, respectively). Harvests of vegetation ranged from 19 lb per capita in Tolsona to 4 lb per capita in Gulkana. Table 11-4 presents the top ranked most used resources by percentage in each study community. For the purposes of this report “most used” refers to those edible resources used in each household whether harvested, received, or used from previous years. The ranking shows the frequency at which an individual resource was used for each community, therefore, a resource may appear more than once (such as blueberries, which are ranked anywhere from 1 to 4, depending on the community). Blueberries and sockeye salmon were the top ranked resource used in 5 communities each. Blueberries were used by 100% of households in Lake Louise and Mendeltna, by 88% of households in Paxson and Tolsona, and by 72% of households in Nelchina. Sockeye salmon were used by 92% of households in Tazlina, 88% of households in Paxson and Tolsona, 87% of households in Tonsina, and 81% of households in Glennallen. Moose was the top ranked resource in 3 communities: used by 100% of households in Mendeltna, 90% of households in Gulkana, and 88% of households in Tolsona. Household use was ranked highest at 100% (blueberry and moose) although lowest use still ranked in the top 10, with 23% of households using coho salmon in Glennallen and 23% of households using ptarmigan in Tazlina. Firewood is an important resource in the harvest and use patterns of Copper River Basin residents and is used in many homes to supplement the cost of heating through the long, cold winters. Table 11-5 demonstrates the use of firewood for home heating in all communities for the 2013 study year. A large percentage of the sampled households in Glennallen (44%), Tazlina (41%), Tonsina (48%), Mendeltna (50%), and Nelchina (56%) use wood as a source for at least one-half to all (51% to 100%) of their home heating. Paxson had the highest percentage of sampled households reporting no use of firewood to heat their homes (63%) followed by Lake Louise (40%) and Tolsona (38%). The average annual cost of home heating was lowest in Mendeltna ($2,495) and highest in Paxson ($3,500). This project also asked additional questions about resource uses that are not asked during every survey effort. Table 11-6 reports contributions in 2013 to household use of caribou and moose from the Alaska Roadkill Salvage Program and Table 11-7 shows the percentage of households using resources that were harvested in the previous year by resource category. During winter and spring 2014, while communities were being surveyed, residents reported a high number of animals were struck on the Copper River Basin road system—particularly caribou. These animals did not contribute to the 2013 harvest estimate, and the estimates provided in Table 11-6 are only for the 2013 study year. In 2013 households in only 3 546 050100150200250300350GlennallenGulkanaLake LouiseMendeltnaNelchinaPaxsonTazlinaTolsonaTonsinaHarvest in pounds per capita Birds and eggs Large land mammals Marine invertebrates Marine mammals Nonsalmon fish Salmon Small land mammals VegetationFigure 11-2.–Estimated harvests by pounds per capita and by resource category, study communities, 2013.547 Table 11-4.–Ranked resource use (by percentage of households using), by study community, 2013. Rank Resource Glennallen Gulkana Lake Louise Mendeltna Nelchina Paxson Tazlina Tolsona Tonsina 1 Blueberry 100%100%72%88%88% Moose 90%100%88% Raspberry 88% Sockeye salmon 81%88%92%88%87% 2 Blueberry 75% Moose 61%77%70% Sockeye salmon 83%90% 3 Blueberry 76%75% Lake trout 75% Moose 71%70% Pacific halibut 65% Sockeye salmon 90%56% 4 Arctic grayling 63% Blueberry 52% Burbot 60% Caribou 58%44% Chinook salmon 66%57% Coho salmon 63% Lake trout 44% Lowbush cranberry 60%70%44% Pacific halibut 63% Raspberry 44% 5 Arctic grayling 55% Burbot 75% Caribou 50%56%48% Crowberry 50% Lowbush cranberry 57% Pacific halibut 50%75% 6 Arctic grayling 50% Caribou 50% Chinook salmon 43%43% Pacific halibut 52%49% Raspberry 43% 7 Caribou 48%50% Lowbush cranberry 44%63% Moose 50% Pacific halibut 38% Rainbow trout 63% 8 Arctic grayling 40% Burbot 33% Coho salmon 40% Highbush cranberry 34% Lowbush cranberry 35% Pacific halibut 40%33% Rainbow trout 40% Raspberry 26%40%34% Shrimp 35% 9 Arctic grayling 25%30% Chinook salmon 30%38%50% Coho salmon 28% Highbush cranberry 30% Lake trout 30% Lowbush cranberry 38% Spruce grouse 30% Unknown mushrooms 30% -continued- 548 Rank Resource Glennallen Gulkana Lake Louise Mendeltna Nelchina Paxson Tazlina Tolsona Tonsina 10 Arctic grayling 28% Black bear 38% Coho salmon 23%30% Highbush cranberry 38% Lake trout 38% Porcupine 24% Spruce grouse 30% Unknown ptarmigan 23% Table 11-4.–Page 2 of 2. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 549 NumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageNumberPercentageGlennallen$3,3172633.8%911.7%810.4%1114.3%1924.7%45.2%Gulkana$2,9171034.5%517.2%827.6%13.4%310.3%26.9%Lake Louise$2,820440.0%00.0%330.0%110.0%220.0%00.0%Tazlina$3,1332835.4%56.3%1417.7%1012.7%1519.0%78.9%Tonsina$3,393417.4%313.0%521.7%417.4%313.0%417.4%Mendeltna$2,495330.0%220.0%00.0%00.0%330.0%220.0%Paxson$3,500562.5%112.5%00.0%00.0%225.0%00.0%Nelchina$3,259316.7%211.1%316.7%211.1%738.9%15.6%Tolsona$3,438337.5%00.0%337.5%00.0%225.0%00.0%Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.CommunityAverage annual cost of home heatingHousehold use of wood for home heating as a percentage of sampled households0%1%–25%26%–50%51%–75%76%–99%100%Table 11-5.–Use of firewood for home heating in sampled households, study communities, 2013.550 UsedReceived from roadkill programUsedReceived from roadkill programUsedReceived from roadkill programUsedReceived from roadkill programUsedReceived from roadkill programUsedReceived from roadkill programUsedReceived from roadkill programUsedReceived from roadkill programLarge land mammals81.8%7.8%89.7%3.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%88.6%15.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Caribou58.4%3.9%48.3%3.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%55.7%5.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Moose71.4%6.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%77.2%13.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%TazlinaTolsonaNote No households in Paxson reported receiving resources from the roadkill salvage program.Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.TonsinaMendeltnaNelchinaNameGulkanaGlennallenLake LouiseTable 11-6.–Percentage of households that received (and, by extension, used) resources from the roadkill salvage program, study communities, 2013.551 UsedUsed previous harvestUsedUsed previous harvestUsedUsed previous harvestUsedUsed previous harvestUsedUsed previous harvestUsedUsed previous harvestUsedUsed previous harvestAll resources97.4%18.2%100.0%20.0%98.7%12.7%95.7%13.0%100.0%20.0%94.4%16.7%100.0%12.5% Fish87.0%7.8%0.0%0.0%93.7%5.1%0.0%0.0%100.0%10.0%83.3%5.6%100.0%12.5% Salmon84.4%3.9%0.0%0.0%92.4%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%66.7%5.6%87.5%12.5% Coho salmon23.4%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Chinook salmon42.9%3.9%0.0%0.0%57.0%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%50.0%12.5% Sockeye salmon80.5%2.6%0.0%0.0%92.4%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%55.6%5.6%0.0%0.0% Nonsalmon fish57.1%5.2%0.0%0.0%68.4%3.8%0.0%0.0%90.0%10.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%12.5% Cod0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.5%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Pacific (gray) cod0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.5%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Greenling0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%8.9%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%25.0%12.5% Lingcod0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%8.9%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%25.0%12.5% Pacific halibut37.7%3.9%0.0%0.0%49.4%2.5%0.0%0.0%50.0%10.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Rockfish0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%13.9%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Unknown rockfish0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%13.9%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Sheefish1.3%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Trout16.9%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Rainbow trout15.8%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Whitefishes0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%25.0%12.5% Unknown whitefishes0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%12.5%12.5% Land mammals81.8%13.0%80.0%20.0%89.9%8.9%82.6%13.0%100.0%10.0%72.2%11.1%87.5%12.5% Large land mammals81.8%13.0%70.0%20.0%88.6%8.9%82.6%13.0%100.0%10.0%72.2%11.1%87.5%12.5% Bison0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%25.0%12.5% Black bear7.8%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Caribou58.4%10.4%50.0%20.0%55.7%6.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%44.4%5.6%0.0%0.0% Deer3.9%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Moose71.4%6.5%0.0%0.0%77.2%2.5%69.6%13.0%100.0%10.0%61.1%5.6%0.0%0.0% Dall sheep0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%5.1%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Marine invertebrates15.6%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Clams5.2%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Razor clams5.2%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Vegetation0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%93.7%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Plants, greens, and mushrooms0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%24.1%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Unknown mushrooms0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%10.1%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%NelchinaTolsonaSource ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014.MendeltnaTazlinaGlennallenTonsinaLake LouiseResourceTable 11-7.–Percentage of households using harvest from a previous year, study communities, 2013.552 communities reported using either moose or caribou obtained through the roadkill salvage program; 8% in Glennallen, 3% in Gulkana, and 15% in Tazlina (Table 11-6). While caribou from the roadkill program were used in all 3 communities, moose from the roadkill program were used by more households than caribou in Glennallen and Tazlina (7% and 14%, respectively). Households also used resources left over from harvests that occurred prior to the study year. Of all 9 study communities in 2013, 7 reported using resources from previous years, with use ranging from 20% of households in Lake Louise and Mendeltna to 13% in Tazlina, Tonsina, and Tolsona (Table 11-7).1 Tazlina reported the widest range of resources used from previous years: 13 resources that were previously harvested were used, including different species of salmon, nonsalmon fish, large land mammals, and vegetation. Transportation and Portable Motors The survey included questions about the use of alternative transportation for accessing resources (in addition to or aside from using cars, trucks, or traveling on foot). Figure 11-3 demonstrates the percentage of sampled households that used a boat, snowmachine, ATV, dogsled, or aircraft during their harvest efforts and Figure 11-4 indicates whether households owned, borrowed, leased, or chartered those modes of transportation. The ATV was one of the most commonly used alternative vehicle for 2013 and the highest used alternative transportation in 4 of the 9 study communities: 100% of households reported using an ATV in Mendeltna, approximately 66% of households in Nelchina, 51% in Tazlina, and about 21% of households in Gulkana. Boats were the most used alternative form of transportation in Glennallen (35% of households), and were tied for most used with snowmachines in Lake Louise (70% of households) and Tolsona (50% of households). Aircraft were used by a small portion of households in every study except for Lake Louise (although Tolsona households exhibited significant use of aircraft, at 38%) and dogsleds were used only in Paxson (13% of households) and Tonsina (4% of households). Figure 11-5 and Table 11-8 present the percentage of sampled households reporting the use of portable motors when harvesting or attempting to harvest wild resources. Chain saws were the most used equipment item in all study communities except for Lake Louise and Paxson; the highest level of use was reported by Mendeltna households (80%) but use was also high in Tazlina, Tolsona, and Tonsina (about 70% of households used chain saws at each). In Lake Louise, generator use was highest (70% of households) and in Paxson ice augers were the portable motor used more than any other (38%). 1. Information regarding the use of resources from the previous year’s harvest was collected only if volunteered by respondents. Consequently, data presented in Table 11-7 should be considered minimum values. No data are available for study communities that do not appear in this table (i.e., respondents did not volunteer the information during the course of survey administration). 553 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%GlennallenGulkanaLake LouiseMendeltnaNelchinaPaxsonTazlinaTolsonaTonsinaPercentage of householdsAircraftATVBoatSnowmachineDogsledFigure 11-3.–Alternative modes of transportation used by sampled households to access resources, study communities, 2013.554 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%AircraftATVBoatDogsledSnowmachineAircraftATVBoatDogsledSnowmachineAircraftATVBoatDogsledSnowmachineAircraftATVBoatDogsledSnowmachineAircraftATVBoatDogsledSnowmachineAircraftATVBoatDogsledSnowmachineAircraftATVBoatDogsledSnowmachineAircraftATVBoatDogsledSnowmachineAircraftATVBoatDogsledSnowmachineGlennallenGulkanaLake LouiseMendeltnaNelchinaPaxsonTazlinaTolsonaTonsinaPercentage of householdsOwnBorrowLeaseCharterFigure 11-4.–Sampled households’ use of owned, borrowed, leased, or chartered modes of alternative transportation to access resources, study communities, 2013.555 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%GlennallenGulkanaLake LouiseMendeltnaNelchinaPaxsonTazlinaTolsonaTonsinaPercentage of householdsChain sawGeneratorIce augerWinchOtherFigure 11-5.–Portable motorized equipment used by sampled households while searching for and harvesting resources, study communities, 2013.556 Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Glennallen 77 48 62.3%7 9.1%17 22.1%9 11.7%7 9.1% Gulkana 29 12 41.4%2 6.9%2 6.9%5 17.2%0 0.0% Lake Louise 10 6 60.0%7 70.0%5 50.0%3 30.0%1 10.0% Mendeltna 10 8 80.0%2 20.0%3 30.0%4 40.0%0 0.0% Nelchina 18 10 55.6%2 11.1%5 27.8%6 33.3%0 0.0% Paxson 8 1 12.5%1 12.5%3 37.5%1 12.5%0 0.0% Tazlina 79 56 70.9%11 13.9%19 24.1%25 31.6%9 11.4% Tolsona 8 6 75.0%1 12.5%3 37.5%3 37.5%2 25.0% Tonsina 23 16 69.6%7 30.4%11 47.8%6 26.1%0 0.0% Note Values in this table are based upon reported data, not estimated data. Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Generator Ice auger Winch OtherChain saw Sample sizeCommunity Table 11-8.–Use of portable motors or motorized equipment when harvesting or attempting to harvest resources, study communities, 2013. coPPer river BaSin harveSt uPdate The 2013 study year completes a multi-year harvest update effort led by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in partnership with the Wrangell-St. Elias Park and Preserve and Alaska Energy Authority. This section of the report will briefly summarize and describe the combined harvest and use characteristics of all the updated communities within the time frame of the 4 recent study years (2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013) (Kukkonen and Zimpelman 2012; La Vine et al. 2013, 2014). The communities studied in those years were Chistochina, Chitina, Copper Center, Gakona, Glennallen, Gulkana, Kenny Lake/Willow Creek, Lake Louise, McCarthy, Mendeltna, Mentasta Lake, Mentasta Pass, Nelchina, Paxson, Slana, Tazlina, Tolsona, and Tonsina. In combination, these communities represent virtually the entire population of the Copper River Basin. Table 11-9 reports selected study findings for all Copper River Basin communities combined. These communities combined had a population of 2,811 residents, of which 30% were Alaska Native; 31% of the household heads were born in Alaska and their average length of residency was 22 years. In regard to employment, the average household income was $52,863 annually, with 57% of the employed adults working year-round, and employed working-age adults (16 and older) working on average just over 9 months per year. The per capita income was $20,691. In contrast, the overall per capita income in Alaska in 2013 was $32,474 and the average household income was $88,758, which is approximately $35,000 more than the average for the Copper River Basin.2 The updated per capita harvest of wild resources for Copper River Basin residents for the combined 4 study years was 160 lb (408 lb per household) (Table 11-9). This is slightly less than the estimated harvest for the rural Southcentral region of 184 lb per person for 2012 but typical of rural road-connected communities in Alaska (Fall 2014).3 The average number of wild resources used per household was 11 and the average number of resources harvested per household was 8. On average, households in the Copper River Basin received 5 types of resources and on average gave 4 resources away. Basin-wide, salmon were the most harvested resource (58%), followed by large land mammals (25%), and nonsalmon fish (9%) (Figure 11-6). In order of decreasing importance was the harvest of vegetation (5%), small land mammals (2%), marine invertebrates (1%), and birds and eggs (less than 1%). The Copper River is an important source of salmon for many community members and this is shown by comparing the proportion of the harvest that was salmon harvested by study community residents compared to that 2. U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, “2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Economic Characteristics for Alaska—Income and Benefits,” http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk (accessed December 2014). 3. Please see page 3, Figure 5, “Wild food harvests in Alaska by area, 2012.” 557 Category Population 2,810.9 Percentage of population that is Alaska Native 30% Percentage of household heads born in Alaska 31% Average length of residency of household heads (year)21.6 Average number of months employed 9.4 Percentage of employed adults working year-round 57% Percentage of income from sources other than employmentb 20% Average household incomea, b $52,863 Per capita incomea, b $20,691 Per capita harvest, pounds usable weight 159.8 Average household harvest, pounds usable weight 408.4 Number of resources used by 50% or more households 4 Average number of resources used per household 10.8 Average number of resources attempted to be harvested per household 9.0 Average number of resources harvested per household 7.5 Average number of resources received per household 4.7 Average number of resources given away per household 3.5 Percentage of total harvest taken by top 25% ranked households 75% Percentage of households that harvested 70% of harvest 22% Per capita harvest by lowest ranked 50% of households 7.2 Percentage of total harvest taken by lowest ranked 50% of harvesting households 5% Average number of resources used by lowest ranked 50% of households 7.3 Average number of resources used by top 25% ranked households 16.9 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2010–2014. a.Includes income from sources other than employment. Note Communities included in this estimate: Chistochina (2009); Copper Center, Mentasta Lake, Mentasta Pass, Slana (2010); Chitina, Gakona, Kenny Lake/Willow Creek, McCarthy (2012); Glennallen, Gulkana, Lake Louise, Tazlina, Tonsina, Mendeltna, Paxson, Nelchina, Tolsona (2013). b.Estimate does not include Chistochina (2009) because of insufficient data. Demography Cash economy Resource harvest and use Table 11-9.–Selected study findings, Copper River Basin study communities, 2009–2013. 558 Salmon 58% Nonsalmon fish 9% Large land mammals 25% Small land mammals 2% Birds and eggs < 1% Marine invertebrates 1%Vegetation 5% Figure 11-6.–Composition of combined harvests, by resource category, in pounds usable weight, Copper River Basin study communities, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013. proportion of salmon harvested by rural areas statewide (Fall 2014).4 For 2012, salmon composed 32% of the harvest by rural Alaska residents overall, compared to 58% for Copper River Basin households (Fall 2014; Figure 11-6). However, large land mammal and vegetation harvests were very similar (25% of harvest for Copper River Basin households versus 23% of statewide rural resident harvest for large mammals; 5% of harvest for Copper River Basin households versus 4% of statewide rural resident harvest for vegetation). From a statewide perspective, nonsalmon fish (21% of harvest) plays a much greater role in the harvest of wild resources for other Alaska rural residents, compared to Copper River Basin residents (9%). Historical comparisons with the 1982 and 1987 study years can also shed light on wild resource harvest trends in the Copper River Basin (McMillan and Cuccarese 1988; Stratton and Georgette 1984). Overall the per capita harvest of wild resources has increased from 1982 (110 lb) to 1987 (145 lb) to the 2000s (160 lb) (Table 11-10). The harvest of salmon during that period of time has doubled from a per capita harvest of 49 lb in 1982, 62 lb in 1987, to 92 lb during the current study period. Nonsalmon fish harvests have stayed fairly similar, while large land mammal harvests have varied over that period of time from a harvest of 35 lb per capita in 1982 to 58 lb in 1987 to 40 lb in the current study period (Table 11-10). 4. Please see page 2, Figure 3, “Composition of wild food harvest by rural Alaska residents, 2012.” 559 1982 1987 2000s 1982 1987 2000s All resources 100%100%100%All resources 109.8 144.8 159.8 Salmon 44%43%58%Salmon 48.7 62.4 92.3 Nonsalmon fish 13%11%9%Nonsalmon fish 14.4 15.4 14.2 Large land mammals 32%39%25%Large land mammals 35.0 56.7 39.9 Small land mammals 4%2%2%Small land mammals 4.3 3.2 3.0 Birds and eggs 1%1%1%Birds and eggs 1.2 2.0 1.1 Marine invertebrates 0%0%1%Marine invertebrates 0.0 0.4 1.3 Vegetation 6%3%5%Vegetation 6.2 4.7 8.1 4.Communities in the 1982 study included Chistochina, Chitina, Copper Center, East Glenn Highway, Gakona, Glennallen, Gulkana, Kenny Lake, Lake Louise, Lower Tonsina, McCarthy Road, Mentasta, Nabesna Road, Paxson-Sourdough, Slana, South Wrangell Mountains, and Tonsina. 2.Communities included in this estimate for "2000s" included Chistochina (2009); Copper Center, Mentasta Lake, Mentasta Pass, Slana (2010); Chitina, Gakona, Kenny Lake/Willow Creek, McCarthy (2012); and Glennallen, Gulkana, Lake Louise, Tazlina, Tonsina, Mendeltna, Paxson, Nelchina, and Tolsona (2013). 1.For all 3 study periods, the combination of study communities encompasses the entire population of the Copper River Basin. 3.Communities in the 1987 study included Chistochina, Chitina, Copper Center, East Glenn Highway, Gakona, Glennallen, Gulkana, Kenny Lake, Lake Louise, McCarthy Road, Mentasta, Mentasta Pass, Nabesna Road, Paxson, Slana, Slana Homestead North, Slana Homestead South, Sourdough, South Wrangell Mountains, Tazlina, and Tonsina. Sources For 1982 and 1987, ADF&G Division of Subsistence Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS), accessed 2014; for results for "2000s," study communities surveyed for study years 2009–2013 were combined to represent a single study year. Notes Combined Copper River Basin communities Harvests as a percentage of usable weight Usable harvest weight per capita (lb) Table 11-10.–Historical harvest comparison, Copper River Basin study communities, 1982, 1987, and 2000s. 560 concluSionS This study documented the importance of the harvest of wild resources to the residents of the Copper River Basin communities of Glennallen, Gulkana, Lake Louise, Paxson, Tazlina, Tonsina, and the East Glenn Highway communities of Mendeltna, Nelchina, and Tolsona. Harvest levels, as estimated in pounds usable weight per person, differed among communities, with the highest harvests recorded for Tolsona with 311 lb per capita followed by the communities of Tonsina and Paxson with a harvest of 199 lb per person each. There was high participation by community members in the harvest and use of wild resources. In all communities, wild resource uses were generally diverse in 2013 as evidenced by the high number of resources used: on average between 8 and 14 resources per household. For all communities combined, salmon, moose, caribou, Pacific halibut, upland game birds, and berries figured prominently in the harvest of wild resources as measured in usable pounds. In addition to their own harvests, most households also received wild resources from other households in their communities as shown by the number of resources given and received. Although the study found evidence of a long-term pattern of harvest and use of wild resources, many participants reported that their wild resource uses and harvests have changed over their lifetimes and in the past 5 years. Residents continue to harvest wild resources locally while also taking advantage of opportunities to travel to other areas in Alaska to harvest wild foods. Many residents expressed the desire to continue to harvest resources locally, regardless of changes in abundance of resources and the increase in the population of Southcentral Alaska over time. This study represents the completion of a multi-year and multi-partner effort to update the harvest assessment for the entire area. Information about previous Copper River Basin study years that include the communities of Chistochina, Chitina, Copper Center, Gakona, Kenny Lake/Willow Creek, McCarthy, Mentasta Lake, Mentasta Pass, and Slana are available in “Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources in Chistochina, Alaska, 2009” (Kukkonen and Zimpelman 2012), “Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources in Copper Center, Slana/Nabesna Road, Mentasta Lake, and Mentasta Pass, Alaska, 2010” (La Vine et al. 2013) and “Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources in Kenny Lake/Willow Creek, Gakona, McCarthy, and Chitina, Alaska, 2012” (La Vine et al. 2014). ACKNoWLEDGMENTS The editors would like to acknowledge those that made this larger research effort possible. A special thanks to Barbara Cellarius at the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve who worked to get National Park Service funding for the first 3 years of this research effort and worked alongside ADF&G staff throughout the entire project; to Bill Simeone, former researcher and Subsistence Program Manager for Southern Alaska at ADF&G, for working early on with Barbara to facilitate research in the Copper River Basin; and to Robbin La Vine, formerly of ADF&G, for carrying this research forward. Thanks to Tracie Krauthoefer at HDR for making sure ADF&G had the necessary support to get this project completed in a timely manner. Mathew Cooper, Michael Davis, and Bridget Brown developed the iPad application used to collect spatial data that saved the project staff time and money for developing resource search and harvest areas. Thanks to Stephen Braund for providing staff assistance to collect harvest data, and finally a thank you to Betsy McGregor and Wayne Dyok at the Alaska Energy Authority for recognizing the value of this study to the overall planning process for the Susitna-Watana Project. 561 562 REFERENCESREFERENCES CITED Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat. 1985. Alaska habitat management guide southcentral region: reference maps—volume 3. community use of fish, wildlife, and plants. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat: Juneau. http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/C/AHMG/index.html Alaska Department of Labor. 1991. Alaska population overview: 1990 census and estimates. Alaska Dept. of Labor, Research and Analysis Section: Juneau. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 2014. Alaska population estimates by borough, census area, city, and census designated place (CDP), 2010–2013. http://laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/popest.htm Alaska Energy Authority. 2012. Proposed study plan: Susitna-Watana hydroelectric project, FERC No. 14241. Alaska Energy Authority: Anchorage. Bauer, M.C. 1987. The Glenn Highway: the story of its past, a guide to its present. Bentwood Press: Sutton, AK. Bleakley, G. 2014. History of the Valdez Trail. http://www.nps.gov/wrst/historyculture/history-of-the- valdez-trail.htm (Accessed December 10, 2014) Chapin, T. 1915. “Auriferous gravels on the Nelchina–Susitna region” [in] Alfred H. Brooks and others Mineral resources of Alaska, report on progress of investigations in 1914. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 622. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. http://137.229.113.30/webpubs/usgs/b/text/b0622.pdf 1918. The Nelchina–Susitna region Alaska, Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 668. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling techniques, 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons: New York. Fall, J.A. 2014. Subsistence in Alaska: a year 2012 update. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence: Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/subsistence/pdfs/subsistence_update_2012.pdf Glenn, E.F. 1900. “A trip to the region of the Tanana, 1898” [in] Compilation of narratives of explorations in Alaska. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. Holen, D., S.M. Hazell, J.M. Van Lanen, J.T. Ream, S.P.A. Desjardins, B. Jones, and G. Zimpelman. 2014. The harvest and use of wild resources in Cantwell, Chase, Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, Alexander/Susitna, and Skwentna, Alaska, 2012. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 385: Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP%20385.pdf Holen, D.L. 2002. Dip nets, fish wheels, and motor homes: the Atna’, traditional ecological knowledge, and resource management in the Copper River fishery, Alaska. University of Alaska Anchorage: Anchorage. Hunsinger, E., D. Howell, and E. Sandberg. 2012. Alaska’s highly migratory population: annual moves to, from, and across the state. Alaska Economic Trends 32(4), pages 4–13. Jin, H. and M.C. Brewer. 2008. Highway roadway stability influenced by warm permafrost and seasonal frost action: a case study from Glennallen, Alaska, USA. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions Initial issue (1), pages 26–41. Kari, J. and S. Tuttle. 2005. Copper River Native places: a report on culturally important places to Alaska Native tribes in Southcentral Alaska. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office: Anchorage. http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ak/aktest/tr.Par.53121.File.dat/tr56_coppriver_nativeplaces.pdf Kari, J.M. 2007. Dena’ina topical dictionary. Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks: Fairbanks, AK. ISBN 9781555000912 Ketz, J.A. 1983. Paxson Lake: two nineteenth century Ahtna sites in the Copper River basin, Alaska, Occasional paper No. 33. Anthropology and Historic Preservation Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska: Fairbanks. 563 King, R. 2005. Alaska’s Richardson Highway: connecting Valdez and Fairbanks for 100 years. BLM Alaska Frontiers Winter 2005–2006(98). http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/aktest/frontiers.Par.96179.File.dat/blmfi98.pdf Kukkonen, M. and G. Zimpelman. 2012. Subsistence harvests and uses of wild resources in Chistochina, Alaska, 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 370: Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP%20370.pdf De Laguna, F. and C. McClellan. 1981. “Ahtna” [in] W.C. Sturtevant and J. Helm, editors Handbook of North American Indians, 6: Subarctic. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, D.C. McMillan, P.O. and S.V. Cuccarese. 1988. Alaska over-the-horizon backscatter radar system: characteristics of contemporary subsistence use patterns in the Copper River Basin and upper Tanana area: draft report, 1. Synthesis. Prepared for Hart Crowser, Inc., by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and U.S. National Park Service: Anchorage. Orth, D.J. 1971rep. [1967] Dictionary of Alaska Place Names. United States Government Printing Office. Pete, V. 2001. Virginia Pete: section 7, the forced move to Tazlina after the Army came to Dry Creek. : Tazlina. http://jukebox.uaf.edu/site7/interviews/733 Phillips, W.T. 1984. Roadhouses of the Richardson Highway: the first quarter century, 1898 to 1923. [Alaska Historical Commission]: [Anchorage]. Reckord, H. 1983a. Where raven stood: cultural resources of the Ahtna region. Occasional paper no. 35, Anthropology and Historic Preservation of the Alaska Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska: Fairbanks. 1983b. That’s the way we live : subsistence in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska: Fairbanks. Sandberg, E. 2013. A history of Alaska population settlement. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development Research and Analysis Section: n.p. http://laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/estimates/pub/pophistory.pdf Simeone, W.E., A. Russell, and R.O. Stern. 2011. Watana hydroelectric project subsistence data gap analysis. Report prepared by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., for Alaska Energy Authority: Fairbanks. Stanek, R.T., J.A. Fall, and D.L. Holen. 2006. West Cook Inlet ethnographic overview and assessment for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, Anchorage, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence: Juneau. Stickwan, G. 2006. Tazlina. Presented at Ecotrust Copper River salmon workshop series: workshop 2– tradition ecological knowledge (TEK) panel. http://archive.ecotrust.org/copperriver/workshop/pdf/Tazlina- Stickwan.pdf Stratton, L. and S. Georgette. 1984. Use of fish and game by communities in the Copper River Basin, Alaska: a report on a 1983 household survey. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 107: Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/TechPap/tp107.pdf 1985. Copper Basin resource use map index and methodology. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 124: Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp124.pdf Tobey, R.W. and R.A. Schwanke. 2010. “Unit 13 moose management report” [in] P. Harper, editor Moose management report of survey-inventory activities 1 July 2007–30 June 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game: Juneau. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/10_moose.pdf U.S. Army Alaska and U.S. 11th Air Force, Alaskan Command. 2013. Environmental impact statement for the modernization and enhancement of ranges, airspace, and training areas in the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex in Alaska: executive summary. United States Departments of Army and Air Force: Alaska: n.p. http://www.jparceis.com/Executive_Summary_JPARC_FEIS_June_2013.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. 2000 census of population and housing: population and housing unit counts PHC-3-3, Alaska. : Washington, D.C. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/phc-3-3.pdf 564 2011. 2010 census. U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, D.C. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml La Vine, R.M., M. Kukkonen, B. Jones, and G. Zimpelman. 2013. Subsistence harvests and uses of wild resources in Copper Center, Slana/Nabesna Road, Mentasta Lake, and Mentasta Pass, Alaska, 2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 380: Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP%20380.pdf 2014. Subsistence harvests and uses of wild resources in Kenny Lake/Willow Creek, Gakona, McCarthy, and Chitina, Alaska, 2012. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 394: Anchorage. Wendt, R. 1997. Nelchina Susitna goldfields. Goldstream: Wasilla, AK. ISBN 9781886574175 West, F.H. 1984. “Old World affinities of archaeological complexes from Tangle Lakes (central Alaska)” [in] V.L. Kontrimavichus, editor Beringia in the Cenozoic era. Oxonian Press: New Delhi. Wolfe, R.J. 1987. The super-household: specialization in subsistence economies. Paper presented at the 14th annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, March 1987, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence: Juneau. Wolfe, R.J., C.L. Scott, W.E. Simeone, C.J. Utermohle, and M.C. Pete. 2010. The “super-household” in Alaska Native subsistence economies. Final Report to the National Science Foundation, Project ARC 0352611. 565 APPENDix A–SURVEy iNSTRUMENT Survey ForM For gulkana 566 GULKANA, ALASKA January to December, 2013 HOUSEHOLD ID: COMMUNITY ID:GULKANA 149 RESPONDENT ID: INTERVIEWER: INTERVIEW DATE: START TIME: STOP TIME: DATA CODED BY: DATA ENTERED BY: SUPERVISOR: COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS STEPHEN R. BRAUND DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE AND ASSOCIATES HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES ALASKA DEPT OF FISH & GAME HDR PO BOX 1480 3601 C STREET, SUITE 540 333 RASPBERRY ROAD 2525 C STREET, SUITE 305 ANCHORAGE, AK 99510 ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 ANCHORAGE, AK 99518 ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 907-276-8222 907-269-8000 907-267-2353 907-644-2117 COMPREHENSIVE HARVEST SURVEY This survey is used to estimate wild harvests and to describe community economies. We will publish a summary report, and send it to all participating organizations and community representatives. Copies will be available to you. We share the community information with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. We work with the Federal Regional Advisory Councils and with local Fish and Game Advisory Committees to better manage resources, and to implement federal and state subsistence priorities. We will NOT identify your household. We will NOT use this information for enforcement. Participation in this survey is voluntary. Even if you agree to be surveyed, you may stop at any time. Page 1 of 26 567 HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS HOUSEHOLD ID Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …who lived in your household?PAGE SUBJECT-VERB IS THIS PERSON IN WHAT HOW MANY ANSWERING YEAR WHERE WERE HOW IS THIS YEARS HAS QUESTIONS MALE WAS THIS PARENTS LIVING PERSON RELATED THIS PERSON ON THIS OR ALASKA PERSON WHEN THIS PERSON TO HOUSEHOLD LIVED IN SURVEY?FEMALE?NATIVE?BORN?WAS BORN?HEAD 1?GULKANA? ID#(circle)(circle)(circle)(year)(ak city or state)(relation)(number) HEAD 1 Y N M F Y N YRS 01 HEAD 2 Y N M F Y N YRS 02 03 Y N M F Y N YRS 04 Y N M F Y N YRS 05 Y N M F Y N YRS 06 Y N M F Y N YRS 07 Y N M F Y N YRS 08 Y N M F Y N YRS 09 Y N M F Y N YRS 10 Y N M F Y N YRS 11 Y N M F Y N YRS 12 Y N M F Y N YRS 13 Y N M F Y N YRS 14 Y N M F Y N YRS 15 Y N M F Y N YRS PERMANENT HH MEMBERS: 01 GULKANA: 149 Enter spouse or partner next. If household has a SINGLE HEAD, leave HEAD 2 blank. Enter children (oldest to youngest), grandchildren, grandparents, brothers, sisters, or anyone else living full-time in this household. Page 2 of 26 568 HOUSEHOLD MEMBER PARTICIPATION HOUSEHOLD ID Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …did this person... PERSON ID# FROM Fish Process Hunt Process Hunt/Trap Process Hunt/Gather Process Gather Process Page 2 (circle)(circle)(circle)(circle)(circle)(circle)(circle)(circle)(circle)(circle) Head 1 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Head 2 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 03 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 04 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 05 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 06 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 07 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 08 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 09 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 10 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 11 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 12 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 13 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 14 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 15 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N PERMANENT HH MEMBERS: 01 GULKANA: 149 Large Land MammalsFish Plants/Berries/WoodBirds & EggsSmall Land Mammals Furbearers Page 3 of 26 569 Copper Basin Subsistence Update 2012 HOUSEHOLD MEMBER PARTICIPATION HOUSEHOLD ID Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …did this person... PERSON Build Fish Wheels Sew Skins/Cloth Cook Wild Foods ID# FROM Page 2 (circle)(circle)(circle) Head 1 Y N Y N Y N Head 2 Y N Y N Y N 03 Y N Y N Y N 04 Y N Y N Y N 05 Y N Y N Y N 06 Y N Y N Y N 07 Y N Y N Y N 08 Y N Y N Y N 09 Y N Y N Y N 10 Y N Y N Y N 11 Y N Y N Y N 12 Y N Y N Y N 13 Y N Y N Y N 14 Y N Y N Y N 15 Y N Y N Y N PERMANENT HH MEMBERS: 01 TONSINA:348 Page 4 of 26 570 DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Do members of your household USUALLY participate in COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHING ?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household participate in commercial salmon fishing?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 DID MEMBERS OF IN 2013, HOW MANY YOUR HH…______ DID YOU REMOVE CATCH AS IN 2013, HOW MANY FROM THE CATCH & COMMERCIAL INCIDENTAL ____________ WERE GIVE AWAY TO CREW FISH FOR CATCH REMOVED FOR PERMIT _______?_______?YOUR OWN USE?HOLDER CREW (circle)(circle)(number)(number)(number) CHINOOK (KING) SALMON 113000000 SOCKEYE (RED) SALMON 115000000 COHO (SILVER) SALMON 112000000 CHUM (DOG) SALMON 111000000 PINK (HUMPIES) SALMON 114000000 UNKNOWN SALMON 119000000 COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHING: 03 GULKANA: 149 HARVESTS: COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHING OTHERS Please estimate the number of salmon ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD REMOVED FROM COMMERCIAL HARVEST FOR PERSONAL USE OR SHARING in 2013. INCLUDE the fish you gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, caught as incidental catch while fishing for another species, or got by helping others. If harvested with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch. Y N Y N ID NUMBER FROM PAGE 2 IND IND CREW (number) OR OTHERS? HOUSEHOLD ID Y N Y N IND IND IND IND Y N Y N Y N Y N IND IND IND IND IND IND Y N Y N IND IND IND Y N Y N IND IND IND Page 5 of 26 571 DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Do members of your household USUALLY participate in COMMERCIAL NON-SALMON FISHING ?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household participate in commercial non-salmon fishing?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 DID MEMBERS OF IN 2013, HOW MANY YOUR HH…______ DID YOU REMOVE CATCH AS IN 2013, HOW MANY FROM THE CATCH & COMMERCIAL INCIDENTAL ____________ WERE GIVE AWAY TO CREW FISH FOR CATCH REMOVED FOR PERMIT _______?_______?YOUR OWN USE?HOLDER CREW (circle)(circle)(number)(number)(number) HALIBUT 121800000 HERRING 120200000 HERRING SPAWN ON KELP 120306000 HERRING SAC ROE 120304000 PACIFIC COD (GRAY) 121004000 PACIFIC TOM COD 121008000 SCULPIN 123000000 STARRY FLOUNDER 121406000 SMELT 120400000 ROCKFISH 122600000 LAMPREY 122000000 LINGCOD 121606000 COMMERCIAL NON-SALMON FISHING: 03 GULKANA: 149 HOUSEHOLD IDHARVESTS: COMMERCIAL NON-SALMON FISHING Y N Y N IND Y N Y N IND IND IND IND IND Please estimate the number of commercially harvested non-salmon fish ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD REMOVED FROM COMMERCIAL HARVEST FOR PERSONAL USE OR SHARING in 2013. INCLUDE the fish you gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, caught as incidental catch while fishing for another species, or got by helping others. If harvested with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch. Y N (number) ID NUMBER FROM PAGE 2 LBS LBS CREW OTHERS OR OTHERS? Y N Y N LBS GAL GAL GAL Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N GAL GAL GAL GAL GAL GAL IND Y N Y N IND Y N Y N IND IND IND IND Y N IND Y N Y N IND IND IND INDIND Y N IND Y N Y N GAL Y N Y N IND IND GAL GAL Page 6 of 26 572 HARVESTS: COMMERCIAL MARINE INVERTEBRATE HARVEST HOUSEHOLD ID DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Do members of your household USUALLY participate in COMMERCIAL MARINE INVERTEBRATE HARVEST ?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household participate in commercial marine invertebrate harvest?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 DID MEMBERS OF IN 2013, HOW MANY YOUR HH…______ DID YOU REMOVE CATCH AS IN 2013, HOW MANY FROM THE CATCH & COMMERCIAL INCIDENTAL ____________ WERE GIVE AWAY TO CREW FISH FOR CATCH REMOVED FOR PERMIT _______?_______?YOUR OWN USE?HOLDER CREW (circle)(circle)(number)(number)(number) TANNER CRAB 501012000 DUNGENESS CRAB 501004000 SHRIMP 503400000 SQUID 503800000 OCTOPUS 502200000 GULKANA: 149COMMERCIAL MARINE INVERTEBRATE HARVEST: 03 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y N GAL GAL IND IND Y N Y N Y N GAL GAL LBS LBS LBS LBS LBS LBS GAL Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N GAL Y N Y N Y N Please estimate the commercially harvested marine invertebrates ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD REMOVED FROM COMMERCIAL HARVEST in 2013. INCLUDE the marine invertebrates you gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, caught as incidental catch while fishing for another species, or got by helping others. If harvested with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch. Y N Y N (number) ID NUMBER FROM PAGE 2 CREW OTHERS OR OTHERS? Page 7 of 26 573 HARVESTS: SALMON (NON-COMMERCIAL)DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Do members of your household USUALLY harvest SALMON ?......................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household USE or TRY TO HARVEST salmon?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO to both questions, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HH… …HARVEST …HARVEST WITH A WITH GILL NET DIPNET?ROD AND OTHER OR SEINE? REEL?GEAR?UNITS RESOURCES USED ON THIS PAGE (circle)(ind, lbs) ASSESSMENTS: SALMON Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… To conclude our salmon section, I am going to ask a few general questions about salmon. Last year… …did your household use LESS, SAME, or MORE salmon than in recent years?.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. If LESS or MORE…X = do not use WHY was your use different?............................................................ 1 2 Last year… …did your household GET ENOUGH salmon?..................................................................................................................................Y N If NO… What KIND of salmon did you need?.................................................. How would you describe the impact to your household of not getting enough salmon last year?............................................. SALMON :04 GULKANA: 149 HOUSEHOLD ID Y N Y N Y N Y N …HARVEST WITH A FISH WHEEL? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N WITH A HARVEST?GIVE AWAY?Y N Y N Y N Y N (number taken by each gear type) severe? (3) Kokanee 116000000 UNKNOWN SALMON 119000000 114000000 LANDLOCKED SALMON ...minor? (1) ...major? (2) Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 112000000 CHUM (DOG) SALMON 111000000 PINK (HUMPIES) SALMON Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N X L S M Y N Y N Y N Y N IND IND These columns should include all the harvests: salmon HARVESTED by members of this household in 2013. IND IND INDY NY N 113000000 SOCKEYE (RED) SALMON 115000000 COHO (SILVER) SALMON Y N Y N Please estimate how many salmon ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVESTED in 2013, including with a rod and reel. INCLUDE salmon you gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If fishing with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch. Do not include fish caught and released. Y N Y N IND INDUSE?TRY TO HARVEST?RECEIVE?Y N WITH …HARVEST IN 2013, HOW MANY __________ DID YOUR HOUSEHOLD… Y NCHINOOK (KING) SALMON …HARVEST Page 8 of 26 574 HARVESTS: OTHER FISH (NON-COMMERCIAL)DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Do members of your household USUALLY harvest OTHER FISH ?......................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household USE or TRY TO HARVEST other fish?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO to both questions, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HH… …HARVEST …HARVEST WITH WITH GILL NET ROD AND OR SEINE?REEL?FISHING?GEAR?RESOURCES USED ON THIS PAGE (circle)(number taken by each gear type) RAINBOW TROUT 126204000 LAKE TROUT 125010000 CUTTHROAT TROUT 126202000 TROUT Unknown 126200000 DOLLY VARDEN 125006000 GRAYLING 125200000 PIKE 125400000 BURBOT Ling Cod 124800000 ROUND WHITEFISH 126412000 HUMPBACK WHITEFISH 126408000 BROAD WHITEFISH 126404000 LEAST CISCO 126406060 UNKNOWN WHITEFISH 126400000 SUCKER 126000000 Continue on next page OTHER FISH: 06 GULKANA: 149 HOUSEHOLD ID INDHARVEST?Y N …HARVEST USE?TRY TO HARVEST?RECEIVE?GIVE AWAY?UNITS ICE Y N Y N Y N Y N INDY N Y N Y N Y N Y N INDY N Y N Y N Y N Y N INDY N Y N Y N Y N Y N INDY N Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N IND These columns should include all the harvests: other fish HARVESTED by members of this household in 2013. Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N IND IND Y N Y N IND IND INDY N Y N IND IN 2013, HOW MANY __________ DID YOUR HOUSEHOLD… Please estimate how many other fish ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVESTED in 2013, including with a rod and reel. INCLUDE other fish you gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If fishing with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch. Do not include fish caught and released (ind, lbs) …HARVEST WITH OTHER Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Page 9 of 26 575 HARVESTS: OTHER FISH (NON-COMMERCIAL)DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE …continued IN 2013 IN 2013, HOW MANY __________ DID MEMBERS OF DID YOUR HOUSEHOLD… YOUR HH… OPTIONAL QUALIFIERS FOR LEAD-IN QUESTION …CATCH …CATCH …CATCH …CATCH WITH WITH WITH GILL NET ROD AND ICE OTHER OR SEINE?REEL?FISHING?GEAR?RESOURCES USED ON THIS PAGE (circle)(number taken by each gear type) OTHER FISH Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… To conclude our other fish section, I am going to ask a few general questions about other fish. Last year… …did your household use LESS, SAME, or MORE other fish than in recent years?..................................................................................................................................................................................................................XX L S M If LESS or MORE…X = do not use WHY was your use different?............................................................ 1 2 Last year… …did your household GET ENOUGH other fish?..................................................................................................................................Y N If NO… What KIND of other fish did you need?.................................................. How would you describe the impact to your household of not getting enough other fish last year?............................................. OTHER FISH: 06 GULKANA: 149 HOUSEHOLD ID 120400000 ROCKFISH GAL IND 121008000 STARRY FLOUNDER 121406000 Y N PACIFIC TOM COD IND Y NY N Y NY N SMELT Y N Y N Please estimate how many other fish ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVESTED in 2013 , including with a rod and reel. INCLUDE other fish you gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If fishing with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch. Do not include fish caught and released. GAL ...major? (2) severe? (3) 122600000 LAMPREY 122000000 LINGCOD Y N ...minor? (1) 121606000 Y NY N These columns should include all the harvests: other fish HARVESTED by members of this household in 2013. Y N Y N Y N IND Y N 120200000 PACIFIC COD (GRAY) 121004000 UNITSHARVEST?Y N Y N Y N Y N LBSY N (ind, lbs) INDY N Y N HALIBUT Y N Y N 121800000 HERRING Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N INDY N Y N Y N Y N Y N INDY N Y N Y N Y NUSE?TRY TO HARVEST?RECEIVE?GIVE AWAY?Y N Y N Y N Y N Page 10 of 26 576 HARVESTS: MARINE INVERTEBRATES/SHELLFISH HOUSEHOLD ID DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Do members of your household USUALLY harvest MARINE INVERTEBRATES/SHELLFISH ?......................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household USE or TRY TO HARVEST marine invertebrates/shellfish ?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO to both questions, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HH… (circle)(number taken) MARINE INVERTEBRATES/SHELLFISH Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… To conclude our marine invertebrates/shellfish section, I am going to ask a few general questions about marine invertebrates/shellfish. Last year… …did your household use LESS, SAME, or MORE marine invertebrates/shellfish than in recent years?.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. If LESS or MORE…X = do not use WHY was your use different?............................................................ 1 2 Last year… …did your household GET ENOUGH marine invertebrates/shellfish?..................................................................................................................................Y N If NO… What KIND of marine invertebrates/shellfish did you need?.................................................. How would you describe the impact to your household of not getting enough marine invertebrates/shellfish last year?............................................. GULKANA: 149HARVEST?Y N Y N Y N Y N MARINE INVERTEBRATES/SHELLFISH: 08 X L S M ...minor? (1) ...major? (2) severe? (3) Y N Y N Y N Y N 500604000 Y N Y N Y N These columns should include all the harvests: marine invertebrates/shellfish HARVESTED by members of this household in 2013. Y N 501012000 RAZOR CLAMS 500612000 FRESHWATER CLAMS GAL Y N Y N Y N Y N LBS Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y N LBS Y N Y N Y N Y N GALY N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 501004000 KING CRAB 501008000 TANNER CRAB Y N Y N Y N Please estimate how many marine invertebrates/shellfish ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVESTED in 2013. INCLUDE marine invertebrates/shellfish you gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If fishing with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch.USE?TRY TO HARVEST?RECEIVE?GIVE AWAY?Y N LBS IN 2013, HOW MANY __________ DID YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVEST?UNITS (ind, lbs,gal) DUNGENESS CRAB Page 11 of 26 577 HARVESTS: LARGE LAND MAMMALS HOUSEHOLD ID DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Do members of your household USUALLY hunt for LARGE LAND MAMMALS?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household USE or TRY TO HARVEST large land mammals?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO to both questions, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 IN 2013, HOW MANY __________ DID DID MEMBERS OF MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVEST? YOUR HH… UNITS RESOURCES USED ON THIS PAGE (circle)(enter number by sex and month of take)(ind) M F ? M F ? M F ? M F ? LARGE LAND MAMMALS Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… To conclude our large land mammals section, I am going to ask a few general questions about large land mammals. Last year… …did your household use LESS, SAME, or MORE large land mammals than in recent years?.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. If LESS or MORE…X = do not use WHY was your use different?............................................................ 1 2 Last year… …did your household GET ENOUGH large land mammals?..................................................................................................................................Y N If NO… What KIND of large land mammals did you need?.................................................. How would you describe the impact to your household of not getting enough large land mammals last year?............................................. LARGE LAND MAMMALS: 10 GULKANA: 149 X L S M ...minor? (1) ...major? (2) severe? (3) BISON 210400000 HARVEST?Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N MOOSE 211800000 211800001 211800002 Y N CIRCLE THE HARVEST AMOUNT THAT IS A POTLATCH MOOSE. 211200000 210800000 DALL SHEEP 212200000 GOAT 211800009 CARIBOU 211000000 211000001 211000002 211000009 211600000 DEER BLACK BEAR 210600000 BROWN BEAR Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y N Y N Y N IND IND IND Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Please estimate how many large land mammals ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVESTED in 2013. INCLUDE large land mammals you gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch.SEXJANUARYFEBRUARYMARCHSEPTEMBEROCTOBERNOVEMBERDECEMBERUNKNOWNAUGUSTMAYJUNEJULYAPRILUSE?TRY TO HARVEST?RECEIVE?GIVE AWAY?Page 12 of 26 578 HARVESTS: SMALL LAND MAMMALS OR FURBEARERS DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Do members of your household USUALLY hunt or trap for SMALL LAND MAMMALS OR FURBEARERS for subsistence?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household USE or TRY TO HARVEST small land mammals or furbearers?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO to both questions, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 IN 2013, HOW MANY __________ DID DID MEMBERS OF MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVEST? YOUR HH… UNITS RESOURCES USED ON THIS PAGE (circle)(enter number by month of take)(ind) BEAVER 220200000 PORCUPINE 222600000 SNOWSHOE HARE 221004000 RED FOX 220804000 CROSS FOX 220804020 WOLF 223200000 WOLVERINE 223400000 LAND OTTER 221200000 MUSKRAT 222400000 Continue on next page SMALL LAND MAMMALS: 14 GULKANA: 149 HOUSEHOLD ID Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N RECEIVE?HARVEST?Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N INDY N Y N Y N Y N Y N INDY N IND Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N IND Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N IND Y N Y N IND IND IND Y N Y N Y NY N Y NY N IND Y N Y N Y N Y N INDY N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N NOVEMBERDECEMBERUSE?TRY TO HARVEST?GIVE AWAY?UNKNOWNSEPTEMBERHOW MANY ______ WERE USED FOR FUR ONLY? Please estimate how many small land mammals or furbearers ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVESTED in 2013. INCLUDE small land mammals or furbearers you gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting or trapping with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch.JANUARYFEBRUARYMARCHAPRILMAYJUNEJULYAUGUSTOCTOBERPage 13 of 26 579 HARVESTS: SMALL LAND MAMMALS OR FURBEARERS DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE ....continued IN 2013 IN 2013, HOW MANY __________ DID DID MEMBERS OF MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVEST? YOUR HH… OPTIONAL QUALIFIERS FOR LEAD-IN QUESTION UNITS RESOURCES USED ON THIS PAGE (circle)(enter number by month of take)(ind) Did you sell any furs? If yes, remember to include income on Other Income page .............................................................................................. Y N SMALL LAND MAMMALS OR FURBEARERS Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… To conclude our small land mammals or furbearers section, I am going to ask a few general questions about small land mammals or furbearers. Last year… …did your household use LESS, SAME, or MORE small land mammals or furbearers than in recent years?.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. If LESS or MORE…X = do not use WHY was your use different?............................................................ 1 2 Last year… …did your household GET ENOUGH small land mammals or furbearers?..................................................................................................................................Y N If NO… What KIND of small land mammals or furbearers did you need?.................................................. How would you describe the impact to your household of not getting enough small land mammals or furbearers last year?............................................. SMALL LAND MAMMALS: 14 GULKANA: 149 HOUSEHOLD ID Please estimate how many small land mammals or furbearers ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVESTED in 2013. INCLUDE small land mammals or furbearers you gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting or trapping with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch. X L S M ...minor? (1) ...major? (2) severe? (3) GROUND SQUIRREL 222800000 TREE SQUIRREL 222804000 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 222200000 MARMOT 221800000 222000000 COYOTE 220400000 MINK USE?TRY TO HARVEST?Y N Y N LYNX 221600000 MARTEN RECEIVE?GIVE AWAY?WEASEL 223000000 HARVEST?Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y N OCTOBERNOVEMBERDECEMBERUNKNOWNJUNEMAYHOW MANY ______ WERE USED FOR FUR ONLY? IND Y N Y N IND Y N Y N JANUARYFEBRUARYMARCHAPRILJULYAUGUSTSEPTEMBERY N Y N Y N Y N INDY N Y N Y N Y N Y N INDY N Y N IND Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y N INDY N Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Page 14 of 26 580 HARVESTS: MARINE MAMMALS DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Do members of your household USUALLY hunt for MARINE MAMMALS for subsistence?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household USE or TRY TO HARVEST marine mammals?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 IN 2013, HOW MANY __________ DID DID MEMBERS OF MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVEST? YOUR HH… UNITS (circle)(enter number by sex and month of take)(ind)(circle) HARBOR SEAL M F 300806000 ? 300806001 M 300806002 F 300806009 ? STELLER SEA LION M F 301200000 ? 301200001 M 301200002 F 301200009 ? SEA OTTER 301000000 FUR SEAL 300804000 300804001 M 300804002 F 300804009 ? WHALE (SPECIFY) 301600000 UNKNOWN SEAL (Seal Oil) 300899000 Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… To conclude our marine mammals section, I am going to ask a few general questions about . Last year… …did your household use LESS, SAME, or MORE marine mammals than in recent years?.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. If LESS or MORE…X = do not use WHY was your use different?............................................................ 1 2 Last year… …did your household GET ENOUGH marine mammals?..................................................................................................................................Y N If NO… What KIND of marine mammals did you need?.................................................. How would you describe the impact to your household of not getting enough steller sea lion, female last year?............................................. MARINE MAMMALS: 12 GULKANA: 149 HOUSEHOLD ID L S M ? L S M ? L S M ? L S M ? IND L S M ? L S M ? Y N Y N IND MARINE MAMMALS Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N IND Y N Y N INDY N Y N Y N INDY N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N IND Y N Y NY N Y N AUGUSTAPRILUSE?TRY TO HARVEST?RECEIVE?GIVE AWAY?UNKNOWNL S M ? WERE LESS, SAME, OR MORE _____ AVAILABLE IN 2013, THAN IN RECENT YEARS?JANUARYFEBRUARYJULYMARCHX L S M ...minor? (1) ...major? (2) ...severe? (3) " ? " means "I don't know" Please estimate how many marine mammals ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVEST for subsistence use this year. INCLUDE marine mammals you gave away, ate fresh, fed to dogs, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch.NOVEMBERSEPTEMBEROCTOBERDECEMBERSEXMAYJUNEY N Page 15 of 26 581 HARVESTS: MIGRATORY WATERFOWL Do members of your household USUALLY hunt for MIGRATORY WATERFOWL?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household USE or TRY TO HARVEST migratory waterfowl?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO to both questions, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HH… (circle) CANADA GEESE (CACKLERS) 410404040 CANADA GEESE (BIG LESSER) 410404080 CANADA GEESE (UNKNOWN) 410404000 WHITE-FRONTED GEESE Specklebelly 410410000 SPECTACLED EIDER 410206060 BRANT (SEA GEESE) 410402000 EMPEROR GEESE 410406000 SNOW GEESE 410408000 GEESE (UNKNOWN) 410499000 TUNDRA SWAN (WHISTLING) 410604000 SANDHILL CRANE 410802000 MALLARD 410214000 NORTHERN PINTAIL 410220000 Continue on next page. MIGRATORY WATERFOWL: 15 GULKANA: 149 Y N Y N Y NY N UNKNOWNAPRILMAYJUNEJULYAUGUSTSEPTEMBEROCTOBERY NY N RECEIVE?GIVE AWAY?Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N HOUSEHOLD ID Please estimate how many migratory waterfowl ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVESTED in 2013. INCLUDE migratory waterfowl you gave away, ate fresh, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch. Y N Y NY N Y NUSE?TRY TO HARVEST?HARVEST?Y N Spring Summer Fall IN 2013, HOW MANY __________ DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD ? Page 16 of 26 582 HARVESTS: MIGRATORY WATERFOWL DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS ...continued IN 2013 PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HH… RESOURCES USED ON THIS PAGE (circle) MIGRATORY WATERFOWL Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… To conclude our migratory waterfowl section, I am going to ask a few general questions about migratory waterfowl. Last year… …did your household use LESS, SAME, or MORE migratory waterfowl than in recent years?.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. If LESS or MORE…X = do not use WHY was your use different?............................................................ 1 2 Last year… …did your household GET ENOUGH migratory waterfowl?..................................................................................................................................Y N If NO… What KIND of migratory waterfowl did you need?.................................................. How would you describe the impact to your household of not getting enough migratory waterfowl last year?............................................. MIGRATORY WATERFOWL: 15 GULKANA: 149 HOUSEHOLD ID X L S MHARVEST?Y N Y N Y N APRILMAYJUNEJULYAUGUSTY N Y N Y N Y N Y N IN 2013, HOW MANY __________ DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD ? Spring Summer Fall 410200000 ...major? (2) severe? (3) Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N ...minor? (1) Y NY N Y N GOLDENEYE 410210000 GREEN WINGED TEAL 410228020 DUCKS (UNKNOWN) 410232060 CANVASBACK 410204000 BLACK SCOTER (BLACK DUCK) Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y NUSE?Y NTRY TO HARVEST?Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NY N UNKNOWNSEPTEMBERY NY NRECEIVE?GIVE AWAY?Y N Y N Y N OCTOBERY NY N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Page 17 of 26 583 HARVESTS: OTHER BIRDS DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Do members of your household USUALLY hunt for OTHER BIRDS?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household USE or TRY TO HARVEST other birds?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO to both questions, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 IN 2013, HOW MANY __________ DID DID MEMBERS OF MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVEST? YOUR HH… (circle) OTHER BIRDS Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… To conclude our other birds section, I am going to ask a few general questions about other birds. Last year… …did your household use LESS, SAME, or MORE other birds than in recent years?.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. If LESS or MORE…X = do not use WHY was your use different?............................................................ 1 2 Last year… …did your household GET ENOUGH other birds?..................................................................................................................................Y N If NO… What KIND of other birds did you need?.................................................. How would you describe the impact to your household of not getting enough other birds last year?............................................. OTHER BIRDS: 15 GULKANA: 149 421802020 Y N HOUSEHOLD ID NOVEMBERDECEMBERWinter Spring Summer Fall Winter JUNEJULYAUGUSTSEPTEMBEROCTOBERJANUARY421802060 X L S M ...minor? (1) ...major? (2) severe? (3) Y N MAY421804000 SPRUCE GROUSE Y NPTARMIGAN APRILFEBRUARYMARCHY N Y NY N Y N Y NY N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Please estimate how many other birds ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVESTED in 2013. INCLUDE other birds you gave away, ate fresh, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If hunting with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the catch. Y N Y N Y N Y N UNKNOWNY NUSE?RECEIVE?GIVE AWAY?Y N Y NTRY TO HARVEST?HARVEST?RUFFED GROUSE Page 18 of 26 584 HARVESTS: BIRD EGGS DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Do members of your household USUALLY look for BIRD EGGS?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household USE or TRY TO GATHER bird eggs?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO to both questions, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HH…IN 2011, HOW MANY ____________ DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVEST?UNITS/NOTES RESOURCES USED ON THIS PAGE (circle)(number)(each, gallons, buckets, etc.) Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… To conclude our eggs section, I am going to ask a few general questions about resource name. Last year… …did your household use LESS, SAME, or MORE eggs than in recent years?.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. If LESS or MORE…X = do not use WHY was your use different?............................................................ 1 2 Last year… …did your household GET ENOUGH eggs?..................................................................................................................................Y N If NO… What KIND of eggs did you need?.................................................. How would you describe the impact to your household of not getting enough eggs last year?............................................. BIRD EGGS: 15 GULKANA: 149 HOUSEHOLD ID ...minor? (1) ...major? (2) Y N EGGS Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N severe? (3) X L S M 430000000 Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N 430200000 EGGS (UNKNOWN) Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NY NUSE?TRY TO HARVEST?RECEIVE?Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NHARVEST?Y N Y N Y N Y NGIVE AWAY?Please estimate how many bird eggs ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GATHERED in 2013. INCLUDE bird eggs you gave away, ate fresh, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If looking with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the eggs. Y NGULL EGGS 431212000 GEESE EGGS 430400000 DUCK EGGS Page 19 of 26 585 HARVESTS: PLANTS AND BERRIES INCLUDING WOOD DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Do members of your household USUALLY harvest PLANTS AND BERRIES INCLUDING WOOD?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did members of your household USE or TRY TO HARVEST plants and berries including wood?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO to both questions, go to the next harvest page. If YES, continue on this page… IN 2013 DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HH…IN 2013, HOW MANY ____________ DID MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVEST?UNITS/NOTES RESOURCES USED ON THIS PAGE (circle)(number)(each, gallons, buckets, etc.) PLANTS AND BERRIES Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… To conclude our plants and berries section, I am going to ask a few general questions about plants and berries. Last year… …did your household use LESS, SAME, or MORE plants and berries than in recent years?.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. If LESS or MORE…X = do not use WHY was your use different?............................................................ 1 2 Last year… …did your household GET ENOUGH plants and berries?..................................................................................................................................Y N If NO… What KIND of plants and berries did you need?.................................................. How would you describe the impact to your household of not getting enough plants and berries last year?............................................. PLANTS AND BERRIES: 17 GULKANA: 149 604000002 602040000 OTHER PLANTS (List) 602000002 WOOD Labrador Tea 602018000 MUSHROOMS ...minor? (1) ...major? (2) severe? (3) X L S M 601020000 OTHER BERRIES (List) 601000000 601006000 RASPBERRY HOUSEHOLD ID HUDSON BAY TEA Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Firewood 604000000 WOOD (Specify Use) Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y NHARVEST?Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Please estimate how many plants and berries including wood ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HARVESTING in 2013. INCLUDE plants and berries including wood you gave away, ate fresh, lost to spoilage, or got by helping others. If harvesting with others, report ONLY YOUR SHARE of the harvest. Y N Y NUSE?TRY TO HARVEST?RECEIVE?GIVE AWAY?Y N Y N 601004000 HIGH BUSH CRANBERRY BLUEBERRY 601002000 LOW BUSH CRANBERRY Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Page 20 of 26 586 ASSESMENTS OVERALL HARVEST To conclude our harvest section, I am going to ask a few general questions about ALL WILD RESOURCES. Think about your entire harvest last year.ASSESSMENTS Last year… …overall did your household use LESS, SAME, or MORE wild resources than in recent years?........................................................................................................................................................................................................ If LESS or MORE…X = do not use WHY was your use different?...................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Last year… …did your household GET ENOUGH wild resources?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N If NO… What KIND of wild did you need?...................................................................................................................................................... Overall why do you think you did not get enough wild resources?...................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 How would you describe the impact to your household of not getting enough wild resources last year?...................................................................................................................................................... HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (circle ONE response) (0)(1)(2)(3)(4) If this household does NOT USEwild foods, go to the next page. Otherwise, continue below… Wild Food 1 Wild Food 2 Wild Food 3 Wild Food 4 Wild Food 5 Other Food Other Food Other Food Other Food Other Food ASSESSMENTS: 66 GULKANA: 149 OTHER FOODS (1 TO 5) OTHER FOODS (6 TO 10) (Not necessary to fill out every line) (Not necessary to fill out every line) In a normal week, how many times a day on average are wild foods such as salmon, non-salmon fish, moose, caribou, birds, etc. served in your household? ...................................................................... NONE Don't use LESS than once a day About ONCE a day 2 OR 3 times a day 3 OR MORE times a day Please list the TOP FIVE MOST IMPORTANT WILD FOODS members of your household eat on a regular basis. Include wild foods that may not be available now, but are important at other times of the year. Please list most important foods first. TOP FIVE WILD FOODS If your household CANNOT GET WILD FOODS, what foods do members of your household eat instead? These can be general categories or more specific items you purchase or grow. Please list most important alternative foods first. X L S M ...not noticable? (0) ...minor? (1) ...major? (2) severe? (3) HOUSEHOLD ID Page 21 of 26 587 ASSESMENTS RESOURCE HEALTH TRANSPORTATION AND MOTORIZED EQUIPMENT snowmachine 4-wheeler/ORV dogsled HEATING If yes, please explain why? How much do you spend annually to heat your home? HANDICRAFTS During 2013, did members of our household participate in the making of handicrafts using the following materials? ASSESSMENTS: 66 GULKANA: 149 HOUSEHOLD ID 1-25% other natural material (specify) horns Y N antlers Y N Y N $ Circle birchbark Y N 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100% airplane Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N winch generator Other Y N 0% ice auger Does your household own, borrow, lease, or charter this equipment? Lease Charter snowmachine Circle only responses that the respondent answered yes to above. Own During 2013, were there any resources that your household avoided harvesting due to poor resource health? If YES, which resources During 2013, did members of your household use the following when harvesting or attempting to harveset wild foods? boat boat Y N Y N Y N Y N did you avoid and why? airplane Y N Y N Y N Y NY N Y N Y N Comments: Borrow Y N Circle dogsled Y N chainsaw Y N Y N Y N During 2013, did members of your household use the following portable motors or motorized equipment when harvesting or attempting to harvest wild foods? Y N 4-wheeler/ORV What proportion of your household's heating comes from firewood? Y N Circle Circle In the past 5 years has your harvest area for firewood changed? Circle Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Page 22 of 26 588 JOBS FOR EACH PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD, 16 YEARS OLD AND OLDER Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did any members of your household earn money from a JOB or from SELF EMPLOYMENT?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB For each member of this household born before 1998, please list EACH JOB held between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013. For household members who did not have a job, write: "RETIRED," "UNEMPLOYED," "STUDENT," "HOMEMAKER," etc. There should be at least ONE ROW for each member of this household born BEFORE 1998. REMEMBER COMMERCIAL FISHING & TRAPPING AND ANY HANDICRAFTS IF APPLICABLE. WHO WHAT KIND OF IN 2013,IN 2013, HAD WORK DID WHAT MONTHS HOW MUCH DID THIS HE/SHE DO JOB DID HE OR SHE HE/SHE EARN JOB?IN THIS JOB?LOCATION? WORK IN THIS JOB?IN THIS JOB?RESOURCES USED ON THIS PAGE person job title community circle each month worked circle one gross income 1ST JOB 1 6 910100000 SOC SCHEDULE 2ND JOB 2 6 910100000 SOC SCHEDULE 3RD JOB 3 6 910100000 SOC SCHEDULE 4TH JOB 4 6 910100000 SOC SCHEDULE 5TH JOB 5 6 910100000 SOC SCHEDULE 6TH JOB 6 6 910100000 SOC SCHEDULE 7TH JOB 7 6 910100000 SOC SCHEDULE 8TH JOB 8 6 910100000 SOC SCHEDULE 9TH JOB 9 6 910100000 SOC SCHEDULE 10TH JOB 10 6 910100000 SOC SCHEDULE 11TH JOB 11 6 910100000 SOC SCHEDULE 12TH JOB 12 6 910100000 SOC SCHEDULE EMPLOYMENT: 23 GULKANA: 149 HOUSEHOLD ID WORK SCHEDULE… employer, SIC FOR WHOM DID HE/SHE WORK IN THIS JOB?SHIFT - PART TIMEFULL TIMEPART TIMESHIFT - FULL TIMEON-CALL, VARIESWe ask about jobs and income because we are trying to understand all parts of the community economy. Many people use wages from jobs to support subsistence activities. If one person has more than one job, list each job on a separate line. (One person may have several lines.) $/ YRFTPTSFOC J F M A M J J A S O N D $/ YR J F M A M J J A S O N D $/ YR FT PT SF OC PT SF SP SP SPFTOC J F M A M J J A S O N D / YR J F M A M J J A S O N D $/ YRFT $/ YR J F M A M J J A S O N D $/ YR FT PT SF OC SP SPFTPTSFOC J F M A M J J A S O N D $/ YR J F M A M J J A S O N D SPPTSFOC SP / YRFT J F M A M J J A S O N D FT PT SF SP SP OC SP $ J F M A M J J A S O N D PT SF OC FT PT SF OC J F M A M J J A S O N D $ $/ YR J F M A M J J A S O N D FT PT SF OC SP $/ YR OCSFPTFTJ F M A M J J A S O N D SP $/ YR FT PT SF OC WORK SCHEDULE 1 - Fulltime (35+ hours/week) 2 - Parttime (<35 hours/week) 3 - Shift (2 wks on/2 off, etc.) 4 - Irregular, on call GROSS INCOME is the same as TAXABLE INCOME on a W-2 form. If a person is SELF-EMPLOYED (selling carvings, crafts, bread, etc), list that as a separate job. Enter "sewer," "carver," "baker," etc. as JOB TITLE. Work schedule usually will be "ON CALL." For gross income from self employment ("profit"), enter revenue MINUS expenses. If a person is UNEMPLOYED, specify retired, unemployed, disabled, student, or homemaker as the JOB TITLE. TRAPPING for barter or sale IS a job. COMMERCIAL FISHING is recorded as "ON-CALL, VARIES" for work schedule. Page 23 of 26 589 OTHER INCOME THIS PAGE IS ONLY FOR INCOME THAT IS NOT EARNED FROM WORKING HOUSEHOLD ID DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did any members of your household receive a dividend from the Permanent Fund or a Native Corporation?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N PAGE SUBJECT-VERB IF NO, go to the next section on this page. If YES, continue below… Alaska PFD IN 2013 Regional Corporations Dividend 1 PFD = $900 2 PFDs = $1,800 3 PFDs = $2,700 4 PFDs = $3,600 5 PFDs = $4,500 circle one dollars 6 PFDs = $5,400 Village Corporation(s)Dividend ALASKA PERMANENT 7 PFDs = $6,300 Amount per share FUND DIVIDEND 8 PFDs = $7,200 Elder Dividend 32 9 PFDs = $8,100 NATIVE CORPORATION 10 PFDs = $9,000 DIVIDENDS 11 PFDs = $9,900 13 12 PFDs = $10,800 "SUCH AS" SUBJECT TEXT Between JANUARY and DECEMBER, 2013… …Did any members of your household receive OTHER income such as SENIOR BENEFITS or UNEMPLOYMENT?........................................................................................................................................................................................................Y N IF NO, go to the next page. If YES, continue below… Received?Total Amount?Received?Total Amount? circle one dollars circle one dollars TANF $ 12 2 CHILD SUPPORT 8 15 FOSTER CARE 7 41 FUEL VOUCHERS $ 5 (not per diem*) 31 OTHER (describe) 35 OTHER (describe) 11 * per diem covers travel expenses, and is not counted as income. 3 10 ENERGY ASSISTANCE 9 ALASKA SENIOR Senior benefits of $125 per month for 12 months = $1,500 per elder BENEFITS (LONGEVITY)Senior benefits of $175 per month for 12 months = $2,100 per elder 6 Senior benefits of $250 per month for 12 months = $3,000 per elder OTHER INCOME: 24 GULKANA: 149STATE BENEFITSY N $/YR for ______ weeks = for ______ months = Y N $/YR /YR Y N $/YR Y N $/YR for ______ weeks = for ______ months = $ Scratch paper for calculations ENTITLEMENTSY N $/YR Y N SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME (SSI) PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FOOD STAMPS (QUEST CARD) ADULT /YR Y N $/YR Y N MEETING HONORARIA Y N $/YR /YRY N $/YR OTHERY N $/YR Y N $/YR Y N $ Y N /YR Y N $/YR Y N $/YR (say"Tanif," used to be AFDC)EMPLOYMENT RELATEDY N $/YR FAMILY & CHILDY N $/YR VETERANS ASSISTANCE UNEMPLOYMENT WORKERS' COMP SOCIAL SECURITY PENSION & RETIREMENT DISABILITYDIVIDENDS Y N $/YR $5.27 $300.00 Y N $/YR Did anyone in your household receive income from ___________ in 2013? TOTAL amount all members of your household received from ___________ in 2013. Page 24 of 26 590 COMMENTS DON'T ENTER TEXT ON FORM, ENTER TEXT IN GREEN CELLS DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR CONCERNS? PAGE SUBJECT-VERB-RECORD TYPE INTERVIEW SUMMARY: BE SURE TO FILL IN THE STOP TIME ON THE FIRST PAGE!!!! COMMENTS: 30 GULKANA: 149 HOUSEHOLD ID Page 25 of 26 591 APPENDix B–CoNVERSioN FACToRS 592 Resource name Reported units Conversion factor Chum salmon Individual 5.144 Coho salmon Individual 6.215 Chinook salmon Individual 13.730 Pink salmon Individual 2.149 Sockeye salmon Individual 4.585 Sockeye salmon Pounds 1.000 Sockeye salmon Pints 0.625 Landlocked salmon Individual 1.000 Unknown salmon Individual 4.955 Pacific herring Gallons 6.000 Pacific herring Quarts 1.500 Pacific herring sac roe Gallons 7.000 Pacific herring spawn on kelp Gallons 3.650 Pacific herring roe on hemlock branches Gallons 3.940 Smelt Gallons 3.250 Eulachon (hooligan, candlefish)Individual 0.250 Eulachon (hooligan, candlefish)Pounds 1.000 Eulachon (hooligan, candlefish)Gallons 3.250 Unknown smelt Gallons 3.250 Pacific (gray) cod Individual 4.000 Pacific (gray) cod Pounds 1.000 Pacific tomcod Individual 0.500 Walleye pollock (whiting)Individual 1.400 Unknown cod Individual 3.060 Starry flounder Individual 3.000 Unknown flounder Individual 3.000 Lingcod Individual 2.400 Lingcod Pounds 1.000 Pacific halibut Individual 18.900 Pacific halibut Pounds 1.000 Arctic lamprey Individual 0.600 Rockfish Individual 4.000 Rockfish Pounds 1.000 Black rockfish Individual 1.500 Black rockfish Pounds 1.000 Red rockfish Pounds 1.000 Yelloweye rockfish Individual 2.642 Yelloweye rockfish Pounds 1.000 Copper rockfish Individual 1.480 Unknown rockfish Individual 4.000 Unknown rockfish Pounds 1.000 Sablefish (black cod)Individual 3.100 Sculpin Individual 0.500 Salmon shark Individual 9.000 Burbot Individual 2.400 The following table presents the conversion factors used in determining how many pounds were harvested of each resource surveyed. For instance, if respondents reported harvesting 3 qt of smelt, the quantity would be multiplied by the appropriate conversion factor (in this case 1.5) to show a harvest of 4.5 lb of smelt. -continued- 593 Continued.–Page 2 of 7. Resource name Reported units Conversion factor Arctic char Individual 0.700 Brook trout Individual 1.400 Dolly Varden Individual 0.900 Lake trout Individual 2.000 Arctic grayling Individual 0.700 Northern pike Individual 2.800 Northern pike Individual 2.800 Sheefish Individual 5.500 Longnose sucker Individual 0.700 Cutthroat trout Individual 1.400 Rainbow trout Individual 1.400 Steelhead Individual 4.200 Unknown trout Individual 1.400 Broad whitefish Individual 4.000 Least cisco Individual 0.400 Humpback whitefish Individual 1.750 Humpback whitefish 5 Gal. Buckets 1.750 Round whitefish Individual 1.000 Unknown whitefishes Individual 1.750 Bison Individual 450.000 Black bear Individual 58.000 Brown bear Individual 141.000 Caribou Individual 130.000 Deer Individual 42.500 Mountain goat Individual 72.500 Moose Individual 450.000 Dall sheep Individual 65.000 Beaver Individual 15.000 Coyote Individual 0.000 Arctic fox Individual 0.000 Red fox Individual 0.000 Red fox–cross phase Individual 0.000 Red fox–red phase Individual 0.000 Snowshoe hare Individual 2.000 North American river (land) otter Individual 0.000 Lynx Individual 4.000 Marmot Individual 0.000 Marten Individual 0.000 Mink Individual 0.000 Muskrat Individual 1.800 Porcupine Individual 4.500 Arctic ground (parka) squirrel Individual 0.500 Red (tree) squirrel Individual 0.500 Unknown squirrel Individual 0.500 Least weasel Individual 0.000 Gray wolf Individual 0.000 Wolverine Individual 0.000 Bufflehead Individual 0.400 Canvasback Individual 1.100 -continued- 594 Continued.–Page 3 of 7. Resource name Reported units Conversion factor King eider Individual 2.670 Spectacled eider Individual 2.430 Gadwall Individual 0.800 Goldeneye Individual 0.800 Mallard Individual 1.000 Merganser Individual 0.900 Unknown merganser Individual 0.900 Long-tailed duck Individual 0.800 Northern pintail Individual 0.800 Unknown scaup Individual 0.900 Black scoter Individual 0.900 Surf scoter Individual 0.900 White-winged scoter Individual 0.900 Northern shoveler Individual 0.600 Green-winged teal Individual 0.300 Wigeon Individual 0.700 American wigeon Individual 0.700 Unknown wigeon Individual 0.700 Unknown ducks Individual 0.700 Brant Individual 1.200 Cackling goose Individual 1.200 Canada goose Individual 1.200 Unknown Canada/cackling geese Individual 1.200 Emperor goose Individual 2.500 Snow goose Individual 3.000 White-fronted goose Individual 2.400 Unknown geese Individual 5.000 Tundra (whistling) swan Individual 6.000 Sandhill crane Individual 8.400 Murre Individual 1.650 Spruce grouse Individual 0.700 Sharp-tailed grouse Individual 0.700 Ruffed grouse Individual 0.700 Unknown grouse Individual 0.500 Ptarmigan Individual 0.500 Unknown ptarmigan Individual 0.700 Duck eggs Individual 0.150 Unknown duck eggs Individual 0.150 Goose eggs Individual 0.250 Unknown goose eggs Individual 0.250 Gull eggs Individual 0.300 Unknown gull eggs Individual 0.300 Unknown eggs Individual 0.220 Unknown chitons Gallons 3.910 Clams Gallons 3.000 -continued- 595 Continued.–Page 4 of 7. Resource name Reported units Conversion factor Butter clams Individual 0.120 Butter clams Gallons 3.000 Freshwater clams Individual 0.120 Freshwater clams Gallons 3.000 Razor clams Individual 0.250 Razor clams Gallons 3.000 Razor clams Quarts 0.750 Unknown clams Gallons 3.000 Cockles Individual 0.130 Cockles Gallons 3.000 Dungeness crab Individual 0.700 Dungeness crab Pounds 1.000 King crab Individual 2.300 King crab Pounds 1.000 Unknown king crab Pounds 1.000 Tanner crab Individual 1.600 Tanner crab Pounds 1.000 Unknown tanner crab Gallons 1.600 Unknown crab Individual 2.300 Unknown mussels Gallons 1.500 Octopus Individual 4.000 Unknown oyster Individual 0.180 Shrimp Individual 0.010 Shrimp Pounds 1.000 Shrimp Gallons 2.000 Squid Gallons 8.000 Unknown marine invertebrates Gallons 3.791 Berries Gallons 4.000 Berries Quarts 1.000 Blueberry Pounds 1.000 Blueberry 5 Gal. Buckets 20.000 Blueberry Gallons 4.000 Blueberry Quarts 1.000 Blueberry Plastic Bag 10.000 Blueberry Pints 0.500 Blueberry Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Lowbush cranberry Pounds 1.000 Lowbush cranberry 5 Gal. Buckets 20.000 Lowbush cranberry Gallons 4.000 Lowbush cranberry Quarts 1.000 Lowbush cranberry Pints 0.500 Lowbush cranberry Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Highbush cranberry Pounds 1.000 Highbush cranberry 5 Gal. Buckets 20.000 Highbush cranberry Gallons 4.000 Highbush cranberry Quarts 1.000 Highbush cranberry Pints 0.500 Highbush cranberry Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 -continued- 596 Continued.–Page 5 of 7. Resource name Reported units Conversion factor Crowberry Gallons 4.000 Crowberry Quarts 1.000 Crowberry Pints 0.500 Crowberry Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Elderberry Gallons 6.000 Currants Gallons 4.000 Currants Quarts 1.000 Currants Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Huckleberry Quarts 1.500 Huckleberry Cup (1/2 Pint)0.375 Cloudberry Gallons 4.000 Cloudberry Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Nagoonberry Gallons 4.000 Nagoonberry Quarts 1.000 Nagoonberry Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Raspberry Individual 0.008 Raspberry Pounds 1.000 Raspberry 5 Gal. Buckets 20.000 Raspberry Gallons 4.000 Raspberry Quarts 1.000 Raspberry Pints 0.500 Raspberry Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Salmonberry Pounds 1.000 Salmonberry Gallons 4.000 Salmonberry Quarts 1.000 Salmonberry Pints 0.500 Salmonberry Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Soapberry Quarts 1.000 Strawberry Gallons 4.000 Strawberry Pints 0.500 Strawberry Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Blackberry Gallons 4.000 Twisted stalk berry (watermelon berry)Gallons 4.000 Serviceberry Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Other wild berry 5 Gal. Buckets 20.000 Other wild berry Gallons 4.000 Other wild berry Quarts 1.000 Other wild berry Pints 0.500 Other wild berry Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Wild rhubarb Pounds 1.000 Wild rhubarb Gallons 1.000 Wild rhubarb Pints 0.125 Eskimo potato Gallons 4.000 Eskimo potato Quarts 1.000 Eskimo potato Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Devils club Gallons 1.000 Devils club Cup (1/2 Pint)0.063 Fiddlehead ferns Gallons 1.000 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea Pounds 1.000 -continued- 597 Continued.–Page 6 of 7. Resource name Reported units Conversion factor Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea Gallons 1.000 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea Quarts 0.250 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea Plastic Bag 1.000 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea Pints 0.125 Hudson's Bay (Labrador) tea Cup (1/2 Pint)0.063 Mint Quarts 0.250 Dandelion greens Gallons 1.000 Dandelion greens Cup (1/2 Pint)0.063 Sourdock Gallons 1.000 Spruce tips Gallons 1.000 Spruce tips Quarts 0.250 Wild rose hips Individual 0.005 Wild rose hips Gallons 4.000 Wild rose hips Quarts 1.000 Wild rose hips Pints 0.500 Wild rose hips Cup (1/2 Pint)0.250 Yarrow Gallons 1.000 Yarrow Quarts 0.250 Other wild greens Pounds 1.000 Other wild greens Gallons 1.000 Other wild greens Quarts 0.250 Other wild greens Plastic Bag 2.500 Other wild greens Pints 0.125 Other wild greens Cup (1/2 Pint)0.063 Unknown mushrooms Individual 0.050 Unknown mushrooms Pounds 1.000 Unknown mushrooms Gallons 1.000 Unknown mushrooms Quarts 0.250 Unknown mushrooms Plastic Bag 2.500 Unknown mushrooms Pints 0.125 Unknown mushrooms Cup (1/2 Pint)0.063 Fireweed Pounds 1.000 Fireweed Gallons 1.000 Fireweed Quarts 0.250 Fireweed Cords 957.506 Fireweed Pints 0.125 Fireweed Cup (1/2 Pint)0.063 Plantain Gallons 1.000 Plantain Quarts 0.250 Plantain Cup (1/2 Pint)0.063 Stinkweed Pounds 1.000 Stinkweed Gallons 1.000 Stinkweed Plastic Bag 2.500 Stinkweed Cup (1/2 Pint)0.063 Unknown greens from land Gallons 1.000 Unknown greens from land Quarts 0.250 Bladder wrack Gallons 4.000 Wood Cords 0.000 -continued- 598 Continued.–Page 7 of 7. Resource name Reported units Conversion factor Bark Gallons 0.000 Bark Quarts 0.000 Bark Cords 0.000 Roots Gallons 0.000 Roots Quarts 0.000 Alder Cords 0.000 Wood (unspecified)Individual 0.000 Wood (unspecified)Cords 0.000 Other wood Cords 0.000 Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. 599 APPENDix C–KEy RESPoNDENT iNTERViEW PRoToCoL 600 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL SUSITNA BASIN 2013 Name of community: Date: Name of interviewer: Name of respondent: Age of respondent: How long have you lived in this community? Would you like to have your name included in the report? Yes No Notes: PROJECT OVERVIEW We are currently conducting a survey in your community to document the harvest and use of wild resources for the calendar year 2011. We understand that one year doesn’t represent the long-term pattern of resource use. As part of this survey we ask questions about how the harvest and use of wild resources is different than in recent years, say the past five years. This interview is intended to understand long-term trends in harvest patterns over time, possibly over your lifetime. We appreciate you sharing this information with us as it will give us a much better understanding of the changes that have occurred in your area over time. Note to interviewer. You do not have to ask all of these questions. You can simply ask the main questions and then use this protocol as a guide to understand the types of questions we are interested in. 1 601 WHERE, HOW, AND FROM WHO, DID YOU LEARN YOUR SUBSISTENCE WAY OF LIFE? FISH (SALMON/NON-SALMON) – What kinds of fish are important to your household and community? How has this changed over your lifetime? • Difference between salmon and non-salmon fish for your community. • Have your harvest locations for fish changed over time? • Has harvest timing changed? • What kind of gear/transportation did you use in the past? What about now? • Has environmental changes affected harvest patterns over your lifetime? LARGE LAND MAMMALS – What large animals are most important to your household and community? Has what you harvest and how you harvest changed over your lifetime? • Has harvest timing changed? If so why? • How have you changed the areas you harvest over your lifetime, and why do you think this has occurred? • What kind of transportation did you use in the past and how has this changed over time? SMALL LAND MAMMALS/FURBEARERS – What small game and furbearers are most important to your household and community? How has your harvesting effort changed over your lifetime? • What small game do you harvest to eat and which game do you harvest for fur? • Has harvest timing changed? What about harvest locations? • Do you harvest small game opportunistically or do you target small game? • What kind of gear/transportation did you use in the past? What about now? BIRDS AND EGGS – What birds are most important to your household and community? How has your harvesting effort changed over your lifetime? • Are eggs important to your household or community? • Has harvest timing changed? • Are the places you go to find birds and eggs different now than in the past? PLANTS/BERRIES/WOOD – What plants and berries are most important to your household and community? Has what you harvest and how you harvest changed over your lifetime? • Has harvest timing changed? • Do you use more or less wood for heat than in the past? Is it more or less difficult to find wood? • Are the places you go to find plants, berries, or wood different now than in the past? • What kind of transportation did you use in the past? What about now? • How has environmental change affected the areas you use to harvest berries? What about the abundance of berries? 2 602 RESOURCES PARTICULAR TO YOUR COMMUNITY • Are there resources that you feel are unique to your community, or hold a special value to your community? • Are there particular times of year that you harvest these resources? What about sharing these resources within your community and with other communities? FINAL COMMENTS What do you feel has been the biggest change in your subsistence way of life, from the time you can remember until now? Do you recall a time before regulations were enforced? How has your harvest practice and patterns changed since that time? Is there anything else you would like to share? 3 603 APPENDix D–SEARCH AND HARVEST AREA MAPS By CoMMUNiTy SuPPleMental MaPS 604 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tazlina RiverCopper River RiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeMountainsHaley CreeknyonayGlenn HighwayRichardson HighwayLake Nickoli LakeSucker LakeTolsonaCrPort ValdezJack BayMoosdsonHighwayTolsonaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenValdezKenny LakeCopper Center0105MilesCoho salmon search and harvest areaCoho salmon search and harvest areaCoho salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadChitina 605 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve084MilesChinook salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 606 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Prince William SoundHinchinbrook IslandHawkins IslandEyakCordovaChenega Bay0105MilesPacific tomcod search and harvest areaHighway/roadMontague IslandKnight Island 607 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Jack BayWhittierTatitlekChenega Bay0105MilesLingcod search and harvest areaHighway/roadHinchinbrook IslandHawkins IslandMontaque IslandKnight Island 608 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Prince William SoundHinchinbrook IslandHawkins IslandJack BayWhittierTatitlekChenega Bay0105MilesPacific halibut search and harvest areaHighway/roadKnight Island 609 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Jack BayWhittierTatitlekChenega Bay0105MilesRockfish search and harvest areaHighway/roadPrince William SoundHinchinbrook IslandHawkins IslandMontague IslandKnight Island 610 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeGakona RiverSummit LakeTangle LakesDelta RiverEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichar ds o n Hi g h w a y Richardson Hig h w a y Fielding LakePaxson084MilesArctic char search and harvest areaHighway/road 611 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana RiverTazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve084MilesDolly Varden search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 612 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana RiverTazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve084MilesLake trout search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryPaxson LakeRichardson Hig h w a y Paxson 613 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverrKEwan LakeGlenn HighwayKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayGulkanaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve084MilesWhitefish search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 614 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.Tazlina RiverCopper RiverRiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverGlenn HighwayRichardson HighwayKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayGulkanaTazlinaGlennallenCopper Center1113A13B13DWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve063MilesGLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Bison search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit 615 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.Tazlina RiverCopper RiverRiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverGlenn HighwayRichardson HighwayKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayGulkanaTazlinaGlennallenCopper Center1113A13B13DWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve063MilesGLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013BLack Bear search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit 616 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013TPaxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana Riverazlina RiveCopper RiverSanford RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeSummit LakeMankomen LakeeekMineralLakesAhtell CreekTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekMentastaLakeTangle LakesSevenmile LakeDenali HighwayLake LouiseSourdoughGlenn HighwayRichardson Hi g h w a y Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffLake Louise RoadTwin LakesTolsona CreekFielding LakePaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseSlanaGakonaChistochina111213B13C13A13DWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesCaribou search areaCaribou search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit 617 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Summit LakeTangleLakesDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Fielding LakePaxson13B13C13E13E084MilesDall sheep search areaHighway/roadGame management unit 618 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GLENNALLEN HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana RiverTazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve084MilesFirewood harvest areaFirewood harvest areaFirewood harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 619 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013G ulkana RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverEwan LakeTulsona CreekGlenn HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayGulkanaGlennallenGakonaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve063MilesChinook salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 620 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013ValdezTatitlek0105MilesPink salmon search and harvest areaCoho salmon search and harvest areaHighway/road 621 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.Port ValdezJack BayMt ShastaValdezTatitlek063MilesGULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Pacific halibut search and harvest areaHighway/roadPrince William Sound 622 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverEwan LakeTulsona CreekGlenn HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayGulkanaGlennallenGakonaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve063MilesArctic grayling search and harvest areaArctic grayling search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 623 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayCutoffSuckerLakeTKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaKenny LakeCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesRainbow trout search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 624 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana River Sanford RiverCrosswindLakeEwan LakeSummit LakeMankomen LakeSuslota CreekTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekMentastaLakeTanada CreekSourdoughenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffFielKlawasi RiverMoose CreekPaxsonGulkanaGlennallenSlanaCopper RiverGakonaChistochinaMentasta LakeWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesRound whitefish search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundarySlana River 625 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverTuGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayGulkanaGakona1113A13C13BWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve063MilesBrown bear search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unitGakona River 626 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekSourdoughRichardson Hig h w a y Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffGulkana1113B13C13AWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve084MilesCaribou search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit..Gakona 627 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013PaxsonLakeGakona RiverGulkana RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverSummitLakeMankomen LakeCreekMineralLakesTulsona CreekBoulder CreekDrop CreekMentastaSourdoughRichardson Hig h w a y Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffGulkanaSlanaGakonaChistochina12 Mentasta Lake1113C13B13AWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesDall sheep search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit.Ahtell Creek 628 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.GULKANA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana River Copper RiverSanford RiverEwan LakeTulsona CreekGlenn HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayGulkanaGlennallenGakonaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve063MilesFirewood harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 629 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Prince William SoundndMontague IslandElrington IslandLatouche IslandKnight IslandSewardMoose PassChenega Bay02010MilesCoho salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadHinchinbrook Island 630 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013zlinaLakeSusitna LakeTalkeetna RiverOshetnaRiverChickaloon RiverLake LouiseLake Louise Road Old Man LakeverMendeltna CreekMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeorthandSouthJansLakeGlenn HighwayTalkeetna MountainsLittle Nelchina RiverSnowshoe LakeNelchinaLake LouiseChickaloon0105MilesBonnie LakeLandlocked salmon search and harvest areaHighway/road 631 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Prince William SoundndMontague IslandElrington IslandLatouche IslandKnight IslandSewardMoose PassChenega Bay02010MilesPacific halibut search and harvest areaHighway/roadHinchinbrook Island 632 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Prince William SoundndMontague IslandElrington IslandLatouche IslandKnight IslandSewardMoose PassChenega Bay02010MilesRockfish search and harvest areaHighway/roadHinchinbrook Island 633 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiverTazlina RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeSucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesTolsonaMendeltnaLake Louise0105MilesArctic char search and harvest areaHighway/roadTolsona CreekMendeltna CreekNickoli Lake 634 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiverTazlina RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeSucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesTolsonaMendeltnaLake Louise0105MilesLake trout search and harvest areaHighway/roadTolsona Creek 635 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiverTazlina RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchinaRiverSucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesTolsonaMendeltnaLake Louise0105MilesRainbow trout search and harvest areaRainbow trout search and harvest areaHighway/roadRound lake & Old Road lakesTolsona Creek 636 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiverTazlina RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchinaRiverSucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesTolsonaMendeltnaLake Louise0105MilesHumpback whitefish search and harvest areaRound whitefish search and harvest areaHighway/roadTolsona Creek 637 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiversonLakeGakona RiverGulkana RiverTazlina RivernfordRiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekangleLakesLake LouiseSourdoughGlenn HighwayichardsonHighway Lake Louise Road Old Man LakeSucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesCopper RiverRichardso n Hi g h way TolsonaGulkanaTazlinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseGakonaCopper Center1113A13B13C13DWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesCaribou search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit.Tolsona Creek 638 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.LAKE LOUISE HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiverTazlina RiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeSucker LakeTwin LakesSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans lakesTolsonaMendeltnaLake Louise0105MilesFirewood harvest areaHighway/roadTolsona Creek 639 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Prince William SoundHawkins IslandPort ValdezJack BayMt ShastaValdezTatitlek0105MilesCoho salmon search and harvest areaCoho salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadTatitlek Narrows 640 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013NaknekLevelockKing SalmonSouth NaknekPortage Creek0105MilesChinook salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadBristol Bay 641 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Prince William SoundHawkins IslandPort ValdezJack BayMt ShastaValdezTatitlek0105MilesPacific halibut search and harvest areaRockfish search and harvest areaHighway/roadPacific cod search and harvest areaTatitlek Narrows 642 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeSummit LakeDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Fielding LakePaxson063MilesDolly Varden search and harvest areaHighway/roadBoulder Creek Maclaren RiverDickey LakeUpper Tangle LakeLong Tangle Lake 643 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeSummit LakeUpper Tangle LakeDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Fielding LakePaxson063MilesArctic grayling search and harvest areaHighway/road Maclaren RiverBoulder CreekDickey LakeLong Tangle LakeRound Tangle Lake 644 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeSummit LakeDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Fielding LakePaxson063MilesLongnose sucker search and harvest areaHighway/roadDickey LakeRound Tangle LakeUpper Tangle LakeMaclaren River 645 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeSummit LakeDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Fielding LakePaxson063MilesLeast cisco search and harvest areaLeast cisco search and harvest areaHighway/roadBoulder Creek Maclaren RiverUpper Tangle LakeDickey LakeRound Tangle LakeLong Tangle Lake 646 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeSummit LakeTangle LakesDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Fielding LakePaxson063MilesHumpback whitefish search and harvest areaHumpback whitefish search and harvest areaHighway/roadDickey LakeMaclaren RiverBoulder Creek 647 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.Paxson LakeSummit LakeUpper Tangle LakeDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Fielding LakePaxson13B063MilesPAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Black bear search areaBrown bear search areaHighway/roadGame management unitLong Tangle LakeRound Tangle LakeCrazy Notch Maclaren RiverDickey Lake13C 648 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeGakonaRiverSummit LakeDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Richardson Hi g h w a y Fielding LakePaxson13B13C13A13C0105MilesMoose search areaMoose search areaHighway/roadGame management unit Maclaren RiverCrazy Notch Maclaren RiverBoulder CreekDickey LakeTangle LakesUpper Tangle LakeLong Tangle LakeGunn LakeWolverine MountainLower Fish LakeFish CreekUpper Fish Lake 649 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.PAXSON HARVEST OF WILDRESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeSummit LakeTangle LakesDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekRichardson Highway Fielding LakePaxson063MilesFirewood harvest areaHighway/roadBoulder CreekMaclaren RiverDenali HighwayDickey LakeUpper Tangle Lake 650 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tazlina RiverTonsina RiverTazlina LakeRoadChugach MountainsChugach MountainsPrinceWilliamSoundSilver LakeStrelna LakeO'Brien CreekHaley CreekEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway Lake Louise Road Nelchina RiverNickoli LakeSucker LakePort ValdezJack BayMt ShastaTolsonaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenValdezChitinaTatitlekKenny LakeLower TonsinaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve02010MilesCoho salmon search and harvest areaCoho salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 651 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekTanada CreekChitina RiverMcCarthy RoadSkull CreekSilver LakeStrelna LakeTebayRiverO'Brien CreekHaley CreekFireweedMntEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson Hi g h w a y Richardson HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffTwin LakesTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaChitinaKenny LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesChinook salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryCopper Center 652 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Port ValdezJack BayMt ShastaValdezTatitlek084MilesPink salmon search and harvest areaPink salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPrince William SoundChugach Mountains 653 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Susitna FlaKnik ArmHopePortageGirdwoodWhittierAnchorageMoose PassEagle RiverCooper Landing0105MilesHooligan search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryTurnagain ArmSeward HighwaySeward Highway 654 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013KenaiSalamatof021MilesStarry flounder search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryKenai RiverCook IneltSterling Highway 655 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Copper RiverDeltaChugach MountainsGulf of AlaskaAlaskaPrince William SoundHawkins IslandPort ValdezEyakValdezPortageCordovaGirdwoodWhittierTatitlekChenega Bay02010MilesLingcod search and harvest area Lingcod search and harvest areaHighway/roadMontague IslandKnight IslandLatouche Island 656 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Copper RiverDeltaChugach MountainsGulf of AlaskaAlaskaPrince William SoundHawkins IslandPort ValdezEyakValdezPortageCordovaGirdwoodWhittierTatitlekChenega Bay02010MilesPacific halibut search and harvest areaPacific halibut search and harvest areaHighway/roadHomerKachemak bayMontague IslandKnight IslandLatouche Island 657 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Copper RiverDeltaChugach MountainsGulf of AlaskaAlaskaPrince William SoundHawkins IslandPort ValdezEyakValdezPortageCordovaGirdwoodWhittierTatitlekChenega Bay02010MilesRockfish search and harvest area Rockfish search and harvest areaHighway/roadMontague IslandKnight IslandLatouche Island 658 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gakona RiverGulkana RiverTazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekTanada CreekChitina RiverMcCarthy RoadSkullCreekSilver LakeStrelna LakeTebayRiverO'Brien CreekHaley CreekFireweedMntEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson HighwayRichardson HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffTwin LakesTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaChitinaKenny LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesBurbot search and harvest areaBurbot search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryHudson Lake 659 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverTAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekTanada CreekChitina RiverMcCarthy RoadCreekSilver LakeStrelna LakeTebayRiverO'Brien CreekHaley CreekeweedMntEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y Richardson HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffTwin LakesTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaChitinaKenny LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaCopper CCenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesDolly Varden search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 660 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopperRiverCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakekeTulsona CreekTangle LakesSevenmileLakeDenali HighwayLake LouiseSourdoughGlenn HighwayRichardson Hi g h w a yGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffLake Louise Road Old Man LakeTwin LakesFieldingLakePaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseGakonaChistochinaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesLake trout search and harvest areaLake trout search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary. 661TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gakona RiverGulkana RiverTazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekTanada CreekChitina RiverMcCarthy RoadSkullCreekSilver LakeStrelna LakeTebayRiverO'Brien CreekHaley CreekeweedMntEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson Hi g h w a y Richardson HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffSuckerLakeTwin LakesTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaGlennallenGakonaChitinaKenny LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesArctic grayling search and harvest areaArctic grayling search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundarySource: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.Tolsona CreekPoplar Grove 662 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCoper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeTetlinLakeCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeSummit LakeMankomen LakeSuslota CreekAhtell CreekTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekMentastaLakeTanada CreekChitina RiverMcCarthy RoadTangle LakesDeltaRiverSevenmile LakeDenali HighwaySilver LakeStrelna LakeaLke LouiseSourdoughO'Brien CreekHaley CreekFireweedMntEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y Richardson HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffLake Louise Ro a d Nelchina RiverNickoli LakeSucker LakeTwin LakesPaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseSlanaGakonaChitinaKenny LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve02010MilesRainbow trout search and harvest areaRainbow trout search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary. 663 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013TyoneRiverPaxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverKTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeSummit LakeMankomen LaketaCreekMineralLakesAhtell CreekTulsona CreekkeBoulder CreekDrop CreekMentastaLakeTanadaCreekTangle LakesDeltaRiverSevenmile LakeEurekaCreekDenali HighwayRichar ds o n Hi g h w a y oLake LuiseSourdoughGlenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y nHighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffLake Louise Road Nelchina RiverSucker LakeTwin LakesPaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseSlanaGakonaChistochinaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesWhitefishes seach and harvest areaWhitefish seach and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryCopper CenterRichardson Highway 664 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Copper RiverTonsinaRiverna RiverMcCarthy RoadnagitaRiverSilver LakeStrelna LakeCanyon CreekSummit LakeTebO'Brien CreekHaley CreekEdgerton HighwayTonsinaChitinaKenny LakeLower Tonsina111213DWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve084MilesBison search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unitRichardson Highway 665 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Susitna RiverSusitna RiverTyone RiverPaxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverKlutCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeSummit LakeMankomen LakeSuslotaCreekAhtell CreekOshetna RiverTulsona CreekrLakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekMentastaLakeTangle LakesDelta RiverSevenmile LakeEureka CreekDenali HighwayRichardson Highway Lake LouiseGlenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y sonHighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverNickoli LakeTwin LakesFielding LakePaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseSlanaChistochinaCopper CenterMentasta Lake111213B13A13C13D13E13EWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve02010MilesBlack bear search and harvest areaBlack bear search and harvest areaBrown bear search and harvest areaBrown bear search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit 666 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gakona RiverGulkana RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekTanada CreekNizina RiverChitina RiverChitina RiverMcCarthy RoadChakina RiverKlu RiverHanagita RiverNorth Fork Breminer RiverSilver LakeStrelna LakeTebay LakeTebay RiverO'Brien CreekHaley CreekFireweed MntEdgerton HighwayRichardson HighwayGlenn Highway- Tok CutoffGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaGlennallenNabesnaChitinaMcCarthyKenny LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaCopper Center111213C13B13DWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve02010MilesDall sheep search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit 667 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TAZLINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulkana River Tazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverCrosswind LakeEwan LakeTulsonaCreekonCreekO'Brien CreekCopperRivEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffNelchinaSucker LakeTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaMendeltnaGlennallenGakonaChitinaKenny LakeLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesFirewood harvest areaFirewood harvest areaFirewood harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 668 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Copper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverRichardson Highway Pippin LakeBernard CreekHurtle CreekTonsina LakeRichardsonTonsinaKenny LakeCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve063MilesChum salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryEdgerton Highway 669 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.Copper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeChugach MountainslverLakeStrelnaLakekkeO'Brien CreekHaley CreekEdgerton HighwayRichardson HighwaySuckerLakePort ValdezJack BayMt ShastaPippin LakeBernard CreekHurtle CreekTonsina LakeRichardson HighwayTonsinaValdezChitinaKenny LakeLower TonsinaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesCoho salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryTONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013 670 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tonsina RiverChugach MountainsPort ValdezJack BayMt ShastaPippin LakeBernard CreekHurtle CreekTonsina LakeRichardson HighwayTonsinaValdez0105MilesChinook salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 671 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013KenaiKasilofNikiskiSterlingSoldotnaSalamatof063MilesEulachon (hooligan) search and harvest areaHighway/roadCook Inlet Kenai RiverMoose River Sterling Highway 672 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013HomerSeldoviaNanwalekKachemakNikolaevskPort GrahamAnchor Point063MilesHighway/roadStarry Flounder search and harvest areaKachemak bayCook InletSterling Highway 673 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Prince William SoundSeward HighwayHinchinbrook IslandSewardMoose PassChenega Bay02010MilesRockfish search and harvest areaPacific halibut search and harvest areaHighway/roadGulf of Alaska 674 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Paxson LakeGakona RiverGulkana RiverTazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeTetlinLakeCrosswind LakeEwan LakeMankomen LakeSuslota CreekAhtell CreekTulsona CreekCopper LakeBoulder CreekDrop CreekMentastaLakeTanada CreekTangle LakesDeltaRiverDenali HighwayStrelna LakeLake LouiseSourdoughCreekFireweed MntEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson Hig h w a y GleOld Man LakeNickoli LakeSucker LakeTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardson Highway HurtleCreekTonsina LakePaxsonTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseSlanaGakonaKenny LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve02010MilesBurbot search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary.Goat Creek 675 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013KenaiNikiskiSterlingSoldotnaSalamatof063MilesDolly Varden search and harvest areaHighway/roadDolly Varden LakeSkilak LakeMoose River Cook Inlet Kenai RiverSterling HighwaySwanson River Road Kenai Spur Highway 676 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Copper RiverTonsinSilver LakeStrelna LakekeCanyon CreekmitLakeTe rO'Brien CreekHaley CreekWood CanyonEdgerton HighwayRichardsonHighway PippBernard CreekRichardson HighwayTonsinaChitinaKenny LakeLower TonsinaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve084MilesClam GulchLake trout search and harvest areaLake trout search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryCook InletTustumena LakeSterling HighwayOld Edgerton HighwayRichardson Highway 677 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Copper RiverTSilver LakeeStrelna LakeaLakeCanyon CreekummitLakeTebay RiverO'Brien CreekHaley CreekWood CanyonEdgerton HighwayRichardsonPippin LakeBernard CreekRichardson HighwayTonsinaChitinaKenny LakeLower TonsinaWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve063MilesArctic grayling search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryOld Edgerton Highway 678 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tonsina RivernCreekayLakeO'Brien CreekHaley CreekEdgerton HighwayPippin LakeBernard CreekHurtle CreekTonsina LakeRichardson HighwayTonsinaChitinaLower Tonsina1113DWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesBlack bear search areaBrown bear search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unitWood CanyonThompson Pass 679 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Prince William SoundHinchinbrook IslandHawkins IslandTatitlekChenega Bay0105MilesMontague IslandGulf of Alaska --Sitka black-tailed deer search and harvest area 680 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tonsina RiverJack BayMt ShastaPippin LakeBernard CreekHurtle CreekTonsina LakeRichardson HighwayTonsinaValPaxdez13D0105MilesGakonaRiverTangle LakesDenali HighwayRichardson Hi g h w a y Paxson13B13CMoose search areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unitStuart CreekTiekelCreekPaxson Lake 681 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.TONSINA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Copper Tonsina RiverKlutina RiverTazlinaLakehwa Pippin LakeBernard CreekHurtle CreekTonsina LakeRichardson HighwayTonsinaKenny LakeWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesFirewood harvest areaFirewood harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundary 682 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tyone RiverGakona RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverperRiverKlutinaRiTazlinaCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekLake LouiseSourdoughGlenn Highwayhway Lake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverSucker LakeTwin LakesTolsona CreekSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans LakeCopper RiverRichardso n Hi g h way Soup LakeLittle Nelchina RiverSnowshoe LakeStAnneLakeTolsonaGulkanaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseGakonaCopper Center1113A13B13C13DWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesPotato PointBlack bear search and harvest areaBrown bear search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryGame management unit 683 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Chenega Bay0105MilesSitka black-tailed deer search and harvest areaGulf of Alaska Hinchinbrook IslandMontague IslandPrince William Sound 684 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tazlina RiverCopper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeChugach MountainsyonCreekTebayLakeO'Brien CreekHaley CreekCopper River CanyonEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway LakeL Old Man LakeNelchinaRiverSucker LakeTolsonaCreekPort ValdezMt ShastaKlawasiRiverMooseCreeksonHighwayPippin LakeBernard CreekHurtle CreekRichardson HighwaySlTolsonaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesCoho salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryCoho salmon search and harvest areaKlutina LakeChugach MountainsValdez.ChitinaKenny Lake..Copper Center 685 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013TyoneRiverGakonaRiverGulkana RiverTazlina RiverCopper RiverSanford RiverCopper RiverTonsina RiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeTulsona CreekBoulder CreekCanyonCreekLake LouiseO'Brien CreekHaley CreekCopperRiverCaEdgerton HighwayGlenn HighwayRichardson Highway Glenn Highway- Tok CutoffLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchinaRivSucker LakeTolsona CreekKlawasi RiverMoose CreekRichardso n Hi g h w ay Pippin LakeBernard CreekRichardsonHighwaySTolsonaGulkanaTonsinaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseChitinaKenny LakeChistochinaLower TonsinaCopper CenterWrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve0105MilesChinook salmon search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryChinook salmon search and harvest areaWest Fork Gakona RiverGakonaKlutina Lake 686 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013TyoneRiGulkana RiverTazlina RiverCopper RiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakekeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwaysonHighway Highway-TokCutoffLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverSucker LakeTolsona CreekKlawasiRiverMoose CreekRichardson HighwayPippinLakeTonsinaLakeSlide Mtn.TolsonaGulkanaTazlinaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake LouiseGakona084MilesArctic grayling search and harvest areaHighway/roadPark and preserve boundaryArctic grayling search and harvest areaDeep LakeFirst Hill LakeSt Anne LakeKaina LakeMendeltna CreekTolsona Lake 687 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tazlina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeeLakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverNickoli LakeSucker LakeTolsona CreekoseCreekTolsonaNelchinaMendeltnaLake Louise084MilesLake trout search and harvest areaHighway/roadLake trout search and harvest areaFirst Hill LakeDeep LakeTyone CreekKaina LakeKaina CreekHigh LakeTolsona Lake Mendeltna Creek 688 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.Tyone RiverGulkana River Tazlina RiverrRiverKlutina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeTyone LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeOshetnaRiverLake LouiseGlenn HighwayRichardsonHighway Lake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverSucker LakeTolsona CreekMoose CreekRichardson HighwaySlide Mtn.TolsonaGulkanaNelchinaMendeltnaGlennallenLake Louise0105MilesDolly Varden search and harvest areaHighway/roadMENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tolsona Lake Kaina LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeDeep Lake 689 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tazlina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeSusitna LakeEwan LakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverNickoli LakeSucker LakeTolsona CreekMoose CreekTolsonaNelchinaMendeltnaLake Louise084MilesBroad whitefish search and harvest areaHighway/roadMendeltna CreekSt Anne LakeKaina LakeFirst Hill LakeDog LakeHumpback whitefish search and harvest area 690 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulf of AlaskaSeward HighwayerRiverDeltaChugach MountainskaPrince William SoundRiverCanyonPort ValdezJack BayHighway02010MilesPacific halibut search and harvest areaHighway/roadHawkins Island Hinchinbrook IslandMontague IslandMiddleton IslandResurrection Peninsula Sandy BaySeward.ValdezCordova..Whittier. 691 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013ntainsGulfofAlaskaPrince William SoundEyakValdezPortageCordovaGirdwoodWhittierTatitlekMoose PassChenega Bay02010MilesHighway/roadGulf of AlaskaMiddleton IslandMontague IslandHawkins Island Hinchinbrook IslandLingcod search and harvest area 692 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Gulf of AlaskaerRiverDeltaChugach MountainskaPrince William SoundRiverCanyonPort ValdezJack BayHighway02010MilesRockfish search and harvest areaHighway/roadMontague IslandMiddleton IslandResurrection Peninsula Seward.ValdezCordova..Seward HighwayWhittier.Hope.Hawkins Island Hinchinbrook Island 693 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.HomerKachemakNinilchikNikolaevskHappy ValleyAnchor Point063MilesMarine invertebrate harvest areaHighway/roadMarine invertebrate harvest areaMarine invertebrate harvest areaCook InletKachemak BayMENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Kenai PeninsulaAnisom PointPeterson Bay 694 Source: Alaska Department of Fishand Game Division of Subsistencehousehold surveys, 2014. TechnicalPaper No. 405: The harvest and use ofwild resources in selectedcommunities of the Copper RiverBasin, Alaska, 2013.MENDELTNA, NELCHINAAND TOLSONA HARVEST OFWILD RESOURCES, 2013Tazlina RiverTazlina LakeCrosswind LakeSusitna LakeEwanLakeLake LouiseGlenn HighwayLake Louise Road Old Man LakeNelchina RiverSucker LakeTwin LakesTolsona CreekSecond Hill LakeMendeltna CreekFirst Hill LakeMoore LakeDog LakeBell LakeNorth and South Jans LakeSoup LakeTex-Smith LakeLittle Nelchina RiverSnowshoe LakeSt Anne LakeTolsonaNelchinaMendeltnaLake Louise084MilesFirewood harvest areaHighway/roadFirewood harest area 695 APPENDix E–ADDiTioNAL TABLES 696 Table E2-1. – Birthplaces of population, Glennallen, 2013. Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 5.2% Chistochina 0.5% Circle 0.5% Copper Center 1.9% Fairbanks 2.4% Gakona 0.5% Glennallen 21.3% Haines 0.9% Juneau 0.9% Kenny Lake 0.5% Ketchikan 0.5% Mentasta Lake 3.3% Petersburg 1.4% Soldotna 0.5% Other Alaska 0.5% Other U.S.55.0% Foreign 4.3% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. 697 Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 5.5% Bethel 1.1% Bristol Bay 1.1% Copper Center 12.1% Crosswind Lake 1.1% Cube Cove 4.4% Eureka Roadhouse 1.1% Ewan Lake 1.1% Fairbanks 3.3% Gakona 1.1% Glennallen 1.1% Gulkana 39.6% Kodiak City 1.1% Northway 2.2% Paxson 1.1% Pedro Bay 1.1% Tazlina 1.1% Valdez 1.1% Other U.S.17.6% Missing 2.2% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Table E3-1. – Birthplaces of population, Gulkana, 2013. Birthplace Percentage Eagle River 15.8% Palmer 5.3% Other U.S.73.7% Foreign 5.3% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Table E4-1. – Birthplaces of population, Lake Louise, 2013. 698 Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 13.0% Delta Junction 4.3% Paxson 8.7% Other U.S.69.6% Foreign 4.3% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Table E5-1. – Birthplaces of population, Paxson, 2013. Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 7.3% Aniak 0.9% Atka 0.4% Chistochina 0.9% Chitina 2.2% Chuathbaluk 0.4% Copper Center 6.9% Copperville 0.9% Cordova 0.4% Crooked Creek 0.4% Fairbanks 3.4% Glennallen 6.5% Kenai 0.4% Kenny Lake 1.7% Mendeltna 0.4% Mentasta Lake 4.7% Nuiqsut 0.4% Sanak 0.4% Slana 0.4% Tazlina 17.7% Tok 0.4% Tolsona 0.4% Wasilla 0.4% Wrangell 0.4% Other U.S.40.9% Foreign 0.4% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Table E6-1. – Birthplaces of population, Tazlina, 2013. 699 Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 1.9% Glennallen 1.9% Juneau 1.9% Kenny Lake 3.8% Petersburg 1.9% Tonsina 18.9% Other U.S.52.8% Foreign 13.2% Missing 3.8% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Table E7-1. – Birthplaces of population, Tonsina, 2013. Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 4.2% Glennallen 8.3% Mendeltna 4.2% Nikiski 4.2% Palmer 4.2% Tolsona 8.3% Other Alaska 4.2% Other U.S.62.5% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Table E8-1. – Birthplaces of population, Mendeltna, 2013. 700 Birthplace Percentage Anchorage 4.3% Chickaloon 6.4% Chugiak 4.3% Cube Cove 2.1% Nelchina 19.1% Other Alaska 2.1% Other U.S.59.6% Missing 2.1% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Table E9-1. – Birthplaces of population, Nelchina, 2013. Birthplace Percentage Fairbanks 6.3% Tolsona 12.5% Wasilla 6.3% Other U.S.75.0% Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2014. Note "Birthplace" means the place of residence of the parents of the individual when the individual was born. Table E10-1. – Birthplaces of population, Tolsona, 2013. 701 APPENDix F–PRoJECT SUMMARy 702 1 Summary Findings: Copper River Basin Comprehensive Harvest Update Project to update wild harvest and use information for communities in the Copper River Basin Project The following is a brief overview of research conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to provide comprehensive harvest and use data for fish, wildlife, and wild plant resources in the Copper River Basin (see Figure 1). The study period covers January 1 through December 31, 2013. Funding for this project was provided by the Alaska Energy Authority. The project was a partnership between ADF&G and Stephen R. Braund and Associates, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, and HDR Alaska, Inc. The purpose of the project was to provide updated harvest and use data of wild resources for a feasibility study for the potential Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. The potential development required updated baseline information about the full range of wild resource harvests, uses, and areas of harvest, as well as demographic and economic information to understand the role of these harvests in the economy and way of life of community residents in the project area. As shown on the map, this study was the second of 2 study years. Year 1 was conducted in Susitna River Basin communities. In addition, some Copper River Basin communities were recently surveyed as part of a joint Division of Subsistence/Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve project. Methods The primary data gathering method was a systematic household survey. The surveys were conducted face-to-face and mostly in residents’ homes. The goal was to interview a representative of each year-round household in all study communities, except for the larger community of Glennallen where the goal was a 50% sample. In total, 262 households in the 9 study communities were interviewed with the assistance of local researchers. Harvest mapping was also conducted for each household to document search areas and harvest locations of wild resources, including harvest amount, month of harvest, and how harvesters accessed the resource. Additionally, to understand long-term trends in the area and local knowledge of resources, 3–5 key respondent interviews were conducted in each of the study communities. Figure 1 Slana/Nabesna Road Copper Center Mentasta Pass Susitna River Paxson Tolsona Gulkana Tonsina Nelchina Mendeltna Lake Louise Tazlina/Copperville Chase Susitna Cantwell Skwentna Talkeetna Trapper Creek Alexander Creek Tyonek Gakona Chitina McCarthy Kenny Lake Willow Creek Chistochina Year 1 Year 2 Surveyed (2010-2012) Susitna-Watana Project Major Roads 0 5025 Miles Study Communities Susitna RiverMentasta Lake Glennallen 703 2 DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE Holen, D., S. M. Hazell, and G. Zimpelman, editors. 2015. The Harvest and Use of Wild Resources in Selected Communities of the Copper River Basin and East Glenn Highway, Alaska, 2013. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 405. Anchorage. Available at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/publications/ For a copy of our OEO statement, see www.adfg.alaska.gov Findings Figure 2 shows the harvest of wild resources as estimated in pounds usable weight per capita. Harvests of wild foods ranged from 53 lb per person in Mendeltna to 311 lb per person in Tolsona. Salmon were especially important in most communities as well as large land mammals, including moose and caribou. Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of households in each community that were using, attempting to harvest, harvesting, receiving, and giving away wild resources in 2013. In all 9 communities approximately 95% of households used wild resources and around 80% or more harvested wild resources. Many households received or gave away resources, thus demonstrating sharing of resources between households. For the complete study findings see the technical paper listed below that is available to download from the ADF&G website. Technical papers for other recent studies in the Copper River Basin are also available from this searchable database. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Percentage of householdsUse Harvest Receive Give Figure 3 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Glennallen Gulkana Lake Louise Mendeltna Nelchina Paxson Tazlina Tolsona TonsinaHarvest in pounds per capita Vegetation Small land mammals Salmon Nonsalmon fish Marine mammals Marine invertebrates Large land mammals Birds and eggs Figure 2