Technical Paper No. 492 (2022)

Tribal code

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Technical Paper No. 492

The Subsistence Harvest of Pacific Herring Spawn in

Sitka Sound, Alaska, 2022

Lauren A. Sill

and

Terri Barnett

February 2023

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Division of Subsistence

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

deciliter

gram

hectare

kilogram

kilometer

liter

meter

milliliter

millimeter

Weights and measures (English)

cubic feet per second

foot

gallon

inch

mile

nautical mile

ounce

pound

quart

yard

ft3/s

gal

nmi

Time and temperature

day

degrees Celsius

degrees Fahrenheit

degrees kelvin

hour

minute

second

°C

°F

min

Physics and chemistry

all atomic symbols

alternating current

ampere

calorie

direct current

hertz

horsepower

hydrogen ion activity

(negative log of)

parts per million

parts per thousand

volts

watts

cal

ppm

ppt, ‰

General

Alaska Administrative Code

all commonly-accepted

abbreviations

all commonly-accepted

professional titles

AAC

e.g.,

Mr., Mrs.,

AM, PM, etc.

e.g., Dr., Ph.D.,

R.N., etc.

compass directions:

east

north

south

west



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

mideye-to-fork

mideye-to-tail-fork

standard length

total length

MEF

METF

Mathematics, statistics

all standard mathematical signs, symbols

and abbreviations

alternate hypothesis

base of natural logarithm

catch per unit effort

CPUE

coefficient of variation

common test statistics

(F, t, χ2, etc.)

confidence interval

correlation coefficient (multiple)

correlation coefficient (simple)

covariance

cov

degree (angular )

degrees of freedom

expected value

greater than

greater than or equal to

≥

harvest per unit effort

HPUE

less than

less than or equal to

≤

logarithm (natural)

logarithm (base 10)

log

logarithm (specify base)

log2, etc.

minute (angular)

not significant

null hypothesis

percent

probability

probability of a type I error (rejection of the

null hypothesis when true)

probability of a type II error (acceptance of

the null hypothesis when false)

second (angular)

standard deviation

standard error

variance:

population

Var

sample

var

TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 492

THE SUBSISTENCE HARVEST OF PACIFIC HERRING SPAWN IN

SITKA SOUND, ALASKA, 2022

Lauren A. Sill,

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Douglas

and

Terri Barnett

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Anchorage

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Division of Subsistence

PO Box 110024

Juneau, AK 99811

February 2023

The Division of Subsistence Technical Paper series was established in 1979 and represents the most complete

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 communities which pertain to a large

number of scientific 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.

Lauren A. Sill

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence

PO Box 110024, Juneau, AK 99811-0024, USA

and

Terri Barnett

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence

333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK 99518-1565, USA

This document should be cited as:

Sill, L. A. and T. Barnett. 2023. The Subsistence Harvest of Pacific Herring Spawn in Sitka Sound, Alaska,

2022. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 492,

Douglas.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) administers all programs and activities free from

discrimination 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 (ADA) 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, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK, 99811-5526

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive MS 2042, Arlington, VA, 22203

Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW MS 5230, Washington D.C., 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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. iv

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................v

INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

PROJECT OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................3

METHODS .........................................................................................................................................3

Survey Plan and Implementation .................................................................................................4

Development of the Household Survey List .............................................................. 4

The Survey Instrument .............................................................................................. 4

Survey Implementation ............................................................................................. 5

Update of the 2022 Conversion Factors ......................................................................................6

DATA ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................................6

DISSEMINATION OF SURVEY RESULTS ..............................................................................................8

2022 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................9

SAMPLE ACHIEVEMENT ....................................................................................................................9

HARVEST ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................................9

Conversion Factors ....................................................................................................................20

HARVEST LOCATIONS .....................................................................................................................22

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................24

OVERVIEW OF 2022 STUDY YEAR...................................................................................................24

2022 HARVEST YEAR CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................24

Sharing of Herring Spawn .........................................................................................................24

Harvest Participation and Success .............................................................................................26

CHANGES IN USE OF HERRING SPAWN ............................................................................................34

CONVERSION FACTORS ...................................................................................................................36

LOCATION OF HARVESTS ................................................................................................................36

SPAWN-ON-KELP FISHERY ..............................................................................................................37

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................39

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...........................................................................................................40

REFERENCES CITED ...............................................................................................................41

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1.–Sampling characteristics for herring spawn harvester survey, Sitka Sound, 2022. ............................... 11

2.–Estimated subsistence harvest of herring spawn, Sitka Sound, 1983, 1987, 1996, 2002–2022. ............ 12

3.–Estimated subsistence harvest of herring spawn by type of harvester, Sitka Sound, 2022. ................... 14

4.–Distribution of subsistence herring spawn harvest, Sitka Sound, 2022. ................................................ 16

5.–Percentage of responding households that usually harvest for other households, Sitka Sound, 2022. .. 17

6.–Harvesting households’ perception of herring spawn harvest compared to recent years, Sitka

Sound, 2022. .................................................................................................................................. 17

7.–Reported reasons for why household harvests were more than in other years, Sitka Sound, 2022. ...... 18

8.–Reported reasons for why household harvests were less than in other years, Sitka Sound, 2022. ........ 18

9.–Harvesting households’ description of whether they got enough herring spawn to meet their

households’ needs and their sharing needs, Sitka Sound, 2021. .................................................... 18

10.–Harvesting households that were asked to share eggs but they could not share, Sitka Sound, 2021. .. 19

11.–Size of vessel used to harvest herring spawn, Sitka Sound, 2022........................................................ 19

12.–Percentage of responding households harvesting with other households, Sitka Sound, 2022. ............ 20

13.–Conversion factors for 2010–2022. ...................................................................................................... 21

14.–Reported locations of subsistence herring spawn sets and harvest, Sitka Sound, 2022. ...................... 22

15.–Estimated subsistence herring spawn harvests and number of harvesting households, Sitka Sound,

2002–2022. .................................................................................................................................... 29

16.–Locations from where residents reported receiving herring eggs, Angoon, Haines, Hoonah,

Hydaburg, and Whale Pass, 2012. ................................................................................................. 35

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page

1.–Distribution of subsistence herring spawn harvest by substrate, Sitka Sound, 2022. ............................ 15

2.–Percentage of total subsistence-harvested herring spawn that was shared, Sitka Sound, 2022. ............ 17

3.–Reported reasons households did not attempt to harvest herring spawn, Sitka Sound, 2022. ............... 19

4.–Reported harvest locations and percent of harvest weight per location of herring spawn for

subsistence use, Sitka Sound area, 2022. ....................................................................................... 23

5.–Total pounds usable weight of herring spawn harvested, number of harvesting households, and

amount reasonably necessary for subsistence (ANS) of herring spawn on all substrates in

Sitka Sound, 2002–2022. ............................................................................................................... 30

6.–Estimated mature biomass of Sitka Sound herring, 1976–2022 (based on the ADF&G 2023

forecast age-structured assessment model for Sitka Sound herring) and estimated subsistence

harvest of herring eggs from Sitka Sound, 2002–2022. ................................................................. 32

7.–Cumulative days of recorded herring spawn, Sitka Sound area, 2022................................................... 33

8.–Percentage of households using, receiving, giving, and harvesting herring eggs, Hydaburg,

Hoonah, Haines, and Angoon 2012, Sitka 2013, and Yakutat 2015. ............................................. 34

9.–Frequency of spawn recorded during ADF&G surveys, Sitka Sound area, 1964–2011. ....................... 37

iii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

Page

A: Map of Areas of Sitka Sound with Fishing Restrictions ........................................................................ 44

B: Sitka Sound Subsistence Herring Egg Harvest Survey, 2022 ................................................................ 46

C: 2022 Code Book..................................................................................................................................... 51

ABSTRACT

The subsistence fishery for the spawn of Pacific herring Clupea pallasii in Sitka Sound was historically, and remains,

important to Alaska residents. Harvesting herring spawn is a specialized subsistence activity in which a relatively

small number of Southeast Alaska residents harvest and distribute herring spawn widely throughout the state and

beyond to relatives and other social relations. Annual subsistence harvest monitoring surveys began in 2002 in

response to concerns from subsistence harvesters that the commercial sac roe herring fishery was negatively affecting

subsistence harvesting success. This report presents the results of the 21st annual harvest survey conducted with

households that harvest subsistence herring eggs in Sitka Sound. The survey generated data used to calculate estimates

of the subsistence harvest of herring spawn on various substrates, including hemlock branches, kelp, and other seaweed

in Sitka Sound. The most recent 10-year average (2012–2021) estimated annual harvest was 75,197 lb. In 2022, an

estimated total of 135,231 lb of herring spawn was harvested; this level of harvest was nearly three times the estimated

harvest of 2021 and is the largest estimated harvest since 2014. A combination of factors, including effort, the location

of spawning activity, the quality of spawn deposition, and opportunity to fulfill latent need for herring spawn,

contributed to the higher estimated harvest. Approximately 96% of the harvest was shared with other households

within Sitka or in other communities in the state and beyond.

Key words: Pacific herring, Clupea pallasii, herring spawn, subsistence fishing, harvest estimate, subsistence, Sitka,

Sitka Tribe of Alaska

1. INTRODUCTION

The spawn of Pacific herring Clupea pallasii, generally known as “herring eggs,” is a traditional food of

great cultural importance for indigenous coastal communities throughout the Pacific Northwest and

Southeast Alaska (Moss 2016). Herring spawn is consumed throughout this region; however, only a small

number of people have the time, equipment, skills, and knowledge required to harvest it. The harvest is

then shared widely. This report presents findings of the 21st annual harvest assessment, which occurred in

the spring of 2022, designed to document subsistence harvests of herring spawn in Sitka Sound (see Brock

and Turek [2007], Holen et al. [2011], Sill and Lemons [2012; 2014a; 2014b; 2015; 2017; 2020; 2021] and

Sill and Cunningham [2017; 2019; 2021a; 2021b] for discussion of the previous study years).

Pacific herring return annually to spawn in locations throughout Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, but the

abundance of herring and herring spawn and the length of the spawning period has set Sitka Sound apart

from these other areas (Schroeder and Kookesh 1990). Herring harvesters have taken advantage of this

unique harvest opportunity during both historical and contemporary periods (Schroeder and Kookesh 1990;

Thornton and Moss 2021). In the 19th century, Tlingit from all over Southeast Alaska gathered in Sitka to

harvest herring and herring spawn (Emmons 1991; Pierce 1972). The primary method of harvest has

changed little over time; harvesters in both historical and contemporary times submerge branches of the

western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla in salt waters just outside the intertidal zone before spawning takes

place. Herring spawn is also collected on other substrates such as giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera, hair

seaweed Desmarestia spp., and rockweed Fucus spp. (Schroeder and Kookesh 1990). The herring deposit

their eggs on the branches of the hemlock or other substrate, which are then removed from the water. The

harvest of herring eggs is a specialized activity in which a relatively small number of harvesters provide

the resource to many users. The most active harvesters in Sitka Sound, those who supply many households

with herring eggs, set up to 80 small hemlock trees in sets of two to 10 trees. In contrast, less active

harvesters may set a small number of hemlock branches in just a few sets. During the harvest, small

branches can be pulled directly onboard the boat, but trees are usually cut into more manageable pieces

since entire trees, laden with herring eggs, are heavy and can be difficult to maneuver. Historically, herring

spawn was consumed either fresh or air-dried, or was packed in salt for later use and distribution. As

freezers became more common in households in the 1940s and 1950s, freezing became the preferred

method of preserving herring spawn. Today, people tend to vacuum seal and freeze herring eggs for use

throughout the year.

For subsistence resources in general, not all households participate equally in the harvest of resources,

though most households do use a variety of subsistence resources. Distribution networks allow for

efficiency in production and access to resources that a household does not harvest (Wolfe and Ellanna

1983). The reciprocal sharing of resources is a primary characteristic of subsistence economies. In Alaska

Native communities, while the practice of sharing resources is often conducted through complex kinship

responsibilities, it can also extend to unrelated households to strengthen relationships and foster community

health by supporting those in need (Brown et al. 2017). The relationships between exchange partners, the

timeframe of the exchange, and the different requirements for reciprocation are among several factors that

help define an exchange. Sahlins (1972) identified three modes of reciprocity, two of which are relevant to

a discussion of Sitka Sound herring eggs. Generalized reciprocity, or what would be considered simply

sharing, is characterized by the lack of acknowledged expectation of a return gift. Although there may be

an implied expectation of return, failure to reciprocate does not result in the giver ceasing to give. Balanced

or delayed reciprocity almost always requires the recipient to return a gift of equal or near-equal value,

although when and how the gift is returned can be negotiated and may take place over seasons or over many

years. Most trade and exchange in Tlingit society was balanced or delayed reciprocity (Langdon and Worl

1981; Schroeder and Kookesh 1990); but, with herring eggs, traditionally, and contemporarily, both

generalized and balanced reciprocity have been the primary forms of exchange (Thornton 2019). Prior to

Russian contact, there were extensive trade networks throughout Southeast Alaska, and herring eggs were

among the items widely traded by Sitka Tlingit peoples (Schroeder and Kookesh 1990). Herring spawn was

traditionally exchanged for specialized foods, such as eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus oil and dried

eulachon, berries, dried seaweed, and mountain goat Oreamnos americanus meat. It was also traded for

raw materials and handicrafts. The distribution of herring eggs today is often conducted under the rubric of

generalized reciprocity, where harvesters share when and what they can, with the expectation that at some

point in the future, they will be on the receiving end of sharing. Trading herring eggs for other subsistence

resources (balanced reciprocity) or for cash (customary trade) also occurs, but the social and cultural

benefits of the exchange to the trading relationship is the point, not to realize a profit or advantage (Thornton

2019). The intensity of sharing distributions is dictated by social ties; for example, the prevalence of clan

and family ties between Sitka residents and those of Hoonah, Angoon, and Juneau result in a greater amount

of herring eggs being shared with those communities. Herring eggs are delivered to local recipients in

grocery bags, while harvesters may pack eggs into different-sized wetlock boxes for shipment on the ferries

or airlines. Recently, herring eggs from Sitka Sound have been documented as being shared throughout

Southeast Alaska and beyond: within the state, eggs have been shared as far away as St. Lawrence Island,

Utqiaġvik (formerly Barrow), and Akiachak (Sill and Lemons 2015; 2021). Beyond state borders, eggs

have been sent to family living as far away as Florida and California (Sill and Lemons 2015).

At its February 1989 meeting, the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF) made a positive customary and

traditional use determination for the harvest of herring spawn in the Sitka area. State regulations in the Sitka

Sound area allow the subsistence harvest of herring and herring spawn in sections 13A and 13B north of

Aspid Cape on Baranof Island (5 AAC 01.716 (a)(7)) as well as the limited noncommercial exchange of

subsistence-harvested herring spawn on kelp for customary trade (5 AAC 01.717). In September 2001, the

Sitka Tribe of Alaska (STA) met with representatives from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game

(ADF&G) to discuss tribal members’ difficulty in meeting their subsistence needs for herring spawn in

Sitka Sound during the spring 2001 season. They cited the intensive commercial harvest of herring in the

sac roe fishery in the Middle, Crow, and Kasiana islands areas as affecting the subsistence users’ ability to

successfully harvest herring spawn on hemlock branches.

At the January 2002 BOF meeting, STA submitted an unsuccessful proposal requesting recognition of the

geographically and historically important areas used for the subsistence herring spawn harvest. During this

meeting, the BOF also considered but did not adopt a permit program for the subsistence fishery. 1 As a

consequence of these proposals, the BOF requested that the ADF&G Division of Subsistence work with

STA to develop a harvest monitoring program based on in-person harvest surveys. This method of data

collection provides a way to increase community buy-in and participation in harvest reporting, build

capacity within the community and STA, and provide consistent harvest data. At this same meeting, the

BOF also made a determination that the amount reasonably necessary for subsistence 2 (ANS) was between

105,000 and 158,000 lb of herring spawn harvested from Section 13A and that portion of Section 13B that

is north of the latitude of Aspid Cape (5 AAC 01.716 (b)). This finding was based upon the best available

harvest data, including results from a 1996 household harvest survey 3 and a 1989 harvest estimate range

(Schroeder and Kookesh 1990). At its 2009 meeting, the BOF revised the ANS to 136,000–227,000 lb,

1. Subsistence fisheries throughout the state of Alaska have varying requirements for harvest reporting: the majority do not require

a permit. Based on salmon permit programs, permits can underestimate the actual harvest (Conitz 2010; Walker 2009). In

addition, permit data decouple harvest from the broader context in which the resource is harvested. For example, permits do not

document information about household demographics, sharing practices, or qualitative assessments about the harvests that

provide important explanatory context needed for sensitive allocation issues. A permit is required to subsistence harvest herring

spawn on kelp in Southeast, but no other subsistence herring egg fisheries in the state require a permit.

2. Pursuant to Alaska Statute 16.05.258, the Alaska Board of Fisheries and the Alaska Board of Game are charged with identifying

the fish stocks and game populations that are customarily and traditionally taken or used for subsistence, and with determining

the amount of the harvestable portion that is reasonably necessary for subsistence uses.

3. The results from this study are published in the Community Subsistence Information System: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

sb/CSIS/

based on the mean estimated harvest from 2002–2008, as determined through the annual herring spawn

harvest survey conducted by ADF&G and STA (Holen et al. 2011).

In 2012, a compromise version of an STA proposal was adopted by the BOF, resulting in a closure of

approximately 10 square nautical miles of Sitka Sound to the commercial herring sac roe fishery. In 2015,

the Federal Subsistence Board approved a proposal submitted by STA that closed approximately two square

miles of federal waters around Makhnati Island. In 2018, the BOF adopted Proposal 106, which expanded

the state-closed waters in the District 13 commercial fishery by approximately 6.5 square nautical miles

(see Appendix A). Several proposals were submitted to the board for its 2022 Southeast meeting concerning

subsistence regulations for herring egg harvests, but during the meeting the proponents withdrew their

support for most of the proposals. The only action taken by the board concerning subsistence harvest of

herring eggs was to increase the possession limit for subsistence spawn-on-kelp harvests from 32 lb to 75

lb for an individual and from 158 lb to 325 lb for a household. 4

Monitoring the subsistence harvest of herring spawn in Sitka Sound is an ongoing project. ADF&G

participation in the annual harvest monitoring program is partially supported by a reimbursable services

agreement (RSA) from the Division of Commercial Fisheries to the Division of Subsistence as well as by

the Division of Subsistence general funds. STA provides funding for the project and is also supported by a

cooperative agreement with ADF&G. STA and ADF&G collaborate on survey design and data collection.

ADF&G provides technical consultation and, when possible, field survey and interviewing support for the

project and STA provides ADF&G with completed surveys.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The goal of the harvest monitoring program is to annually document the subsistence harvest of Pacific

herring spawn through household surveys with all harvesters who participate in the fishery in Sitka Sound.

The objectives of the project in 2022 were to:

1. Conduct in-person interviews with household members in Sitka and surrounding communities

who were identified as likely subsistence harvesters of herring spawn from Sitka Sound;

2. Produce estimates of the total pounds of herring spawn harvested on hemlock branches, giant

kelp, hair seaweed, and other substrates; and

3. Identify locations where herring spawn were harvested.

METHODS

This annual project is guided by the research principles outlined in the Alaska Federation of Natives

Guidelines for Research 5 and by the National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs in its

Principles for Conducting Research in the Arctic 6, the Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Research in

the North (ACUNS 2003), 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 the study community upon

completion of the research.

4. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2022. “Alaska Board of Fisheries Southeast and Yakutat Finfish and Shellfish, March

10–22, 2022, Preliminary Summary of Actions.” Accessed January 2023. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/

regprocess/fisheriesboard/pdfs/2021-2022/se/soa.pdf

5. Alaska Federation of Natives. “Alaska Federation of Natives Guidelines for Research.” Alaska Native Knowledge Network.

Accessed November 1, 2021. https://uaf.edu/ankn/indigenous-knowledge-syst/alaska-federation-of-nati/

6. National Science Foundation Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC). 2018. “Principles for Conducting

Research in the Arctic.” Accessed March 4, 2020. https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/arctic/conduct.jsp

Survey Plan and Implementation

STA and ADF&G met virtually in March 2022 to discuss the upcoming season and review the updated

survey list. Division staff traveled to Sitka in April to participate in the annual update of weight conversion

factors, the process for which is described in greater detail below. During this visit, STA and division staff

reviewed the revised survey instrument for 2022. Surveys were administered by two STA staff who had

experience administering these surveys during previous project years. As closely as possible, the methods

outlined in this section followed previous years’ methods and are a collaborative effort between ADF&G

and STA. STA staff conducted nearly all surveys (ADF&G staff administered one telephonically), and the

majority were done telephonically.

Development of the Household Survey List

Prior to the start of the Pacific herring spawning season, STA staff update the previous year’s survey list.

Households that meet criteria for removal, which are outlined below (and provided in greater detail in Holen

et al. [2011]), are removed from the survey list. After updating the 2021 survey list to remove 18

households, the initial 2022 list contained 51 households to be surveyed. Any new households planning to

harvest that STA is aware of, usually through word-of-mouth, are added to the survey list prior to the season,

but are not assigned a household identification (ID) number until they harvest eggs and are surveyed.

Harvesting is a highly visible activity; therefore, it was assumed that active harvesters would be aware of

other harvesters and new harvesters can be added to the survey list throughout the season.

Researchers have noted the declining number of households included in the survey universe. To ensure that

researchers are reaching the majority of active harvesters, STA staff implemented a more formal and robust

outreach effort in 2021 than had been attempted during previous project years. In 2022, STA posted

announcements of spawning activity on the tribe’s Facebook 7 page and asked harvesters to contact the tribe

and respond to a short online survey concerning locations of herring sets. Through STA outreach efforts,

coupled with word-of-mouth and chain referrals, there were 11 households added to the survey list for a

total of 62 households. The household list was not limited to Sitka residents. Harvesting households from

other communities, identified mainly through word-of-mouth and chain referrals, were also included.

For this annual survey program, once added to the household list, an identified household remains on the

list unless one of three situations occurs:

1. If the household is surveyed for three consecutive years and has not attempted to harvest within

that time, it is removed; or

2. If a household is unable to be contacted for three consecutive years, it is removed from the list;

3. If the household identifies that it no longer plans to harvest, it is removed from the list.

Once removed from the list, the household identification (ID) number is retired. Should a retired harvester

become active again, the same household ID number will be re-assigned to the harvester.

The Survey Instrument

The primary method of data collection is the household survey. The survey instrument was designed to

collect information about:

1. Whether respondents harvested, attempted to harvest, used, received, or gave away herring

spawn.

7. Product names are given because they are established standards for the State of Alaska or for scientific completeness; they do

not constitute product endorsement.

2. The amount of herring spawn harvested.

3. The kind of substrate used.

4. Whether respondents harvested on their own or in collaboration with other households.

5. The amount of herring spawn respondents kept for their own use, gave away locally, or shipped

out of Sitka, and the communities with which they shared the harvest.

6. The location of respondents’ harvests.

7. Survey respondents’ qualitative assessments of the study year’s herring spawn harvest.

8. Survey respondents’ qualitative descriptions of their participation in the harvest.

The 2022 survey was similar to the 2021 survey. All questions from the 2021 survey were retained, but two

question groups were modified. In 2021 and previous years, surveyors asked respondents, “How do you

feel your harvest was compared to other years?” On the 2022 survey, this question was rephrased as, “In

2022, did you harvest less, same, or more herring eggs than in recent years?” The change in wording was

intended to more directly elicit assessment responses of the study year in comparison to recent harvest

years. The second modified question group concerned whether the respondent’s needs for herring eggs were

met. In 2021, respondents were asked if their household got enough herring eggs for their personal

consumption and to share or exchange with others. In 2022, these questions were modified so that they

concerned the previous year and a question was added to determine if the harvester knew of additional

needs for herring eggs in the community. These modifications were made based on discussion among

project staff, subsistence harvesters, and Board of Fisheries members. Because the survey is administered

directly after the harvest, respondents may not be able to accurately answer if their needs were met for the

year. A retrospective question concerning the previous year (2021) allows for a more realistic response.

How harvesters define their needs may vary among respondents, especially when needs concern sharing.

As Thornton (2019) found, harvesters make determinations about with whom and how much they share

each year based on the harvest. While a harvester may feel his needs for sharing have been met because he

has taken care of the priority recipient people and relationships, that does not inherently mean that there

were not people wanting eggs with whom the harvester could not share. The needs of the herring eggconsuming population are not the same as the needs of the harvesters; while this survey effort cannot

address the question of broader need among consumers of herring eggs, it can seek proxy information that

speaks to that broader need. A copy of the 2022 instrument can be found in Appendix B.

Survey Implementation

Surveyors attempted to interview each of the 62 households on the survey list: 39 households were

successfully interviewed (63%), two households chose to not participate in the survey, and 21 households

were unable to be contacted. STA staff conducted the majority of the surveys in May 2022 after the herring

spawn activity ended and all surveys were complete by June 2022. Completed surveys were sent to ADF&G

for coding and analysis (see Appendix C for code book). For analysis, surveys were grouped into two strata:

individual harvester or community harvest boat. The latter stratum encompasses boats, such as STA’s

traditional foods boat or non-local individuals, that harvest herring for community-wide distribution in Sitka

or another Southeast Alaska community. These community boats are considered a “household” for the

purposes of this report and are part of the 39 households interviewed. In 2022, STA resumed operation of

its traditional foods boat after a hiatus in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For survey

methods, the skipper or owner of the boat is surveyed about the entire harvest brought in by that boat. Crew

on board who are not part of the skipper’s household who take home any of the boat’s harvest are not

considered harvesting households but as receivers of herring spawn.

Update of the 2022 Conversion Factors

Prior to beginning the household survey effort, conversion factors to estimate the weight of herring spawn

in common storage containers were created following the methods established in 2010 (Holen et al. 2011).

On April 4 and April 5, STA staff processed 2,180 lb of their harvest of herring spawn on hemlock branches

to create conversion factors. This was a portion of the total egg-on-branches harvest of the season for STA.

The harvest was conducted by STA staff. Throughout the spawning period, STA staff set hemlock branches

in Sitka Sound. The locations of the sets were determined by the harvesters based on active spawning

conditions, their knowledge of herring spawn events, and past experience with the harvest.

Based on the plan devised by STA and ADF&G, the following steps were taken to measure weights in the

field in 2022.

1. STA staff checked all herring sets and pulled those that were ready.

2. Once the boat returned to the harbor after pulling a set, STA staff offloaded the branches from

the boat and into a pickup truck for transfer to the processing site located in front of the STA

Resources Protection Department office. The method of processing spawn depended on how

the final product was to be stored. For distribution in boxes or grocery bags, processors used

pruning shears to remove the larger branches (usually anything larger than approximately onehalf-inch in diameter) and the poorly covered branches. For storage in gallon-sized bags or

vacuum-sealed bags, the more rigid branches were discarded, leaving only the pliable branches

and needles that would not tear the bags.

3. The processed spawn was placed in containers identified by STA as common containers used

to store, move, and ship herring spawn. The container types reflected the units harvesters might

be familiar with and able to report on rather than having to estimate total pounds harvested for

the survey. In 2022, containers used were 25 lb and 50 lb wetlock boxes—a type of waxed

cardboard box commonly used for shipping seafood—as well as plastic zip-top gallon-sized

bags.

a. Each wetlock box from a herring set was placed in a plastic tote and weighed from a

calibrated hanging scale. The gross weight of each tote was recorded by hand (weight

of the plastic tote plus the weight of the wetlock box plus the weight of the spawn).

b. Weights were taken for each box of processed spawn in order to understand variability

between boxes. An average weight of each type of box was established.

4. A few wetlock boxes from each set were taken into the STA offices and further processed into

gallon-sized zip-top plastic bags. Weights of filled bags were measured by a desktop digital

scale and recorded by hand.

a. During the processing, some of the plastic bags did not get filled to the 100% mark.

These bags were included in the total weight calculations, but not included in mean

bag weight calculations.

DATA ANALYSIS

ADF&G Information Management staff analyzed the data from the 2022 survey to produce estimates of

the total harvest of herring spawn on all substrates. For 2022, the surveys were coded for data entry by

ADF&G staff in Douglas using the conversion factors that were determined as described above. ADF&G

staff also created codes for responses given to assessment questions (see Appendix C for the 2022 code

book). Responses were coded following standardized conventions used by ADF&G. ADF&G Information

Management staff in Anchorage set up database structures within a Microsoft SQL Server database. The

database structures included rules, constraints, and referential integrity to ensure that data were entered

completely and accurately. Data entry screens were developed in Microsoft Access and made available on

a secure network. 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 one hour of

data entry would be lost in the unlikely event of a catastrophic failure. All survey data were entered twice

and reviewed to minimize data entry errors.

Once data were entered and quality-control checked using standardized procedures employed by ADF&G

Information Management staff, the information was processed using the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS), Version 27 Initial processing included performing standardized logic checks of the data,

which are often needed in complex datasets where rules, constraints, and referential integrity do not capture

all the possible inconsistencies that may appear.

Data analysis also 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 in a manner appropriate to each situation, following such standardized practices as minimal

value substitution or the use of an average response for similarly characterized households (mean

replacement). Typically, missing data are an uncommon, randomly occurring phenomenon in household

surveys. In unusual cases, where a substantial amount of survey information is missing, the household

survey is treated as a “non-response” and not included in community estimates. All adjustments were

documented.

ADF&G applied the weighted means method (Cochran 1977) to generate harvest estimates for herring

spawn from an interviewed sample of households drawn from a list of households known to harvest herring

spawn in Sitka during the study year. These households were further divided into groups, or strata: harvester

and community boats. Valid responses for each group were used to develop averages for invalid or missing

responses within the same group, and the same averages were extended to all uncontacted households in

the group. In cases where a household was known to be an active harvester during one year, but the harvest

was unknown that year, the mean household harvest of that year was used as an estimate of that household’s

actual harvest. These totals were then summed to provide a community-wide estimate:

𝐾𝐾

Where

𝐻𝐻 = � 𝑁𝑁𝑘𝑘 �

𝑘𝑘=1

∑ 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘

�

𝑛𝑛𝑘𝑘

(1)

H = total estimated harvest,

Nk = total number of households identified for strata-group ‘k’,

nk = number of sampled households in strata-group ‘k’,

xk = reported harvest for household within strata-group ‘k’,

k = strata group, and

K = total strata groups.

In this approach, each strata group is estimated separately and thus percentages are derived from the

estimated values rather than samples. This assumes that the un-contacted households within each strata

group are, on average, the same as those contacted and also that each strata group has different harvest

patterns.

Since the mean is the primary statistic used to develop the estimates, Information Management staff

produced a 95% confidence interval (CI), represented as a percentage, to measure the relative precision of

the mean. The CI can also be applied to the total estimated harvest to obtain a likely upper and lower range

for the estimate. The following formula was applied to create the CI percentage:

Where

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶% =

𝑠𝑠𝑘𝑘2

𝑡𝑡∝/2 × �𝑁𝑁 ∑𝐾𝐾

𝑘𝑘=1 𝑁𝑁𝑘𝑘 (𝑁𝑁𝑘𝑘 − 𝑛𝑛𝑘𝑘 ) 𝑛𝑛

𝑘𝑘

𝐻𝐻

(2)

sk = sample standard deviation for strata-group ‘k’,

nk = sampled households for strata-group ‘k’,

Nk = total households identified for strata-group ‘k’,

N = total households identified in the community,

tα/2 = student’s t statistic for alpha level (α = 0.05) with n–1 degrees of freedom,

H = total estimated community harvest,

k = strata group, and

K = total strata groups.

A small CI percentage indicates low variance in household harvest amounts and that the actual mean is

likely very close to the sampled mean. A larger CI percentage indicates that there is a larger variance

between household harvest amounts and an increased likelihood that the actual mean differs, possibly

substantially, from the sampled harvest mean.

DISSEMINATION OF SURVEY RESULTS

The BOF rescheduled its Southeast meeting originally planned for Ketchikan in 2021 due to the COVID19 pandemic and met instead in Anchorage in early March 2022. At the board meeting, division staff

presented an overview of this collaborative harvest monitoring program and results from the 2021 season.

Written copies of the 2021 report (Sill and Cunningham 2021b) were distributed to all board members and

physical copies were available in the meeting room; the BOF also included the report with meeting

documents posted online. 8 Additionally, division staff presented results of the 2021 study year at the

meeting held by ADF&G to announce the beginning of the 2-hour notice period for the commercial sac roe

herring fishery. The written report is reviewed within ADF&G as well as by the Southeast Alaska Herring

Conservation Alliance and STA. The final report, once published, is available on the ADF&G website.

Hard copies are distributed to STA.

8. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2022. “Alaska Board of Fisheries Meeting Information: Southeast and Yakutat Finfish

and Shellfish, March 20 – 22, Meeting Documents, Additional Reports, The Subsistence Harvest of Pacific Herring Spawn in

Sitka Sound, Alaska, 2021.” Accessed January 2023. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fisheriesboard.

meetinginfo&date=03-10-2022&meeting=anchorage

2. 2022 RESULTS

SAMPLE ACHIEVEMENT

As detailed in the methods, through STA’s outreach efforts, 11 households were added to the survey list in

2022 compared to 2021, and 18 households were removed due to consecutive years of no participation, an

inability for surveyors to contact the households, or deceased households. As a result, 62 households were

identified as potential harvesters of herring spawn in 2022, compared to 69 in 2021 and 51 in 2020 (Sill

and Cunningham 2021a:8; 2021b:10). Of these 62 households, 39 were interviewed (63%), including STA

and four other community harvester boats (Table 1). More individual harvesters claimed tribal affiliation

with the Sitka Tribe of Alaska (44%) than any other, but 38% claimed no tribal affiliation. All of the

community harvester boats were affiliated with Southeast Alaska tribal organizations. Based on sampled

households, an estimated 39 households attempted to harvest herring spawn in 2022 and 38 were able to do

so (Table 2). Data from all years of the annual monitoring program, as well as household surveys conducted

in 1983, 1987, and 1996, are presented in Table 2, including confidence intervals for the harvest estimates

(excluding 1983, for which the confidence interval is not available).

HARVEST ESTIMATES

Households and community harvester boats harvested an estimated 135,231 lb of herring spawn on any

substrate in Sitka Sound during 2022 (Table 2). Individual Sitka households, which composed the majority

of the survey respondents, harvested 10% of the total harvest (Table 3). The remainder of the harvest was

conducted by individuals or groups harvesting herring eggs from Sitka Sound for general distribution to a

community, including Sitka, Kake, and Hoonah.

Among the community boats, 80% harvested herring spawn on hemlock branches and 40% harvested spawn

on kelp. Among the individual households, 47% harvested spawn on branches, 41% harvested spawn on

kelp, and 3% harvested spawn on hair seaweed (Table 3). By weight, the majority of the herring egg harvest

was on hemlock branches (97%; 131,638 lb), with a small portion on kelp (3%; 3,589 lb), and an even

smaller portion on hair seaweed (<1%; 3 lb) (Figure 1; Table 4).

Sharing of herring eggs continues to be an important aspect of the harvest. The majority (88%) of survey

respondents who harvested herring eggs gave away some portion of their harvest (Table 2). Considering all

of the herring eggs that were harvested on any substrate in 2022, only 4% of the harvest weight was kept

for the harvesting household and the remainder was given away (Figure 2; Table 4). An estimated 47% of

the total pounds harvested remained in Sitka, 47% was shipped outside of Sitka, and 2% was shared with

households in unspecified locations. Table 4 presents greater detail on the harvest and sharing of herring

eggs by substrate and by destination. Because of the overall larger amounts of herring spawn on branches

harvested, that substrate composes the largest percentages of the estimated amounts kept for the harvesters’

own use (90%), shared within Sitka (95%), or shipped outside of Sitka or to unspecified locations (100%

of each). Approximately equal percentages of the herring spawn on hemlock branches were shared within

Sitka and beyond Sitka (47% and 49%, respectively) with 3% retained for the harvesters’ own use. In

contrast, harvesters shared more of the spawn-on-kelp harvest with Sitka households (83%) than households

outside of Sitka (3%) or kept for their own use (14%). The small harvest of spawn on hair seaweed was

wholly kept for the harvester’s personal use. Out of 22 harvesting households (including the community

harvester boats) that indicated they usually harvest for other households, 41% indicated that they usually

harvest for 2–5 households, 23% harvest for 6–10 households, 23% harvest for more than 100 households,

5% harvest for 11 to 50 households, and 5% harvest for 51 to 100 households (Table 5). In 2022, harvesters

shared herring spawn with residents of at least the following communities: Anchorage, Angoon, Bethel,

Hoonah, Hydaburg, Igiugig, Juneau, Kake, Ketchikan, Klawock, Kotzebue, Mountain Village, Nome,

Petersburg, Saxman, Sitka, Toksook Bay, and Wrangell, as well as with communities in other states.

As follow-up to questions about harvest amounts, harvesting households were asked how their harvests

compared to other years (a timeframe for comparison was not provided). Not all households responded to

these follow-up questions. Approximately 46% of the 24 responding households thought that they harvested

fewer herring eggs compared to other years, 29% reported harvesting the same amount, and 25% harvested

more than other years (Table 6). Households that indicated a change in harvest (either more or less) were

asked about the reasons for the change. Of the households that indicated harvesting more eggs, the main

reason provided was that they were a new harvester (67%) followed by the reason that the household needed

more eggs (33%) (Table 7). Households that harvested fewer eggs provided more reasons for why that was

so. The most common response, by 27% of households that harvested fewer eggs, was that the weather was

difficult. Six other reasons were provided by equal percentages of harvesters (18%): personal reasons,

stolen sets, spawn was too far away, the availability of the resource was lacking, and it was too expensive

to harvest (Table 8).

Harvesting households were asked if they got enough herring spawn in 2021 for themselves as well as to

share with others. Compared to other survey questions, this question asked specifically about the prior year

because harvesters do not always know whether or not they had enough eggs when these surveys are asked

so close to the end of the harvesting period. A retrospective look at the previous year allows a fuller picture

of whether needs were met. This question differs from the one that asked if the household shared their

harvest in that it specifically asks if the household had enough to share. Based on past surveys and

discussions with harvesters, even in poor harvest years, people will share some amount of herring eggs with

a core set of individuals; in better harvest years, more will be shared and with more people. For 2021, 90%

of the 20 responding households reported that they got enough for themselves and 79% of 19 responding

households said they had enough to share with others (Table 9). Harvesters were also asked if in 2021 they

were asked for eggs by other households that they could not supply. Most households responded in the

negative (76% of 21 responding households) but nearly one-quarter of harvesters said they experienced the

inability to provide eggs when asked (Table 10).

Not all potential harvesters contacted for this survey attempted to harvest herring eggs in 2022 (Figure 3).

Of the 14 households contacted that reported that they did not attempt to harvest eggs in 2022, the most

common reason given was the household lacked transportation, meaning either access to a working vessel,

or that fuel costs were too great (43%). Following that, potential harvesters were working during the harvest

(29%) or were out of town (21%).

Several more questions on the survey were included in order to understand certain characteristics of the

harvest effort and to contextualize harvester activity. In many years, transportation issues—e.g., a lack of

transportation, challenges in affording equipment repairs or fuel, or weather/distance concerns—factor into

potential harvesters’ decision making for whether or not to participate in the fishery and how they will

participate. Survey respondents were asked the size of the vessel used during the fishery and whether they

harvested with others. The latter question was asked to quantify how many households employ that strategy

to share the costs of fuel, maintenance, and time. The question about the size of the vessel used provides

information about potential limitations a harvester may have in terms of where to go, and how many sets

can be put out and the size of the set, among other considerations. In 2022, a majority of responding

harvesters (54%) used a vessel less than 20 feet in length, 33% used a vessel between 20 and 24 feet, and

21% used a commercial vessel (Table 11). In 2022, 71% of responding households harvested with other

families (Table 12).

Table 1.–Sampling characteristics for herring spawn harvester survey, Sitka Sound, 2022.

Sampling characteristics

Herring spawn harvesting households

Surveyed

Total

Sampling fraction

Individual

households

Community

harvester

boats

61.8%

71.4%

109

176.8

3.2

n/a

Population of herring spawn harvesting households

Surveyed

Estimated total

Average household size

Tribal affiliation of sampled householdsa

Sitka Tribe

Number

Percentage

44.1%

40.0%

Other Southeast

Number

Percentage

11.8%

60.0%

Other Alaska

Number

Percentage

2.9%

0.0%

None

Number

Percentage

38.2%

0.0%

Missing

Number

Percentage

14.7%

0.0%

Source Sitka Tribe of Alaska and ADF&G Division of Subsistence, household

surveys, 2022.

Note n/a = no population data available because harvester boats are not a household

and represent a community.

a. Percentages may not add to 100%. Households may have more than one tribal

affiliation.

Table 2.–Estimated subsistence harvest of herring spawn, Sitka Sound, 1983, 1987, 1996, 2002–2022.

Year

1983

1987

1996

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Percentages based on surveyed households

Estimated values

Percentage

harvesting

Percentage

Estimated

households harvesting

Total

Percentage

Estimated

95%

number of

harvest,

giving

households

number of households

confidence

households number of

all

away

receiving

Range:

surveyed

interval

attempting households

attempting households substrates,

herring

households to harvest

harvesting

spawn

to harvest

harvesting

pounds

(±) harvest

lowb

high

For the following 3 years, the data pertain to the entire population of Sitka, based on a random sample.

139

586

n/a

24.0%

n/a

42,000a

n/a

296

261

n/a

9.0%

n/a

20,494a

91%

1,755

39,235

150

464

127,174

16.0%

15.0%

n/a

20.0%

476

72%

35,131 219,217

For the following 21 years, the data pertain to only those households identified as potential participants in the subsistence herring spawn fishery.

n/a

71.0%

95.0%

40.0%

n/a

151,717

23% 116,701 186,734

118

72.0%

71.0%

88.0%

30.0%

117

116

278,799

19% 225,704 331,895

144

61.0%

60.0%

93.0%

17.0%

120

118

381,226

18% 312,224 450,229

159

61.0%

52.0%

82.0%

13.0%

111

79,064

72,272

85,856

127

58.0%

55.0%

91.0%

27.0%

219,356

20% 176,484 262,228

126

55.0%

48.0%

89.0%

43.0%

87,211

22%

67,702 106,720

128

45.0%

41.0%

73.0%

52.0%

71,936

67,764

76,108

150

48.0%

89.0%

79.0%

213,712

9% 193,623 233,801

132

30.0%

85.0%

12.5%

154,620

10% 139,872 169,367

109

38.5%

35.4%

94.0%

35.0%

83,443

79,719

87,166

45.0%

43.2%

84.0%

88.0%

115,799

12% 102,332 129,265

64.4%

62.7%

86.1%

27.7%

78,090

10%

70,075

86,106

68.3%

67.8%

87.5%

31.7%

154,412

13% 135,054 173,769

67.2%

65.5%

56.9%

17.2%

106,998

21%

84,913 129,333

40.4%

37.2%

74.8%

0.0%

84,554

41%

64,850 119,079

60.6%

49.8%

73.7%

0.0%

65,691

25%

52,348

82,114

48.7%

36.2%

94.0%

5.8%

25,862

71%

17,914

44,148

41.8%

39.0%

100.0%

14.2%

51,687

99%

26,447 102,764

-continued-

Table 2.–Page 2 of 2.

Percentages based on surveyed households

Estimated values

Percentage

harvesting

Percentage

Estimated

households harvesting

Total

Percentage

Estimated

95%

number of

harvest,

households

giving

number of households

confidence

households number of

all

receiving

away

Range:

surveyed

interval

attempting households

attempting households substrates,

herring

Year households to harvest

harvesting

spawn

to harvest

harvesting

pounds

(±) harvest

lowb

high

2020

71.8%

63.1%

72.7%

41.0%

21,926

307%

8,051

89,128

2021

71.7%

69.9%

100.0%

12.4%

46,950

33%

35,856

58,045

2022

63.8%

61.2%

87.5%

20.8%

135,231

81%

95,282 244,768

Sources Sitka Tribe of Alaska household surveys, as summarized in Gmelch and Gmelch (1985) and Schroeder and Kookesh (1990); CSIS; Brock and Turek

(2007); Holen et al. (2011); Sill and Lemons (2012; 2014a; 2014b; 2015; 2017; 2020; 2021); and Sill and Cunningham (2017; 2019; 2021a; 2021b); and Sitka

Tribe of Alaska and Division of Subsistence, household surveys, 2022.

Note n/a = data were not collected during the study year.

a. Harvest estimates for 1983 and 1987 are likely low due to the small size of the random sample, which might have failed to include high harvesting

households that specialize in harvesting herring spawn.

b. Confidence intervals falling below the reported harvest have been adjusted to the reported value.

Table 3.–Estimated subsistence harvest of herring spawn by type of harvester, Sitka Sound, 2022.

Resource

Individual householdsa

Herring spawn on hemlock

branches

Herring spawn on kelp

Herring spawn on hair seaweed

Subtotal, herring spawn, all types

Estimated percentage

of potential participant

households

Attempted Harvested

Estimated

pounds

harvested

Totalb

Confidence interval (CI)

CI %

Lowc

Highd

61.8%

47.1%

41.2%

2.9%

58.8%

12,938

705

13,646

67%

69%

203%

66%

7,998

436

8,436

21,636

1,192

22,653

80.0%

40.0%

0.0%

80.0%

118,700

2,884

121,584

124%

202%

n/a

122%

84,786

2,060

n/a

86,846

265,889

8,710

n/a

269,917

Totalb

63.8%

61.2%

135,231

81%

95,282

Source Sitka Tribe of Alaska and ADF&G Division of Subsistence, household surveys, 2022.

Note Blank cells indicate that the survey did not ask which type of substrate was used during attempted harvest.

Note n/a = no CI value is available because there was no reported harvest.

244,768

Community harvester boatsa

Herring spawn on hemlock

branches

Herring spawn on kelp

Herring spawn on hair seaweed

Subtotal, herring spawn, all types

a. Participation characteristics are based on the total number of surveyed households by type of harvester: for individual households

n=34, and for community harvester boats n=5.

b. Based on the total number of surveyed households (n=39; community harvester boats are each treated as an individual household for

the purpose of this analysis.)

c. Confidence intervals falling below the reported harvest have been adjusted to the reported value.

d. Each CI value, including for the subtotal and total rows, is the high range amount for each specific type of harvester and substrate

combination.

<1%

Herring eggs on branches

Herring eggs on kelp

Herring eggs on hair seaweed

97%

Figure 1.–Distribution of subsistence herring spawn harvest by substrate, Sitka Sound, 2022.

Table 4.–Distribution of subsistence herring spawn harvest, Sitka Sound, 2022.

Estimated harvest:

Kept for own use

Resource

Herring spawn on hemlock

branches

Herring spawn on kelp

Herring spawn on hair seaweed

Herring spawn, all types

Pounds

Percentage of

substrate harvest

Percentage of kept

harvest

Percentage of

total harvest

4,375

3.3%

89.6%

3.2%

506

4,884

14.1%

100.0%

10.4%

0.1%

100.0%

0.4%

0.0%

3.6%

Shared within Sitka

Herring spawn on hemlock

branches

Herring spawn on kelp

Herring spawn on hair seaweed

Herring spawn, all types

Herring spawn on hemlock

branches

Herring spawn on kelp

Herring spawn on hair seaweed

Herring spawn, all types

Herring spawn on hemlock

branches

Herring spawn on kelp

Herring spawn on hair seaweed

Herring spawn, all types

Pounds

Percentage of

substrate harvest

Percentage of Sitka

shared harvest

Percentage of

total harvest

61,188

46.5%

95.3%

45.2%

2,991

64,179

83.3%

0.0%

4.7%

0.0%

100.0%

Shared outside of Sitka

2.2%

0.0%

47.5%

Pounds

Percentage of

substrate harvest

Percentage of harvest

outside Sitka

Percentage of

total harvest

63,973

48.6%

99.9%

47.3%

64,065

2.6%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

100.0%

Shared unspecified location

0.1%

0.0%

47.4%

Pounds

Percentage of

substrate harvest

Percentage of harvest

unspecified location

Percentage of

total harvest

2,103

1.6%

100.0%

1.6%

2,103

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

1.6%

Pounds

Percentage of

substrate harvest

Total

Total percentage

kept/

shareda

Herring spawn on hemlock

131,638

100.0%

3.3%/96.7%

branches

Herring spawn on kelp

3,589

100.0%

14.1%/85.9%

Herring spawn on hair seaweed

100.0%

100.0%/0.0%

Herring spawn, all types

135,231

100.0%

3.6%/96.4%

Source Sitka Tribe of Alaska and ADF&G Division of Subsistence, household surveys, 2022.

Note Due to rounding considerations, total percentages may not appear to exactly sum 100%.

a. "Shared" includes herring spawn shared both within and outside Sitka.

Percentage of

total harvest

97.3%

2.7%

0.0%

100.0%

Kept for own use

Shared within Sitka

Shipped out of Sitka

Shared, unspecified

locations

47%

Figure 2.–Percentage of total subsistence-harvested herring spawn that was shared, Sitka Sound, 2022.

Table 5.–Percentage of responding households that usually harvest for other households, Sitka Sound,

2022.

Number of households for which harvesters usually harvest

Number of

households

responding

2–5

6–10

11–50

51–100

0.0%

40.9%

22.7%

4.5%

Source Sitka Tribe of Alaska and ADF&G Division of Subsistence, household surveys, 2022.

More than

100

22.7%

Table 6.–Harvesting households’ perception of herring spawn harvest compared to recent years, Sitka

Sound, 2022.

Harvest amount assessment

Number of

households

responding

Less

Same

45.8%

29.2%

25.0%

Source Sitka Tribe of Alaska and ADF&G Division of

Subsistence, household surveys, 2022.

Table 7.–Reported reasons for why household harvests were more than in other years, Sitka Sound, 2022.

Number of

households

responding

Reported reasons

New

harvester

66.7%

Needed

33.3%

Source Sitka Tribe of Alaska and ADF&G

Division of Subsistence, household

surveys, 2022.

Note Percentages may not add to 100%.

Households may provide more than one

response.

Table 8.–Reported reasons for why household harvests were less than in other years, Sitka Sound, 2022.

Reported reasons

Number of

Personal

Equipment

households

responding

reasons

Stolen sets

Other

Too far

issues

18.2%

9.1%

Source Sitka Tribe of Alaska and ADF&G Division of Subsistence, household surveys, 2022.

Note Percentages may not add to 100%. Households may provide more than one response.

Availability

of resource

18.2%

Location

9.1%

Weather

27.3%

Too

expensive

18.2%

Table 9.–Harvesting households’ description of whether they got enough herring spawn to meet their households’ needs and their sharing needs,

Sitka Sound, 2021.

Households got enough

herring spawn (____).

For own household (n=20)

To share (n=19)

Yes

90.0%

78.9%

10.0%

21.1%

Source Sitka Tribe of Alaska and ADF&G Division of

Subsistence, household surveys, 2022.

Table 10.–Harvesting households that were asked to share eggs but they could not share, Sitka Sound,

2021.

Respondents could not

fulfill requests for

Number of

herring spawn

households

responding

Yes

23.8%

76.2%

Source Sitka Tribe of Alaska and

ADF&G Division of Subsistence,

household surveys, 2022.

50%

Percentage of responding households (n=14)

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

Personal

Working during the Transportation/

harvest/no time no boat/fuel costs

No need

Out of town

Note Percentages may not add to 100%. Households may provide more than one response.

Figure 3.–Reported reasons households did not attempt to harvest herring spawn, Sitka Sound, 2022.

Table 11.–Size of vessel used to harvest herring spawn, Sitka Sound, 2022.

Reported vessel size

Number of

Less than 20

20–24

More than 24

Commercial

households

responding

feet

vessel

Other

54.2%

33.3%

4.2%

20.8%

0.0%

Source Sitka Tribe of Alaska and ADF&G Division of Subsistence, household

surveys, 2022.

Note Percentages may not add to 100%. Households may provide more than one response.

No boat used

(harvested

from shore)

0.0%

Table 12.–Percentage of responding households harvesting with other households, Sitka Sound, 2022.

Respondents harvested

with other households

Number of

households

responding

Yes

70.8%

29.2%

Source Sitka Tribe of Alaska and ADF&G

Division of Subsistence, household

surveys, 2022.

Conversion Factors

During survey administration, surveyors ask respondents to estimate the processed weight of their harvests.

Project staff assumed that experienced harvesters were knowledgeable about harvest weights through

handling, packaging, and shipping herring spawn (Schroeder and Kookesh 1990). If respondents have

difficulty estimating the weight of their harvests, they are asked for the volume, which can then be converted

into pounds using a conversion factor. From 2002 through 2009, this factor was static and was based on the

weight of an equivalent volume of water, where a gallon of water equals approximately 8 lb. Beginning in

2010, project staff developed a more rigorous method for gauging harvest weights based on weighing a

portion of STA’s harvest in commonly used containers. In any year, respondents provide the majority of

the harvest weight in estimated pounds with small amounts being converted from volume to weight. Table

13 presents the conversion factors for 2010 through 2022. STA was unable to weigh the harvest in 2020

because of logistics complications caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, so the previous 5-year average of

conversion factors was used. Conversion factors have been calculated every year for 50- and 25-lb wetlock

boxes and gallon-sized zip-top bags; they have not been calculated for quart-sized zip-top bags or various

container sizes of herring spawn on kelp every year. Generally, a small proportion of the total harvest weight

derives from quart-sized bags or herring eggs on kelp or hair seaweed. In past project years, researchers

documented a slight decrease in weight between primarily processed (from tote to wetlock box) and

secondarily processed (from box to bag) weights due to the removal of branches during processing. Since

2016, due to the unavailability of dock space at the winch, raw weights of branches off the boat could not

be taken.

Table 13.–Conversion factors for 2010–2022.

2022

2021

Estimated average weight (pounds)

2020a

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Container type, spawn on branches

Large (50 lb) wetlock box

Small (25 lb) wetlock box

Zip-top gallon bag

Zip-top quart bag

51.5

25.2

3.7

n/a

50.4

26.9

3.5

1.4

54.5

25.5

3.7

n/a

53.9

28.0

3.5

n/a

57.1

24.1

4.0

1.5

51.9

24.8

4.2

1.4

55.5

25.2

3.4

1.1

54.0

25.6

3.7

n/a

Container type, spawn on kelp

Zip-top gallon bag

5-lb bucket

Small (25 lb) wetlock box

n/a

-continued-

n/a

2014

Container type, spawn on branches

Large (50 lb) wetlock box

Small (25 lb) wetlock box

Zip-top gallon bag

Zip-top quart bag

48.9

24.7

4.1

n/a

Estimated average weight (pounds)

2013

2012

2011

53.0

22.8

3.9

1.4

59.1

28.5

4.4

1.4

53.3

24.9

3.9

1.5

2010

57.8

25.5

4.1

1.4

Container type, spawn on kelp

Zip-top gallon bag

n/a

3.7

n/a

5-lb bucket

n/a

23.9

n/a

Small (25 lb) wetlock box

n/a

16.7

n/a

Sources Holen et al. (2011); Sill and Lemons (2012; 2014a; 2014b; 2015; 2017; 2020; 2021); and Sill

and Cunningham (2017; 2019; 2021a; 2021b); and Sitka Tribe of Alaska and Division of Subsistence,

household surveys, 2022.

Note n/a = conversion factors were not calculated for these years.

a. The conversion factor for spawn on branches in 2020 reflects the previous 5-year average, 2015–

2019.

HARVEST LOCATIONS

The final project objective was to document where the herring spawn harvest took place. Table 14 and

Figure 4 show the locations of harvest effort and reported harvest amounts. Note that not every surveyed

household shared their harvest location data or the amounts harvested at each location. In 2022, surveyed

households used multiple harvesting locations spread throughout the areas of Sitka Sound that have

historically been used for the subsistence harvest of herring spawn (referred to as the “core” area) and into

the northern portion of Sitka Sound. Eleven households traveled to Crow/Gagarin islands, 10 went to the

Eastern/Promisla bays area, and nine traveled to the Kasiana Islands Group. Five or fewer households

harvested from South Middle Island, North Middle Island, the Magoun Islands/Hayward Strait area, the

northern end of Halibut Point Road and the Apple Islands/Parker group area (Table 14). The highest

reported harvest came from the Kasiana Islands Group, followed by South Middle Island and the Magoun

Islands/Hayward Strait area, but this may be more a consequence of harvesters not providing harvest

amounts by location than an actual indication of how productive an area was.

Table 14.–Reported locations of subsistence herring spawn sets and harvest, Sitka Sound, 2022.

Location

Reported

households

using each

location

Percentage of reporting

households using each

locationa

Reported pounds

harvested at each

location

Crow/Gagarin islands

23.4%

678

Eastern/Promisla bays

21.3%

609

Kasiana Islands Group

19.1%

21,045

South Middle Island

10.6%

1,427

North Middle Island

8.5%

243

Other

8.5%

4.3%

153

1,327

2.1%

Magoun Islands/Hayward Strait

North Halibut Point Road

Apple Islands/Parker Group

2.1%

Source Sitka Tribe of Alaska and ADF&G Division of Subsistence, household surveys, 2022.

a. Percentages are based on the total number of locations reported by 23 harvesting households.

Figure 4.–Reported harvest locations and percent of harvest weight per location of herring spawn for subsistence use, Sitka Sound area, 2022.

3. DISCUSSION

OVERVIEW OF 2022 STUDY YEAR

Subsistence herring egg fishing in 2022 appeared to continue a return to harvesting patterns seen before the

harvest disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic that started in 2020. Households harvested together,

community boats returned to the community to harvest, and herring eggs were shared far and wide.

Compared to recent previous years, the estimated harvest was higher, nearly meeting the lower end of the

ANS range—something that has not occurred since 2014 (Figure 5). Several circumstances in 2022 were

different than in previous years and will be discussed below, including poor weather, a diesel spill at the

beginning of the season, new harvesters, and a planned koo.eex’ (or potlatch) occurring in the community.

After several years of a decreasing sample, staff recognized in 2021 the need to ensure that the survey

sample was robust. As such, STA engaged in outreach activities to increase knowledge of the household

survey effort in the community and among tribal members and to encourage participation in the survey by

all harvesters. The result of these efforts was 21 new households added to the survey list and a high (80%)

survey achievement (Sill and Cunningham 2021b). In 2022, less effort was spent on outreach methods, but

11 new households were added to the survey list. Sample achievement declined to 63% in 2022,

highlighting the continued importance of active outreach about the importance of the survey. More

households were removed from the sample at the beginning of the 2022 season than were added to the

sample; households were removed due to harvest inactivity, persistent unavailability, or because households

told surveyors they would no longer be harvesting. The prevalence of households that cannot be contacted

due to nonexistent or outdated contact information raises a concern that active harvesters may be getting

missed; however, it is unlikely that missed harvesters would be large-scale harvesters because, as stated

before, herring harvesting is a highly visible activity. The result of missing harvesters due to contact

inability likely has a small effect on the estimated harvest total, but may contribute to an underestimation

of harvest effort, as measured in number of harvesters.

2022 HARVEST YEAR CHARACTERISTICS

Over the course of this harvest monitoring program, several characteristics of the subsistence herring egg

harvest have remained consistent, regardless of the overall magnitude of the harvest. Most harvesters share

the majority of their harvest every year, and the harvest is widely shared, both in quantity and in geographic

breadth. Harvesters usually focus their efforts on the islands just offshore Sitka, but when there is quality

spawn elsewhere in the sound, some harvesters travel farther from town. The majority of the subsistence

herring egg harvest is taken on hemlock branches, secondarily on kelp, with small amounts on hair seaweed.

Conflicts with work schedules and receiving eggs from others are the main reasons that surveyed

households do not attempt to harvest herring eggs. The 2022 harvest shared most of these characteristics.

To further contextualize 2022 patterns, the remainder of this section includes summaries or comparisons to

previous harvest estimates and spawning event assessments presented in earlier reports (Brock and Turek

2007; Gmelch and Gmelch 1985; Holen et al. 2011; Schroeder and Kookesh 1990; Sill and Cunningham

2017; 2019; 2021a; 2021b; Sill and Lemons 2012; 2014a; 2014b; 2015; 2017; 2020; 2021).

Sharing of Herring Spawn

Sharing resources is an integral characteristic of subsistence economies. In specialized harvests, such as of

herring eggs, where specific knowledge and skills and equipment are required for a successful harvest,

sharing is even more profound. The pattern of a small number of households (“super-households”)

harvesting and then distributing a unique resource is prevalent within subsistence-based communities where

a portion of the population has the time, ability, knowledge, and equipment necessary to successfully

harvest (Wolfe et al. 2010). Specialized harvesters provide the resource, in this case herring eggs, to a much

larger percentage of households. This is true of herring eggs in the community of Sitka, where an estimated

32% of households used herring eggs in 2013 but only 8% harvested them (Sill and Koster 2017a). Because

Sitka remains one of the best places to harvest herring eggs, harvesters send eggs well beyond Sitka

households, reaching far throughout the state of Alaska.

In 2022, 88% of the surveyed households shared some of their harvest and the majority (96%) of the total

harvest was shared, either with other Sitka households or with non-local households (Table 2; Figure 2).

Because this project specifically targets only potential herring harvesters, inferences about overall use and

sharing of herring eggs cannot be made from these results. However, comprehensive household surveys in

Sitka and elsewhere have shown that households share received resources in addition to resources they

themselves harvested, and that herring eggs are shared through multiple households. Additionally,

comprehensive surveys recently administered in seven Southeast Alaska communities show herring eggs

are widely used in these communities (Sill et al. 2017; Sill and Koster 2017a; 2017b; see further discussion

to follow in section "Changes in Use of Herring Spawn"). Thornton (2019) delves into the topic of the

distribution of herring eggs from Sitka Sound through interviews with users and harvesters of herring spawn

around Southeast Alaska and through the results of a barter-and-trade module that was added to the

ADF&G–STA household subsistence herring harvest monitoring survey for 2018. The module included

questions about whether the herring harvester shares, barters, or trades herring eggs, and, if so, collected

information about the nature of relationships with recipients and where they live, if and how recipients

contribute to the production of herring eggs, items that are exchanged, and how the quality of the herring

egg harvest affects sharing and trade. The distribution network Thornton describes is extensive and resilient,

consistently moving thousands of pounds of herring eggs to dozens of communities and thousands of

recipients. He documented multiple types of exchange, including generalized reciprocity, balanced

reciprocity, and customary trade for small amounts of cash. He also documented the prevalence of

individuals establishing themselves as part of the production unit for herring eggs, providing labor,

materials, storage capacity, or cash. The distribution of herring eggs touches every Alaska Native

community in Southeast Alaska, and many Native and non-Native communities beyond the region. Primary

distribution of herring eggs has reached at least 41 communities, and secondary sharing likely reaches at

least 8–15 additional communities. Estimating the number of people receiving eggs is difficult because of

this secondary sharing, but Thornton believes distribution chains may reach thousands of people. Numerous

of Thornton’s interviewees suggested they would like to have more eggs if they could.

Reviewing past project years, it is clear that the majority of the harvest is shared every year, regardless of

the overall magnitude of the harvest is for the year, how many community boats are harvesting, or how

many participants there are in the fishery. Since 2010, the percentage of the harvest that has been kept for

the harvester’s own use has ranged from 3% (in 2016) to 10% (in 2013). There is greater variability in

where the harvest is shared: from 28% (2019) to 71% (2012) has been shared within Sitka and from 22%

(2012) to 63% (2019) has been shared outside of Sitka. Through the survey, more than 40 communities

have been documented as recipients of herring eggs. Because not every harvester is surveyed every year,

and not all harvesters choose to share this information with the surveyors, these 40 communities are a

minimum; this breadth of sharing speaks to the importance of Sitka as a source of herring eggs for the entire

state.

To further investigate the role of sharing in herring egg harvest patterns, survey respondents have been

asked, since 2007, some version of a question about whether their need for herring eggs was met. Originally,

harvesters were only asked if their needs were met for the year; after review of the responses and further

discussions among project staff, the question was changed in 2019 to a two-part question asking about

whether the harvester’s need for eggs for themselves and their need for eggs to share were met during the

study year. In 2022, discussions among project staff and harvesters led to additional changes. The first

change was the addition of a third sub-question to ask if harvesters were asked for eggs that they could not

provide. While similar to the question about harvester needs for eggs to share, harvesters may not consider

providing eggs to everyone who asks as part of how they define “need.” Many harvesters have a set of

recipients with whom they share eggs that constitute their “need” for eggs, and if the harvest is productive,

they may share with more people, but not being able to share with those people does not mean the

harvester’s needs were not met. This additional question tried to ascertain community need outside of

harvesters’ own social obligations. The second change to the question was to ask about the previous

calendar year, rather than the current harvest year. The surveys are conducted shortly after the harvest

concludes and harvesters may not yet be aware of unmet needs they would be asked to fulfill. Asking

harvesters to think back on the previous year removes that temporal obstacle. Although it is too early to

fully evaluate these changes, the initial assessment is positive. A few respondents indicated that they could

not fulfill requests for eggs that were made well after the spawning season was over; without the changes

made to the survey, this relevant information would not have been captured. One caveat to this series of

questions is that how needs are defined is subjective and can vary among households and between years.

In 2022, 90% of harvesters fulfilled their own household’s needs and 79% fulfilled their sharing needs

(Table 9). Compared to the prior three years, 2022 is the first year in which more households met their own

needs than met their needs for sharing. It is also the only year when the harvest began to approach previous

years’ levels. Thornton (2019:109–110) has shown that in years with higher harvest levels, sharing patterns

often expand so that more is shared with more people, which may be why some households felt their needs

for sharing were not met. Additionally, 24% of households were asked for eggs that they could not supply,

which could also contribute to a perception that their sharing needs were not met (Table 10).

In addition to harvesters who share their eggs with other households, community boats usually come to

Sitka to harvest eggs for their communities. Sometimes, these have been commercial boats that were already

in Sitka Sound for the commercial sac roe fishery. In other cases, communities may sponsor a boat to help

defray the expense of harvesting, and still other boats use personal connections with Sitka residents to

facilitate their community harvest. In most years since 2010, the community harvester boats have been

responsible for more than one-half of the total pounds of harvest estimated. In both 2020 and 2021, the

harvest by individuals composed a greater proportion of the total harvest than community harvester boats,

but the 2022 harvest was more similar to past patterns with community boats harvesting well more than

one-half of the total harvest weight. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020, community boats

did not travel to Sitka to harvest. In 2021, there were at least an equal number of community boats

harvesting as in 2022, but these boats were able to harvest much larger amounts in 2022.

Harvest Participation and Success

Compared to the most recent 10-year average of 41 participants, there were fewer harvesters in Sitka Sound

in 2022, but more than the previous five-year average of 31 participants (Table 15). In 2022, the total

estimated harvest from Sitka Sound was substantially more than in recent years, more than tripling the fiveyear average harvest and exceeding the 10-year average harvest. While not among the historically higher

harvests, the 2022 estimate is in line with the historical average harvest.

Creating a traditional catch per unit effort (CPUE) metric is challenging for this fishery because of the

variability in what constitutes a unit of effort (e.g., whether branches or trees are used, the size of tree or

branch, the number used in a set). A similar, but less informative, metric is the harvest per fishery

participant, but this metric does not account for the variability in effort among harvesters and as such it

cannot provide a complete picture of inter-annual variability within the subsistence herring spawn fishery.

In terms of harvest weight per harvester, the 2022 estimate far exceeded all past averages.

It is possible that the survey failed to capture some of the newer or smaller-scale harvesters who were

captured during the 2021 survey, or it is possible that long-standing harvesters harvested more herring eggs

because of resource availability, location of the spawning activity, increased effort, or recognized need. For

example, a koo.éex’ was held in 2022 for which harvesters needed to harvest herring eggs for distribution.

Coming out of the pandemic years, there could have been greater demand for eggs or a greater desire to

reconnect and share eggs with people. Changes in the harvest amounts of the community-based boats was

also a driver, since together those boats harvested substantially more eggs than in 2020 or 2021. Without

additional analysis into individual harvesting patterns over time, more in-depth discussion with harvesters

than what occurs during the standard survey is necessary to contextualize this finding.

Harvester numbers vary from year to year due to a variety of reasons, including difficulty in finding time

to participate, receiving herring eggs from others, or the cost of fuel or boat maintenance. One strategy to

share the costs associated with harvesting is for harvesters to work together. The pandemic year of 2020

drastically reduced the percentage of households harvesting together: 92% of responding households (n=12)

in 2019, but in 2020 only 43% (of 7 responding households) did (Sill and Cunningham 2021a; Sill and

Lemons 2021). By 2021, 74% of responding households (n=38) indicated that they harvested with at least

one other household, which is similar to 71% of responding households (n=24) that harvested with others

in 2022 (Sill and Cunningham 2021b; Table 12). In most years since 2010, working during the harvest or

receiving eggs from someone else have been the two main reasons potential harvesters gave for not

participating in the harvest. From 2017 through 2021, working during the period of spawning activity was

not provided as a main reason; from 2017 through 2019 resource availability or the distance to the spawn

were among the top reasons and in 2020 the pandemic was the main reason. In 2021, the most common

reason given was that the household did not have a need for eggs because the household got eggs from

someone else. For 2022, the most common reason households did not harvest was the cost of fuel or

otherwise lacking transportation, followed by working or no time to harvest (Figure 3). Fuel prices rose

rapidly through the end of 2021 and much of 2022. In March 2022, marine fuel cost $3.69/gallon, compared

to $2.44/gallon in March 2021. By April 2022, prices rose to $4.32/gallon. 1

Among the many factors harvesters must consider, where the herring are spawning is an important one.

Compared to recent years, herring spawned for more consecutive days closer to town and in what would be

considered the core area for harvest, as well as through northern stretches of the sound. These more

accessible locations likely contributed to the highest harvest estimated in several years. The proximity of

quality harvestable spawn to Sitka was likely even more important during the 2022 harvest because of the

poor weather conditions experienced in the middle of the spawn. On April 4, the peak 2 of herring spawning

activity in 2022, researchers noted that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

issued a small craft advisory warning of high winds and seas up to 7 feet. Adverse weather conditions make

boating riskier, especially in relatively open water and in a vessel burdened with a full load of herring

branches. As noted above, slightly more than one-half of harvesters in 2022 used a skiff shorter than 20

feet in length. In addition, such weather conditions can ruin sets by pushing them up onto the beach or

stirring up sand from the ocean floor that mixes into the set. The community harvester boat from STA

experienced damage to some sets in 2022 because of these weather conditions. One event of note in 2022

was a diesel spill that occurred in Neva Strait on March 21, 2022, when the tug Western Mariner ran

aground. Although the spill was contained and oil sheens were not seen near spawning herring, some

harvesters still expressed concern about food safety and potential effects to their harvest. The Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation issued a seafood safety advisory on March 26, 2022,

encouraging people not to harvest herring eggs from Neva Strait or St. John Baptist Bay. 3

Nearly one-half of responding harvesting households said that their harvest was poorer in 2022 than in

recent years (note that the survey form did not define a timeframe for “recent”), with about equal

percentages saying it was the same or more (Table 6). For those households that harvested less in 2022,

weather was the most common reason given, suggesting that the adverse weather conditions discussed

1. EFIN Monthly Marine Fuel Prices, s.v. “[Table of Contents] Data; [Fuel Survey Data, States Sampled, Alaska, Download Data]

MS Excel Format” (by Fisheries Economics Data Program). Accessed January 2023. https://www.psmfc.org/efin/data/

fuel.html#FUEL_AK

2. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries, “Advisory Announcement, May 5, 2022: Sitka Sound

Herring Fishery Summary,” Accessed December 22, 2022. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/

1370633863.pdf

3. Staff from federal and state agencies are conducting a preliminary Natural Resource Damage Assessment to determine if impacts

to fish, wildlife, their habitats, and the human uses of these natural resources have occurred and if it is appropriate to proceed

with restoration planning. As part of this process, samples of mussels and bivalves were taken and analyzed for several petroleum

hydrocarbons. Results of these samples and information on the NRDS can be found online: https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/spillinformation/response/2022/01-tug-western-mariner-grounding/#gsc.tab=0

above hampered some harvesters’ efforts (Table 8). For households that harvested more than recent years,

reasons provided were either that the household was new to harvesting or that the household needed more

(Table 7). Despite a near-majority of harvesters feeling that their harvest was less than in recent years, the

overall community harvest was much higher than previous years, and the harvest amount per harvester was

also much higher (Table 15). To reconcile these circumstances, it may be necessary to consider that the

aggregate response to a survey can obscure important differences among harvesters. Without doing a

household-level analysis of changes over time, it is difficult to assess these differences; however, it is

possible that households responding that their harvest was worse than in previous years were relatively

small-scale harvesters, while the high-harvesting community boats may have been more likely to have said

their harvest was more, and they accounted for much of the increase in the overall community harvest.

Table 15.–Estimated subsistence herring spawn harvests and number of harvesting households, Sitka

Sound, 2002–2022.

Estimated

number of

households

harvestinga

116

118

Estimated

harvest, all

substrates,

in pounds

151,717

278,799

381,226

79,064

219,356

87,211

71,936

213,712

154,620

83,443

115,799

78,090

154,412

106,998

84,554

65,691

25,862

51,687

21,926

46,950

135,231

Pounds per

harvester

1,970

2,403

3,231

832

2,493

1,077

1,332

2,348

3,866

1,574

2,464

1,562

2,283

2,101

2,441

1,493

906

2,067

2,315

973

3,559

42,423

1,366

10-year average

(2012–2021)

75,197

1,855

Historical average

(2002–2021)

123,653

2,030

Year

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

5-year average

(2017–2021)

Sources Brock and Turek (2007); Holen et al. (2011); Sill and

Lemons (2012; 2014a; 2014b; 2015; 2017; 2020; 2021); and Sill and

Cunningham (2017; 2019; 2021a; 2021b); and Sitka Tribe of Alaska

and Division of Subsistence, household surveys, 2022.

a. The number includes community harvester boats, which are treated

as an individual household for the purposes of this analysis.

Harvest

Pounds harvested

400,000

High ANS

350,000

Low ANS

300,000

Estimated # of

harvesters

140

120

100

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

Number of harvesting households

450,000

50,000

Note The line and bar depicting change in "estimated number of harvesters" between 2019 and 2020 and the 2020

harvest are yellow because the 2020 harvest year was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Figure 5.–Total pounds usable weight of herring spawn harvested, number of harvesting households,

and amount reasonably necessary for subsistence (ANS) of herring spawn on all substrates in Sitka Sound,

2002–2022.

Delving further into the harvest success of any given year, there does not appear to be a correlation between

the amount of mature herring biomass returning to the sound and resulting harvest amounts (Figure 6).

Some years with increased biomass estimates 4 were years with decreased harvests and vice versa. Since

2010, mature biomass estimates have been high compared to ADF&G estimates prior to 2010, but

subsistence harvests show almost an inverse trend, with generally lower harvest estimates from 2010 to

present than pre-2010 estimates. Shewmake (2013) argues that successful harvests in Sitka Sound are

predicated on two groups of factors, broadly categorized as social opportunity and ecological opportunity.

On the social side are issues that affect participation in the subsistence fishery, like sufficient time,

resources, knowledge, and skills to engage in harvesting activities. Ecological opportunity factors center

on the quality of the eggs, which is influenced by timing, duration, location, and weather. There may be

finer details within the run size composition, apart from total estimated mature biomass, that may correlate

with subsistence harvests, but such investigations are beyond the scope of this project.

Good quality eggs cover the substrate several layers deep and lack impurities, such as sand. According to

local respondents, the thickness of deposition is related to the number of days of the spawning activity, as

well as other factors such as the size or density of the spawning school of herring (Shewmake 2013).

4. Sara Miller, ADF&G Biometrician 3, personal communication, email, December 22, 2022.

Shewmake (2013) found that mean consecutive spawning days in subsistence use areas of Sitka Sound can

be a reasonably good predictor of harvest success (see also Sill and Lemons [2014a] for further discussion

of the relationship between harvest success and multi-day spawning events).

The ADF&G Division of Commercial Fisheries documents total days of spawning activity and the number

of miles of shoreline with active spawn but does not analyze how many days of spawning activity each

section of shoreline receives. 5 Using the daily aerial mapped spawn coverage from the Division of

Commercial Fisheries, the Division of Subsistence created a map6 showing numbers of days of spawn

activity throughout Sitka Sound (Figure 7). In 2022, ADF&G flew aerial surveys between March 8 and

April 28 to document herring spawning activity. Between March 27 and April 28, a total of 91.5 nautical

miles of spawn were recorded by ADF&G, which is higher than the 40-year average (1982–2021) of 60.2

nautical miles. Compared to recent years, in 2022 more days of multiple spawn deposition occurred in more

locations within the subsistence core area, especially around Middle Island, Crow Pass, and the Kasiana

Islands Group. The majority of the northern part of Sitka Sound, from Hayward Strait to the Siginaka

Islands, received multiple spawn deposition days. According to herring egg deposition surveys 7 by

ADF&G, egg deposition was very high throughout much of the survey area, particularly around

Middle/Crow/Kasiana islands, Halibut Point Road, Siginaka Islands, Hayward Strait, and Kruzof Island. In

a shift from previous years, substantially more eggs were observed in the northern and eastern areas of Sitka

Sound than along the Kruzof Island shoreline. A harvester’s assessment of the length of the spawn and

quality of the season is more likely localized to areas that are accessible to that harvester and therefore may

not align with the ADF&G-documented duration or total coverage of the spawn. Harvester effort was

documented throughout the core area islands and a lesser amount in the more northern areas of the sound,

including Hayward Strait and Eastern/Promisla bays. Harvester locations correspond to where spawning

occurred for multiple days, with the exception of Kruzof Island. Some harvesters will set branches along

Kruzof Island, but, with closer areas of quality spawn in 2022, none did.

It makes sense that the areas with more harvesters would produce more harvest weight, but that is not

always the case, as was seen particularly in 2018 (Sill and Lemons 2020). As discussed above, harvest

“effort” is difficult to compare within and between years, beyond the metric of number of households at

any location, because there is no standard size of a subsistence herring egg “set.” A set can vary dramatically

between harvesters, based on the size of vessel, hydraulics on board, time available, and harvester intent.

The harvest survey asks respondents how many sets are made and pulled in each area, but it does not ask

the harvester to define a “set.” Being able to track harvest per unit effort would likely give more insight

into the effect of the spatial closures to commercial fishing in the core area since 2012. Without this scale

of analysis, the closures do not seem to have had a clear or demonstrable effect on subsistence herring egg

harvest totals. However, in approximately one-third of the years since the first closure went into effect,

there has been unusual spawning activity generally bypassing the core area. With additional years of data,

trends may become apparent.

5. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries, “Sitka Sound Herring Fishery Summary,” advisory

announcement, May 5, 2022. Accessed December 22, 2022. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/

1370633863.pdf

6. To create the map, the base shoreline was divided into segments of various lengths and the maximum number of days of spawn

along any portion of that segment was calculated and attributed to the whole segment. Due to inclement weather, there were

days during the spawn when surveys of the entire sound were not performed.

7. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries, “Sitka Sound Herring Fishery Summary,” advisory

announcement, May 5, 2022. Accessed December 22, 2022. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/

1370633863.pdf

300,000

Sitka herring mature biomass

(tons) from 2023 forecast model

350,000

Estimated subsistence harvest

(lb)

300,000

200,000

250,000

150,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

Estimated subsistence harvest (pounds)

Estimated mature biomass (tons)

250,000

400,000

Figure 6.–Estimated mature biomass of Sitka Sound herring, 1976–2022 (based on the ADF&G 2023

forecast age-structured assessment model for Sitka Sound herring) and estimated subsistence harvest of

herring eggs from Sitka Sound, 2002–2022.

Figure 7.–Cumulative days of recorded herring spawn, Sitka Sound area, 2022. 8

8. Aerial or skiff surveys were conducted on April 8, 9, 14, and 16, 2022. Note that no surveys were conducted on March 18 and

April 11 due to inclement weather.

CHANGES IN USE OF HERRING SPAWN

As stated above, this research project targets herring egg harvesters, so it does not allow for analysis of the

wider use of herring eggs within Sitka or other communities. The study has been able to document a general

decrease in the participation of the subsistence herring egg harvest over the last 20 years, but there are few

data available to speak to changes in overall use of the resource, either within Sitka or in other Southeast

Alaska communities, or overall participation in the processing of herring eggs. In 2013, 2014, and 2016,

several comprehensive subsistence harvest and use studies were conducted in Southeast Alaska

communities. The use of herring eggs was documented in Hydaburg, Hoonah, Haines, Angoon, Sitka, and

Yakutat; Whale Pass was surveyed, but no herring eggs were used in 2012 (Sill et al. 2017; Sill and Koster

2017b; 2017a). Sharing in all of these communities is widespread and varied: the percentage of households

harvesting eggs on hemlock branches ranged from 0% in Angoon to 23% in Hydaburg, while the percentage

of households using herring eggs on hemlock branches was much higher, ranging from 15% in Haines to

77% in Hydaburg (Figure 8). The majority of respondents indicated that the eggs they used or harvested

came from Sitka, with the exception of Hydaburg residents who also harvested and used eggs from the

Craig/Klawock area (Table 16); the Yakutat survey did not ask respondents to identify where herring eggs

used and harvested came from, but some volunteered that herring eggs were shared or bartered for from

Sitka and also harvested locally. In this limited sample of communities in Southeast Alaska, the use of

herring eggs from Sitka Sound remains high, and patterns of sharing remain evident and of importance. A

broader survey looking specifically at the use and receipt of herring eggs from the general populace would

be necessary to fully discuss changes in the use of herring eggs over time.

Figure 8.–Percentage of households using, receiving, giving, and harvesting herring eggs, Hydaburg,

Hoonah, Haines, and Angoon 2012, Sitka 2013, and Yakutat 2015.

Table 16.–Locations from where residents reported receiving herring eggs, Angoon, Haines, Hoonah, Hydaburg, and Whale Pass, 2012.

Valid responses

Angoon

Haines

Hoonah

Hydaburg

Source

Number Percentage

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Craig

0.0%

1.7%

51.2%

Haines

0.0%

8.3%

0.0%

Hoonah

0.0%

1.7%

0.0%

Sitka

100.0%

91.7%

96.6%

48.8%

Total

100.0%

Source ADF&G Division of Subsistence household surveys, 2013.

Note Includes only valid responses containing a named city; households were permitted to identify multiple sources.

Whale Pass

Number Percentage

0.0%

CONVERSION FACTORS

Creating annual conversion factors is useful for two reasons.

1. Annual conversion factor summaries give researchers a more accurate estimate of herring egg

harvests because individuals often report their harvest in number of boxes/bags, rather than

total pounds harvested. With an average weight determined for storage containers for that year,

researchers can convert the entire reported harvest into pounds with greater accuracy.

2. The other aspect of conversion factors is their potential insight into the effect of egg density on

the success of the overall harvest. From Shewmake’s (2013) work, according to local

respondents, it can be seen that the number of consecutive spawning days is important to overall

success. More spawning days should lead to thicker egg deposition and heavier branches. One

way the project can potentially investigate egg density is through the creation of annual

conversion factors.

Assuming that the herring spawn processors are relatively consistent in how they process branches for

packing containers during the conversion factor updates, the average weight of a wetlock box should vary

annually with spawn density—less in years with low density and more in high-density years. However,

other factors, such as seawater content of the set, may also affect the weights of the processed spawn. Until

more work is done to identify other factors potentially affecting the weight of wetlock boxes of processed

spawn, year-to-year variations in conversion factors cannot be taken as an accurate indicator of herring

spawn densities.

LOCATION OF HARVESTS

The final aspect of the subsistence herring harvest that the project attempted to understand was the location

of harvests. Harvest location data have been documented during every study year except for 2007 and 2008.

According to these data, harvesters clearly use a core area, which is also where the frequency of herring

spawn has usually been highest (Figure 9). From 2018 through 2020, there was a small amount of spawning

activity within this area (Sill and Cunningham 2019; Sill and Lemons 2020; 2021). Spawning activity in

2021 was more similar to the years prior to 2017 with increased spawning activity in the core area, a trend

that continued into 2022. There is inter-annual variability in the locations used for the harvest within the

broader core area; this variability occurs for several reasons. Within limits, harvesters will go where the

herring are spawning (Figure 7). Herring do not exhibit site fidelity in spawn locations like salmon;

therefore, the specific beaches and coves where they spawn each year can change. Harvesters look for areas

they believe are most likely to produce high-quality spawn based on factors such as geography, substrate,

and protection from wind and waves. Some harvesters do not have access to a boat, so they need to harvest

in locations accessible by the road system, regardless of where the herring are spawning. Skiffs and other

small boats are commonly used by herring harvesters and wind and rough seas can become dangerous;

therefore, protected areas are sought. Protected areas are also favored for their likelihood of high-quality

spawn because ocean surge can stir up sand on the seafloor, thus degrading the quality of the harvest. As

Sitka has developed, and concerns for water quality have grown, harvesters have also tried to ensure that

the area they harvest from is not negatively affected by development. In 2022, harvesters put more effort

into the core area locations than they had in recent years, but some effort in areas such as Eastern/Promisla

bays were rewarded with substantial harvests.

Figure 9.–Frequency of spawn recorded during ADF&G surveys, Sitka Sound area, 1964–2011.

SPAWN-ON-KELP FISHERY

In addition to further investigating the role of spawn deposition on weight conversion measurements,

another aspect of the herring spawn fishery that researchers will continue to explore is the spawn-on-kelp

fishery. While surveys are attempted with all harvesters of herring spawn, regardless of the substrate they

use to harvest, herring spawn on branches accounts for the majority of the harvest and has therefore received

the most attention. Often, the amounts of spawn on kelp documented by the survey have been less than

those recorded on the permits (a permit is necessary to harvest spawn-on-kelp in Sitka Sound; a second

permit may be issued, limiting a household harvest to 316 lb in total). Beginning in 2012 and continuing

through 2015, researchers concentrated additional effort on identifying and contacting spawn-on-kelp

harvesters. In 2022, the harvest survey estimated 3,589 lb of spawn on kelp were harvested (Table 4), while

expanded permit data show a harvest of 5,373 lb.9 Additional efforts to identify and survey spawn-on-kelp

harvesters is warranted since the survey effort has likely underestimated the spawn-on-kelp harvest

recently. Additionally, further study of spawn-on-kelp harvesters to compare differences in participation,

harvest, and uses to that of egg-on-branches harvesters would be useful. Because spawn-on-kelp harvesters

already need to obtain a permit and report their harvest, they may feel they do not have to participate in the

survey project. Comparisons of success rates and responses to annual changes in geographic spawn

distribution between both sets of harvesters could also be investigated.

9. Data provided by ADF&G Division of Commercial Fisheries, Aaron Dupuis, Fishery Biologist, personal communication,

December 22, 2022.

4. CONCLUSION

Although participation in the subsistence harvest of herring spawn from Sitka Sound has generally dropped

since the early 2000s, and more recently since 2014, harvesting and sharing eggs remain important cultural

activities for Southeast Alaska residents. Local concerns for the subsistence harvest of herring eggs

prompted this collaborative harvest monitoring program 20 years ago. Residents continue to express similar

concerns, highlighted by the proposals submitted to the 2021 Southeast meeting of the BOF that echo

proposals submitted within the last 20 years. Although the proponents withdrew support and no action was

taken on most of these proposals, because of the participation of the subsistence community in the harvest

monitoring program, the BOF has many years of consistent data about the nature of subsistence herring egg

harvests to inform its decision-making process. There is no simple measure of whether Alaska residents are

meeting their needs for herring spawn. One metric the BOF considers in determining whether reasonable

opportunity to harvest herring spawn is being provided is the ANS, which has been achieved only once

since 2010 (Figure 5). The reasons for the ANS not being achieved are likely multifaceted. Overall harvest

amounts are influenced by the amount of harvest effort, but also by weather and the opportunity for quality

spawn in accessible locations. The subsistence fishery in Sitka Sound is unique in terms of the importance

of this one small geographic area to subsistence users throughout the state. Because of that, the herring

spawn harvest continues to be shared by a small number of local harvesters extensively throughout Sitka,

Southeast Alaska, and beyond. Future years of this project will continue to investigate the spawn-on-kelp

harvest and comparisons with permit data for that fishery. In addition, the variations in spawn density and

identifying accurate ways to track and correlate density with the harvest will be explored. Expanding on

Shewmake (2013), correlations between harvester success and spawn duration by location could provide

further insight into harvester success and perhaps provide a more useful metric for gauging subsistence

harvest opportunity than total nautical miles of spawn. Exploring the potential to create a CPUE for this

fishery is also a worthwhile endeavor to provide another metric for understanding harvest effort and changes

over time. A state-waters closed area has been in place in some form since 2012, but formal analysis of any

effects of that closure on subsistence harvests has not been conducted. While outside the scope of this

annual report on subsistence harvest monitoring activities, such an analysis could provide the BOF with

additional useful information for managing this fishery. Finally, a broader effort to look at overall use of

herring eggs beyond Sitka, and changes in harvest effort at the household level, would provide needed

additional information to evaluate changes and trends documented through the harvest survey.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The ADF&G Division of Subsistence would like to thank the staff of the Sitka Tribe of Alaska for their

hard work and dedication to this project: in particular, we thank Jeff Feldpausch, Kyle Rosendale, and

Tammy Young. The survey would not have been possible without their leadership and cooperation. We

would like to thank the STA Tribal Council and Herring Committee members for their support of the

project. Within the Division of Commercial Fisheries, we appreciate the assistance from and review of this

project provided by Aaron Dupuis. Input into the final draft of the report was also gratefully received from

Chip Treinen with Southeast Alaska Herring Conservation Alliance, and Jeff Feldpausch and Kyle

Rosendale with STA. There are many subsistence harvesters and commercial fishers who contributed to

the success of this project by taking the time to speak to researchers, and we would like to take this

opportunity to thank them as well.

REFERENCES CITED

ACUNS, Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies. 2003. Ethical principles for the conduct of

research in the North. The Association = L’Association: Ottawa. ISBN 0-921421-10-9

https://acuns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/EthicsEnglishmarch2003.pdf

Brock, M. and M.F. Turek. 2007. Sitka Sound subsistence herring roe fishery, 2002, 2003, and 2006. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 327: Juneau.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp327.pdf

Brown, C.L., B.M. McDavid, C.F. Moncrieff, A. Trainor, and J.S. Magdanz. 2017. Customary trade and barter as

part of a continuum of exchange practices in 3 upper Yukon River region communities: Fort Yukon, Manley

Hot Springs, and Venetie. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper

No. 437: Fairbanks. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP%20437.pdf

Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling techniques. 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons: New York.

Conitz, J.M. 2010. Klawock Lake subsistence sockeye salmon project 2008 annual report. Alaska Department of

Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 10-10: Anchorage.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FDS10-10.pdf

Emmons, G.T. 1991. The Tlingit Indians. Edited with additions by Frederica de Laguna. Seattle: The University

of Washington Press; New York: The American Museum of Natural History.

Gmelch, G. and S.B. Gmelch. 1985. Resource use in a small Alaskan city–Sitka. Alaska Department of Fish and

Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 90: Juneau.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp090.pdf

Holen, D., J. Stariwat, T. Lemons, V. Ciccone, and M.F. Turek. 2011. The subsistence harvest of herring spawn in

Sitka, Alaska, 2002–2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper

No. 343: Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP%20343.pdf

Langdon, S. and R. Worl. 1981. Distribution and exchange of subsistence resources in Alaska. Alaska Department

of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 55: Anchorage.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp055.pdf

Moss, M.L. 2016. The nutritional value of Pacific herring: an ancient cultural keystone species on the Northwest

coast of North America. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5, pages 649–655.

Pierce, R.A. 1972. Alaskan shipping, 1867–1878: arrivals and departures at the Port of Sitka. Materials for the

study of Alaskan history, page 63.

Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age economics. Aldine de Gruyter: Hawthorne, NY.

Schroeder, R.F. and M. Kookesh. 1990. The subsistence harvest of herring eggs in Sitka Sound, 1989. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 173: Juneau.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp173.pdf

Shewmake, J.W.I. 2013. Spatial resilience and the incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge in mapping

Sitka herring. master’s thesis. University of Alaska Fairbanks: Fairbanks.

Sill, L.A. and M. Cunningham. 2017. The subsistence harvest of Pacific herring spawn in Sitka Sound, Alaska,

2016. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 435: Douglas.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP435.pdf

———. 2019. The subsistence harvest of Pacific herring spawn in Sitka Sound, Alaska, 2017. Alaska Department

of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 452: Douglas.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP452.pdf

———. 2021a. The subsistence harvest of Pacific herring spawn in Sitka Sound, Alaska, 2020. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 480: Juneau.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP480.pdf

———. 2021b. The subsistence harvest of Pacific herring spawn in Sitka Sound, Alaska, 2021. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 486: Juneau.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP486.pdf

Sill, L.A. and D. Koster. 2017a. The harvest and use of wild resources in Sitka, Alaska, 2013. Alaska Department

of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 423: Douglas.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP423.pdf

——— eds. 2017b. The harvest and use of wild resources in Haines, Hoonah, Angoon, Whale Pass, and

Hydaburg, Alaska, 2012. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper

No. 399: Douglas. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP399.pdf

Sill, L.A. and T. Lemons. 2012. The subsistence harvest of herring spawn in Sitka Sound, Alaska, 2011. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 369: Juneau.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP%20369.pdf

———. 2014a. The subsistence harvest of Pacific herring spawn in Sitka Sound, Alaska, 2012. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 392: Juneau.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP392.pdf

———. 2014b. The subsistence harvest of Pacific herring spawn in Sitka Sound, Alaska, 2013. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 401: Juneau.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP401.pdf

———. 2015. The subsistence harvest of Pacific herring spawn in Sitka Sound, Alaska, 2014. Alaska Department

of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 408: Juneau.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP408.pdf

———. 2017. The subsistence harvest of Pacific herring spawn in Sitka Sound, Alaska, 2015. Alaska Department

of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 428: Douglas.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP428.pdf

———. 2020. The subsistence harvest of Pacific herring spawn in Sitka Sound, Alaska, 2018. Alaska Department

of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 460: Juneau.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP460.pdf

———. 2021. The subsistence harvest of Pacific herring spawn in Sitka Sound, Alaska, 2019. Alaska Department

of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 474: Juneau.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP474.pdf

Sill, L.A., J.T. Ream, and M. Cunningham. 2017. Harvest and use of wild resources in Yakutat, Alaska, 2015.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 432: Douglas.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP432.pdf

Thornton, T.F. 2019. The distribution of subsistence herring eggs from Sitka Sound, Alaska, Box of Knowledge.

Sealaska Heritage Institute: Juneau, Alaska.

Thornton, T.F. and M. Moss. 2021. Herring and people of the North Pacific: sustaining a keystone species.

University of Washington Press: Seattle. ISBN 978-0-295-74830-6

Walker, R. 2009. The validity and reliability of fisheries harvest monitoring methods, Southeast Alaska. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 286: Anchorage.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/TP286.pdf

Wolfe, R.J. and L.J. Ellanna. 1983. Resource use and socioeconomic systems: case studies of fishing and hunting

in Alaskan communities. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper

No. 61: Juneau. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/tp061.pdf

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.

APPENDIX A: MAP OF AREAS OF SITKA SOUND WITH

FISHING RESTRICTIONS

Appendix Figure A-1.–Waters of Sitka Sound with limitations on the harvest of herring and/or herring spawn.

APPENDIX B: SITKA SOUND SUBSISTENCE HERRING EGG

HARVEST SURVEY, 2022

APPENDIX C: 2022 CODE BOOK

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.