The 2014 Port Moller Test Fishery - BBEDC€¦ · In 2014, ADF&G’s Gene Conservation Lab recombined the analyzed samples to provide stock composition estimates by PMTF station for

The 2014 Port Moller Test Fishery

Prepared for

Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute P.O. Box 1464

Dillingham, AK 99576

October 2014

The 2014 Port Moller Test Fishery

By

Scott W. Raborn, Matthew J. Nemeth, and Michael R. Link

LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. 2000 West International Airport Road, Suite C-1

Anchorage, Alaska, 99502

Prepared for

Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute P.O. Box 1464

Dillingham, AK 99576

October 2014

Please cite as:

Raborn, S.W., M. J. Nemeth, and M. R. Link. 2014. The 2014 Port Moller Test Fishery. Final Report prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK, for the Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute, Dillingham, AK, 38 pp. + appendices.

Port Moller Test Fishery 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• In 2014, the Port Moller Test Fishery (PTMF) operated from 10 June to 10 July to provide an advance indication of the run strength of sockeye salmon returning to Bristol Bay and its fishing districts. In season, daily catch summaries and the updated Replacement Index were distributed the same evening as catches were reported from the PMTF. Interpretations of these catches were usually distributed the following day. Estimates of genetic stock composition and age composition were forwarded to the distribution list soon after receipt from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).

• A Daily Project Model was refined and used to forecast the total and district-specific runs of sockeye salmon. PMTF catch indices specific to each of the major fishing districts were fit to their respective inshore C+Es with estimated travel time (TT) and fish-per-index (FPI) parameters. Travel times were shortest for the Naknek-Kvichak and Nushagak-Wood Districts and longest for the Egegik and Ugashik Districts. The FPI decreased earlier for the Ugashik District, on about the same date and at a similar rate for the Naknek-Kvichak and Nushagak-Wood Districts, and not at all for the Egegik District.

• PMTF inseason data and our interpretation techniques allowed us to accurately revise the total 2014 run forecast. The preseason forecast (released November 2013) was 26.5 million fish. With Interpretation #10 (released on June 29, 2014) we suspected it was stronger and made an inseason forecast of 30.9 million fish, calling for increases of 33% to the Egegik District and 55% to the Naknek-Kvichak District. After the sustained uptick in Port Moller catches through June 29, we stated with Interpretation #11 (released June 30) that the run was likely higher than 30 million. On July 2 (Interpretation #12), we upgraded the forecast to 38.3 million, with the Egegik, Naknek-Kvichak, and Nushagak-Wood Districts expected to be 55%, 72%, and 27% higher than their preseason forecasts. This inseason forecast was made when observed C+E was only 50% of the yearend tally. Moreover, many stakeholders were expecting a much earlier run and just based on C+E through 30 June (the only estimates available when Interpretation #12 was released), it appeared the run was indeed much earlier and coming in close to forecast. We suggested the run was at least 44% larger. The final 2014 observed total inshore run was 40.1 million fish (52% larger than the preseason forecast) based on ADF&G’s inseason reporting of C+E.

• To be useful for inseason forecasting, stock compositions estimated in the PMTF must be reasonably representative of the Bristol Bay run. In 2014, stock compositions in the PMTF generally matched up with actual stock compositions observed later in the Bristol Bay fishing districts. Compositions at the PMTF were estimated with genetic samples from the PMTF, and from catch plus escapement (C+E) in the fishing districts lagged backwards to the PMTF. The Naknek-Kvichak District stocks were over-represented in the PMTF June 22–25, lined up almost exactly to what was expected June 28 – July 1, and then were again over-represented July 2–5. The Egegik and Nushagak-Wood districts stocks were represented accurately in the PMTF. The Egegik District stock was a little underrepresented at PMTF towards the end, and the Nushagak-Wood District was underrepresented mid-season. The Ugashik District stock was consistently underrepresented in the PMTF.

• Likewise, age composition in the PMTF must be reasonably representative of the Bristol Bay run to be useful for inseason forecasting. In 2014, proportions of age 1.2 and 2.3 fish in the PMTF were representative of age compositions observed in the Bristol Bay fishing

v


districts. Ages 1.3 and 2.2, by contrast, were not representative until late in the season. First, the Nushagak-Wood District had the largest proportion of its run belonging to age 1.3 (41%) and the earliest run timing. Second, the proportion of age 1.3 fish was greater for both the Egegik and Naknek-Kvichak Districts early on and diminished as the season progressed; the opposite trend occurred for both districts with respect to age 2.2 fish. These trends caused the proportion of age 1.3 fish at the PMTF to be overrepresented and age 2.2 underrepresented early in the season.

• The 2014 PMTF was consistent with the historical relationship between run timing at Port Moller and inshore C+E. On average, the PMTF overestimates the earliness by about 2 days. That is, if the average date-of-return for the PMTF is equal to the historical average, then C+E will be about 2 days early. In 2014, the average date-of-return estimate for Port Moller was 0.2 days early (June 28 is the average for 1988–2014). The observed average date-of-return for C+E from all Bristol Bay districts combined was 2.3 days early (July 5 is the average for 1988–2014).

• In 2013 and 2014, 20 min set times produced higher CPUE values (i.e., catch indices) than routine 60 min sets when catches were high. The possible reasons for this include net saturation, more time for the net to get folded by surface currents, or both, during the 60 min sets. Switching to 20 min sets would alleviate both problems.

Recommendations for 2015:

• Our method of producing district-specific PMTF indices would benefit from greater spatial resolution in stock composition estimates across the PMTF transect. In 2014, ADF&G’s Gene Conservation Lab recombined the analyzed samples to provide stock composition estimates by PMTF station for June 10 - 25. These results were pivotal in forming our district-specific indices. Even more beneficial would be to have similar estimates for the remainder of the year with as high a resolution as the analyzed samples would allow.

• We will continue research and development of the Daily Projection Model. Anticipated improvements include more representative district-specific PMTF indices and better interpolations for missed fishing days due to weather. Changes to the index across the fishing transect throughout the season are being investigated to explain fluctuations in the FPI parameter.

• Based on the results of the experimental sets made in 2013 and 2014, we recommend replacing the single 60 min sets with two 20 min sets at each station. This sampling scheme should produce the same number of fish available for genetic samples. Furthermore, it would provide replication at each site to improve precision.

vi


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... V TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. VII LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... VII LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... VIII LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ VIII INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 9 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................. 9 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................. 10 METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 10

Net Description ....................................................................................................................... 10 Fish Sampling Protocol ........................................................................................................... 11

Fish capture ....................................................................................................................... 11 Age and stock composition ............................................................................................... 12

Formulating the Replacement Index ....................................................................................... 12 Forecasting Based on the PMTF ............................................................................................. 13 Additional Experiments to Test Gillnet Saturation ................................................................. 13 Inseason Reporting of PMTF Information .............................................................................. 14

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 15 The Replacement Index .......................................................................................................... 15 Forecasting .............................................................................................................................. 15

Run Magnitude.................................................................................................................. 16 Stock Composition Forecasting ........................................................................................ 17 Age Composition Forecasting ........................................................................................... 17 Run Timing Forecasting ................................................................................................... 18

Experimental Sets to Test for Gillnet Saturation .................................................................... 18 FUTURE WORK AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 19

Changing the Net Fishing Time .............................................................................................. 19 Improvements to the District Specific Catch Indices and the Daily Projection Model .......... 20 Reporting of Stock Composition across Stations ................................................................... 20 The Influence of Tide.............................................................................................................. 20

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 21 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 21 TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... 23 FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... 26 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 39

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Sampling dates and time of corresponding update for four main types of inseason information from the Port Moller Test Fishery in 2014. .............................24

Table 2. Summary of substantive comments and predictions made in the daily interpretations of the 2014 Port Moller Test Fishery. ................................................25

vii


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the study area, showing the stations fished by the Port Moller Test Fishery and the locations of Bristol Bay fishing districts. . .................................................... 27

Figure 2. Aggregate catch + escapement (C+E) observed (gray bars) inshore, as well as the Port Moller Test Fishery’s daily Replacement Index (black line). ................................... 28

Figure 3. The daily Replacement Index from the Port Moller Test Fishery 2010–2014, with each year rescaled to a maximum value=1. ................................................................ 29

Figure 4. Catch + escapement (C+E) observed (gray bars) inshore for each major fishing district. . ..................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 5. Estimated distributions of travel times (TTs) between the Port Moller Test Fishery and each major fishing district. . ................................................................................ 31

Figure 6. Estimated fish-per-index (FPI) values for each major fishing district based on respective test fishing indexes and daily projection models (Figure 4). ..................... 32

Figure 7. Sea surface temperatures at each station of the Port Moller Test Fishery throughout the 2014 season. .......................................................................................................... 33

Figure 8. Stock composition by district for catches from the Port Moller Test Fishery. ......... 34 Figure 9. Age composition estimates of the 2014 total run. ..................................................... 35 Figure 10. Cumulative proportion of catch + escapement (C+E) by date for the Port Moller Test

Fishery in 2014. .......................................................................................................... 35 Figure 11. Age composition of the primary age classes for catch + escapement (C+E) in three of

the major fishing districts in Bristol Bay, 2014. ......................................................... 36 Figure 12. Timing for inshore catch + escapement (C+E) (all districts combined) versus timing

for catches at the Port Moller Test Fishery. ................................................................ 37 Figure 13. Comparison of catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) from sets lasting from ~20 min made

immediately following standard sets lasting for ~ 60 min. ....................................... 38

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. BBSRI’s season introduction, final season catch update, and inseason daily interpretations for the Port Moller Test Fishery in 2014. ............................ A1

Appendix B. ADF&G’s inseason stock composition estimates for the Port Moller Test Fishery in 2014. .................................................................................................... B1

Appendix C. ADF&G’s inseason age composition estimates for the Port Moller Test Fishery in 2014. .................................................................................................... C1

Appendix D. ADF&G’s daily run summaries for Bristol Bay in 2014. ..................................... D1

viii


INTRODUCTION

The Port Moller Test Fishery (PMTF) has been conducted since 1967 with gillnets set at stations offshore from Port Moller, Alaska (Figure 1; Randall 1977; Eggers and Fried 1984). Historically, the primary goal has been to predict run strength of sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka returning to natal streams in Bristol Bay approximately one week prior to their arrival in the various terminal commercial fishing districts. The PMTF now operates from around June 10 through July 10 each year and is the first check on preseason sockeye salmon forecasts. Results from the PMTF give Bristol Bay processors, fishermen, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) time to respond to suspected departures from these forecasts (Helton 1991). Fishermen use this information when deciding which districts to fish. Though the information from the PMTF is not the primary decision support upon which the fishery is prosecuted and managed, it plays an important role as managers use it to help gauge overall and stock-specific run strength.

This report describes the project’s objectives, how the test fishery works, the results from 2014, and our recommendations for 2015 research and reporting. In the Appendices, we also compile major results and daily updates provided to processors, fishermen, managers, and the public during the 2014 season. Daily catch updates and interpretations in 2014 varied with the development of the salmon run, but typically summarized catches by station, mean body length, water temperature, and fishing conditions by date (Appendix A). Also appended are reports issued periodically by ADF&G throughout the season summarizing stock compositions (Appendix B) and age compositions (Appendix C) of the Port Moller catches, as well as daily run summaries of inshore catch and escapement to each fishing district (Appendix D).

OBJECTIVES

The 2014 Port Moller test fishing project was managed and staffed by the Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute (BBSRI) to achieve three main objectives:

1. Collect and report a variety of data useful for forecasting various descriptors of the run.

2. Inform stakeholder decisions by analyzing and interpreting these data to provide forecasts in a timely manner.

3. Continue research that improves our ability to achieve Objectives 1 and 2. In 2014, research consisted of the following:

a. Comparison of rates between fishing times of 20 and 60 minutes to improve data quality.

b. Consideration of new techniques for indexing catch at the PMTF, and subsequently forecasting run strength.

The five pertinent descriptors of the run are as follows: (1) magnitude, (2) timing, (3) entry

9


pattern, (4) stock composition, and (5) age composition. Run magnitude, stock, and age compositions are self-explanatory. Run timing is defined as how many days early or late the average day of return is compared to the historical average. Entry pattern refers to the shape of the distribution of daily C+E over time. The spatial resolution of these descriptors can be district specific or aggregated to represent the bay wide run. Furthermore, forecasts of these descriptors can be proximate (i.e., over the next several days, the range of which is determined by the TT estimate) or the remainder of the season (i.e., yearend). Yearend district specific forecasts are the most useful to stakeholders.

The data informing us about these descriptors vary with respect to the timing of their reliability in season. In chronological order they are as follows: (1) age composition, (2) stock composition, and (3) catch indices. Initial age and stock compositions are typically released by ADF&G after the 6th sampling trip at the PMTF (around June 21) and provide the first proximate forecasts of these descriptors. Districts differ as to when their catch indices become quasi-reliable for proximate forecasting of run magnitude. The Egegik and Nushagak-Wood Districts have the earliest run timing and begin to exhibit a more reliable relationship between PMTF catches and C+E around 25 June. The Naknek-Kvichak District follows a few days later (June 27-30); magnitude for the Ugashik District can begin to be forecasted around July 4. Yearend forecasts for all these descriptors, as well as run timing are not available until catches at the PMTF have peaked and then declined. The decline is necessary to know when the peak has occurred, after which the tail of the run can often be projected to forecast the remaining C+E. However, changes in the district specific estimates of FPI after about June 30 often obfuscate yearend forecasts.

STUDY AREA

Most Bristol Bay sockeye salmon reach the fishing districts between the end of June and the middle of July, with the peak in the fishery occurring on or around July 5. Sockeye salmon travel time from Port Moller to the Bristol Bay fishery usually takes about one week, so the PMTF has generally begun on June 10 or 11. Drift gillnets are set at stations located along a transect from Port Moller to Cape Newenham (Figure 1). Stations are 5 miles apart, with Station 1 being 30 miles offshore from Port Moller and Station 12 being 85 miles offshore. Prior to 1987, odd stations were fished on the outgoing trip, the vessel anchored overnight, and even stations were fished on the return trip (Eggers and Fried 1984). Beginning in 1987, only even stations were fished (Stations 2–8 and occasionally Station 10) during both the outbound and inbound trips. In 1999, fishing at Station 10 was resumed in response to the belief that the bulk of the run may have been further out, and in 2000 fishing occurred as far out as Station 14 (95 miles offshore; Flynn and Hilborn 2004). Usually, only five stations are fished: either Stations 2–10 or Stations 4–12, depending on the previous day’s offshore distribution.

METHODS

Net Description Historically (1987–2010), the PMTF net consisted of four 50-fathom shackles (1,200 ft) of multistrand monofilament dyed dark green (Momoi Shade 9), 60 meshes deep (approximately 20

10


ft), with 13.0 cm (5⅛ in) stretched mesh, and hung to a 2.1 to 1 ratio. This net (the “Traditional Net”) selects for ocean age-3 fish more than it does for ocean age-2 fish (hereafter, all fish ages are assumed to be ocean ages unless otherwise stated). Age-3 fish are typically about 6 cm larger than age-2 fish, which affects their susceptibility to being caught in a given mesh size. This bias causes the test fishing index to change as a function of the relative abundances for each of the age classes comprising a given year’s run. Further, it causes bias in the age composition forecasts and possibly to the stock composition estimates given that stocks differ in size structure.

Based on the results from a selectivity study (2009–2011), we developed a new, less selective net (the Replacement Net) consisting of alternating shackles of 5⅛ in mesh and 4½ in (11.4 cm) mesh. The idea was to equalize the selectivity across the four major age groups of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon (ages 1.2, 2.2, 1.3, and 2.3). Although the data collected with this net allowed for the estimation of selectivity models that can correct for residual selectivity left in the Replacement Net, we discovered that most of the selectivity across the combined raw catch was already removed. That is, 4½ in mesh selected for ocean age-2 fish by the same relative degree to which the 5⅛ in mesh selected more for ocean age-3 fish. As a result, these biases cancel each other when catches from both meshes are pooled, rendering the estimate of age composition fairly accurate of what is passing by the test fishery. Residual selectivity has been found to be nominal, our selectivity model was not used, and age composition forecasts were based only on raw catches pooled across both meshes from the Replacement Net. Since the start of the 2011 season, the Replacement Net has been the only net used in the PMTF.

Fish Sampling Protocol

Fish capture Drift gillnet sets lasted for approximately one hour, and deployment was perpendicular to the migratory path of the salmon on the north-south axis (Helton 1991). The vessel traveled on a course of 340° for out-going sets and a course of 160° on incoming sets. These bearings oriented the net roughly parallel to the transect bearing (designed to be perpendicular to the predominant migration trajectory of the sockeye salmon), which was on a line between Port Moller and the tip of Cape Newenham. Typically, two to three minutes were needed to deploy the full net. After setting the net, the vessel moved as far away as possible from the net while maintaining visual contact. This distance varied with conditions and was sometimes restricted to a few hundred meters during times of fog to 500 or more meters in good visibility and low sea states. To standardize effort among years, skippers, and vessels, no attempt was made to hook or run the net to try and increase catch.

Time was recorded when the trailing buoy was deployed, when the net was fully set, when retrieval began, and when the net was fully in. Catches were converted to catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE; fish per 200 fathom hours) to adjust for small differences in fishing times among sets (larger catches take longer to pick and cause the net to fish longer). Mean fishing time (MFT) in minutes for each set was calculated as:

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 − 𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹 + (𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹−𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹)+(𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹−𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹)2

(1)

Where, SO=time of day the gillnet first entered water, FO=time the gillnet was fully deployed,

11


SI=time the gillnet retrieval began, and FI=time the gillnet retrieval was completed. CPUE was then catch divided by MFT and multiplied by 60 to provide fish per 200 fathom-hours. Fish were identified to species and enumerated. Sockeye salmon were sexed, measured for length (mid eye fork length—MEFL), and sampled for age by placing one scale per fish on a scale card.

Age and stock composition Fish were sampled for age and stock composition analysis on the test fishery vessel’s deck immediately following each fishing event at each station.

For stock composition analysis, tissue samples were collected from sockeye salmon by clipping the axillary process of the pelvic fin. Tissues were placed into individually-coded trays, preserved with ethanol, and offloaded at the end of each sampling trip for shipment to Anchorage and genetic analysis at ADF&G’s Gene Conservation Laboratory (GCL). Thus, stock composition estimates from PMTF samples are usually made three to five days after sample collection. Appendix B shows the 2014 stock composition estimates reported by ADF&G.

For age composition analysis, scales were removed from all sockeye salmon captured, whenever possible. This sampling goal was routinely achieved, but occasionally was not attainable because of weather, gear problems, or exceptionally large catches. In such cases, the catch was sub-sampled as randomly and as extensively as was consistent with crew safety and time constraints.

Sockeye salmon scales were aged according to European notation (Koo 1962). Thus, numerals preceding the decimal refer to the number of freshwater annuli and numerals following the decimal refer to the number of marine annuli. Total age from time of egg deposition is the sum of these two numbers plus one to account for incubation time. Age estimations were made by ADF&G personnel in King Salmon using acetate impressions of scales under low (10x) magnification using a microfiche reader. The 2014 age composition estimates reported by ADF&G are included in Appendix C.

Formulating the Replacement Index Beginning in 1985, the daily Traditional Index (TIi) was standardized to the sum of CPUE (note that Traditional Index CPUE=fish per 100 fathom hours) for Stations 2, 4, 6, and 8 (Rogers et al. 1989, Helton 1991).

𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖 = 𝑆𝑆2𝑖𝑖 + 𝑆𝑆4𝑖𝑖 + 𝑆𝑆6𝑖𝑖 + 𝑆𝑆8𝑖𝑖 (2)

where, I2i-I8i = station and date (i) specific CPUEs (catch per 100 fathoms). Missing station points were interpolated by averaging the station specific daily indices from the two days prior to and the two days after the missing station point(s). In 1995, CPUE was highest at Station 8 causing suspicion that a substantial proportion of the run was further offshore (Flynn and Hilborn 2004). As a consequence, the Traditional Index was altered to:

𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖 = 0.8(𝑆𝑆2𝑖𝑖 + 𝑆𝑆4𝑖𝑖 + 𝑆𝑆6𝑖𝑖 + 𝑆𝑆8𝑖𝑖) (3)

in 1996, which gives double weight to Station 8 to account for fish passage further offshore. There was concern about causing confusion among laypersons because the magnitude of the TIi

values would change from what had been released in previous years (1985–1995). To minimize

12


this degree of change, the scalar 0.8 was used to reduce TIi and render the output from Equation 3 more congruous with Equation 2. In 2014, missing station-date specific values were interpolated by generating normal curves (predictive models) fit across stations (one curve) and through dates (the second curve) as per Flynn and Hilborn (2004).

In 2014 we used the daily abundance index formulated in 2011 (the Replacement Index, RIi) which was the average CPUE (catch per 200 fathom hours) across five stations from the entire Replacement Net (4½ in and 5⅛ in mesh combined) on a given day. We found this index easier to interpret and explain, while keeping the same statistical properties of the sum, which is what the Traditional Index is based on. The Replacement Index uses one more station than TIi and does not give double weight to Station 8. This extra station, and lower sensitivity of the index to Station 8, helps reduce random fluctuation from day to day and station-to-station and allow the index to better track abundance through time. The five stations comprising the Replacement Index shift across the transect depending on the offshore distribution.

To make catch and CPUE from the net used in 2011–2014 (the Replacement Net) comparable to historical data (the Traditional Index), we had to remove the portions of the catch that came from the 4½ in mesh (because this mesh was not used in the Traditional Net). Thus, only catches from the 5⅛ in mesh shackles (two shackles) have been used in Equation 3 starting in 2011. Catches were multiplied by 2 to make the effort correspond with previous years when catches came from the Traditional Net (four shackles of 5⅛ in mesh).

Forecasting Based on the PMTF Forecasts of age and stock composition, as well as run timing for C+E, were simply assumed to be equal to estimates observed at the PMTF through the most recent date. Forecasting run magnitude was more complicated. At the end of the 2011 PMTF project, we began developing a model to forecast the total run magnitude based on inseason catches only. This Daily Projection Model was based on an approach that differs from the historical forecasting method applied to Port Moller data in that it only uses information collected this season and not the historical relationship between cumulative indexes and resulting total runs from previous years. The Replacement Index projected the yearend run abundance for each district by estimating and applying the parameters of the travel time of fish from Port Moller to inshore (TT) and the fish-per-index (the number of fish inshore that each fish caught on the PMTF represents; FPI). At the end of 2013 and during 2014, we used the new district specific indices and updated Daily Projection Model in season, but modifications continue as our understanding of the spatiotemporal pattern of the run changes. Research and development of statistical models that forecast total run strength based on the PMTF are ongoing and will continue until an algorithm is discovered that is robust to annual variations in run entry pattern, timing, TT, as well as dynamics affecting the FPI.

Additional Experiments to Test Gillnet Saturation In 2012, we recommended testing for gillnet saturation by setting for a shorter length of time (20–30 min instead of 60 min). As first mentioned in 2012’s final report, we suspected gillnet saturation may inhibit the correlation between the magnitude of the PMTF catches and inshore catch and escapement. If a gillnet fished for about one hour is saturating (reducing fishing efficiency), then perhaps reducing the soak time would help correct this bias and better index

13


larger pushes of fish. Varying soak time to deal with gillnet saturation has precedence in the literature and has allowed for corrective models (e.g., Minns and Hurley 1988; Hansen et al. 1998; Rotherham et al. 2006).

In 2013 and 2014, we tested this hypothesis by setting the net for 20 minutes at the same station immediately following the routine 60-minute set. The boat moved 5 minutes west of the station being replicated before resetting.

Decisions regarding which stations to resample with shorter duration sets were made in 2014 as follows:

1. At the beginning of each day, a station was randomly selected to resample regardless of catch result.

2. Stations that produce a catch > 100 fish (but no more than once per day). 3. If the randomly selected station from Rule #1 produced > 100 fish, then Rule #2 was

disregarded. 4. If a reset occurred because of a catch > 100 fish before the randomly selected station, Rule #1

was disregarded.

Thus, the maximum target sample size of resets for any given day was no more than two, was typically one, and sometimes none when time and energy did not allow. The above rules were designed to give priority to resetting for high catch sets, while ensuring that low catch sets were represented as well. The effect of saturation is greater at higher catches; but, a few lower catches are needed for contrast in the data to facilitate modeling.

Inseason Reporting of PMTF Information Inseason, four types of information were distributed regularly using the BBSRI web site (http://www.bbedc.com/?page_id=1405.) and a list serve of 361 parties. Daily, catch summaries were distributed the evening catches were reported from the PMTF sampling crew. Interpretations of these catches were then usually distributed in the next 1-2 days, depending on how quickly meaningful new information developed. Finally, BBSRI staff distributed ADF&G’s genetic stock composition and age composition updates as they became available throughout the season. All four of these update types were numbered in sequence through the season (Appendices A – C).

We used the daily Replacement Index as an indicator of when peak abundance occurred at Port Moller, and to forecast peaks and drop offs in catch and escapement. The daily Replacement Index was reported in tabular format, as well as, in a figure to better illustrate the seasonal CPUE trend. We have warned about the unreliability of this approach in the past, but many stakeholders still rely on the cumulative Traditional Index to try and place the current year’s catch trends into a historical perspective. Thus, we reported the cumulative Traditional Index in tabular format along with date specific cumulative indexes and resulting total runs from previous years.

We occasionally reported graphs comparing water temperatures, and district specific daily indexes and forecasts (following the release of genetic stock composition estimates by ADF&G). Various other graphs and analyses were performed that helped gauge run strength (e.g., daily interpretations contained in Appendix A).

14

http://www.bbedc.com/?page_id=1405


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In 2014, the PMTF operated from June 10 to July 10 and caught 3,091 sockeye salmon. Inseason daily catch updates were sent out the same evening that catches were reported from the test boat; interpretive reports were usually sent out the following day as planned (Table 1). Genetic stock composition estimates were forwarded to the distribution list soon after receipt from ADF&G.

The Replacement Index Random fluctuation in the test fishery occurs due to sampling error, independent of the abundance of fish passing the fishing transect. Exacerbating this problem is variability in travel time between Port Moller and inshore; in other words, some fish may take 5 days while others 8 days, and so on. All of this combined variability can make it difficult to line up Port Moller catch indices with what occurs inshore. Further complicating the matter are openings/closures in the district fisheries which cause varying numbers of fish to pass the district fisheries unnoticed until days later when they pass the counting towers. Lagging escapement by the travel time between the fishing districts and their towers can cause the pattern in inshore C+E to vary as well. All of this suggests it is preferable to use a three day moving average to smooth catch indices, as well as inshore C+E before models are parameterized to fit the latter based on the former. In Figure 2 we show how removing fluctuation with a moving average helps to line up Port Moller with inshore C+E. It is clear that the FPI was lower before and after June 22–26 (assuming a TT=4 days).

The general catches increase at Port Moller to a peak anywhere from 20 June to 5 July followed by a decrease thereafter (Figure 3). Sometimes the run is triangular (2011) or has a predominant mode (2013), or is distinctly bimodal (2010 and 2012); but, typically catches begin to taper several days before the test fishery ends. The Replacement Index began sluggish for the first 5 days in 2014, but then increased to and fluctuated around an asymptote for the remainder of the season dropping off only slightly in the last two days of the test fishery.

Forecasting The information gathered during the 2014 PMTF was clearly useful. The value of this test fishery is greatest when the run develops smaller/larger than the preseason forecast and earlier/later than people expect. The 2014 sockeye salmon run to Bristol Bay was larger and later than anticipated (though still about two days earlier than the historical average from 1988 to 2014). Comparing the PMTF to the development of the inshore C+E across the major fishing districts after the season affords clarity of hindsight due to the availability of all possible data with which to estimate pertinent parameters such as TT and FPI. As well, it allows more time to research patterns and relationships that may not have been as forthcoming in season.

Below we assess how well Port Moller forecasted various aspects of the total run; for each aspect we provide a Postseason Summary that makes use of all information through the end of the season and review the Inseason Utility of the 2014 test fishery. The first facilitates research and understanding of how well the PMTF represented the run and perhaps the discovery of new signals and techniques that can be used in the future. The latter is more of a report card on the actual utility of Port Moller in 2014, which combines limitations of the data available in real time

15


as the run developed with our ability to interpret and use these data to inform stakeholders. Notable inseason interpretations are summarized in Table 2 and expounded in the sections below.

Run Magnitude Postseason Summary.—Catch indices specific to each of the major fishing districts were fit to their respective inshore C+Es with estimated TT and FPI parameters (Figure 4). Travel times were shortest for the Naknek-Kvichak and Nushagak-Wood Districts and longest for the Egegik and Ugashik Districts (Figure 3). The FPI fell earlier for the Ugashik District, on about the same date and at a very similar rate for the Naknek-Kvichak and Nushagak-Wood Districts, and not at all for the Egegik District (Figure 6). Interestingly, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across all stations began increasing around this time (Figure 7). While we can find little evidence that SST affects run timing, it may have influenced the run’s distribution across the fishing transect, which in turn affects catchability, and hence the FPI.

The similarity in the pattern of change in the FPI for the Naknek-Kvichak and Nushagak-Wood Districts is worth highlighting. These two districts were also the most similar with respect to their distributions across the fishing transect. Both were skewed towards the outer stations. If the FPI changes due to shifts in distribution across the transect, these two districts should be affected in a similar fashion. Ugashik occurs more towards the inner stations, which may explain why its pattern of change in FPI was decoupled from the other stocks. Egegik fish tend to pass through the middle of the transect (Station 6) more than any other district. Changes in its transect distribution during the season should therefore cause less change in FPI relative to other districts; the pattern in FPI observed in 2014 was consistent with this logic in that minimum change was observed for Egegik.

Inseason Utility.—During 2014, much of what we learned in previous years was implemented and proved useful in that our forecast successfully predicted a substantial departure from preseason expectations. The preseason forecast (released November 2013) was 26.5 million fish. With Interpretation #10 (released on June 29, 2014) we suspected it was stronger and made an inseason forecast of 30.9 million fish, calling for increases of 33% to the Egegik District and 55% to the Naknek-Kvichak District. After the sustained uptick in Port Moller catches through June 29, we stated with Interpretation #11 (released June 30) that the run was likely higher than 30 million. On July 2 (Interpretation #12), we upgraded the forecast to 38.3 million, with the Egegik, Naknek-Kvichak, and Nushagak-Wood Districts expected to be 55%, 72%, and 27% higher than their preseason forecasts. This inseason forecast was made when observed C+E was only 50% of the yearend tally. Moreover, everyone was expecting a much earlier run and just based on C+E through 30 June (the only estimates available when Interpretation #12 was released), it appeared the run was indeed much earlier and coming in close to forecast. We suggested the run was at least 44% larger. The final 2014 observed total inshore run was 40.1 million fish (52% larger than the preseason forecast) based on ADF&G’s inseason reporting of C+E.

Catches at the PMTF continued to fluctuate around an asymptote for the remainder of the season, suggesting that C+E could be sustained as well. This did not occur. The FPI often changes in July, which means a fish caught at Port Moller in July may not represent the same magnitude of C+E as that observed earlier in the season. Thus, even though Port Moller continued to have

16


sustained catches, on July 9 we left our forecast at 38.3 million until more C+E corresponding to these later catch indices allowed for retuning the FPI (Interpretation #13). By July 12 it was clear there was a substantial drop in FPI on or around June 27, and our final forecast put the run between 40 and 45 million (Interpretation #14). Research into the reasons why the FPI changes during the season is ongoing.

Stock Composition Forecasting Post-season Summary.—The stock composition estimates for the eight reported date periods at Port Moller were informative in 2014. Lagging observed C+E back to the PMTF by estimated travel times for each district facilitated comparisons of each report’s forecast success as to how the run would partition inshore (Figure 8). Reasons for discrepancies throughout the season included (1) inaccurate TT estimates, (2) within season changes in each district’s catchability, and (3) measurement error in the genetic stock composition estimates. District specific catch indexes were compared to their respective C+Es to render travel time distributions (Figure 4 and Figure 5). We found that changing these distributions had to occur in different directions across stocks by at least two days before the stock proportions at the PMTF appeared different enough from Figure 8 to alter our conclusions. For the most part the comparisons were robust to misspecification of this parameter. Most likely, changes in catchability occurred due to varying migratory routes for stocks through time, which affected exposure to the fishing transect.

The Naknek-Kvichak District stocks were over-represented in the PMTF June 22–25, corresponded almost exactly to expectations June 28 – July 1, and then were again over-represented July 2–5. The Egegik and Nushagak-Wood districts stocks were represented accurately in the PMTF. The Egegik District stock was a little underrepresented at PMTF towards the end, and the Nushagak-Wood District was underrepresented mid-season. The Ugashik District stock was consistently underrepresented in the PMTF.

Aligning stock composition estimates in this way helped to assess the plausibility of the TT parameters estimated from daily projection models. Replacing the observed C+E with inseason forecasts in 2014 provided a diagnostic for the forecast (Interpretation #10; see next section below). In the future, we will attempt to carry this exercise a step further by using the genetic stock composition estimates to help parameterize TT and FPI.

Inseason Utility.—During the season, we used a similar technique based on the preseason forecast to provide a crude diagnostic as to how the run was playing out based on genetic stock composition estimates compared to what was expected (Interpretations #8 and #9). This exercise did not have the advantage of estimated travel time distributions as the analysis described above and also relied on historical average run timings (the above was based on the observed run timing for 2014). Nevertheless, it began to indicate the run was misaligned from the forecast with the June 22-23 release of genetic stock composition estimates in that the Naknek-Kvichak was relatively stronger than the other districts disproportionately to what was expected (Interpretation #9). Replacing the preseason forecasts with our inseason estimate showed an improvement in these comparisons due to better TTs and an increase in the Naknek-Kvichak forecast relative to other stocks (Interpretation #10).

Age Composition Forecasting Postseason Summary.—In 2014, proportions of age 1.2 and 2.3 fish in the PMTF were

17


representative of age compositions observed in the Bristol Bay fishing districts (Figure 9). Ages 1.3 and 2.2, by contrast, were not representative until late in the season. First, the Nushagak-Wood District had the largest proportion of its run belonging to age 1.3 (41%) and the earliest run timing (Figures 10 and 11). Second, the proportion of age 1.3 fish was greater for both the Egegik and Naknek-Kvichak Districts early on and diminished as the season progressed; the opposite trend occurred for both districts with respect to age 2.2 fish (Figure 11). These trends caused the proportion of age 1.3 fish at the PMTF to be overrepresented and age 2.2 underrepresented early in the season.

Inseason Utility.—Age composition at Port Moller was misleading until July 4 – 5. Early on we tried to forecast the percent age-3 component based on average length of catch from the 5⅛ inch mesh (Interpretations #5 and #7). These predictions generally agreed with what was expected based on the preseason forecast and what was eventually estimated from aged Port Moller scales, but turned out to overestimate age 1.3s and underestimate age 2.2s for the reasons stated above.

Run Timing Forecasting Postseason Summary.—The 2014 PMTF was consistent with the historical relationship between run timing at Port Moller and inshore C+E (Figure 12). On average, the PMTF overestimates the earliness by about 2 days. That is, if the average date-of-return for the PMTF is equal to the historical average, then C+E will be about 2 days early. In 2014, the average date-of-return estimate for Port Moller was 0.2 days early (June 28 is the average for 1988–2014). The observed average date-of-return for C+E from all Bristol Bay districts combined was 2.3 days early (July 5 is the average for 1988–2014).

Inseason Utility.—Before the start of the season and well into the total run’s development inshore, general belief was that the run was four to six days early. The reasons why this belief was maintained longer than what PMTF data indicated were likely as follows: (1) in 2013 the run was six to seven days early, (2) water temperatures were warmer than average during 2014, and (3) a later run timing would have meant the run magnitude in 2014 was considerably larger than expected given the preseason forecast. We showed the lack of historical relationship in run timing between consecutive years with Interpretation #2; as well, there seemed to be no obvious effect of water temperature (Interpretations #1 and #2). By June 15 (Interpretation #4), we began to suspect that PMTF catches were too low for the run to be as early as four to six days. On July 2, we estimated run timing past the PMTF to be about two days early and used this to bolster our argument for a larger total run than forecasted preseason (Interpretation #12).

Experimental Sets to Test for Gillnet Saturation Since the end of the 2011 season we have suspected that gillnet saturation may affect PMTF catches. That is, the net will theoretically catch only so many fish and the rate at which fish are caught diminishes as catch accumulates. The idea is that fish caught initially spook subsequent fish, and this behavioral response continues as the net fills. Thus, a longer set results in a greater denominator (i.e., effort) without a concomitant increase in the numerator (catch).

Some have argued that similar nets are fished inshore in the commercial fishery and catch far more fish than the PMTF net, so how could lower catches at Port Moller cause saturation? Our reasoning is that the fishing environments are different between PMTF and Bristol Bay. At Port

18


Moller, fish passing the test fishing transect are less densely distributed, in much clearer water, with no surrounding disturbance to spook them (the test fishing boat moves away from the net to minimize the effect of its presence). Fish density is greater in the fishing districts following a closure, the water visibility is zero at times, and every effort is made by the fleet to maximize catch, all of which contribute to higher catches per set as compared to the PMTF.

Historical data indicate saturation might be occurring. Over the last 23 years, annual runs have been as large as 55 million fish and daily inshore abundance (catch plus escapement) during the peak week as high as 6 million fish. During this time, only four sets yielded catches greater than 250 fish in the PMTF (n=2,066 sets). In 2013, repeated routine 60 minute sets at 8 stations with 20 minute sets to test for saturation. This year, we added 10 sets to this dataset. Although there is noise around the relationship between paired longer and shorter sets, the overall trend suggests that saturation begins to occur around a Replacement Index of 50 (Figure 13).

Another reason why the longer sets have lower CPUE than shorter sets may be because longer sets have more time for the net to become folded by surface currents. Conversations with the skipper alerted us to potential significance of this phenomenon (T. Jewel, ADF&G, personal communication). We have always assumed that CPUE was based on fishing 200 fathoms of net for both short and long sets. If the net folds onto itself, however, it may be less effective because it is easier for fish to detect and because the total length of net actually fishing is reduced. This occurrence would render lower catches than if the net were stretched to its full capacity, and the results would mimic the effects of net saturation. Commercial fishermen prevent this occurrence by stretching and slightly hooking the net to prevent folding and maximize exposure to passing fish. A shorter duration set reduces the chances of the net folding, and should yield more accurate and precise CPUEs.

The occurrence of saturation and net folding during longer sets are not mutually exclusive; in fact, folding may magnify saturation if folding occurs when many fish are passing by. Folding may also explain some of the noise in the relationship depicted in Figure 13. Regardless, if either of the two occurs during peak passage days at Port Moller, projections of run timing and magnitude based on the PMTF catches may get dampened and possibly skewed. At the very least it obfuscates interpretation of signals in the test fishery catches. Converting to shorter sets should help to alleviate both saturation and net folding.

FUTURE WORK AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Changing the Net Fishing Time Based on the results from the shorter experimental sets made during 2013 and 2014, it seems clear that shorter sets produce higher CPUE values (i.e., catch indices) than routine 60 min sets when catches are high. As discussed above, the reasons for this include saturation, more time for net folding, or both during the 60 min set. Twenty minute sets would alleviate both problems. Therefore, we propose that in 2015 the 60 min sets get dropped altogether and replaced with two 20 min sets at each station. The total fishing time will be reduced and mostly offset the extra time for handling an extra set at each station.

Shorter sets should produce enough samples to maintain the current resolution in genetic stock

19


composition estimates through time and space. The 18 paired short and long sets over the past two years produced a total of 484 and 953 fish, respectively. Based on this ratio, doubling the number of short sets should ensure a total catch comparable to one 60 min set.

Finally, getting two index points per day at each station versus one, as is currently the case, will help reduce random noise in the index due to sampling error; the two will simply be averaged to provide a daily index for each station. Furthermore, this approach will provide an estimate of sampling error, which may prove informative about run magnitude. That is, we expect catches from repeated sets to be less variable during the peak days of passage.

Improvements to the District Specific Catch Indices and the Daily Projection Model We will continue research and development of the Daily Projection Model. Anticipated improvements include district-specific Port Moller catch indices and better interpolations for missed fishing days due to weather. How the index changes across the PMTF transect throughout the season is being investigated to explain fluctuations in the FPI parameter. Finally, we may be able to utilize both age and stock compositions to directly estimate the FPI and TT parameters. As it is now, they merely serve as visual diagnostics for how well the forecast from the Daily Projection Model fits the data.

Reporting of Stock Composition across Stations We recommend greater resolution in stock composition estimates to improve our method of producing district-specific catch indices from the PMTF. Currently, genetics samples are selected in proportion to catches across stations generally combining two consecutive days. The first release of the year combines more days due to low catches, and hence low sample sizes. This sampling scheme provides the greatest possible temporal resolution in stock composition estimates given the budgetary constraints of the project. In 2014, the GCL recombined the analyzed samples to provide stock composition estimates by station for June 10–25. These results were pivotal in forming our district specific indices. Even more beneficial would have been similar estimates for the remainder of the year with as high a resolution as the analyzed samples would allow. Assuming most of the costs occurs during sample analysis, rerunning alternate combinations of the analyzed samples for new mixture estimates by station should require little if any additional funding.

The Influence of Tide During 2012 we suggested that each daily catch index may be influenced by whether the test fishing boat was starting or ending its two-day trip. Our hypothesis was that except for Station 6, the time of day at which each station was fished depends on whether the boat was inbound or outbound, which in turn determined the tidal stage occurring during each set.

Because Station 6 was in the middle of the transect, it was fished around the same time (noon) each day. The daily tidal schedule changes throughout the season and certainly across years, but a quick overview of the daily Traditional Indexes patterns in previous years frequently show a daily cyclical pattern overridden by the season rise and fall in the migration. The variability removed from the catch index magnitude and timing pattern in each year may be substantial if this effect can be quantified.

20


Beginning in 2010, the skipper of the R/V Pandalus began recording the coordinates of the gillnet buoy at the beginning and end of each set. The distance between the beginning and ending coordinates divided by the set duration should index the water current speed and direction. These data may be more informative than time-of-day or tide, because they will account for any directional shifts in surface currents due to wind in addition to tide. Future work should include analyses to assess the effect of tide on variability in catch indices.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The 2014 Port Moller test fishing project was managed and staffed by the Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute (BBSRI). The project was funded by ADF&G, BBSRI, ten Bristol Bay processors, and by Bristol Bay driftnet fishermen (through the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association, or BB-RSDA). Processors were Canfisco (AGS/Leader Creek), Deep Sea Fisheries, E&E Seafoods, Ekuk Fisheries, Icicle Seafoods, North Pacific Seafoods, Ocean Beauty, Peter Pan Seafoods, Silver Bay Seafoods, and Trident Seafoods.

Field data were collected by BBSRI technicians Amos Cernohauz, Levi Caldwell, and Kevin Lepola, Jr. The R/V Pandalus was provided by ADF&G, and crewed by captain Ted Jewel, engineer David Knight, and deck hand Margaret Archibald. Fred West and Chuck Brazil (ADF&G) managed the scale aging operation in King Salmon and provided the age composition updates. Tyler Dann (ADF&G) managed the laboratory analysis for genetic stock identification and provided the stock composition updates. Sean Burril and Justin Priest reviewed this report. For logistical help, we also thank Bob Murphy’s staff at the ADF&G office in Port Moller, and Mark Briski and George Sudar’s staff at Peter Pan Seafoods in Port Moller. This on-site help in Port Moller is essential to the project’s success.

Although none of this is possible without the help of ADF&G personnel and funding, our interpretations were by no means “official” ADF&G interpretations of the PMTF data or the Bristol Bay run.

REFERENCES

Eggers, D. M., and S. M. Fried. 1984. 1982 Bristol Bay salmon test fishing projects. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Technical Data Report No. 117. 81 pp.

Flynn, L., and R. Hilborn. 2004. Test fishery indices for sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) as affected by age composition and environmental variables. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 61:80-92.

Hansen, M. J., R. G. Schorfhaar, and J. H. Selgeby. 1998. Gill-net saturation by lake trout in Michigan waters of Lake Superior. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:847-853.

Helton, D. 1991. An analysis of the Port Moller offshore test fishing forecast of sockeye and chum salmon runs to Bristol Bay, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. Thesis No. 38816.

21


Koo, T. S. Y. 1962. Age designation in salmon. Pages 37 - 48 in T.S.Y. Koo, editor. Studies of Alaska red salmon. University of Washington Publications in Fisheries, New Series, Volume I, Seattle, Washington.

Minns, C. K., and D. A. Hurley. 1988. Effects of net length and set time on fish catches in gill nets. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:216-223.

Randall, R. C. 1977. Offshore test fishing in Bristol Bay, 1977. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Technical Data Report No. 63. 18 pp.

Rogers, D., B. Rogers, G. Blair, and D. Helton. 1989. Alaska Salmon Research: Annual Report 1989. University of Washington, Seattle. FRI-UW-8903.

Rotherham, D., C. A. Gray, M. K. Broadhurst, D. D. Johnson, L. M. Barnes, and M. V. Jones. 2006. Sampling estuarine fish using multi-mesh gill nets; effects of panel length and soak and setting times. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 331:226-239.

22


TABLES

23


Table 1. Sampling dates and time of corresponding update for four main types of inseason information from the Port Moller Test Fishery in 2014. Updates were sent by email and posted to the project’s web site at http://www.bbedc.com/?page_id=1405.

Date of test fishery sampling

BBSRI daily catch update

BBSRI catch interpretation

ADF&G stock composition estimates (forwarded by BBSRI)

ADF&G age composition estimates (forwarded by

BBSRI)

06/10/14 6/10/14 11:17 PM 6/11/14 9:25 PM06/11/14 6/11/14 9:27 PM06/12/14 6/12/14 8:44 PM 6/13/14 12:15 AM06/13/14 6/13/14 6:48 PM 6/14/14 3:25 PM06/14/14 6/14/14 10:01 PM06/15/14 6/15/14 8:04 PM 6/15/14 11:05 PM 6/18/14 9:35 AM06/16/14 6/16/14 7:51 PM 6/17/14 12:37 PM06/17/14 6/17/14 4:54 PM06/18/14 6/18/14 8:13 PM06/19/14 6/19/14 2:00 PM06/20/14 6/20/14 8:43 PM06/21/14 6/21/14 7:39 PM 6/21/14 8:26 PM 6/24/14 9:10 AM06/22/14 6/22/14 11:00 PM 6/23/14 1:17 PM06/23/14 6/23/14 8:40 PM 6/26/14 6:15 PM 6/27/14 4:34 PM06/24/14 6/24/14 9:40 PM 6/24/14 10:42 PM06/25/14 6/25/14 7:02 PM 6/28/14 2:33 PM 6/29/14 9:09 PM06/26/14 6/26/14 8:22 PM 6/26/14 10:58 PM06/27/14 6/26/14 8:22 PM06/28/14 6/28/14 9:39 PM 6/29/14 2:18 PM06/29/14 6/29/14 6:27 PM 7/1/14 8:06 PM 7/1/14 2:49 PM06/30/14 6/30/14 10:25 PM 6/30/14 10:46 PM07/01/14 7/1/14 9:32 PM 7/2/14 1:24 AM 7/3/14 7:31 PM 7/7/14 7:33 AM07/02/14 7/2/14 9:24 PM 7/9/14 6:49 AM07/03/14 7/3/14 7:17 PM 7/6/14 9:41 PM07/04/14 7/4/14 10:53 PM07/05/14 7/5/14 8:08 PM 7/9/14 5:34 PM07/06/14 7/6/14 9:27 PM07/07/14 7/7/14 9:24 PM 7/9/14 5:08 PM07/08/14 7/8/14 9:56 PM07/09/14 7/9/14 9:37 PM07/10/14 7/10/14 9:55 PM 7/12/14 12:21 PM 7/12/14 11:14 AM

24

http://www.bbedc.com/?page_id=1405


25

Table 2. Substantive comments and predictions in the daily interpretations of the 2014 Port Moller Test Fishery.

Interpretation # Date sent Summary of analyses and predictions Did the prediction(s) come true?

1 11-JunWarned against relying on sea surface temperatures (SSTs) for predicting run timing (RT) of catch + escapement (C+E). Provided a graph of RT versus SST for the aggregate run to that effect.

2 13-JunConfirmed the lack of relationship between RT and SST by each district. Further showed no relationship between consecutive years. Provided graph showing that RT past PM can reasonably predict RT of C+E by June 30.

3 14-JunProvided the cumulative Traditional Index table comparing the current season to the time series. Showed why it does not work to compare the current year's cumulative index to previous years.

4 15-Jun Mentioned that the low catch index values through 15 June cast doubt on the run being as early as everyone expected.

Yes--General belief was 4-6 d early. Wound up being 2 d early.

5 17-JunPredicted the ocean age-3 run proportion based on mean fish length through June 16. This allowed a cursory look at the anticipated age composition and comparison to the preseason forecast before ADF&G released estimates at PM based on sampled scales. This year, the first release was delayed.

Yes and No--Predicted 48%; subsequent ADF&G estimate at PM was 52%; final C+E was 26%.

6 21-Jun Predicted catches should pick up starting around June 27-30.

A little off--Catches picked up 1-2 d before that due to shorter than expected travel times. As well, we missed more fish than we thought by not fishing June 17-19.

7 23-JunUpdated prediction of the percent ocean age-3 component because of the delayed release of age composition estimates for PM. Mentioned how it corroborated the expectation given the preseason forecast (44%).

Yes and No--Predicted 45%; ADF&G estimate at PM was 43%; final C+E was 26%.

8 24-JunCompared PM genetics to those expected based on the preseason forecast. Interpreted as no reason to doubt the preseason forecast, but that the Nak-Kvi district may be stronger than expected.

Yes and no--Preason forecast was wrong; Nak-Kvi was stronger than expected.

9 26-JunStated that the peak at PM had occurred or it would be bimodal past PM. Intrepreted all data to mean the pre-season was still possible, but again suspected the Nak-Kvi was looking stronger than expected.

Yes and no--Preason forecast was wrong; Nak-Kvi was stronger than expected.

10 29-JunMade our first inseason forecast of 30.9 million. Called for Egegik to be 33% stronger, the Nak-Kvi to be 50% stronger, and the Nush-Wood to be 8% weaker than expected.

No--Run was 40.9 million. Egegik and Nak-Kvi were stronger, but by way more than predicted.

11 30-Jun Stated the run was likely higher than 30 million, but needed more C+E inshore to update specific forecast. Yes

12 2-Jul Estimated the run to be 2 d early. Updated the forecast to 38.3 million.Yes--run was 2 d early. This forecast was much closer to the final than what most were thinking.

13 9-JulSaw unexpected increase in catches at PM, but did not update the forecast. We suspected the fish per index (FPI) had dropped off and that the sustained magnitude of the PM index would not manifest by the same relative amount inshore.

Yes

14 12-Jul Predicted the run would break 40 million and may go as high as 45 million. Yes15 15-Sep Season summary.


FIGURES

26


Figure 1. Map of the study area, showing the stations fished by the Port Moller Test Fishery and the locations of Bristol Bay fishing districts. Sockeye salmon passing the test fishery stations take approximately six to nine days to reach the Bristol Bay fishing districts.

27


Figure 2. Aggregate catch + escapement (C+E) observed (gray bars) inshore, as well as the Port

Moller Test Fishery’s daily Replacement Index (black line). Both responses are rescaled to a maximum value = 1. The top graph reflects values reported as observed (colored circles indicated days not fished, whereby were interpolated). The middle graph shows values smoothed with a 3-day moving average. The bottom graph depicts the Replacement Index moved forward by 4 days. Red dashed lines connect days exhibiting relatively constant fish-per-index values; before and after these days, the fish-per-index values were substantially lower.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

10-J

un12

-Jun

14-J

un16

-Jun

18-J

un20

-Jun

22-J

un24

-Jun

26-J

un28

-Jun

30-J

un2-

Jul

4-Ju

l6-

Jul

8-Ju

l10

-Jul

12-J

ul14

-Jul

16-J

ul18

-Jul

20-J

ul

Val

ue re

scal

ed to

max

imum

=1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

10-J

un12

-Jun

14-J

un16

-Jun

18-J

un20

-Jun

22-J

un24

-Jun

26-J

un28

-Jun

30-J

un2-

Jul

4-Ju

l6-

Jul

8-Ju

l10

-Jul

12-J

ul14

-Jul

16-J

ul18

-Jul

20-J

ul

Val

ue re

scal

ed to

max

imum

=1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

10-J

un12

-Jun

14-J

un16

-Jun

18-J

un20

-Jun

22-J

un24

-Jun

26-J

un28

-Jun

30-J

un2-

Jul

4-Ju

l6-

Jul

8-Ju

l10

-Jul

12-J

ul14

-Jul

16-J

ul18

-Jul

20-J

ul

Val

ue re

scal

ed to

max

imum

=1

28


Figure 3. The daily Replacement Index from the Port Moller Test Fishery 2010–2014, with each

year rescaled to a maximum value=1.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

10-J

un

12-J

un

14-J

un

16-J

un

18-J

un

20-J

un

22-J

un

24-J

un

26-J

un

28-J

un

30-J

un

2-Ju

l

4-Ju

l

6-Ju

l

8-Ju

l

10-J

ul

Rep

lace

mne

nt In

dex

resc

aled

to m

axim

um=1

2014

2010

29


Figure 4. Catch + escapement (C+E) observed (gray bars) inshore for each of the major fishing

districts. The black line with circles is the Port Moller Test Fishery catch index (scale not shown) tailored for each district using stock composition estimates. The red line is inshore C+E projected from the index by sliding it forward with estimated travel times (TT; Figure 5) and raising it to the level of C+E with estimated fish-per-index parameters (FPI’s; Figure 6). Run timing for 2014 relative to the historical average (1988–2014) was given for each district’s C+E. Figure continues on next page.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

15-J

un

17-J

un

19-J

un

21-J

un

23-J

un

25-J

un

27-J

un

29-J

un

1-Ju

l

3-Ju

l

5-Ju

l

7-Ju

l

9-Ju

l

11-J

ul

13-J

ul

15-J

ul

17-J

ul

19-J

ul

C+E

(mill

ions

)

UgashikRT=1.5 days early

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

15-J

un

17-J

un

19-J

un

21-J

un

23-J

un

25-J

un

27-J

un

29-J

un

1-Ju

l

3-Ju

l

5-Ju

l

7-Ju

l

9-Ju

l

11-J

ul

13-J

ul

15-J

ul

17-J

ul

19-J

ul

C+E

(mill

ions

)

EgegikRT=2.0 days early

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

15-J

un

17-J

un

19-J

un

21-J

un

23-J

un

25-J

un

27-J

un

29-J

un

1-Ju

l

3-Ju

l

5-Ju

l

7-Ju

l

9-Ju

l

11-J

ul

13-J

ul

15-J

ul

17-J

ul

19-J

ul

C+E

(mill

ions

)

Naknek-KvichakRT=2.4 days early

30


Figure 4 (continued). Catch + escapement (C+E) observed (gray bars) inshore for each of the

major fishing districts.

Figure 5. Estimated distributions of travel times (TTs) between the Port Moller Test Fishery and

each major fishing district. Estimates were based on the daily projection model for each district in 2014 (see Figure 4).

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

15-J

un

17-J

un

19-J

un

21-J

un

23-J

un

25-J

un

27-J

un

29-J

un

1-Ju

l

3-Ju

l

5-Ju

l

7-Ju

l

9-Ju

l

11-J

ul

13-J

ul

15-J

ul

17-J

ul

19-J

ul

C+E

(mill

ions

)

Nushagak-WoodRT=3.7 days early

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Estim

ated

pro

porti

on o

f fis

h

Travel time (days)

UgashikEgegikNaknek-KvichakNushagak-Wood

31


Figure 6. Estimated fish-per-index (FPI) values for each major fishing district based on respective test fishing indexes and daily projection models (Figure 4). Because each test fishing index is tailored to its district, magnitudes of the actual FPI values are not comparable across districts. All FPIs were standardized to a beginning value = 1 to visualize how initial values were estimated to change on 27 June [values were held constant 10 June–26 July]. Values for the Naknek-Kvichak and Nushagak-Wood districts were similar.

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

25-J

un26

-Jun

27-J

un28

-Jun

29-J

un30

-Jun

1-Ju

l2-

Jul

3-Ju

l4-

Jul

5-Ju

l6-

Jul

7-Ju

l8-

Jul

9-Ju

l10

-Jul

Stan

dard

ized

FPI

Date of test fishing

Ugashik

Egegik

Naknek-Kvichak

Nushagak-Wood

32


Figure 7. Sea surface temperatures at each station of the Port Moller Test Fishery throughout the

2014 season.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

10-Jun 14-Jun 18-Jun 22-Jun 26-Jun 30-Jun 4-Jul 8-Jul

Sea

surf

ace

tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

Date

Station 2 (mean=8.9)Station 4 (mean=9.0)Station 6 (mean=8.9)Station 8 (mean=8.8)Station 10 (mean=8.9)

33


Figure 8. Stock composition by district for catches from the Port Moller Test Fishery. Dates are

relative to the test fishery; U=Ugashik, E=Egegik, N-K=Naknek-Kvichak, and N-W=Nushagak-Wood. Catch + escapement (C+E) from each district were lagged backwards to the PMTF using travel time (TT) distributions estimated from daily projection models and then used to estimate expected proportions (Figures 3 and 4).

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

U E N-K N-W

Proo

porit

on o

f PM

TF ca

tch

From PMTF genetic samplesFrom C+E lagged backwards by TT

June 10-15

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

U E N-K N-W

June 28-29

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

U E N-K N-W

Proo

porit

on o

f PM

TF ca

tch June 20-21

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

U E N-K N-W

June 30-July 1

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

U E N-K N-W

Proo

porit

on o

f PM

TF ca

tch June 22-23

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

U E N-K N-W

July 2-3

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

U E N-K N-W

Proo

porit

on o

f PM

TF ca

tch June 24-25

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

U E N-K N-W

July 4-5

34


Figure 9. Age composition estimates of the 2014 total run. Preseason forecasts by age are

indicated by square, colored markers on the left. Corresponding lines represent estimates based on scale samples taken at the PMTF and are cumulative through each reporting date. Colored circles on the right indicate final age composition for the inshore C+E and represent what the squares and lines are trying to forecast.

Figure 10. Cumulative proportion of catch + escapement (C+E) by date for the Port Moller Test Fishery in 2014.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Pre-season 10-Jun 16-Jun 20-Jun 22-Jun 24-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 2-Jul 4-Jul 6-Jul 8-Jul Final C+E15-Jun 16-Jun 21-Jun 23-Jun 25-Jun 29-Jun 1-Jul 3-Jul 5-Jul 7-Jul 10-Jul

Prop

ortio

n of

the

age

com

posi

tion

Age 2.2

Age 1.2

Age 2.3

Age 1.3 Age 2.2

Age 1.2

Age 2.3

Age 1.3

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

10-J

un

12-J

un

14-J

un

16-J

un

18-J

un

20-J

un

22-J

un

24-J

un

26-J

un

28-J

un

30-J

un

2-Ju

l

4-Ju

l

6-Ju

l

8-Ju

l

10-J

ul

12-J

ul

14-J

ul

16-J

ul

18-J

ul

20-J

ul

22-J

ul

24-J

ul

26-J

ul

28-J

ul

30-J

ul

Cum

ulat

ive

prop

ortio

n of

C+E

UgashikEgegikNaknek-KvichakNushagak-Wood

35


Figure 11. Age composition of the primary age classes for catch + escapement (C+E) in

three of the major fishing districts in Bristol Bay, 2014.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

23-Jun 25-Jun 26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 4-Jul 8-Jul 10-Jul 13-Jul 21-Jul

2-Jun 24-Jun 26-Jun 27-Jun 29-Jun 1-Jul 5-Jul 9-Jul 11-Jul 14-Jul

Prop

ortio

n of

the

age

com

posit

ion

Age 2.2

Age 1.2

Age 2.3

Age 1.3

Egegik

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

24-Jun 26-Jun 29-Jun 30-Jun 2-Jul 5-Jul 9-Jul 11-Jul 13-Jul 21-Jul10-Jun 25-Jun 27-Jun 30-Jun 1-Jul 3-Jul 6-Jul 10-Jul 12-Jul 14-Jul

Prop

ortio

n of

the

age

com

posi

tion

Age 2.2

Age 1.2

Age 2.3

Age 1.3

Naknek-Kvichak

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

24-Jun 26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 4-Jul 8-Jul 21-Jul10-Jun 25-Jun 27-Jun 29-Jun 1-Jul 5-Jul 11-Jul

Prop

ortio

n of

the

age

com

posi

tion

Age 2.2

Age 1.2

Age 2.3

Age 1.3

Nushagak-Wood

36


Figure 12. Timing for inshore catch + escapement (C+E) (all districts combined) versus timing

for catches at the Port Moller Test Fishery. Timing is calculated by subtracting the average-day-of-return for each year from the mean of these averages across years (1988-2014). The average-day-of-return for a given year was calculated as the average of the dates weighted by C+E/test fishing catch on those dates. Numbers within markers indicate year.

8889

9091

92

93

94

95

9697

9899

0002

03

0405

06 0708

09

10

11

12

13

14

y = 0.60x - 0.13R² = 0.65

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8-6-4-202468

C+E

run

timin

g (d

ays)

Port Moller run timing (days)Early

Early

Late

Late

28-June

5-July

37


Figure 13. Comparison of catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) from sets lasting ~20 min made

immediately following standard sets lasting for ~ 60 min. Dark points were 2013 sets and light points were 2014. The red line indicates how points would be centered if no saturation was occurring. The black regression line is defined by the equation given, which was used to adjust all CPUE values from the standard sets throughout the season when developing district-specific indexes.

y = 0.23x1.42

R² = 0.59

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225

CPU

E fr

om 2

0 m

in se

t

CPUE from 60 min set

38


APPENDICES

39

APPENDIX A

BBSRI’S SEASON INTRODUCTION, FINAL SEASON CATCH UPDATE, AND INSEASON DAILY INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE PORT MOLLER TEST

FISHERY IN 2014


Appendix A Page A1

Email from Matt Nemeth to the Port Moller list serve to introduce the 2014 inseason communication. Sent June 6, 2014 at 07:26 am. Hello everyone, It is that time of year again. The R/V Pandalus is en route to Port Moller, and will begin fishing on June 10. I will send out the first catch update from the Port Moller Test Fishery later that night. Communications this year will be similar to 2013:

• Each night, I will mail out a Catch Update showing catches through that day; the Index will be added to this update after a few days (example from 2013 is attached).

• The next day, Dr. Scott Raborn will follow with a Daily Interpretation of the test fishery results. • As they become available, we will also forward the age composition and stock composition

estimates developed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. One addition this year is that we will post the same information to the web. I will send you the web address once the page is proofed and operational. **************************************************************************************************************** If you received this email, it means you are on our official mailing list. If you wish to stay on, don’t do anything. If you wish to be removed, email me back. And if you know of someone who’d like to be added, they should simply email me. I’ll try to respond to all emails, but may be unable at times due to high volume. Good fishing to all, Matt Nemeth BBSRI


Appendix A Page A2

2014 Port Moller Test Fishery: Daily Catch Update

Date 4½ FT 5⅛ 4½ FT 5⅛ 4½ FT 5⅛ 4½ FT 5⅛ 4½ FT 5⅛ 4½ FT 5⅛ 4½ 5⅛10-Jun 3 66 1 1 57 4 0 58 3 12 61 27 2 53 6 18 41 12 4911-Jun 0 56 2 4 58 0 5 59 1 17 62 1 5 60 2 31 6 7 412-Jun 1 59 5 0 61 3 0 61 4 1 61 4 1 62 10 3 26 6 1613-Jun 0 59 6 4 57 12 2 58 14 5 59 0 3 58 3 14 35 10 2714-Jun 21 61 2 1 54 6 3 59 7 9 60 7 8 60 3 42 25 14 2415-Jun 1 59 0 1 59 1 1 59 0 0 58 0 3 59 10 6 11 3 116-Jun 0 58 0 5 61 1 15 57 13 5 60 12 1 51 19 26 45 15 3117-Jun 19 4618-Jun 22 5319-Jun 25 6020-Jun 0 52 1 13 60 3 22 61 12 7 62 25 8 59 9 50 50 20 5121-Jun 0 59 2 21 61 12 59 65 59 29 59 29 16 60 4 125 106 44 10222-Jun 8 58 2 30 60 32 18 56 16 1 57 5 4 58 8 61 63 26 4923-Jun 0 59 0 43 61 37 40 62 34 29 61 38 19 62 25 131 134 52 11524-Jun 11 60 7 31 64 60 31 59 29 34 59 27 5 57 5 112 128 47 11825-Jun 4 60 2 0 55 0 0 54 1 30 59 49 0 57 5 34 57 19 8226-Jun 1 60 5 13 59 15 26 61 22 5 55 12 45 54 27 5427-Jun 0 0 40 5828-Jun 7 55 1 0 58 9 34 62 25 40 61 22 37 61 16 118 73 38 6229-Jun 22 60 29 27 60 31 35 61 34 84 94 46 9030-Jun 6 58 2 36 60 17 24 60 24 33 61 19 35 61 15 134 77 42 641-Jul 10 61 16 15 59 10 7 59 12 30 62 14 10 58 33 72 85 31 522-Jul 0 57 0 20 61 33 14 61 45 25 57 17 29 63 22 88 117 41 903-Jul 0 61 14 35 65 41 24 63 27 16 59 17 18 60 30 93 129 43 904-Jul 0 58 2 26 63 27 20 60 28 35 59 37 26 59 20 107 114 44 1055-Jul 2 59 2 42 62 30 35 63 56 20 60 28 7 57 5 106 121 44 1126-Jul 2 62 0 25 59 1 17 60 29 24 63 39 39 62 17 107 86 38 837-Jul 3 60 4 6 58 11 18 59 22 12 60 26 23 60 12 62 75 28 728-Jul 18 61 5 32 59 3 35 60 25 46 63 52 11 59 38 142 123 52 1069-Jul 9 62 23 2 56 11 5 58 15 17 61 28 10 60 16 43 93 27 8410-Jul 5 25 0 11 21 14 4 19 1 9 21 1 29 16 32 39

1500 1591

Date 4½ 5⅛ 4½ 5⅛ 4½ 5⅛ 4½ 5⅛ 4½ 5⅛ 4½ 5⅛ 4½ 5⅛ 2 4 6 8 1010-Jun 552 534 479 563 512 484 543 488 549 496 543 12 49 8.0 8.4 7.0 8.2 8.3 8.011-Jun 576 482 479 560 518 573 481 524 501 556 19 53 8.3 8.4 8.5 7.9 7.9 8.212-Jun 532 536 581 528 539 570 560 528 544 542 25 69 8.4 8.1 8.2 7.7 8.4 8.213-Jun 507 521 550 572 544 531 577 536 544 539 35 96 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.3 8.2 8.314-Jun 516 526 450 551 574 532 495 528 517 575 514 540 49 119 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.4 8.1 8.215-Jun 486 453 558 460 476 547 471 548 52 120 8.3 8.4 7.9 7.9 7.8 8.116-Jun 549 491 538 553 535 533 487 528 538 536 67 151 8.5 8.4 7.9 8.0 7.9 8.117-Jun 86 19718-Jun 108 25019-Jun 133 31020-Jun 507 507 547 510 539 497 531 494 519 505 531 153 362 7.0 7.5 7.5 7.0 8.0 7.421-Jun 528 534 533 519 534 518 538 511 522 520 534 197 464 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.222-Jun 489 551 535 546 527 551 465 515 505 534 523 543 223 513 7.0 7.5 7.7 6.0 7.0 7.023-Jun 520 536 522 541 511 535 530 529 520 536 274 628 6.2 7.6 6.2 7.2 6.8 6.824-Jun 512 566 510 533 515 522 521 521 509 527 515 530 322 746 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.8 7.5 7.125-Jun 570 561 521 517 511 534 523 515 340 829 6.7 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.026-Jun 450 535 513 544 532 541 554 535 527 540 367 883 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.8 NA 7.227-Jun 407 96728-Jun 534 546 517 510 540 512 523 517 525 514 529 445 1029 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.1 8.329-Jun 513 524 505 525 524 515 515 521 490 1119 8.0 8.3 8.5 8.330-Jun 523 582 532 524 521 524 529 518 524 532 527 526 532 1183 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.6 8.9 8.71-Jul 501 530 526 518 508 535 514 524 508 528 513 528 564 1236 9.2 9.1 9.1 8.6 8.8 9.02-Jul 517 529 513 528 517 551 527 526 520 531 604 1326 9.1 9.3 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.43-Jul 543 523 535 524 526 533 536 532 529 527 533 647 1415 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.9 9.8 10.14-Jul 542 512 514 513 524 521 520 504 530 513 522 691 1520 10.2 11.0 11.5 11.8 11.9 11.35-Jul 471 559 504 544 516 533 507 531 517 545 509 536 735 1632 11.5 11.6 11.8 11.7 10.5 11.46-Jul 560 518 617 517 533 510 531 512 530 515 532 773 1716 11.3 11.6 11.5 11.1 11.2 11.37-Jul 533 544 507 543 515 523 502 545 527 517 517 534 801 1788 11.9 11.3 11.3 11.1 11.0 11.38-Jul 516 556 523 560 506 531 522 519 523 521 518 525 853 1893 11.9 11.6 11.6 11.4 11.1 11.59-Jul 527 540 466 512 536 528 525 537 525 533 524 533 880 1977 11.9 11.7 11.5 11.1 11.3 11.510-Jul 542 504 532 500 530 530 539 518 532 912 2016 11.9 11.7 11.7 11.8 11.8

518 532 8.2 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.3

Page 1 of 1

Partly cloudy; NW winds 15 kts; seas 2-3'

6

Not yet reportedNot yet reported

c Length is measured as mid-eye-fork-length (MEFL) in mm; to put things into perspective, mean MEFL for ocean age-2 fish=504 mm; 3-ocean=571 mm.

Cum Trad Index

Weightedmeans

Totals 112 104 417 393

533

Overcast; winds light, variable; calm seasNot yet reported

Transect mean

Water temperature (°C) by station

481 553 518 567 355

8 10 12

3091

Cum Rep Index

Overcast; W winds ~ 20 kt; seas 4 - 5 '

Not yet reported

Overcast; NE winds 2 kts; calm seas

Overcast; W winds 0 - 15 kt; seas 2 - 4'Partly sunny; E winds 3 -7 kts; seas 1'

Overcast; W winds 10 kts; seas 2-3';

Partly cloudy; NW winds 2-17 kts; seas 1-4'Partly cloudy; E winds 7-25 kts; seas 2-5'

Overcast; Winds light, var; seas 1'

Overcast; seas 2-3'

Totals12

Overcast; winds ~10 kt from W; seas 2'Overcast; winds ~ 10 kt from S; seas 2-3'Overcast; winds ~ 5 -15, variable; seas 2 - 4 '

Daily Trad Index

Daily Rep Index

Raw catcha of sockeye by station and mesh size2 4 6 8 10

Weather

528 518 529525

PendingOvercast; NW winds 5 - 25 kt; seas 1 - 6'Overcast; W winds ~ 30 kt; seas 9'SW winds 30 kt; seas 11'; small craft advis.

Pending

W winds 20 kt, diminishing; seas 10'Partly cloudy; NW winds, light; seas 1-2'Overcast; NW winds 10 kts; seas 2'Overcast; W winds 15-20; seas 3 - 5'

Overcast; winds light, variable; calm seas

Weighted means

Partly cloudy; winds light; seas 1'

515 540 519 535

367

2 4

a Raw catch = number of fish caught in 100 fathoms of each mesh size. Adding two meshes together yields actual catch at each station from the entire Replacement Net. FT = fishing time of each set (minutes).

Average sockeye lengthc by station and mesh size

519

Partly cloudy; winds light, seas 1 - 2'

516

No fishing June 17-19 due to weather. Index values interpolated.

No fishing June 17-19 due to weather. Index values interpolated.

No fishing June 17-19 due to weather. Index values estimated.

No fishing June 17-19 due to weather. Index values estimated.

Missed. No fishing June 27 due to mechanical. Index values estimated.

No fishing June 27 due to mechanical.

No fishing (mechanical)


Appendix A Page A3

PMTF Interpretation #1 for catches on June 10, 2014

The daily Replacement Index started off slightly higher than the previous few years (Figure 1) due to a relatively high catch at Station 8 (Table 1). The unprecedented earliness of last year’s run and the warmer than average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) for this year (Figure 2) may cause suspicion of an early run for 2014 as well. General belief holds that runs tend to be early during years with warmer SSTs. That the first day’s catch index was slightly higher than the previous three years is not necessarily convincing.

The lack of relationship in Figure 3 illustrates why we reiterate caution when inferring run timing based on SSTs. Put simply, there is little to no quantifiable evidence that run timing can be predicted based on SSTs measured at the PMTF.

As always, the first genetic stock composition estimates will likely be released by ADF&G around June 20.

Table 1. Estimated daily and cumulative Replacement Index for the 2014 Port Moller test fishery.

Date 2 4 6 8 10 12 Dailyb Cumulative

10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun12-Jun13-Jun14-Jun15-Jun16-Jun17-Jun18-Jun19-Jun20-Jun21-Jun22-Jun23-Jun24-Jun25-Jun26-Jun27-Jun28-Jun29-Jun30-Jun1-Jul2-Jul3-Jul4-Jul5-Jul6-Jul

Totals 4 5 3 38 9Percent 6 9 5 65 15

a CPUE = the number of fish caught in all meshes and standardized to a 200 fathom net fished for 60 minutes.

b Replacement daily index is simply the average CPUE across stations.

Note: red values were interpolated from other observed catches.

Replacement CPUEa by station Replacement Index


Appendix A Page A4

Figure 1. The daily Replacement Index for 2011-2014.

0

25

50

75

100

10

-Ju

n

12

-Ju

n

14

-Ju

n

16

-Ju

n

18

-Ju

n

20

-Ju

n

22

-Ju

n

24

-Ju

n

26

-Ju

n

28

-Ju

n

30

-Ju

n

2-J

ul

4-J

ul

6-J

ul

8-J

ul

10

-Ju

l

12

-Ju

l

CP

UE

(cat

ch p

er 2

00

fat

ho

m h

ou

rs)

20112011

2012

2013

2014


Appendix A Page A5

Figure 2. Mean sea surface temperatures averaged across the fishing transect (usually Stations 2-10) for the 2014

PMTF. Temperatures from previous years are represented as thin gray lines (except for warmer years, which are

various colors).

Figure 3. Historical relationship between the C+E run timing and sea surface temperatures from the PMTF

averaged 10-15 June. Year labels are centered on each point. The vertical red line reflects this year’s temperature

on June 10.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

C)

Sea surface temperatures (1987-2014)

Average

1988

20052002

1997

2004

2003 1998

19951993

1993

2014

2013

19871988

1989

19901991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996 1997

19981999

2000 2002

2003

2004

2005

200620072008

2009

2010

2012

2013

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

C+

E ru

n t

imin

g (d

ays)

Mean temperature (C) across the PMTF (10-15 June)

Earl

yLa

te

6-July


Appendix A Page A6

PMTF Interpretation #2 for catches on June 11-12, 2014

The daily Replacement Index has declined during the first three days of test fishing (Figure 1) with catches being more or less consistent across stations the last two days (Table 1). This pattern is unexpected, but not aberrant enough to draw conclusions regarding run timing or strength this early in the season. With Figure 2 we illustrate the lack of correlation between SST at the PMTF on a district specific basis. Likewise, with Figure 3 we show the wide variability in the relationship between a given year’s run timing versus that for the year before. What does all of this mean? It means that the earliness of last year’s run and the warm temperatures this year provide no information regarding the timeliness of this year’s run. The PMTF does hold information regarding run timing (Figure 4), but this utility is only available once we determine when catches have peaked in the test fishery. That determination will likely not be estimable until around June 30. Table 1. Estimated daily and cumulative Replacement Index for the 2014 Port Moller test fishery.


10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 10 6 2513-Jun14-Jun15-Jun16-Jun17-Jun18-Jun19-Jun20-Jun21-Jun22-Jun23-Jun24-Jun25-Jun26-Jun27-Jun28-Jun29-Jun30-Jun1-Jul2-Jul3-Jul4-Jul5-Jul6-Jul

Totals 12 12 13 61 26Percent 10 10 11 49 21






Appendix A Page A7



Appendix A Page A8

Figure 2. District specific run timing for C+E versus sea surface temperatures measured at the PMTF from 1987 to

2013.


Appendix A Page A9

Figure 3. District specific run timing for C+E versus run timing the year before.


Appendix A Page A10

Figure 4. Timing of total C+E versus run timing at the PMTF.


Appendix A Page A11


The daily Replacement Index continued a protracted trajectory yesterday similar to the pattern we saw in 2012 (Figure 1). Catches were again more or less uniformly distributed across stations (Table 1). In Table 2 we report the cumulative Traditional Index along with historical values back to 1990. Added to this table are run timing values for C+E, as well as the PMTF. Plotting total run strength versus cumulative catch indices does not show much of a relationship until around June 30, and even then the connection is tenuous (Figure 2). Adjusting the comparison for run timing of C+E improves the relationship some (Figure 2, bottom graph), as does running this analysis by ocean age (not shown), but considerable noise remains. We provide these graphs to serve as caveats when interpreting Table 2. ADF&G will try to release stock composition estimates from June 10-15 by June 18, but this assumes the timely delivery of samples with no flight delays out of Port Moller. Table 1. Estimated daily and cumulative Replacement Index for the 2014 Port Moller test fishery.


10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 11 6 2513-Jun 6 17 17 5 6 10 3514-Jun15-Jun16-Jun17-Jun18-Jun19-Jun20-Jun21-Jun22-Jun23-Jun24-Jun25-Jun26-Jun27-Jun28-Jun29-Jun30-Jun1-Jul2-Jul3-Jul4-Jul5-Jul6-Jul

Total 18 29 30 66 33Percent 10 17 17 37 19






Appendix A Page A12



Appendix A Page A13

Table 2. Historical cumulative Traditional Index by date from the PMTF, 1990-2014. Run timings for each year are

based on the time series 1990-2013 and given as days early (positive values) or late (negative values).

Date 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Avg Min Max

11-Jun 7 6 18 18 4 33 22 13 6 16 21 31 24 28 8 13 12 11 0 18 17 49 14 26 53 17 0 49

12-Jun 19 13 37 29 7 62 43 30 11 33 89 52 51 56 22 27 12 19 7 43 17 78 21 61 69 35 7 89

13-Jun 32 19 56 57 12 99 67 42 16 46 147 89 93 100 49 32 17 36 19 72 29 136 42 172 96 62 12 172

14-Jun 43 25 76 146 21 186 120 67 27 53 191 124 116 145 57 73 35 53 34 107 54 178 49 308 95 21 308

15-Jun 61 42 122 208 38 248 159 97 50 67 256 155 220 199 107 112 57 64 74 131 69 262 55 390 135 38 390

16-Jun 84 66 176 293 55 337 257 144 85 83 306 259 304 257 144 151 91 89 81 189 83 337 61 413 181 55 413

17-Jun 100 106 182 382 66 400 315 190 128 90 352 422 374 327 200 191 124 99 151 337 95 458 78 521 237 66 521

18-Jun 143 164 296 472 101 552 391 217 150 114 421 489 445 357 222 233 168 142 273 386 154 516 90 608 296 90 608

19-Jun 184 245 428 562 146 689 447 299 178 181 476 649 499 422 239 277 251 149 375 441 189 589 148 702 365 146 702

20-Jun 225 305 540 681 183 762 552 386 224 255 543 752 562 526 251 322 329 173 541 582 277 704 171 797 444 171 797

21-Jun 267 404 658 824 269 878 653 441 266 352 584 871 679 597 338 343 423 219 689 727 417 811 246 950 538 219 950

22-Jun 313 561 783 1012 379 975 730 543 320 414 684 1046 773 694 393 430 486 287 845 812 603 1030 274 1060 644 274 1060

23-Jun 374 657 927 1135 531 1110 818 637 363 514 808 1125 887 764 416 509 636 343 970 943 726 1174 433 1158 748 343 1174

24-Jun 511 837 1068 1234 648 1214 918 730 423 704 896 1227 1018 835 498 597 739 393 1132 1030 838 1358 514 1237 858 393 1358

25-Jun 665 891 1178 1466 743 1356 1020 806 471 853 981 1361 1166 887 639 699 836 438 1287 1092 896 1490 601 1351 966 438 1490

26-Jun 771 946 1226 1624 854 1509 1152 888 523 949 1042 1470 1297 950 792 831 979 582 1435 1390 971 1674 717 1410 1083 523 1674

27-Jun 908 1077 1334 1783 995 1633 1261 1029 582 1022 1110 1607 1427 1007 1012 1026 1092 710 1702 1618 1046 1785 767 1494 1209 582 1785

28-Jun 1192 1146 1453 1973 1144 1815 1371 1183 659 1186 1199 1747 1536 1078 1179 1149 1250 837 1911 1890 1103 1924 831 1578 1347 659 1973

29-Jun 1389 1241 1586 2085 1279 2033 1449 1297 776 1267 1265 1830 1663 1123 1283 1285 1417 947 2046 2171 1159 2052 904 1642 1466 776 2171

30-Jun 1632 1261 1812 2372 1538 2179 1580 1421 867 1392 1333 1931 1773 1196 1380 1363 1472 1095 2287 2438 1219 2151 995 1697 1599 867 2438

1-Jul 1804 1340 1981 2547 1699 2365 1684 1504 986 1516 1386 2010 1838 1427 1490 1519 1176 2525 2724 1400 2269 1144 1744 1743 986 2724

2-Jul 1960 1390 2066 2789 1866 2537 1838 1637 1034 1647 1437 2105 1909 1516 1569 1650 1280 2676 2972 1512 2358 1166 1782 1856 1034 2972

3-Jul 2182 1564 2228 2849 1990 2725 1955 1871 1165 1805 1494 2202 1965 1613 1617 1839 1342 2741 3220 1686 2398 1275 1819 1980 1165 3220

4-Jul 2284 1629 2333 2928 2187 2874 2139 1947 1247 1933 1527 2255 2022 1663 1677 1912 1448 2863 3430 1766 2461 1332 1839 2074 1247 3430

5-Jul 2345 1756 2443 3028 2330 2995 2247 2079 1377 2054 1572 2308 2122 1770 1762 1995 1582 3021 3567 2514 1367 1889 2187 1367 3567

Total run

(millions)47 42 45 52 50 60 37 19 18 39 28 22 18 28 43 41 22 44 42 31 38 30 29 23 35 18 60

CE Run timing -2.0 -1.6 -3.1 3.0 -3.7 -1.0 0.4 0.2 -2.6 -1.7 1.5 3.6 1.3 2.9 -0.6 0.5 -1.7 -1.6 -1.7 1.0 -1.4 1.4 6.6 0 -4 7

PM Run timing -1.2 -2.2 -0.9 1.6 -2.5 -2.0 -1.7 -3.0 -4.7 -2.6 5.0 4.4 6.2 1.5 0.0 -0.6 -3.9 -0.6 -1.3 -3.2 4.1 1.4 6.3 0 -5 6


Appendix A Page A14

Figure 2. Total run size versus the cumulative Traditional Index through June 30 (top graph). The bottom graph

has been adjusted for run timing of the C+E.


Appendix A Page A15


Catches were sparse across the entire transect today (Table 1), and the low Replacement Index observed thus far casts doubt on the run being early (Figure 1). It remains too soon in the season for more definitive projections. All we can say for now is that no substantial quantity of fish have passed through the test fishery. Please note the erroneous total run values for 2006 and 2009 in Table 2 of the previous PMTF Interpretation (#3). We noticed the total run numbers in tonight’s interpretation differ slightly from other reported versions as well. These values should be considered tenuous for now while we reconstruct our database with official numbers from ADF&G. We do not expect these discrepancies have altered any of our overall conclusions. Table 1. Estimated daily and cumulative Replacement Index for the 2014 Port Moller test fishery.


10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 11 6 2513-Jun 6 17 17 5 6 10 3514-Jun 23 8 10 16 11 14 4915-Jun 1 2 1 0 13 3 5216-Jun17-Jun18-Jun19-Jun20-Jun21-Jun22-Jun23-Jun24-Jun25-Jun26-Jun27-Jun28-Jun29-Jun30-Jun1-Jul2-Jul3-Jul4-Jul5-Jul6-Jul

Total 42 39 41 82 57Percent 16 15 16 31 22






Appendix A Page A16


0

25

50

75

100

10

-Ju

n

12

-Ju

n

14

-Ju

n

16

-Ju

n

18

-Ju

n

20

-Ju

n

22

-Ju

n

24

-Ju

n

26

-Ju

n

28

-Ju

n

30

-Ju

n

2-J

ul

4-J

ul

6-J

ul

8-J

ul

10

-Ju

l

CP

UE

(cat

ch p

er 2

00

fat

ho

m h

ou

rs)

2011

2012

2013

2014


Appendix A Page A17

Table 2. Historical cumulative Traditional Index by date from the PMTF, 1990-2014.

Date 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Avg Min Max

11-Jun 7 6 18 18 4 33 22 13 6 16 21 31 24 28 8 13 12 11 0 18 17 49 14 26 53 17 0 49

12-Jun 19 13 37 29 7 62 43 30 11 33 89 52 51 56 22 27 12 19 7 43 17 78 21 61 69 35 7 89

13-Jun 32 19 56 57 12 99 67 42 16 46 147 89 93 100 49 32 17 36 19 72 29 136 42 172 96 62 12 172

14-Jun 43 25 76 146 21 186 120 67 27 53 191 124 116 145 57 73 35 53 34 107 54 178 49 308 119 95 21 308

15-Jun 61 42 122 208 38 248 159 97 50 67 256 155 220 199 107 112 57 64 74 131 69 262 55 390 120 135 38 390

16-Jun 84 66 176 293 55 337 257 144 85 83 306 259 304 257 144 151 91 89 81 189 83 337 61 413 181 55 413

17-Jun 100 106 182 382 66 400 315 190 128 90 352 422 374 327 200 191 124 99 151 337 95 458 78 521 237 66 521

18-Jun 143 164 296 472 101 552 391 217 150 114 421 489 445 357 222 233 168 142 273 386 154 516 90 608 296 90 608

19-Jun 184 245 428 562 146 689 447 299 178 181 476 649 499 422 239 277 251 149 375 441 189 589 148 702 365 146 702

20-Jun 225 305 540 681 183 762 552 386 224 255 543 752 562 526 251 322 329 173 541 582 277 704 171 797 444 171 797

21-Jun 267 404 658 824 269 878 653 441 266 352 584 871 679 597 338 343 423 219 689 727 417 811 246 950 538 219 950

22-Jun 313 561 783 1012 379 975 730 543 320 414 684 1046 773 694 393 430 486 287 845 812 603 1030 274 1060 644 274 1060

23-Jun 374 657 927 1135 531 1110 818 637 363 514 808 1125 887 764 416 509 636 343 970 943 726 1174 433 1158 748 343 1174

24-Jun 511 837 1068 1234 648 1214 918 730 423 704 896 1227 1018 835 498 597 739 393 1132 1030 838 1358 514 1237 858 393 1358

25-Jun 665 891 1178 1466 743 1356 1020 806 471 853 981 1361 1166 887 639 699 836 438 1287 1092 896 1490 601 1351 966 438 1490

26-Jun 771 946 1226 1624 854 1509 1152 888 523 949 1042 1470 1297 950 792 831 979 582 1435 1390 971 1674 717 1410 1083 523 1674

27-Jun 908 1077 1334 1783 995 1633 1261 1029 582 1022 1110 1607 1427 1007 1012 1026 1092 710 1702 1618 1046 1785 767 1494 1209 582 1785

28-Jun 1192 1146 1453 1973 1144 1815 1371 1183 659 1186 1199 1747 1536 1078 1179 1149 1250 837 1911 1890 1103 1924 831 1578 1347 659 1973

29-Jun 1389 1241 1586 2085 1279 2033 1449 1297 776 1267 1265 1830 1663 1123 1283 1285 1417 947 2046 2171 1159 2052 904 1642 1466 776 2171

30-Jun 1632 1261 1812 2372 1538 2179 1580 1421 867 1392 1333 1931 1773 1196 1380 1363 1472 1095 2287 2438 1219 2151 995 1697 1599 867 2438

1-Jul 1804 1340 1981 2547 1699 2365 1684 1504 986 1516 1386 2010 1838 1427 1490 1519 1176 2525 2724 1400 2269 1144 1744 1743 986 2724

2-Jul 1960 1390 2066 2789 1866 2537 1838 1637 1034 1647 1437 2105 1909 1516 1569 1650 1280 2676 2972 1512 2358 1166 1782 1856 1034 2972

3-Jul 2182 1564 2228 2849 1990 2725 1955 1871 1165 1805 1494 2202 1965 1613 1617 1839 1342 2741 3220 1686 2398 1275 1819 1980 1165 3220

4-Jul 2284 1629 2333 2928 2187 2874 2139 1947 1247 1933 1527 2255 2022 1663 1677 1912 1448 2863 3430 1766 2461 1332 1839 2074 1247 3430

5-Jul 2345 1756 2443 3028 2330 2995 2247 2079 1377 2054 1572 2308 2122 1770 1762 1995 1582 3021 3567 2514 1367 1889 2187 1367 3567

Total run

(millions)48 42 45 52 50 61 37 19 18 40 28 22 17 26 43 39 43 45 40 40 40 30 29 23 37 17 61


Appendix A Page A18

PMTF Interpretation #5 for catches through June 16, 2014

The daily Replacement Index climbed yesterday (Table 1 and Figure 1), and while daily ups and downs are common, this is the largest catch index observed this year. After a slow start, the run may be starting to build, and if so, we expect PM catches to show an overall increasing trend in the coming days. In years past, PM has exhibited some predictive power with regards to age composition based on observed mean length in the 5⅛ inch mesh through June 16 (Figure 2). This historical relationship applied to the mean length for this year predicts the 3-ocean component will be around 48%. Based on ADF&G’s preseason forecast, this value is expected to be 44%. However, only 189 fish have been sampled thus far in 2014, which increases sampling error. Given the small sample size of lengths for this year and the inherent uncertainty in the historical relationship, the difference between 48% and 44% is not enough to suspect major departures from the pre-season forecast. We will update this comparison if our prediction changes as more lengths become available. Of course, once the first age-composition estimates for PM catches are released by ADF&G, they will override our length-based predictions. Table 1. Estimated daily and cumulative Replacement Index for the 2014 Port Moller test fishery.


10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 11 6 2513-Jun 6 17 17 5 6 10 3514-Jun 23 8 10 16 11 14 4915-Jun 1 2 1 0 13 3 5216-Jun 0 6 29 17 24 15 6717-Jun18-Jun19-Jun20-Jun21-Jun22-Jun23-Jun24-Jun25-Jun26-Jun27-Jun28-Jun29-Jun30-Jun1-Jul2-Jul3-Jul4-Jul5-Jul6-Jul

Total 42 45 70 99 81Percent 12 13 21 29 24






Appendix A Page A19


0

25

50

75

100

10

-Ju

n

12

-Ju

n

14

-Ju

n

16

-Ju

n

18

-Ju

n

20

-Ju

n

22

-Ju

n

24

-Ju

n

26

-Ju

n

28

-Ju

n

30

-Ju

n

2-J

ul

4-J

ul

6-J

ul

8-J

ul

10

-Ju

l

CP

UE

(cat

ch p

er 2

00

fat

ho

m h

ou

rs)

2011

2012

2013

2014


Appendix A Page A20

Figure 2. Predicted proportion of ocean age-3 sockeye in the year-end catch + escapement based on the mean

length of fish caught in the PMTF (5⅛ inch mesh only) through June 16. Red arrows indicate the prediction for

2014.


Appendix A Page A21

PMTF Interpretation #6 for catches on June 20 and 21, 2014

Fishing resumed on June 20, after being suspended for three days (June 17-19) due to bad weather. Catches were only slightly greater than on June 16, which gives some indication that we did not miss the start of a sustained rise in catches (Figure 1). Today, June 21, we saw the first major jump in catches this season. Total catch for today was more than double the highest day to date. This increase was also broad, with four of the five stations having peak catches to date (Table 1). All in all, results from the past two days suggest the first big push of fish past the PMTF is starting. Travel time between the PMTF and inshore tends to be 6-9 days; thus, based on the test fishery results thus far, we should see C+E start to pick up around June 27-30. Our total run numbers have been updated in Table 2. This year, the cumulative Traditional Index keeps holding slightly below average. Table 1. Estimated daily and cumulative Replacement Index for the 2014 Port Moller test fishery.


10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 11 6 2513-Jun 6 17 17 5 6 10 3514-Jun 23 8 10 16 11 14 4915-Jun 1 2 1 0 13 3 5216-Jun 0 6 29 17 24 15 6717-Jun 0 8 30 20 22 16 8418-Jun 1 11 31 24 20 17 10119-Jun 1 13 32 27 19 19 12020-Jun 1 16 33 31 17 20 13921-Jun 2 32 109 59 20 44 18422-Jun23-Jun24-Jun25-Jun26-Jun27-Jun28-Jun29-Jun30-Jun1-Jul2-Jul3-Jul4-Jul5-Jul6-Jul

Total 47 126 307 261 179Percent 5 14 33 28 19






Appendix A Page A22



Date 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Avg Min Max

11-Jun 7 6 18 18 4 33 22 13 6 16 21 31 24 28 8 13 12 11 0 18 17 49 14 26 53 17 0 49

12-Jun 19 13 37 29 7 62 43 30 11 33 89 52 51 56 22 27 12 19 7 43 17 78 21 61 69 35 7 89

13-Jun 32 19 56 57 12 99 67 42 16 46 147 89 93 100 49 32 17 36 19 72 29 136 42 172 96 62 12 172

14-Jun 43 25 76 146 21 186 120 67 27 53 191 124 116 145 57 73 35 53 34 107 54 178 49 308 119 95 21 308

15-Jun 61 42 122 208 38 248 159 97 50 67 256 155 220 199 107 112 57 64 74 131 69 262 55 390 120 135 38 390

16-Jun 84 66 176 293 55 337 257 144 85 83 306 259 304 257 144 151 91 89 81 189 83 337 61 413 151 181 55 413

17-Jun 100 106 182 382 66 400 315 190 128 90 352 422 374 327 200 191 124 99 151 337 95 458 78 521 187 237 66 521

18-Jun 143 164 296 472 101 552 391 217 150 114 421 489 445 357 222 233 168 142 273 386 154 516 90 608 228 296 90 608

19-Jun 184 245 428 562 146 689 447 299 178 181 476 649 499 422 239 277 251 149 375 441 189 589 148 702 275 365 146 702

20-Jun 225 305 540 681 183 762 552 386 224 255 543 752 562 526 251 322 329 173 541 582 277 704 171 797 326 444 171 797

21-Jun 267 404 658 824 269 878 653 441 266 352 584 871 679 597 338 343 423 219 689 727 417 811 246 950 428 538 219 950

22-Jun 313 561 783 1012 379 975 730 543 320 414 684 1046 773 694 393 430 486 287 845 812 603 1030 274 1060 644 274 1060

23-Jun 374 657 927 1135 531 1110 818 637 363 514 808 1125 887 764 416 509 636 343 970 943 726 1174 433 1158 748 343 1174

24-Jun 511 837 1068 1234 648 1214 918 730 423 704 896 1227 1018 835 498 597 739 393 1132 1030 838 1358 514 1237 858 393 1358

25-Jun 665 891 1178 1466 743 1356 1020 806 471 853 981 1361 1166 887 639 699 836 438 1287 1092 896 1490 601 1351 966 438 1490

26-Jun 771 946 1226 1624 854 1509 1152 888 523 949 1042 1470 1297 950 792 831 979 582 1435 1390 971 1674 717 1410 1083 523 1674

27-Jun 908 1077 1334 1783 995 1633 1261 1029 582 1022 1110 1607 1427 1007 1012 1026 1092 710 1702 1618 1046 1785 767 1494 1209 582 1785

28-Jun 1192 1146 1453 1973 1144 1815 1371 1183 659 1186 1199 1747 1536 1078 1179 1149 1250 837 1911 1890 1103 1924 831 1578 1347 659 1973

29-Jun 1389 1241 1586 2085 1279 2033 1449 1297 776 1267 1265 1830 1663 1123 1283 1285 1417 947 2046 2171 1159 2052 904 1642 1466 776 2171

30-Jun 1632 1261 1812 2372 1538 2179 1580 1421 867 1392 1333 1931 1773 1196 1380 1363 1472 1095 2287 2438 1219 2151 995 1697 1599 867 2438

1-Jul 1804 1340 1981 2547 1699 2365 1684 1504 986 1516 1386 2010 1838 1427 1490 1519 1176 2525 2724 1400 2269 1144 1744 1743 986 2724

2-Jul 1960 1390 2066 2789 1866 2537 1838 1637 1034 1647 1437 2105 1909 1516 1569 1650 1280 2676 2972 1512 2358 1166 1782 1856 1034 2972

3-Jul 2182 1564 2228 2849 1990 2725 1955 1871 1165 1805 1494 2202 1965 1613 1617 1839 1342 2741 3220 1686 2398 1275 1819 1980 1165 3220

4-Jul 2284 1629 2333 2928 2187 2874 2139 1947 1247 1933 1527 2255 2022 1663 1677 1912 1448 2863 3430 1766 2461 1332 1839 2074 1247 3430

5-Jul 2345 1756 2443 3028 2330 2995 2247 2079 1377 2054 1572 2308 2122 1770 1762 1995 1582 3021 3567 2514 1367 1889 2187 1367 3567

Total run

(millions)47 41 44 51 50 60 36 18 18 38 27 21 17 26 42 38 42 44 40 40 40 30 29 23 36 17 60

CE Run timing -2.5 -1.9 -2.6 2.3 -4.2 -1.4 0.6 -0.4 -2.8 -2.0 2.2 3.5 1.6 2.8 0.6 0.1 -2.3 -2.0 -0.9 1.9 -1.2 2.7 0.0 5.9 0 -4 6

PM Run timing -1.2 -2.2 -0.9 1.6 -2.5 -2.0 -1.7 -3.0 -4.7 -2.6 5.0 4.4 6.2 1.5 0.0 -0.6 -3.9 -0.6 -1.3 -3.2 4.1 1.4 6.3 0 -5 6


Appendix A Page A23



Appendix A Page A24


The daily Replacement Index on June 22 was down from the day before (Figure 1). While this may be discouraging given this year’s starting catches were lower than anticipated, we remind the readership that daily fluctuation is to be expected. Still, the peak day at PM should occur anytime between now and June 30. The preseason forecast calls for 44% of the run to be comprised of ocean age-3 fish. The relationship between the percent 3-ocean component in the total run and mean length of fish caught in the PMTF through this date yields a prediction of 45% (Figure 2). This provides some evidence that the preseason forecast is not amiss. If so, then forecasts of both 2-ocean and 3-ocean components are likely off in the same direction and proportion. We have continued last year’s experiment to test net saturation for larger catches (Figure 3). The four points collected thus far this year added noise to this dataset, but the overall relationship remained unchanged. That is, catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) values from 60 min sets were generally lower than corresponding 20 min sets as catches increased. The next round of stock composition estimates should be released by ADF&G sometime tomorrow. Table 1. Estimated daily and cumulative Replacement Index for the 2014 Port Moller test fishery.


10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 11 6 2513-Jun 6 17 17 5 6 10 3514-Jun 23 8 10 16 11 14 4915-Jun 1 2 1 0 13 3 5216-Jun 0 6 29 17 24 15 6717-Jun 6 19 28 21 7 16 8318-Jun 7 22 34 24 8 19 10219-Jun 8 26 40 29 10 22 12520-Jun 1 16 33 31 17 20 14521-Jun 2 32 109 59 20 44 18922-Jun 10 62 36 6 12 26 21523-Jun24-Jun25-Jun26-Jun27-Jun28-Jun29-Jun30-Jun1-Jul2-Jul3-Jul4-Jul5-Jul6-Jul

Total 76 222 351 269 156Percent 7 21 33 25 14






Appendix A Page A25



Appendix A Page A26

Figure 2. Predicted proportion of ocean age-3 sockeye in the year-end catch + escapement based on the mean

length of fish caught in the PMTF (5⅛ inch mesh only) through June 22. Red arrows indicate the prediction for

2014.


Appendix A Page A27

Figure 3. Comparison of paired sets differing in fishing time from the 2013 (darker circles) and 2014 (lighter circles) PMTF. Each data point shows the Replacement Index or CPUE (catch adjusted to a common set duration) from a set lasting for about 60 min compared to a set immediately following at the same station for and lasting for about 20 min. All stations have been represented at least once. Saturation would cause higher values to be below the 1:1 line; no saturation would be indicated if every point was on or around the line; the reverse of saturation would be occurring if points were above the line.


Appendix A Page A28


The daily Replacement Index was higher today and yesterday indicating the run continues to build (Figure 1). Furthermore, catches were consistent in their distribution across stations suggesting that the increased index values represent a larger swath of fish moving through (Table 1). We will need a few more days of inshore information before we can translate these catch indices into forecasts of C+E for the remainder of the season. For now, PM catches are building as they normally do, and we expect them to peak in the next few days. With Figure 2 we compare the first two sets of observed stock compositions of PMTF catches to what would be expected if the preseason forecast was accurate. The Wood component was expected to be strong this year and so it seems to be in the PMTF catches. The first set of estimates show a major discrepancy for Egegik; however, while the first set covers 6 days, it only represents 52 Replacement Index points. The second set covers only 2 days, but 64 Index points. The first set comes from a few fish patchily distributed at the beginning of the season, while the second set more likely characterizes the beginning mainstay of the run. Note how the disagreement for Egegik is somewhat reconciled in the second set of stock composition estimates (same for the Nush-Wood). Perhaps Egegik is a little weaker than anticipated and Naknek-Kvichak a little stronger. As both districts favor 2-ocean fish, this possibility would not cause the age-composition estimates at Port Moller to differ from the preseason forecast. In other words, comparisons of stock and age composition estimates to those expected based on the preseason forecast do not contradict each other. In all, we consider this evidence that the run is developing as predicted with some suspicions of slight misalignment across stocks. Table 1. Estimated daily and cumulative Replacement Index for the 2014 Port Moller test fishery.


10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 11 6 2513-Jun 6 17 17 5 6 10 3514-Jun 23 8 10 16 11 14 4915-Jun 1 2 1 0 13 3 5216-Jun 0 6 29 17 24 15 6717-Jun 6 18 27 21 8 16 8318-Jun 8 22 33 25 10 20 10319-Jun 10 27 40 31 12 24 12720-Jun 1 16 33 31 17 20 14721-Jun 2 32 109 59 20 44 19122-Jun 10 62 36 6 12 26 21723-Jun 0 79 72 66 43 52 26924-Jun 18 85 61 62 11 47 31625-Jun26-Jun27-Jun28-Jun29-Jun30-Jun1-Jul2-Jul3-Jul4-Jul5-Jul6-Jul

Total 97 387 482 400 214Percent 6 24 30 25 14






Appendix A Page A29



Appendix A Page A30

Figure 2. Observed proportion of the PMTF catches bound for each district based on genetic stock composition

estimates compared to what is expected based on the pre-season forecast. Expected values from the forecasts

further assume that the PMTF is representative of stock proportions inshore (i.e., all stocks are equally exposed to

the test fishery).


Appendix A Page A31


The daily Replacement Index dropped off the last two days (Figure 1; Table 1). June 23 was either the peak day of catches for the 2014 PMTF or the first peak of a bimodal pattern reminiscent of 2010 and 2012. If the latter, we may have to wait another 5-7 days for the second peak to manifest. The cumulative Traditional Index continues to track just below average (Figure 2; Table 2). The latest round of stock composition estimates based on genetic samples are compared to those expected given the preseason forecast in Figure 3. The preseason forecast was made comparable in this way by multiplying the average run timing for each district (1990-2013) by its expected total run and backing it up 7 days to account for average travel time between the PMTF and the inshore districts. This comparison makes a few assumptions: (1) all districts were equally exposed to the test fishery; (2) earliness/lateness is consistent across stocks; (3) travel time between PM and inshore is 7 days. Given these assumptions, the observed stock compositions line up reasonably well. The Naknek-Kvichak District may be a little stronger relative to its forecast as compared to the Nush-Wood District. If so, the similar ocean age compositions across the districts (Figure 4) would prevent a discrepancy between preseason forecast age compositions and those observed. Again, all this to mean there is no reason to think the run will be off considerably from preseason expectations in terms of magnitude. If either the observed age compositions or stock compositions were off more from the preseason estimates, one would have to wonder. (Note: Figure 2 presented in Interpretation #8 was based on results generated with a spreadsheet error. However, the primary conclusion was not altered, which was that the observed stock compositions reflected what was expected) District catches picked up considerably yesterday (1.4 million). In keeping with the Replacement Index, cumulative C+E for 2014 seems to track 2010 and 2012 as well (Figure 5).


Appendix A Page A32



10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 11 6 2513-Jun 6 17 17 5 6 10 3514-Jun 23 8 10 16 11 14 4915-Jun 1 2 1 0 13 3 5216-Jun 0 6 29 17 24 15 6717-Jun 7 19 29 23 9 17 8518-Jun 9 25 38 30 12 23 10719-Jun 11 31 47 37 15 28 13620-Jun 1 16 33 31 17 20 15521-Jun 2 32 109 59 20 44 20022-Jun 10 62 36 6 12 26 22523-Jun 0 79 72 66 43 52 27724-Jun 18 85 61 62 11 47 32525-Jun 6 0 1 80 5 19 34326-Jun 6 28 47 19 0 20 36327-Jun28-Jun29-Jun30-Jun1-Jul2-Jul3-Jul4-Jul5-Jul6-Jul

Total 112 423 543 511 226Percent 6 23 30 28 12






Appendix A Page A33



Date 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Avg Min Max

11-Jun 7 6 18 18 4 33 22 13 6 16 21 31 24 28 8 13 12 11 0 18 17 49 14 26 53 17 0 49

12-Jun 19 13 37 29 7 62 43 30 11 33 89 52 51 56 22 27 12 19 7 43 17 78 21 61 69 35 7 89

13-Jun 32 19 56 57 12 99 67 42 16 46 147 89 93 100 49 32 17 36 19 72 29 136 42 172 96 62 12 172

14-Jun 43 25 76 146 21 186 120 67 27 53 191 124 116 145 57 73 35 53 34 107 54 178 49 308 119 95 21 308

15-Jun 61 42 122 208 38 248 159 97 50 67 256 155 220 199 107 112 57 64 74 131 69 262 55 390 120 135 38 390

16-Jun 84 66 176 293 55 337 257 144 85 83 306 259 304 257 144 151 91 89 81 189 83 337 61 413 151 181 55 413

17-Jun 100 106 182 382 66 400 315 190 128 90 352 422 374 327 200 191 124 99 151 337 95 458 78 521 198 237 66 521

18-Jun 143 164 296 472 101 552 391 217 150 114 421 489 445 357 222 233 168 142 273 386 154 516 90 608 255 296 90 608

19-Jun 184 245 428 562 146 689 447 299 178 181 476 649 499 422 239 277 251 149 375 441 189 589 148 702 322 365 146 702

20-Jun 225 305 540 681 183 762 552 386 224 255 543 752 562 526 251 322 329 173 541 582 277 704 171 797 374 444 171 797

21-Jun 267 404 658 824 269 878 653 441 266 352 584 871 679 597 338 343 423 219 689 727 417 811 246 950 475 538 219 950

22-Jun 313 561 783 1012 379 975 730 543 320 414 684 1046 773 694 393 430 486 287 845 812 603 1030 274 1060 525 644 274 1060

23-Jun 374 657 927 1135 531 1110 818 637 363 514 808 1125 887 764 416 509 636 343 970 943 726 1174 433 1158 640 748 343 1174

24-Jun 511 837 1068 1234 648 1214 918 730 423 704 896 1227 1018 835 498 597 739 393 1132 1030 838 1358 514 1237 758 858 393 1358

25-Jun 665 891 1178 1466 743 1356 1020 806 471 853 981 1361 1166 887 639 699 836 438 1287 1092 896 1490 601 1351 840 966 438 1490

26-Jun 771 946 1226 1624 854 1509 1152 888 523 949 1042 1470 1297 950 792 831 979 582 1435 1390 971 1674 717 1410 895 1083 523 1674

27-Jun 908 1077 1334 1783 995 1633 1261 1029 582 1022 1110 1607 1427 1007 1012 1026 1092 710 1702 1618 1046 1785 767 1494 1209 582 1785

28-Jun 1192 1146 1453 1973 1144 1815 1371 1183 659 1186 1199 1747 1536 1078 1179 1149 1250 837 1911 1890 1103 1924 831 1578 1347 659 1973

29-Jun 1389 1241 1586 2085 1279 2033 1449 1297 776 1267 1265 1830 1663 1123 1283 1285 1417 947 2046 2171 1159 2052 904 1642 1466 776 2171

30-Jun 1632 1261 1812 2372 1538 2179 1580 1421 867 1392 1333 1931 1773 1196 1380 1363 1472 1095 2287 2438 1219 2151 995 1697 1599 867 2438

1-Jul 1804 1340 1981 2547 1699 2365 1684 1504 986 1516 1386 2010 1838 1427 1490 1519 1176 2525 2724 1400 2269 1144 1744 1743 986 2724

2-Jul 1960 1390 2066 2789 1866 2537 1838 1637 1034 1647 1437 2105 1909 1516 1569 1650 1280 2676 2972 1512 2358 1166 1782 1856 1034 2972

3-Jul 2182 1564 2228 2849 1990 2725 1955 1871 1165 1805 1494 2202 1965 1613 1617 1839 1342 2741 3220 1686 2398 1275 1819 1980 1165 3220

4-Jul 2284 1629 2333 2928 2187 2874 2139 1947 1247 1933 1527 2255 2022 1663 1677 1912 1448 2863 3430 1766 2461 1332 1839 2074 1247 3430

5-Jul 2345 1756 2443 3028 2330 2995 2247 2079 1377 2054 1572 2308 2122 1770 1762 1995 1582 3021 3567 2514 1367 1889 2187 1367 3567

Total run

(millions)47 41 44 51 50 60 36 18 18 38 27 21 17 26 42 38 42 44 40 40 40 30 29 23 36 17 60

CE Run timing -2.5 -1.9 -2.6 2.3 -4.2 -1.4 0.6 -0.4 -2.8 -2.0 2.2 3.5 1.6 2.8 0.6 0.1 -2.3 -2.0 -0.9 1.9 -1.2 2.7 0.0 5.9 0 -4 6

PM Run timing -1.2 -2.2 -0.9 1.6 -2.5 -2.0 -1.7 -3.0 -4.7 -2.6 5.0 4.4 6.2 1.5 0.0 -0.6 -3.9 -0.6 -1.3 -3.2 4.1 1.4 6.3 0 -5 6


Appendix A Page A34

Figure 1. The daily Replacement Index for 2010-2014. Note: 2010 is the daily Traditional Index rescaled to

facilitate visual comparison of the seasonal pattern with the Replacement Indexes, which began in 2011

(magnitude of the 2010 index is not comparable with other years).

Figure 2. The cumulative Traditional Index for 1990-2014.

0

25

50

75

100

10

-Ju

n

12

-Ju

n

14

-Ju

n

16

-Ju

n

18

-Ju

n

20

-Ju

n

22

-Ju

n

24

-Ju

n

26

-Ju

n

28

-Ju

n

30

-Ju

n

2-J

ul

4-J

ul

6-J

ul

8-J

ul

10

-Ju

l

CP

UE

(cat

ch p

er 2

00

fat

ho

m h

ou

rs) 2011

2012

2013

2014

2010


Appendix A Page A35


estimates compared to what is expected based on the pre-season forecast.


Appendix A Page A36

Figure 4. Proportion of the total run expected to be ocean age 3 based on the preseason forecast (weighted mean

across all districts = 0.44). The red line shows the observed 3-ocean proportion from PM samples collected

through June 21 (value=0.45).

Figure 5. Cumulative C+E for the total run 2010-2014.


Appendix A Page A37


After falling off on June 25-26 and missing fishing on June 27, yesterday’s (June 28) daily Replacement Index still indicates strength left in the run (Figure 1). Catches were consistently strong across the outer stations (Stations 6-10) reducing the probability that this increase was due to a random catch of patchily distributed fish (Table 1). We would have considered steaming out to Station 12, but mechanical difficulties limited us to only set at Stations 6, 8, and 10 today in order to make time for repairs. A full complement of stations is planned for tomorrow, and the decision to fish Station 12 will be based on the catch pattern across Stations 2-10. In today’s interpretation we release our first forecast of total run strength to each district based on the inseason relationship between catch indexes from the PMTF and C+E (Figure 2). As with the preseason forecast, our inseason estimate makes predictions about what the stock compositions should look like at the PMTF given the estimated travel times and run magnitudes. These predictions compare reasonably well to what was observed based on genetic samples (Figure 3). Exceptions include comparisons for the Naknek-Kvichak and Nushagak-Wood Districts, whereby the directions of the discrepancies for each reversed between the first and latest genetic stock composition estimates. However, the magnitudes of the differences are lower in the latest comparison, and we give more weight to the latest three comparisons as they better represent the backbone of the run. In all, this diagnostic seems to support our total run forecast of 30.9 million, which has the Egegik and Naknek-Kvichak Districts coming in considerably higher than the preseason forecast (+50% and +33%, respectively) and the Nushagak-Wood District a little lower (-8%). Not enough C+E was available to forecast Ugashik, and it was accounted for in the total run forecast by way of its preseason estimate. We will continue to update these forecasts for the remainder of the season as more information becomes available.


Appendix A Page A38



10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 11 6 2513-Jun 6 17 17 5 6 10 3514-Jun 23 8 10 16 11 14 4915-Jun 1 2 1 0 13 3 5216-Jun 0 6 29 17 24 15 6717-Jun 7 19 30 26 13 19 8618-Jun 8 23 37 32 15 23 11019-Jun 10 27 43 37 18 27 13720-Jun 1 16 33 31 17 20 15621-Jun 2 32 109 59 20 44 20122-Jun 10 62 36 6 12 26 22623-Jun 0 79 72 66 43 52 27824-Jun 18 85 61 62 11 47 32525-Jun 6 0 1 80 5 19 34426-Jun 6 28 47 19 23 25 36927-Jun 11 32 50 43 21 31 40028-Jun 9 9 57 61 52 38 43829-Jun30-Jun1-Jul2-Jul3-Jul4-Jul5-Jul6-Jul

Total 130 459 646 622 331Percent 6 21 30 28 15






Appendix A Page A39

Figure 1. The daily Replacement Index for 2010-2014. White markers on the 2014 line denote interpolated values.

Note: 2010 is the daily Traditional Index rescaled to facilitate visual comparison of the seasonal pattern with the

Replacement Indexes, which began in 2011 (magnitude of the 2010 index is not comparable with other years).


Appendix A Page A40

Figure 2. Observed (gray bars) and projected (smooth red line) C+E for selected districts. The daily Replacement

Index (black line with gray circles; scale not shown) was adjusted for gillnet saturation and tailored for each district

based on station-specific genetic stock composition estimates. Index and C+E values represent 3-day moving

averages. The total run is forecasted at 30.9 million. This number is the summation of the three values listed

above plus the preseason forecast for Ugashik (no C+E data were available to form an inseason estimate).


Appendix A Page A41


estimates compared to what is expected based on our inseason Port Moller forecast (preseason was used for

Ugashik).


Appendix A Page A42


The daily Replacement Index held strong the last two days (Figure 1) and was quite consistent across Stations 4-10 (Table 1). Even though catches did not appear to taper at Station 10 (indicating part of the run is passing outside the test fishing transect) we decided to keep fishing Stations 2-10 tomorrow. Fishing Station 12 tomorrow would have required us to drop either Station 2 or 4. Ugashik fish move mostly through Stations 2 and 4, and we need to be able to detect any signal pertaining to Ugashik from here on out considering the less than expected Ugashik component in the genetics, as well as the light showing of C+E. Our forecast model is showing the run to be larger than 30 million. Unreasonably short travel times must be assumed if the run is lower. Furthermore, the run would have to be about six days early, and while this possibility is not unreasonable given last year (which was about 6-7 days early), it is not the most likely scenario based on the information thus far from the PMTF. We will update our forecast tomorrow afternoon once we learn what C+E was for today.


Appendix A Page A43



10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 11 6 2513-Jun 6 17 17 5 6 10 3514-Jun 23 8 10 16 11 14 4915-Jun 1 2 1 0 13 3 5216-Jun 0 6 29 17 24 15 6717-Jun 7 18 27 27 16 19 8618-Jun 8 20 31 31 19 22 10819-Jun 9 23 35 35 21 25 13320-Jun 1 16 33 31 17 20 15321-Jun 2 32 109 59 20 44 19722-Jun 10 62 36 6 12 26 22323-Jun 0 79 72 66 43 52 27424-Jun 18 85 61 62 11 47 32225-Jun 6 0 1 80 5 19 34026-Jun 6 28 47 19 34 27 36727-Jun 15 37 57 56 34 40 40728-Jun 9 9 57 61 52 38 44529-Jun 15 36 51 58 68 46 49030-Jun 8 53 48 51 49 42 5321-Jul2-Jul3-Jul4-Jul5-Jul6-Jul

Total 157 544 737 739 483Percent 6 20 28 28 18






Appendix A Page A44





Appendix A Page A45

PMTF Interpretation #12 for catches through July 1, 2014

Today the daily Replacement Index at the PMTF began the end of the year decline, and while catches should continue to fade from here on out there appears to be a sizeable tail left (Figure 1). PM exhibited a bimodal pattern this year peaking on June 23 and June 29, but the mean day of return past the test fishing transect was estimated to be June 26. The second peak suggest the run is not as early as anticipated and should have some strength left inshore during the next 5-7 days. Currently it looks like PM will be two days early, which translates to about the same overall run timing inshore (Figure 2). In general, catches inshore showed signs of tapering off these last few days. If we are to believe PM this was expected; but then we further expect C+E to pick back up starting July 3. What this second peak truly means is at the crux of interpreting PM at this point. If it represents as many fish inshore as did the first peak then the run will be more on time and much larger than expected. If for some reason catchability at PM increased midway during the season, C+E will be relatively less. Catches have remained high at Station 10 compared to the inner stations suggesting that a portion of the run is passing outside the transect. This occurrence would tend to decrease catchability. Our forecast based on tuning the daily Replacement Index to inseason C+E is now 38.3 million (Figure 3). This entails the Egegik, Naknek-Kvichak, and Nushagak-Wood Districts coming in at 55%, 72%, and 27% higher than ADF&G’s preseason forecasts (there is still not enough C+E in the Ugashik to apply this method of forecasting; thus the preseason estimate remains in place). Such a drastic adjustment to the forecast seems extreme; nevertheless, it is what the data and our modeling approach are telling us. Some things to consider:

1. The run timing relationship between PM and C+E is fairly strong (Figure 2), and PM will be about two days early. This pairing would have to decouple and be outside of the observed variability in the relationship if C+E is six days early. For the run to be 30 million or less, another extremely early run would be required. Yes, last year was unprecedented in terms of earliness (6-7 days), but run timing shows little correlation between years. Of course, a lack of correlation does not preclude two early years in a row.

2. The observed stock compositions at PM can be explained by a larger than expected Naknek-Kvichak component (Figure 4).

3. The age composition at PM has shifted from the preseason forecast and is now showing the 3-ocean component to be 35% instead of 45%. This finding is consistent with the Kvichak 1.2 component being larger than anticipated.


Appendix A Page A46



10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 11 6 2513-Jun 6 17 17 5 6 10 3514-Jun 23 8 10 16 11 14 4915-Jun 1 2 1 0 13 3 5216-Jun 0 6 29 17 24 15 6717-Jun 8 18 27 27 17 19 8618-Jun 9 20 31 31 20 22 10919-Jun 10 23 35 35 23 25 13420-Jun 1 16 33 31 17 20 15421-Jun 2 32 109 59 20 44 19822-Jun 10 62 36 6 12 26 22423-Jun 0 79 72 66 43 52 27624-Jun 18 85 61 62 11 47 32325-Jun 6 0 1 80 5 19 34126-Jun 6 28 47 19 36 27 36927-Jun 16 36 55 54 36 39 40828-Jun 9 9 57 61 52 38 44629-Jun 15 34 51 58 68 45 49130-Jun 8 53 48 51 49 42 5331-Jul 26 25 19 43 44 31 5642-Jul3-Jul4-Jul5-Jul6-Jul

Total 185 567 753 781 534Percent 7 20 27 28 19






Appendix A Page A47




0

25

50

75

100

10

-Ju

n

12

-Ju

n

14

-Ju

n

16

-Ju

n

18

-Ju

n

20

-Ju

n

22

-Ju

n

24

-Ju

n

26

-Ju

n

28

-Ju

n

30

-Ju

n

2-J

ul

4-J

ul

6-J

ul

8-J

ul

10

-Ju

l

CP

UE

(cat

ch p

er 2

00

fat

ho

m h

ou

rs) 2011

2012

2013

2014

2010


Appendix A Page A48

Figure 2. Timing of total C+E versus run timing at the PMTF.


Appendix A Page A49

Figure 3. Observed (gray bars) and projected (smooth red line) C+E for selected districts. The daily Replacement

Index (black line with gray circles; scale not shown) was adjusted for gillnet saturation and tailored for each district

based on station-specific genetic stock composition estimates. Index and C+E values represent 3-day moving

averages. The total run is forecasted at 38.3 million. This number is the summation of the three values listed

above plus the preseason forecast for Ugashik (not enough C+E data were available to form an inseason estimate).


Appendix A Page A50


estimates compared to what is expected based on our inseason Port Moller forecast (preseason was used for

Ugashik).


Appendix A Page A51

PMTF Interpretation #13 for catches through July 8, 2014

Catches at PM remain high for this late in the season (Figure 1). What this means for the tail of the run all depends on the consistency of catchability within season. If the catch pattern across stations had shifted inshore, then we might infer that the proportion of the run exposed to the fishing transect, and therefore catchability, was greater. However, in recent days catches have remained strong at Stations 8 and 10 suggesting the run continues to be distributed further offshore. Based on PM catches through July 1 we forecasted the total run to be 38.3 million with the assumption that catchability was constant through that point in the season. This projection called for the 2nd mode of C+E that peaked on July 4. Now, we find ourselves in a similar position in that sustained strength in PM catches could turn into another increase in C+E if the relationship between the PMTF and inshore holds. As before, the catch pattern across stations indicates no sudden shift in the distribution along the fishing transect that would affect catchability. Still, catchability could change for other reasons, and C+E for the past two days has dropped off more than PM would have predicted if catchability were constant. For now, we will leave our previous forecast in place as the next two days will inform us how to interpret the remaining catches at PM.


Appendix A Page A52



10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 11 6 2513-Jun 6 17 17 5 6 10 3514-Jun 23 8 10 16 11 14 4915-Jun 1 2 1 0 13 3 5216-Jun 0 6 29 17 24 15 6717-Jun 8 17 26 26 18 19 8618-Jun 9 20 29 29 20 21 10819-Jun 10 22 33 33 22 24 13120-Jun 1 16 33 31 17 20 15121-Jun 2 32 109 59 20 44 19622-Jun 10 62 36 6 12 26 22123-Jun 0 79 72 66 43 52 27324-Jun 18 85 61 62 11 47 32025-Jun 6 0 1 80 5 19 33926-Jun 6 28 47 19 36 27 36627-Jun 16 37 55 55 37 40 40628-Jun 9 9 57 61 52 38 44429-Jun 17 38 51 58 68 46 49030-Jun 8 53 48 51 49 42 5321-Jul 26 25 19 43 44 31 5642-Jul 0 52 58 44 49 41 6043-Jul 14 70 49 34 48 43 6474-Jul 2 50 48 73 47 44 6915-Jul 4 70 87 48 13 44 7356-Jul 2 26 46 60 54 38 7737-Jul 7 18 41 38 35 28 8018-Jul 23 36 60 93 50 52 853

Total 210 838 1035 1037 745Percent 5 22 27 27 19

a CPUE = the number of fish caught in all meshes and standardized to a 200 fathom net fished for 60 minutes.b Replacement daily index is simply the average CPUE across stations.




Appendix A Page A53




0

25

50

75

100

10

-Ju

n

12

-Ju

n

14

-Ju

n

16

-Ju

n

18

-Ju

n

20

-Ju

n

22

-Ju

n

24

-Ju

n

26

-Ju

n

28

-Ju

n

30

-Ju

n

2-J

ul

4-J

ul

6-J

ul

8-J

ul

10

-Ju

l

CP

UE

(cat

ch p

er 2

00

fat

ho

m h

ou

rs) 2011

2012

2013

2014

2010


Appendix A Page A54

PMTF Interpretation #14 for PM catches through July 10, 2014

Catch indexes at PM finished relatively high for 2014 (Table 1; Figure 1) with June 28 being the mean date of return past the PMTF. These last few PM catches indicate a substantial tail for C+E, but probably not as high as visually correlating these numbers with observed C+E would suggest. Catchability certainly increased later in the season, which translated (and will translate) into fewer fish inshore than if it had stayed constant. Letting our model adjust for this change in catchability allows for an updated forecast based on PM. While a forecast this late in the season is perhaps of limited utility, some may be interested in how PM informs us about the remaining tail. It seems unlikely that the run will not break 40 million, and more likely it will come in between 40 and 45 million (Figure 2). We will issue a final interpretation in a week or so summarizing the 2014 season. Table 1. Estimated daily and cumulative Replacement Index for the 2014 Port Moller test fishery.


10-Jun 4 5 3 38 9 12 1211-Jun 2 4 6 17 7 7 1912-Jun 6 3 4 5 11 6 2513-Jun 6 17 17 5 6 10 3514-Jun 23 8 10 16 11 14 4915-Jun 1 2 1 0 13 3 5216-Jun 0 6 29 17 24 15 6717-Jun 8 18 26 26 18 19 8618-Jun 9 20 29 29 20 21 10819-Jun 10 22 32 32 23 24 13120-Jun 1 16 33 31 17 20 15121-Jun 2 32 109 59 20 44 19622-Jun 10 62 36 6 12 26 22123-Jun 0 79 72 66 43 52 27324-Jun 18 85 61 62 11 47 32025-Jun 6 0 1 80 5 19 33926-Jun 6 28 47 19 37 27 36627-Jun 17 36 53 54 38 40 40628-Jun 9 9 57 61 52 38 44429-Jun 18 38 51 58 68 47 49030-Jun 8 53 48 51 49 42 5321-Jul 26 25 19 43 44 31 5642-Jul 0 52 58 44 49 41 6043-Jul 14 70 49 34 48 43 6474-Jul 2 50 48 73 47 44 6915-Jul 4 70 87 48 13 44 7356-Jul 2 26 46 60 54 38 7737-Jul 7 18 41 38 35 28 8018-Jul 23 36 60 93 50 52 8539-Jul 31 14 21 44 26 27 880

10-Jul 12 71 16 29 29 31 912

Total 212 838 1032 1035 748Percent 5 22 27 27 19






Appendix A Page A55





Appendix A Page A56

Figure 3. Observed (pink bars) and projected (colored patterns) C+E for selected districts. The daily Replacement

Index (not shown) was adjusted for gillnet saturation and tailored for each district based on genetic stock

composition estimates. Furthermore, the fish-per-index (FPI) parameter was adjusted within season to allow for

changes in catchability. The forecasted total run point estimate is now 43.1 million.


Appendix A Page A57

APPENDIX B

ADF&G’S INSEASON STOCK COMPOSITION ESTIMATES FOR THE PORT MOLLER TEST FISHERY IN 2014


Appendix B Page B1

Bristol Bay Sockeye Salmon Fishery

Port Moller Sockeye Salmon Stock Composition SummaryJune 10−15, 2014 − All Stations

Genetic stock composition estimates for sockeye salmon from the Port Moller Test Fishery for June10−15, 2014. A total of 258 fish were sampled and 190 were analyzed (187 had adequate data toinclude in the analysis).

90%StockComposition Confidence Intervals

Reporting Group Estimate Lower Upper

KuskokwimTogiakIgushikWoodNushagakKvichakAlagnakNaknekEgegikUgashikNorth Peninsula

1.3%1.1%0.3%

27.8%4.8%9.8%3.5%5.3%

34.4%2.3%9.5%

0.0%0.0%0.0%

21.4%0.0%2.3%0.0%0.1%

23.8%0.0%0.3%

8.4%8.0%2.0%

34.4%10.1%18.6%9.3%

11.2%44.9%11.4%17.0%

010

2030

4050

North P

enins

ula

Ugashi

kEge

gik

Nakne

k

Alagna

k

Kvicha

k

Nushag

akWoo

d

Igushi

kTog

iak

Kuskok

wim

Genetic Stock Composition Estimates for Sockeye Salmon Captured in thePort Moller Test Fishery, June 10−15, 2014 (All Stations).

Reporting Group

Stoc

k C

ompo

sitio

n E

stim

ate

(%)

The genetic analysis was completed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, GeneConservation Laboratory.

Page 1 of 4 Reported as of: June 18, 20149:00 AM


Appendix B Page B2







0.1%0.0%0.4%

23.8%0.8%

33.0%9.1%3.5%

27.7%0.4%1.3%

0.0%0.0%0.0%

16.9%0.0%

23.4%0.9%0.0%

18.3%0.0%0.0%

0.0%0.0%3.9%

30.6%5.8%

43.2%16.5%11.0%37.3%2.6%5.4%

010

2030

4050

North P

enins

ula

Ugashi

kEge

gik

Nakne

k

Alagna

k

Kvicha

k

Nushag

akWoo

d

Igushi

kTog

iak

Kuskok

wim


Reporting Group

Stoc

k C

ompo

sitio

n E

stim

ate

(%)


Page 1 of 4 Reported as of: June 24, 20149:00 AM


Appendix B Page B3







0.0%0.0%1.2%

23.3%0.0%

42.5%4.1%7.4%

21.0%0.0%0.3%

0.0%0.0%0.0%

13.5%0.0%

32.1%0.0%0.0%

11.7%0.0%0.0%

0.0%0.0%9.3%

30.6%0.0%

53.4%9.3%

14.9%31.0%0.0%1.7%

010

2030

4050

North P

enins

ula

Ugashi

kEge

gik

Nakne

k

Alagna

k

Kvicha

k

Nushag

akWoo

d

Igushi

kTog

iak

Kuskok

wim


Reporting Group

Stoc

k C

ompo

sitio

n E

stim

ate

(%)


Page 1 of 4 Reported as of: June 26, 20145:30 PM


Appendix B Page B4







0.0%0.0%0.0%

11.8%0.0%

54.7%7.8%

10.2%14.6%0.6%0.3%

0.0%0.0%0.0%7.7%0.0%

45.1%2.8%4.9%5.8%0.0%0.0%

0.0%0.0%0.0%

16.5%0.0%

64.2%13.2%16.5%23.5%4.5%2.5%

010

2030

4050

60

North P

enins

ula

Ugashi

kEge

gik

Nakne

k

Alagna

k

Kvicha

k

Nushag

akWoo

d

Igushi

kTog

iak

Kuskok

wim


Reporting Group

Stoc

k C

ompo

sitio

n E

stim

ate

(%)




Appendix B Page B5


Port Moller Sockeye Salmon Stock Composition SummaryJune 10−25, 2014 − Stations 2 and 4

Genetic stock composition estimates for sockeye salmon captured at stations 2 and 4 of the PortMoller Test Fishery from June 10−15 and 20−25, 2014. A total of 397 fish were sampled and 226 wereanalyzed (225 had adequate data to include in the analysis).




0.0%0.1%0.2%

19.3%0.1%

26.6%3.3%6.8%

27.2%9.2%7.2%

0.0%0.0%0.0%

14.3%0.0%

17.7%0.0%1.1%

16.8%0.0%2.8%

0.0%0.2%1.2%

24.6%0.6%

36.2%7.5%

13.6%38.1%17.7%12.4%

010

2030

4050

North P

enins

ula

Ugashi

kEge

gik

Nakne

k

Alagna

k

Kvicha

k

Nushag

akWoo

d

Igushi

kTog

iak

Kuskok

wim

Genetic Stock Composition Estimates for Sockeye Salmon Captured in thePort Moller Test Fishery, June 10−25, 2014 (Stations 2 and 4).

Reporting Group

Stoc

k C

ompo

sitio

n E

stim

ate

(%)




Appendix B Page B6


Port Moller Sockeye Salmon Stock Composition SummaryJune 10−25, 2014 − Station 6

Genetic stock composition estimates for sockeye salmon captured at station 6 of the Port MollerTest Fishery from June 10−15 and 20−25, 2014. A total of 370 fish were sampled and 203 wereanalyzed (202 had adequate data to include in the analysis).




0.1%0.0%2.2%

23.2%1.1%

29.9%8.0%7.2%

27.5%0.8%0.1%

0.0%0.0%0.0%

13.9%0.0%

21.5%3.2%1.8%

18.9%0.0%0.0%

0.1%0.1%

10.4%31.1%5.9%

38.9%13.6%13.3%36.3%5.0%0.1%

010

2030

4050

North P

enins

ula

Ugashi

kEge

gik

Nakne

k

Alagna

k

Kvicha

k

Nushag

akWoo

d

Igushi

kTog

iak

Kuskok

wim

Genetic Stock Composition Estimates for Sockeye Salmon Captured in thePort Moller Test Fishery, June 10−25, 2014 (Station 6).

Reporting Group

Stoc

k C

ompo

sitio

n E

stim

ate

(%)




Appendix B Page B7


Port Moller Sockeye Salmon Stock Composition SummaryJune 10−25, 2014 − Stations 8 and 10

Genetic stock composition estimates for sockeye salmon captured at stations 8 and 10 of the PortMoller Test Fishery from June 10−15 and 20−25, 2014. A total of 546 fish were sampled and 331 wereanalyzed (329 had adequate data to include in the analysis).




0.0%0.1%0.2%

23.7%3.0%

41.1%5.8%8.7%

17.2%0.2%0.1%

0.0%0.0%0.0%

19.0%0.9%

33.2%2.0%4.3%

11.0%0.0%0.0%

0.1%0.4%1.3%

28.6%5.9%

48.8%10.4%13.9%23.9%1.0%0.3%

010

2030

4050

North P

enins

ula

Ugashi

kEge

gik

Nakne

k

Alagna

k

Kvicha

k

Nushag

akWoo

d

Igushi

kTog

iak

Kuskok

wim

Genetic Stock Composition Estimates for Sockeye Salmon Captured in thePort Moller Test Fishery, June 10−25, 2014 (Stations 8 and 10).

Reporting Group

Stoc

k C

ompo

sitio

n E

stim

ate

(%)




Appendix B Page B8


Port Moller Sockeye Salmon Stock Composition SummaryJune 28−29, 2014 − All Fished Stations





0.0%0.0%

11.7%6.8%0.1%

47.0%6.6%7.7%

18.8%1.3%0.0%

0.0%0.0%6.1%1.7%0.0%

37.0%1.5%2.7%9.7%0.0%0.0%

0.0%0.0%

17.6%12.9%0.0%

56.9%12.6%14.3%27.9%9.9%0.0%

010

2030

4050

North P

enins

ula

Ugashi

kEge

gik

Nakne

k

Alagna

k

Kvicha

k

Nushag

akWoo

d

Igushi

kTog

iak

Kuskok

wim

Genetic Stock Composition Estimates for Sockeye Salmon Captured in thePort Moller Test Fishery, June 28−29, 2014 (All Fished Stations).

Reporting Group

Stoc

k C

ompo

sitio

n E

stim

ate

(%)


Page 1 of 4 Reported as of: July 1, 2014 5:30 PM


Appendix B Page B9


Port Moller Sockeye Salmon Stock Composition SummaryJune 30−July 1, 2014 − All Stations

Genetic stock composition estimates for sockeye salmon from the Port Moller Test Fishery for June30−July 1, 2014. A total of 366 fish were sampled and 190 were analyzed (190 had adequate data toinclude in the analysis).




0.1%0.3%5.4%9.2%0.1%

49.1%0.1%5.8%

29.5%0.2%0.3%

0.0%0.0%0.0%3.6%0.0%

39.3%0.0%0.0%

20.2%0.0%0.0%

0.6%1.6%

11.1%15.4%0.6%

59.0%0.8%

12.6%39.0%0.7%2.3%

010

2030

4050

North P

enins

ula

Ugashi

kEge

gik

Nakne

k

Alagna

k

Kvicha

k

Nushag

akWoo

d

Igushi

kTog

iak

Kuskok

wim

Genetic Stock Composition Estimates for Sockeye Salmon Captured in thePort Moller Test Fishery, June 30−July 1, 2014 (All Stations).

Reporting Group

Stoc

k C

ompo

sitio

n E

stim

ate

(%)




Appendix B Page B10


Port Moller Sockeye Salmon Stock Composition SummaryJuly 2−3, 2014 − All Stations

Genetic stock composition estimates for sockeye salmon from the Port Moller Test Fishery for July2−3, 2014. A total of 427 fish were sampled and 190 were analyzed (182 had adequate data to includein the analysis).




0.7%0.0%

12.2%1.6%4.9%

50.3%1.8%9.2%

11.1%8.2%0.1%

0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%

39.7%0.0%4.3%0.8%0.0%0.0%

4.7%0.0%

20.9%8.4%

13.6%61.2%8.0%

15.2%24.7%23.8%0.0%

010

2030

4050

60

North P

enins

ula

Ugashi

kEge

gik

Nakne

k

Alagna

k

Kvicha

k

Nushag

akWoo

d

Igushi

kTog

iak

Kuskok

wim

Genetic Stock Composition Estimates for Sockeye Salmon Captured in thePort Moller Test Fishery, July 2−3, 2014 (All Stations).

Reporting Group

Stoc

k C

ompo

sitio

n E

stim

ate

(%)




Appendix B Page B11


Port Moller Sockeye Salmon Stock Composition SummaryJuly 4−5, 2014 − All Stations

Genetic stock composition estimates for sockeye salmon from the Port Moller Test Fishery for July4−5, 2014. A total of 449 fish were sampled and 190 were analyzed (186 had adequate data to includein the analysis).



Kuskokwim

TogiakIgushikWood

NushagakKvichak

AlagnakNaknek

EgegikUgashikNorth Peninsula

0.2%0.2%9.7%5.2%0.3%

55.9%2.1%

13.6%10.6%2.1%0.0%

0.0%0.0%2.8%0.0%0.0%

46.3%0.0%7.8%4.4%0.0%0.0%

1.0%1.5%

17.7%13.3%1.7%

65.1%8.7%

20.1%18.2%7.6%0.1%

010

2030

4050

60

North

Pen

insula

Ugash

ik

Egegik

Nakne

k

Alagna

k

Kvicha

k

Nusha

gak

Woo

d

Igus

hik

Togia

k

Kusko

kwim

Genetic Stock Composition Estimates for Sockeye Salmon Captured in thePort Moller Test Fishery, July 4−5, 2014 (All Stations).

Reporting Group

Sto

ck C

ompo

sitio

n E

stim

ate

(%)



Appendix B Page B12Page 1 of 4Reported as of: July 9, 2014 5:00 PM

Historical Comparison of Stock Composition Estimates0.

00.

20.

40.

60.

81.

0 2014

6/10

−15

N/A

6/20

−21

6/22

−23

6/24

−25

N/A

6/28

−29

6/30

−7/1

7/2−

3

7/4−

5

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 2013

Pro

port

ion

of C

atch

6/10

−17

6/18

−19

6/20

−21

6/23

−24

6/25

−26

6/27

−28

N/A N/A N/A7/

3−6

N/A N/A N/A

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 2012

Date

6/10

−17

6/18

−20

6/21

6/22

−23

N/A

6/26

−27

6/28

−29

6/30

−7/1

7/2−

3N/A

7/5−

8N/A N/A

North PeninsulaUgashikEgegikNaknekAlagnakKvichakNushagakWoodIgushikTogiakKuskokwim


Appendix B Page B13 Reported as of: July 9, 2014 5:00 PM

Page 2 of 4


00.

20.

40.

60.

81.

0 2011

6/10

−15

6/17

−19

6/20

−21

6/22

−23

6/24

−25

N/A N/A

6/30

−7/1

7/2−

4

7/5−

7N/A N/A N/A

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 2010

Pro

port

ion

of C

atch

6/10

−18

6/19

−20

6/21

−22

6/23

−24

N/A 6/26

6/28

−29

6/30

−7/1

7/2−

3

7/4−

57/

6−7

N/A N/A

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 2009

Date

6/10

−17

6/18

−19

6/20

−21

6/22

−23

6/24

−25

6/26

−27

6/28

−29

6/30

−7/1

N/A7/

4−5

N/A N/A N/A



Appendix B Page B14Reported as of: July 9, 2014 5:00 PMPage 3 of 4


00.

20.

40.

60.

81.

0 2008

6/14

−17

6/18

−19

6/20

−21

6/22

−23

6/24

6/26

−27

6/28

−29

6/30

−7/1

N/A7/

3−4

7/5−

6N/A N/A

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 2007

Pro

port

ion

of C

atch

6/11

−16

6/17

−19

6/20

−21

6/22

−23

N/A

6/25

−26

N/A

6/29

−30

7/1−

2

7/3−

4

7/5−

67/

7−8

7/9−

10

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 2006

Date

6/13

−15

N/A

6/18

−19

6/20

−21

6/22

−23

6/24

−25

6/26

−27

6/28

−29

N/A7/

2−3

N/A N/A N/A



Appendix B Page B15Reported as of: July 9, 2014 5:00 PMPage 4 of 4

APPENDIX C

ADF&G’S INSEASON AGE COMPOSITION ESTIMATES FOR THE PORT MOLLER TEST FISHERY IN 2014


Appendix C Page C1

Bristol Bay Salmon Fishery - Age Composition Summary

(Prelminary age composition weighted by daily index. Daily index can be harvest, escapement or test fish indices)

Period Start End Sample Index 11 21 12 22 13 23 14

Age Composition (Percent)

03

Sockeye Salmon

Port Moller

Port Moller Test Fishery

1 06/10/2014 06/15/2014 192 52 0.0 0.0 31.3 17.2 0.0 44.3 7.3 0.0

2 06/16/2014 06/16/2014 62 15 0.0 0.0 38.7 8.1 0.0 50.0 3.2 0.0

3 06/20/2014 06/21/2014 281 64 0.0 0.0 56.6 5.0 0.0 35.9 1.4 1.1

4 06/22/2014 06/23/2014 344 78 0.0 0.0 31.1 28.8 0.0 28.8 11.0 0.3

5 06/24/2014 06/25/2014 279 66 0.0 0.0 38.0 36.9 0.0 17.2 7.2 0.0

7 06/28/2014 06/29/2014 271 84 0.0 0.0 59.8 14.8 0.0 22.1 3.3 0.0

8 06/30/2014 07/01/2014 323 73 0.0 0.0 39.0 41.5 0.0 14.9 4.6 0.0

9 07/02/2014 07/03/2014 375 84 0.0 0.0 30.9 44.5 0.0 15.7 8.5 0.0

10 07/04/2014 07/05/2014 410 88 0.0 0.0 36.6 43.9 0.0 12.9 6.3 0.2

11 07/06/2014 07/07/2014 288 66 0.0 0.0 29.5 51.7 0.0 13.2 5.2 0.0

12 07/08/2014 07/10/2014 407 111 0.0 0.0 34.6 45.0 0.0 12.8 6.6 0.7

3,232 781 0.0Total 0.0 38.7 33.7 0.0 21.0 6.2 0.2Port Moller Test Fishery

37.6 18.6 33.8 9.6 0.00.0Forecast

3,232 781 Total 0.0 0.0 38.7 33.7 0.0 21.0 6.2 0.2Port Moller

Ugashik District

Ugashik District Harvest

1 06/03/2014 07/02/2014 625 245,563 0.0 0.0 13.8 47.8 0.0 23.5 14.6 0.2

2 07/03/2014 07/05/2014 422 159,393 0.0 0.0 17.1 65.2 0.0 8.8 8.3 0.5

3 07/06/2014 07/10/2014 656 589,297 0.0 0.2 18.4 70.0 0.0 5.2 6.1 0.2

4 07/11/2014 07/12/2014 401 228,149 0.0 0.2 20.4 69.1 0.0 6.7 3.2 0.0

5 07/13/2014 07/21/2014 427 216,789 0.0 0.0 29.3 60.0 0.0 7.7 3.0 0.0

2,531 1,439,191 0.0Total 0.1 19.4 64.0 0.0 9.3 6.9 0.1Ugashik District Harvest

35.3 22.4 33.9 8.4 0.00.0Forecast

Ugashik River Escapement

1 06/27/2014 07/09/2014 565 388,362 7.1 1.4 45.7 9.9 0.0 31.3 4.2 0.0

2 07/10/2014 07/15/2014 369 112,182 10.3 0.5 65.0 10.0 0.0 13.0 1.1 0.0

3 07/16/2014 07/27/2014 384 139,614 15.4 0.8 58.3 10.2 0.0 13.5 1.6 0.3

1,318 640,158 9.5Total 1.1 51.8 10.0 0.0 24.2 3.1 0.1Ugashik River Escapement

35.3 22.4 33.9 8.4 0.00.0Forecast

3,849 2,079,349 Total 2.9 0.4 29.4 47.4 0.0 13.9 5.7 0.1Ugashik District

Page 1 of 4Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries 8/28/2014 4:32:11 PM


Appendix C Page C2



03

Egegik District

Egegik District Harvest

1 06/02/2014 06/23/2014 437 189,146 0.0 0.0 24.0 33.0 0.0 25.9 16.9 0.0

2 06/24/2014 06/25/2014 195 305,056 0.0 0.0 11.8 29.2 0.0 19.0 39.0 0.5

3 06/26/2014 06/26/2014 419 856,576 0.0 0.2 15.0 45.1 0.0 16.0 22.9 0.2

4 06/27/2014 06/28/2014 426 1,362,317 0.0 0.0 15.3 55.9 0.0 10.3 18.3 0.0

5 06/29/2014 06/30/2014 401 415,714 0.0 0.2 10.0 61.8 0.0 10.0 16.7 0.2

6 07/01/2014 07/04/2014 418 905,346 0.0 0.0 17.7 46.9 0.0 12.0 22.7 0.0

7 07/05/2014 07/08/2014 1,073 1,403,269 0.1 0.0 30.6 48.0 0.0 14.5 6.2 0.2

8 07/09/2014 07/10/2014 416 471,721 0.0 0.5 26.0 54.1 0.0 9.9 9.6 0.0

9 07/11/2014 07/13/2014 432 663,755 0.0 0.7 33.1 50.5 0.0 7.2 8.3 0.0

10 07/14/2014 07/21/2014 429 324,728 0.0 0.5 37.8 46.2 0.0 10.7 4.7 0.0

4,646 6,897,628 0.0Total 0.2 21.9 49.2 0.0 12.6 15.6 0.1Egegik District Harvest

5.6 55.7 13.9 24.8 0.00.0Forecast

Egegik River Escapement

1 06/13/2014 06/25/2014 301 239,082 2.3 20.3 10.6 44.2 0.0 8.3 13.0 0.0

2 06/26/2014 07/02/2014 442 632,442 0.2 19.9 6.6 52.0 0.0 6.1 13.8 0.0

3 07/03/2014 07/16/2014 516 510,942 4.7 16.9 16.9 50.4 0.0 3.9 6.6 0.0

1,259 1,382,466 2.2Total 18.8 11.1 50.1 0.0 5.7 11.0 0.0Egegik River Escapement

5.6 55.7 13.9 24.8 0.00.0Forecast

5,905 8,280,094 Total 0.4 3.3 20.1 49.4 0.0 11.4 14.8 0.1Egegik District



Appendix C Page C3



03

Naknek-Kvichak District

Naknek-Kvichak District Harvest

1 06/10/2014 06/24/2014 380 341,604 0.0 0.0 20.8 20.8 0.0 34.2 24.2 0.0

2 06/25/2014 06/26/2014 612 1,157,549 0.0 0.2 25.0 39.1 0.0 18.3 17.3 0.0

3 06/27/2014 06/29/2014 624 2,067,408 0.0 0.0 35.9 26.9 0.0 21.2 15.5 0.3

4 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 416 636,381 0.0 0.0 48.6 30.8 0.0 13.9 6.7 0.0

5 07/01/2014 07/02/2014 652 1,493,762 0.0 0.0 62.3 18.6 0.0 16.7 2.3 0.0

6 07/03/2014 07/05/2014 543 2,998,689 0.0 0.0 42.7 41.8 0.0 8.7 6.6 0.2

7 07/06/2014 07/09/2014 848 2,112,651 0.0 0.0 43.0 42.7 0.0 10.3 3.9 0.0

8 07/10/2014 07/11/2014 357 695,145 0.0 0.3 42.3 45.9 0.0 7.6 3.6 0.0

9 07/12/2014 07/13/2014 436 916,170 0.0 0.2 43.6 47.2 0.0 6.4 2.3 0.0

10 07/14/2014 07/21/2014 600 259,026 0.0 0.0 47.0 36.8 0.0 12.2 3.7 0.3

5,468 12,678,385 0.0Total 0.0 42.2 35.9 0.0 13.6 8.0 0.1Naknek-Kvichak District Harvest

36.5 16.5 36.4 10.7 0.00.0Forecast

Kvichak River Escapement

1 06/16/2014 06/29/2014 429 850,890 0.0 2.1 42.0 44.3 0.0 7.9 3.7 0.0

2 06/30/2014 07/18/2014 690 3,607,650 0.1 2.0 35.2 58.6 0.0 2.0 1.4 0.3

1,119 4,458,540 0.1Total 2.0 36.5 55.8 0.0 3.2 1.9 0.2Kvichak River Escapement

44.7 22.8 24.7 7.8 0.00.0Forecast

Kvichak Section Harvest - Set

1 06/17/2014 06/30/2014 633 425,362 0.0 0.0 37.8 35.9 0.0 16.3 10.1 0.0

2 07/01/2014 07/09/2014 1,304 426,659 0.1 0.2 50.6 34.2 0.0 11.0 3.5 0.2

1,937 852,021 0.0Total 0.1 44.2 35.0 0.0 13.7 6.8 0.1Kvichak Section Harvest - Set

44.7 22.8 24.7 7.8 0.00.0Forecast

Naknek River Escapement

1 06/14/2014 06/26/2014 502 352,866 2.8 1.4 54.8 9.4 0.0 15.9 15.5 0.2

2 06/27/2014 07/02/2014 384 666,240 2.9 1.3 60.4 7.0 0.0 17.2 10.9 0.3

3 07/03/2014 07/17/2014 504 455,322 9.1 4.0 75.0 5.2 0.0 4.2 2.6 0.0

1,390 1,474,428 4.8Total 2.1 63.6 7.0 0.0 12.9 9.5 0.2Naknek River Escapement

34.4 14.0 34.8 16.8 0.00.0Forecast

9,914 19,463,374 Total 0.4 0.7 42.6 38.3 0.0 11.2 6.7 0.1Naknek-Kvichak District



Appendix C Page C4



03

Nushagak District

Nushagak District Harvest

1 06/10/2014 06/24/2014 360 53,411 0.0 0.0 49.7 1.4 0.0 42.8 0.6 4.7

2 06/25/2014 06/26/2014 821 1,220,192 0.0 0.0 45.9 2.3 0.0 47.9 1.5 2.4

3 06/27/2014 06/28/2014 302 1,381,501 0.0 0.0 36.8 4.3 0.0 55.3 2.0 1.7

4 06/29/2014 06/30/2014 555 695,719 0.0 0.2 45.4 3.4 0.0 47.9 1.3 1.8

5 07/01/2014 07/04/2014 782 1,191,325 0.0 0.0 46.8 5.2 0.0 44.6 2.0 1.0

6 07/05/2014 07/08/2014 642 872,607 0.0 0.0 46.7 6.1 0.0 43.3 2.8 0.8

8 07/11/2014 07/21/2014 782 347,172 0.1 0.0 58.8 3.7 0.0 37.1 0.1 0.1

4,244 5,761,927 0.0Total 0.0 44.8 4.2 0.0 47.6 1.8 1.5Nushagak District Harvest

57.8 2.0 37.9 1.0 1.30.0Forecast

Igushik River Escapement

1 06/18/2014 07/21/2014 598 315,594 0.0 0.0 62.2 2.0 0.0 35.1 0.3 0.2

598 315,594 0.0Total 0.0 62.2 2.0 0.0 35.1 0.3 0.2Igushik River Escapement

17.8 2.8 77.1 2.4 0.00.0Forecast

Igushik Section Harvest -Set

1 06/10/2014 07/04/2014 624 240,860 0.0 0.0 24.2 4.0 0.0 61.4 10.1 0.2

2 07/05/2014 07/21/2014 771 210,624 0.0 0.0 38.7 9.6 0.0 47.3 4.3 0.1

1,395 451,484 0.0Total 0.0 30.9 6.6 0.0 54.8 7.4 0.1Igushik Section Harvest -Set

17.8 2.8 77.1 2.4 0.00.0Forecast

Wood River Escapement

1 06/13/2014 06/25/2014 373 302,580 0.0 0.0 68.4 1.9 0.0 28.4 0.8 0.3

2 06/26/2014 07/02/2014 800 1,619,004 0.1 0.0 80.4 1.6 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.4

3 07/03/2014 07/20/2014 476 843,030 1.1 0.0 90.5 1.3 0.0 6.5 0.6 0.0

1,649 2,764,614 0.4Total 0.0 82.2 1.5 0.0 15.3 0.3 0.2Wood River Escapement

71.5 2.2 25.4 8.7 0.00.0Forecast

Nushagak River Escapement

1 06/06/2014 06/30/2014 510 372,301 0.0 0.0 19.6 0.4 0.0 64.5 1.0 13.7

2 07/01/2014 07/21/2014 216 242,416 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.5 0.0 73.6 0.0 6.0

726 614,717 0.0Total 0.0 19.7 0.4 0.0 68.1 0.6 10.7Nushagak River Escapement

5.1 0.5 83.8 0.9 9.70.0Forecast

8,612 9,908,336 Total 0.1 0.0 53.6 3.2 0.0 39.8 1.5 1.6Nushagak District

Togiak District

Togiak Section Harvest

1 06/10/2014 06/30/2014 334 23,791 0.0 0.0 15.9 1.2 0.0 79.6 0.3 3.0

2 07/01/2014 07/09/2014 793 93,128 0.0 0.0 23.0 1.6 0.0 73.8 0.0 1.6

3 07/10/2014 07/21/2014 313 120,263 0.3 0.0 24.6 0.3 0.0 74.8 0.0 0.0

1,440 237,182 0.2Total 0.0 23.1 0.9 0.0 74.9 0.0 0.9Togiak Section Harvest

17.1 5.5 72.4 5.0 0.00.0Forecast

1,440 237,182 Total 0.2 0.0 23.1 0.9 0.0 74.9 0.0 0.9Togiak District

32,952 39,969,116 Total 0.5 1.0 39.9 32.1 0.0 18.8 7.0 0.5Sockeye Salmon



Appendix C Page C5

APPENDIX D

ADF&G’S DAILY RUN SUMMARIES FOR BRISTOL BAY IN 2014

Export to PDF Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game - Division of Commercial Fisheries

- Bristol Bay Daily Run Summary -

Run Date06/16/2014

CatchDaily

Cumulative EscapementDaily

Cumulative In-RiverEstimate

TotalRun

BristolBayEast

Ugashik 0 4,032 0 0 0 4,032Ugashik River 0 4,032 0 0 0 66,987

Egegik 35,663 55,046 450 6,588 0 61,634Egegik River 35,663 55,046 450 6,588 0 73,575

Naknek-Kvichak 4,574 4,731 414 1,578 0 6,309Kvichak River 4,574 4,731 48 48 0 67,035Naknek River 4,574 4,731 366 1,530 0 68,517

BristolBayWest

Nushagak 534 3,153 7,322 33,998 0 37,151Igushik River 534 3,153 0 0 0 66,987

Nushagak River 534 3,153 3,524 17,996 0 84,983Wood River 534 3,153 3,798 16,002 0 82,989

Togiak 0 25 0 0 0 25Togiak River 0 25 0 0 0 66,987

Bristol Bay Totals: 40,771 66,987 8,186 42,164 0 109,151

Sockeye per Drift Delivery for: June 16

Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashikEgegik 80Naknek-Kvichak 30Nushagak 4Togiak

Test Fishery Port Moller

Traditional IndexDaily Cumulative

June 13 27 96June 14 24 119June 15 1 120June 16 31 151



Run Date06/17/2014

CatchDaily



TotalRun

BristolBayEast


Egegik 0 105,660 3,672 11,988 10,000 127,648Egegik River 0 105,660 3,672 11,988 10,000 264,561

Naknek-Kvichak 80,000 126,954 1,110 3,072 0 130,026Kvichak River 80,000 126,954 150 444 0 243,017Naknek River 80,000 126,954 960 2,628 0 245,201

BristolBayWest

Nushagak 1,571 5,291 11,968 48,802 0 54,093Igushik River 1,571 5,291 0 0 0 242,573

Nushagak River 1,571 5,291 4,168 23,248 0 265,821Wood River 1,571 5,291 7,800 25,554 0 268,127


Bristol Bay Totals: 81,630 242,573 16,750 63,862 10,000 316,435


Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashikEgegikNaknek-Kvichak 132Nushagak 7Togiak 29






Run Date06/18/2014

CatchDaily



TotalRun

BristolBayEast



Naknek-Kvichak 80,000 126,954 1,110 3,072 0 130,026Kvichak River 80,000 126,954 150 444 0 243,017Naknek River 80,000 126,954 960 2,628 0 245,201

BristolBayWest












Run Date06/19/2014

CatchDaily



TotalRun

BristolBayEast



Naknek-Kvichak 32,000 153,667 4,950 8,022 0 161,689Kvichak River 32,000 153,667 132 576 0 269,883Naknek River 32,000 153,667 4,818 7,446 0 276,753

BristolBayWest






Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashikEgegikNaknek-Kvichak 52NushagakTogiak






Run Date06/20/2014

CatchDaily



TotalRun

BristolBayEast



Naknek-Kvichak 905 154,602 3,216 11,238 0 165,840Kvichak River 905 154,602 504 1,080 0 272,212Naknek River 905 154,602 2,712 10,158 0 281,290

BristolBayWest












Run Date06/21/2014

CatchDaily



TotalRun

BristolBayEast


Egegik 0 115,499 23,232 73,176 0 188,675Egegik River 0 115,499 23,232 73,176 0 354,245


BristolBayWest

Nushagak 0 6,121 0 95,170 0 101,291Igushik River 0 6,121 0 96 0 281,165

Nushagak River 0 6,121 0 40,192 0 321,261Wood River 0 6,121 0 54,882 0 335,951


Bristol Bay Totals: 0 281,069 49,884 209,314 0 490,383


Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashikEgegikNaknek-KvichakNushagakTogiak






Run Date06/22/2014

CatchDaily



TotalRun

BristolBayEast




BristolBayWest




Bristol Bay Totals: 0 281,069 66,300 225,730 70,000 576,799


Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashikEgegikNaknek-KvichakNushagakTogiak






Run Date06/23/2014

CatchDaily



TotalRun

BristolBayEast


Egegik 74,000 189,499 76,752 149,928 25,000 364,427Egegik River 74,000 189,499 76,752 149,928 25,000 531,543


BristolBayWest



Togiak 917 1,732 0 0 0 1,732Togiak River 917 1,732 0 0 0 356,615



Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashikEgegik 92Naknek-KvichakNushagakTogiak 40






Run Date06/24/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast

Ugashik 0 4,549 0 0 10,000 14,549Ugashik River 0 4,549 0 0 10,000 674,792


Naknek-Kvichak 250,000 404,602 137,868 281,046 150,000 835,648Kvichak River 250,000 404,602 5,508 8,520 150,000 823,312Naknek River 250,000 404,602 132,360 272,526 0 937,318

BristolBayWest



Togiak 4,700 6,432 0 0 0 6,432Togiak River 4,700 6,432 0 0 0 664,792

Bristol Bay Totals: 307,700 664,792 246,569 664,782 230,000 1,559,574


Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashikEgegikNaknek-Kvichak 280NushagakTogiak 83






Run Date06/25/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast

Ugashik 0 4,549 0 0 12,000 16,549Ugashik River 0 4,549 0 0 12,000 2,075,370

Egegik 305,000 494,502 25,020 239,082 100,000 833,584Egegik River 305,000 494,502 25,020 239,082 100,000 2,402,452

Naknek-Kvichak 594,000 997,406 101,556 382,602 250,000 1,630,008Kvichak River 594,000 997,406 70,014 78,534 250,000 2,391,904Naknek River 594,000 997,406 31,542 304,068 0 2,367,438

BristolBayWest

Nushagak 496,340 555,848 245,208 414,882 0 970,730Igushik River 496,340 555,848 114 348 0 2,063,718

Nushagak River 496,340 555,848 37,572 111,954 0 2,175,324Wood River 496,340 555,848 207,522 302,580 0 2,365,950

Togiak 4,617 11,065 0 0 0 11,065Togiak River 4,617 11,065 0 0 0 2,063,370

Bristol Bay Totals: 1,399,957 2,063,370 371,784 1,036,566 362,000 3,461,936


Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashikEgegik 795Naknek-Kvichak 655Nushagak 622Togiak 61






Run Date06/26/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast


Egegik 860,000 1,354,558 55,992 295,074 250,000 1,899,632Egegik River 860,000 1,354,558 55,992 295,074 250,000 4,694,247

Naknek-Kvichak 663,000 1,660,060 229,830 612,432 300,000 2,572,492Kvichak River 663,000 1,660,060 181,032 259,566 300,000 4,708,739Naknek River 663,000 1,660,060 48,798 352,866 0 4,502,039

BristolBayWest

Nushagak 511,000 1,116,917 681,742 1,096,624 0 2,213,541Igushik River 511,000 1,116,917 12 360 0 4,149,533

Nushagak River 511,000 1,116,917 98,422 210,376 0 4,359,549Wood River 511,000 1,116,917 583,308 885,888 0 5,035,061










Run Date06/27/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast



Naknek-Kvichak 1,200,000 2,859,952 277,392 889,824 200,000 3,949,776Kvichak River 1,200,000 2,859,952 208,548 468,114 200,000 7,478,956Naknek River 1,200,000 2,859,952 68,844 421,710 0 7,232,552

BristolBayWest

Nushagak 769,000 1,885,872 387,113 1,483,737 0 3,369,609Igushik River 769,000 1,885,872 540 900 0 6,811,742

Nushagak River 769,000 1,885,872 71,147 281,523 0 7,092,365Wood River 769,000 1,885,872 315,426 1,201,314 0 8,012,156

Togiak 615 13,704 0 0 0 13,704Togiak River 615 13,704 0 0 0 6,810,842









Run Date06/28/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast

Ugashik 0 10,180 2,514 2,700 30,000 42,880Ugashik River 0 10,180 2,514 2,700 30,000 8,850,397


Naknek-Kvichak 720,000 3,550,863 292,874 1,182,698 250,000 4,983,561Kvichak River 720,000 3,550,863 146,484 614,598 250,000 9,682,295Naknek River 720,000 3,550,863 146,390 568,100 0 9,385,797

BristolBayWest

Nushagak 653,000 2,538,486 208,145 1,691,882 0 4,230,368Igushik River 653,000 2,538,486 16,488 17,388 0 8,835,085











Run Date06/29/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast

Ugashik 66,000 76,180 2,694 5,394 80,000 161,574Ugashik River 66,000 76,180 2,694 5,394 80,000 9,984,589


Naknek-Kvichak 380,000 3,937,225 456,552 1,639,250 650,000 6,226,475Kvichak River 380,000 3,937,225 236,292 850,890 650,000 11,400,085Naknek River 380,000 3,937,225 220,260 788,360 0 10,687,555

BristolBayWest






Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashik 1179Egegik 493Naknek-Kvichak 604Nushagak 509Togiak






Run Date06/30/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast



Naknek-Kvichak 700,000 4,635,563 628,176 2,267,426 800,000 7,702,989Kvichak River 700,000 4,635,563 487,236 1,338,126 800,000 13,305,605Naknek River 700,000 4,635,563 140,940 929,300 0 12,096,779

BristolBayWest




Bristol Bay Totals: 1,240,000 11,167,479 957,275 5,241,961 1,050,000 17,459,440








Run Date07/02/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast



Naknek-Kvichak 900,000 6,192,063 659,202 3,561,186 200,000 9,953,249Kvichak River 900,000 6,192,063 643,110 2,542,080 200,000 16,476,530Naknek River 900,000 6,192,063 16,092 1,019,106 0 14,753,556

BristolBayWest





Sockeye per Drift Delivery for: July 2

Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashik 1173Egegik 1059Naknek-Kvichak 844Nushagak 354Togiak 90



June 29 90 1094June 30 64 1158July 1 52 1210July 2 90 1326



Run Date07/03/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast



Naknek-Kvichak 1,100,000 7,290,497 507,450 4,068,636 100,000 11,459,133Kvichak River 1,100,000 7,290,497 481,890 3,023,970 100,000 18,365,504Naknek River 1,100,000 7,290,497 25,560 1,044,666 0 16,286,200

BristolBayWest



Togiak 5,000 53,750 1,542 1,542 0 55,292Togiak River 5,000 53,750 1,542 1,542 0 15,243,076






June 30 64 1158July 1 52 1210July 2 90 1326July 3 90 1415



Run Date07/04/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast


Egegik 440,000 4,035,600 140,862 1,066,668 200,000 5,302,268Egegik River 440,000 4,035,600 140,862 1,066,668 200,000 18,671,367

Naknek-Kvichak 1,230,000 8,554,425 303,006 4,371,642 150,000 13,076,067Kvichak River 1,230,000 8,554,425 269,208 3,293,178 150,000 20,847,877Naknek River 1,230,000 8,554,425 33,798 1,078,464 0 18,483,163

BristolBayWest









July 1 52 1210July 2 90 1326July 3 90 1415July 4 105 1520



Run Date07/05/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast



Naknek-Kvichak 900,000 9,452,670 202,314 4,573,956 500,000 14,526,626Kvichak River 900,000 9,452,670 150,894 3,444,072 500,000 23,151,847Naknek River 900,000 9,452,670 51,420 1,129,884 0 20,337,659

BristolBayWest

Nushagak 340,000 4,785,770 126,295 2,834,971 0 7,620,741Igushik River 340,000 4,785,770 0 128,064 0 19,335,839











Run Date07/06/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast



Naknek-Kvichak 460,000 9,839,161 258,474 4,832,430 0 14,671,591Kvichak River 460,000 9,839,161 183,108 3,627,180 0 23,715,011Naknek River 460,000 9,839,161 75,366 1,205,250 0 21,293,081

BristolBayWest



Togiak 0 69,932 2,124 8,148 0 78,080Togiak River 0 69,932 2,124 8,148 0 20,095,979

Bristol Bay Totals: 954,000 20,087,831 458,231 9,300,630 90,000 29,478,461


Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashikEgegik 419Naknek-Kvichak 385Nushagak 373Togiak






Run Date07/07/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast




BristolBayWest



Togiak 19,000 88,932 924 9,072 0 98,004Togiak River 19,000 88,932 924 9,072 0 21,150,193









Run Date07/08/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast

Ugashik 96,000 592,919 41,922 362,118 80,000 1,035,037Ugashik River 96,000 592,919 41,922 362,118 80,000 22,904,786



BristolBayWest












Run Date07/09/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast




BristolBayWest






Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashik 1176Egegik 443Naknek-Kvichak 616NushagakTogiak






Run Date07/10/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast




BristolBayWest












Run Date07/11/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast

Ugashik 162,000 1,156,253 27,090 439,134 70,000 1,665,387Ugashik River 162,000 1,156,253 27,090 439,134 70,000 26,314,529



BristolBayWest









July 8 106 1893July 9 84 1977July 10 39 2016



Run Date07/12/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast


Egegik 198,000 6,427,727 21,000 1,360,944 0 7,788,671Egegik River 198,000 6,427,727 21,000 1,360,944 0 28,274,837


BristolBayWest









July 9 84 1977July 10 39 2016



Run Date07/13/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast




BristolBayWest






Sockeye per Drift DeliveryUgashik 481Egegik 313Naknek-Kvichak 252Nushagak 231Togiak



July 10 39 2016



Run Date07/14/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast

Ugashik 0 1,308,437 9,492 486,276 30,000 1,824,713Ugashik River 0 1,308,437 9,492 486,276 30,000 28,410,836



BristolBayWest







Test Fishery Port MollerNo recent results found. Potentially weathered out.



Run Date07/15/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast




BristolBayWest










Run Date07/16/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast

Ugashik 0 1,350,980 16,200 516,744 40,000 1,907,724Ugashik River 0 1,350,980 16,200 516,744 40,000 28,771,899



BristolBayWest










Run Date07/17/2014

CatchDaily



Total Run

BristolBayEast


Egegik 40,000 6,871,249 0 1,382,466 0 8,253,715Egegik River 40,000 6,871,249 0 1,382,466 0 29,701,716


BristolBayWest








The 2014 Port Moller Test Fishery - BBEDC€¦ · In 2014, ADF&G’s Gene Conservation Lab recombined the analyzed samples to provide stock composition estimates by PMTF station for

Documents