BRISTOL BAY DATA REPORT NO. 86-12

Techniques of Aerial Assessment and Methods of Aerial

Identification in the Togiak Herring Fishery

by

·Michael L. Nelson Fishery Biologist

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries

Dillingham, Alaska

t1arch, 1985

ARL·~·; Alaska Resources Library , .... i ,lfnrmation Service~

Library Buildin~. Suite J 11 3211 ProYit.kncc Drive

t\nchoragc. AK 99508-+614

sH 1-1-2 . 1\l-{ Dlt

V\\l .1)o -\ ?_

'I I

.: i

. ! ...

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

BACKGROUND

TOGIAK RIVER SPORT FISHERY'}''.

By: R. Eric Minard

Fisheries Biologist II

The Tqgiak River is located within the confines of the Togiak National

Wildlife Refuge (TNWR) on the western side of Bristol Bay. It is

generally a clearwater river that supports the second largest runs of

chinook and coho salmon in Bristol Bay. Sockeye, chum and pink salmon

are also found in abundance as are Dolly Varden and rainbow trout.

Guided and non-guided effort is increasing as the river gains populari­

ty. TIIWR sta:ff have placed a cap on guided use levels, however, non­

guided use remains unregulated. The river is fished by primarily fly-in

or float-nip anglers. Angler effort has averaged 1, 623 · angler-days

since 1~79. Since 1984, however, angling effort has exceeded

3,506 angler-days.

The Togiak River is particularly popular for its chinook and coho salmon

fisheries. Togiak coho are the largest coho returning to Bristol Bay

making them a prized fish.

Present levels of harvest of all sport species in the Togiak are consid­

ered insignificant in the overall exploitation. Directed CO!DDiercial

salmon fisheries harvest the greatest share followed by subsistence and

personal use fishermen.

MANAGEMENT CONCERNS

With increasing angling effort, trespass conflicts between native

private landholders and sportsfishermen have begun to create tension

between user groups. Poorly marked land boundaries and insufficient

3 3755 001 12089 8

I

I i

I!

·' "I ,,; !'I,

·'' I

. '

'

.. ' I ' I

I:·

I :'

I

c

0

c

(l

0

0

c

c

c

c

research by the angling public has contributed to the problem. As a

result of user group conflicts, regulations have been proposed to

severely restri-ct sport fishing on the Togiak River. There is no

biological justification for restriction which therefore makes this a

purely allocative issue.

r

I

i ..

Table 1. Togiak River sport harvest of chinook, coho, rainbow trout and Dolly Varden, 1979-1984.

Effort Rainbow Dolly Year Angler Days Chinook Coho Trout Varden

1979 ' 1,666 78 300 82 236

1980 1,513 34 258 215 560

1981 932 119 130 345

1982 1,160 231 524 168 671

1983 972 535 294 336 1,007

1984 3,497 87 1,154 75 848

Sources: 1979-1984 Statewide harvest summaries

INTRODUCTION

=ORAL PRESENTATION=

(Kodiak Community College) Kodiak, Alaska

TECHNIQUES OF AERIAL ASSESSI·1ENT AND METHODS OF SPECIE IDENTIFICATION

-TOGIAK HERRING FISHERY-

By: M. Nelson Date: 3/20/85

My presentation today will address some of the aerial survey assessment

techniques and ·specie i denti fi cation methods current1 y being used in the Togiak

herring fishery.

My involvement with the Togiak fishery has been primarily with estimating

the total herring resource (or biomass) so that the Board of Fisheries manage­

ment directive of harvesting 10 to 20% of the observed biomass can be met.

Ny aerial survey credentials include 23 years of extensive salmon aerial

work in Bristol Bay, and 18 years aerial work with herring in the Togiak area,

however, intensive aerial surveillance of the Togiak herring resource did not

begin until 1977, when· the fishery began to expand rapidly.

AERIAL SURVEY. PROGRA~1

The present aerial survey program at Togiak has evolved from the late 1960's,

when 4 or 5 surveys were flown each season to primarily keep track of the

commercial effort and document relative abundance of the herring stock. The

present-day program can include as many as 30 to 40 flights with fixed-wing '· aircraft and additional aerial coverage w/helicopter aircraft.

i:

c

0

0

0

c

(;

c

c

.-Specific objectives of herring aerial surveys are to:

1. determine seasonal distribution and relative abundance of herring

schools and spawn within each fishing section;

2. estimate the biomass of schooled herring by converting surface area

estimates to short ton equivalents;

·3. determine spedes composition of fish schools sighted by working with

test fishing crews;

4. compare the accuracy and repeatability of aerial surveys;

5. document movement of herring_ schools in relation to time of day and

stage of tides; '-~

6. estimate commercial fishing effort (and effort distribution) for the sac "

roe, roe on kelp fisheries; this is mostly accomplished with the

helicopter; and

7. to develop new techniques for accurate biomass assessment.

Some of the problems we face when using aerial surveys to .assess

herring abundance include:

1. species composition of schools observed during surveys is sometimes

questioned and often not confirmed through test fishing;

2. survey coverage is often limited by .adverse weather, poor water clarity

and lack of funding;

3. movement patterns of herring schools prior to, during and after spawning

are not entirely known; ·and therefore, schools could be enumerated more·

than once and., in fact, probably are;

4. spawning herring (which is observed as cloudy areas of milt) are recorded'

as "miles of spawn", but this information cannot presently be used in

calculating relative abundance or biomass;

5. behavior of herring in relation to various physical characteristics, such

as water depth, time of day, etc.) and physiological (such as sexual

maturity, spawning condition, etc.) are not known and these factors could

and probably do, affect survey and biomass conversion results; and

6. last, and the most important to my way of thinking, few determinations

have been made relating school surface area to biomass, (only 19 estimates

have been made in Bristol Bay and only six of these were based on actual

landing of captured herring).

THE PRESENT DAY SURVEY PROGRAM

I'll now discuss the survey program as it currently stands.

Equipment

Most biomass estimates are made with fixed-wing aircraft, rather than

helicopter because of the large area that needs to be surveyed and the limited

range of the chopper. The total survey index transect includes over 250 miles

of shoreline from Cape Constantine to Cape Newenham and occasionally I also

provide aerial support as far west and north as Goodnews Bay. I prefer to

use a Cessna 185 w/STO~ capabilities and bubble window. We always survey

w/a pilot and 1 or 2 Department observers rather than a single pilot/observer.

The pilot has general control of the aircraft and helps keep altitude, and

watches for other aircraft. I make surface area estimates and count schools

of herring, while steering the aircraft w/my left hand. I've tried head-set

communications units between pilot and other observers, but the chatter

interrupts my concentration and as such I prefer hand signals to the pilot.

Steering the aircraft allows me to deviate from the flight path without

having to instruct the pilot to do so. Using this method I also often roll

the aircraft on its left wing to take a quick look at herring distribution

out the left window (the only negative comments I've received using this

method has come, from the second Department observer in the back seat - come'

to think of it he doesn't like the way I turn, either).

I prefer to use reduced topographic survey maps and record directly

6nto the.map all collected data. I've tried small pocket tape machines,

"but the aircraft engine noise makes retrieving the data difficult; and I'm

always fearful of losing the survey data if the machine malfunctions.

Other equipment aids include. a stopwatch for timing 1 ength of 1 arge

schools, a tally whacker for enumerating schools, several sighting tubes

with calibrated grids and known focal length to help estimate surface area

size, and a portable VHF radio to talk''with our field camps and to relay .-.- ,.· .r·

biomass info. to Jeff on Summit Island.

I've occasionally used camera gear (both 8 mm movie and 35 mm) to

document herring school size(s), and all flights include the following . . ' .· -~ !~': \

safety gear: (1) emergency locator beacon w/2-way voice trimsmission

capability; and (3) life jackets.

Some of the new equipment we're presently looking at is a "clinometer"' ---- -·- - -

to help define.the angle we're viewirig"fish at, as fish schools off the

flight p~th a~e larger than they appear, and'it is often impossible to over:. ' fly all schools, as well as up-graded calibrated sighting tubes.

-' '._,

Survey Area

' ·_t_.::_ ·.'

. - :· ('' . ';.•' ~: . The entire Togiak area is divided into 13 survey index area w/appropriate

index maps. Generally surveys commence in mid-April, but commencement of . . ..

surveys is closely tied to both Bering Sea ice coverage and water temperatu·r~s. ' ' ' ~ j ' ' . • ' • -.! . . -.

(I might add that funding this season was tightened considerably, and we will ,.•.

·-'.

not conduct as extensive a "early-season" survey schedule as we have in the

but rather will rely, to a larger extent, upon commercial spotters to keep

abreast of ice and early herring arrival).

A general early-season survey will cover that area from index area 2

mid-way on the Nushagak Peninsula to "Asig. Spit" in Osviak Bay. This

tract is flown every 3-4 days. As the season progresses and fish begin to

show inshore (usually in Togiak or Kulukak Bay, or the Tongue Pt. area,

survey frequency is stepped up, and every 3rd flight or so will include that

·area west of the Spit to Cape Newenham and Hagemeister Island.

Herring arrival by area is not entirely predictable, but my observations

indicate one major incoming (as well as outgoing) area is on the seaward

side of Hagemeister Island moving into Togiak Bay. In other years fish will

first show offshore in the Kulukak Bay area. Water temperature(s) and certainly

ice cover especially to the west play an important role in determining when

and where fish will show.

As we get into the season, survey flights are scheduled daily or twice

daily, and the Summit Island based helicopter also is used for biomass assess-

ment work.

SURVEY METHODS

Actual survey assessment of herring school size includes:

1. recording school size and observation angle, location of the schools

on a map so that differing biomass conversions can be applied by

area and water depth;

2. schools are listed as: small - surface area less than 538 sq. ft.

(I call these skiff or Bristol Bay power boat size schools);

medium- greater than 538 sg. ft. but less than 4,840 sq. ft. (i.e.:

example, would be 50'x50', 100'x30', etc.); and

large- greater than 4,840 sq. ft. (i.e.: lOO'xlOO', 250'xl00',

etc.).

c I:

c

0

! ; i i

0

i ·.~

I I

0

I il 0

il II il li l li ,,

0 f I!:

I ,j· I '

0 ,, ,, .

. '

I i:

i ''l i ' I '.

/1 it 0 'II' I ..;

!I ~ il ,;, .,

II· ,, !I' 0 ; j ~ .

II'' i''

ld lri! Iii• 111! ']fl' 0 I. ' i) '! ~ i ·'·:' '

If large schools are fairly well defined, I '11 use the stoP,wa

speed method to estimate surface area. If the school is sta~iol)ar~''-'i

I' 11 often make 2 or 3 stopwatch runs on it and average the resul:ts.

If there. are many 1 arge schools,, I' 11 over-fly the _entire ar\!.~ qn,ce;, ,_ · I _, ~ ·, ~ ,, ' '

and then select an appropriate size, 100' xl 00' ro 250 'xl 00' , as shown~

on the map and then convert all schools seen to equal these parameters) - ' ' .. - ·- '', .. _ '' ' - '-· ~

When biomass is very heavy as .it was on this May 20 flight last year ... , - _, \, .. ' '- '4

in Kulukak Bay, I'd defy, anyone: to count all schools by size category; .

3. I use the sighting tube to help estimate school size when there are . . . :...·

4.

few schools., The sighting tube helps me early in)_the season to si?e:li

my eye (so to Speak). !,.commonly practice oirD.illingham hOUl>e(s}_, 1:,;;.

___ schools, rq~~ widths and. beach are~s. I always use known proc_esso,r ,:·t

_ship length~ and .fishing vessel.,lengths to help estimate school stze.,.,J;

If large schools are laying in near-shore areas, I '11 mark on th~.map,,;

__ and use pr;ominent map points to estimate size.

I prefer to fly at 1,500 ft. altitude, 2,000 ft. is o.k. also, but·-''" : ".

higher than about 2,500-3,000 or lower than 1,000 ft. is unacceptable,;,· .C.-'.:~c;,O,'d

to me. All flights are in a flaps-up mode, un 1 ess there's rea 11 y

heavy biomass, then we'll gotoflaps and·slow aircraft down to just

above stalJ_speed~ I also use the pi.lot to generally keep.me abreast_ .· - ,. . ;• ' . ,- ·•

of fish distribution on the left.side. of the aircraft •. _

5. Although herring can be observed at all tide stages, L pre_fer, to fly

at low water and on the rising flood tide. Fish seem to be more confi

and grouped together on the flood. A mid-afternoon or early-evening

flood tide is particularly good. Early in the season as fish are

forming offshor~,before coming in, several key areas have_ produced ..... -

good results; example of these_ areas are offshore Kulukak Bay, outer. -

Nunavachak, outer Togiak and Tongue Pt. and particularly the seaward

side of Hagemeister Island. Also, fish will lay with the tide rips,

and both the Togiak and Kulukak Bay rips will help define fish

location. Once spawning has started and spawnout(s) are prevalent,

the shallow water area of these 2 areas seem to be favorite resting

areas.

6. 'If herring are widely scattered, as often is the case in Togiak and

Kulukak Bays, I'll fly a grid pattern across each bay, using landmarks

and compass heading(s) to stay on track.

7. Most flights require about 2-l/2- 3 hrs. to complete, and up to 4-1/2

to 5 hrs. if the biomass is heavy and widely scattered. All fixed-wing

survey(s) originate out of Dillingham, and this is a personal choice

of mine, as well as need to have a knowledgeable Department staff member

in Dillingham to provide information on the fishery to the waiting world.

8. Once the survey is completed the time consuming data analysis is begun.

Again, if the biomass is heavy and widely scattered, data crunching can

take 2-3 hrs. to complete. We hope to shorten this time in the future,

with the use of computers and programs written to quickly provide area

and section biomass estimates.

9. The inseason data analysis required to give Jeff the biomass estimates

he needs to-set fishing periods is derived in the following manner:

A. Schools are tallied by size category: Small Medium Large

B. Surface area by school size 'is equal to:

1. 538 ft. 2 for s~~li schools and is equal to 1 R.A.I. (relative

abundance index), or 1 index point.

2. 2,690 ft. 2 for ~ediu~ schools, which is the approximate mid­

point between a small and large school, and is equal to

5 R .A. I . 's, and

c

c

', '

···c

,, ': :·1 3. The total surface area of all large schools, divided by

538 ft. 2 equals the number of R.A.I.'s for all large schools.

C. All R.A.I. 's are then totaled by index area;

D. Biomass conversion(s) are available for 19 separate 'data points

and show the ·following:

1.52 short tons per R.A.I. for 16ft. of water or less,

2.58

2.83

"

"

"

"

" " " 16-26 ft. water,

" " " ~11 estimates.

E. Appropriate conversions are selected by index area, and the total

R.A.I.'s multiplied by the conversion yields the biomass estimate;

10. This transparency shows a summary of all surface area biomass convers·i

estimates. We have 19 data points, yet, as I indicated,

points are actual pumped catches (shown by circles). In general, the

data shows more biomass per surface area as the water depth·. deepen~.

There also appears to be density changes between pre and post-spawners,·

and in fact, school appearance is often a tip-off to whether fish are

spawn-outs or good fish.

11. This last transparency (T7) shows an actual aerial survey worksheet

completed inseason in 1984. The 3 columns in the center (circled in

red) of this table show how the conversions are applied by index arf:!a:

You'll note that for the Togiak index area I used 1.0 conversion, as

all fish were in extremely inshore shallow water. You'll also note ..

in the far right column my personal biomass estimates. I make these

estimates in the aircraft, either right after surveying the index area

or on the return flight to Dillingham . .If survey methods are consistent~

an experienced surveyor should see the two (2) estimates closely match

each other as the season progresses, as each previous survey results,

influence estimates on later surveys.

12. Specie identification at Togiak is generally confined to distinguishing

between herring, capelin and smelt. Smelt are not a major problem at

present, their biomass is relatively small compared to herring, and

I've learned where to expect them and they generally look lighter in

color (i.e.: less dense) than herring. However, in 1979 what I was

sure were smelt laying along west side of Tongue Pt. proved to be age

2 herring when test nets were set on them. Like all others, I've had

trouble telling herring from capelin. Fortunately, the two (2) species

do not over-lap significantly in run timing. As the herring run begins

to wind down, capelin begin to show in greater numbers. Capelin often

appear in very small, tight balls laying in close proximity to gravel

beaches where they spawn, or as steady dark bunch along gravel beach.

Often times they appear with odd-shaped "tails" and appear a blue/

black in color. We all can be fooled, though in 1984 near the end

season after most effort, fishing and processor alike, had left Togiak,

on extremely 1 arge biomass of 30,000 tons or so began to show off

Kulukak and the upper Nushagak Peninsula. Everyone got pretty excited

for awhile until P/S test sets proved them to be capelin. Correct

specie identification can only be guaranteed with test fishing on schools

sighted.

Last, I'd like to show a few slides which show some of the country

involved and both pre and post-spawning herring.

c

i

I'

!C

.j •. ·'·:·.C

' :.'~G '~ , I

I" .. ,j

!h ' ~ :

@) Relative abundance of herring stocks in the Togiak district, Bri sto 1 Bay, 1967-77.

Total Relative Aerial Fl i qhts Number Schools Stock Sizol/

Year Number Dates Si hted Sma 11 ~1ed. Lo. · v. 1967 2 5/19-27 ndete mine

68 5 5/21-29 Very Numerous X

69 1 5/31 / ndete mine

1970 3 5/19-28 Numerous X

71 2 5/24-28 ndete mine

72 2 5/25-6/ 5 X

73 5 5/18-30 X

74 3 5!21-24 X

1975 6 5/27-6/15 152 ndete mine

76 8 5/20-6/12 734 X

77 10 5/11-6/ 3 648 X

lJ Personal observation by the same observer

•

'

188 / ~-. . ·.@·Yi .....

rao1e 1. Summary of herring aerial survey total run biomass estimates and observations of herring spawn, Togiak district, Bristol Bay, 1983.

Date

4/Z6 ' • 27 . 29 : 30

Census Survey11 Area 21 Ratins: Surveye~

G NUS2-0SV1 P NUS2-TON1

G/F NtlS2-HAGl ' G NUS2-HAG1

· 5/ 2 P/U NUS2-MAT1 NUS2-0SV1 NUS2-0SV1 NUS2-UNG1 NUS2-0SV1 NUS2-05Vl NUS1-0SV1

3(AM) F/U 3(PH) F/P 4(AM) P/U 4(PM) G/U S(AM) G/F S(PM) G/U

6 7 8

11

12 13 15 16

17 18 19 20

23 25 26 27

30 6/ 1

3

F/G G/E G/E P/U

. G/P P/U F/U F/P

NUS1-PYR1 NUS2-HAG1 NUS1-HAG1 NUS2-HAG1

NUS1-HAG1 NUSl-TOGl . NUS2-HAG1 NUS2-HAG1

G/F NUSl-HAGl G/E NUSl-CNl G/F NUS1-PYR1 P/U NUS2-TONl

.P/U u

G/E E

NUS2-0SV1· KUL1-TOG1 NUS2-PYR1 NUS2-PYR1

P/U NUS2-TOG1 G/P NUS2-0SV1 G/F NUS2-0SV1

Smail

12

53 17 9

17

18

2 3

Number Herring Schools Observed

Herring 3 Herrino Soawn M1 1 es

Medium Large Total a·; amass Est .J 11 Formula Staff No. Each Accum.

325 10

139 426

98 268 293 263

176 10 -Fleet Survey-

239 102 1

272 340 225 228 394 317

292 421 940 38

161 10 58

194

421 365 110

49

152 42

26

263 297 650

4"6

357 15 89

162

219 236 210 .

5

1 2

65 65

1 4 9

423 15,600 278 11,500 432 62,500 701 59,000

186

341 1

612 453 711

608 735

1,599 84

14,100 150

73,600 22,500 38,500

37,900 52,100 9],600 41,000

518,. 84,100 25 · BOO

147 37,900 373 .· 76,200

.' .-"

13,800 20-25,000 50,000 53,700

80,000

15,500

70,700 18,100 32,200

34,400 47,300 96,500 33,600:

76,300 500

34,300 89,600 .

"10 3.6 3.6 7 2.5 6.1

23 6.8 12.9 8 3.3 16.2

32 9.2 25.4 19 5.3 30.7 8 2.2 32.9

8 8 8 3

.9

2 4

2.9 1.5 1.9 3.5

5.4

1 .0 0.5

35.8 37.3 39.2 42.7

48.1 48.1 49.1 49.6

658· 83,800 88,100 . 9 601. 114,200 105,100. 19

2.0 51.6 6.1 57.7 1.7 59.4 320 -70,70Q- 7

54 400 450

1 500 2

219 39,200 110 40,800

1 4

35

+ 180

1,200

6,000 2,000

36,200 40,400

200

59.4

.59 .4 1 0.1 59.5 1 0.1 59.6 2 0.1 59.7

1

59.7 59.7

+ 59.7

l/ Survey rating: U s unacceptable; P s poor; F • fair; G • good; and E • excellent. £/ Inclusive census areas: NUS 1 and NUS2 • Nushagak Peninsula; KULl • Kulukak;

METl • Metervik; NUN1 • Nunavachak; UNGl ·• Ungalikthluk; TOG1 • Togiak; TONl • Tongue Point; MATl s Matogak; OSVl .. ~ Osviak; HAGl • Hagemeister; PYRl • Pyrite Point; and CNl • Cape Newenham.

3/ Short tons. 11 Formula: Total RAI's x conversion factors of 1 .3, 2.4, and 3.4 tons, by census area and fish density/distribution; · · ~: Personal estimates by experienced Department spotters.

c

,o I .

BSH-MAP/201

(!j z -::J: Cf) -~

':::S::: <(. -8 %r-

.. ., --= .:; .. _,_ 5. ""..;::

" = -----:z:::----

••

.... ~-=>­........

•; •• ·.: .. · ..

~ .. • • •• t •••••••••• . . . . ..

..... ( = -.... =· c: .... ~ ""~ -. "'-·= 58

1, -. ', J c,;

------ ------- , .... , ..•

~---­----

--------------

c.

.... __ -------- ----

--~

.•

~­z

-

.

.... --:i i ...... ! --z:---·

60:

! \,.

• •• I J:l i •

... . . . .. ·=·.·.· .. ·.·.:·.. . . • . . . • :·--.~·.

~-· -~-

,_, .... _:.; ;-·, --

· •..

/ ,_ .... -

.. _,

= --.. =--.! :5 ; ..

... "' ;:: .. ... ... -~ -..... • ... -... -»> -!

, . .. \-.

.. ... .. .. -c

>,

"' =: -Q .... ... -· .... =

'./ -.. .. .. -·!i. .. -·) ·=:: "' = ::·::_· ... .. -:·· 1.1,; -"' ... .... cu~-~ ~-.

~-

.3 ... "' -·"' .2

-.. .. = "' -1.1,;

c

c

c

0

/ 7 6-ICu'

./ Lf~ _, oc I

,, \ \ ' -.,- I E> -"2..0\l I

,/

~--~ -. y'.

BIOMASS ESTIMATE

1. SCHOOLS ARE TALLIED BY SIZE CATEGORY: SMALL MEDIUM LARGE

2. SURFACE AREA BY SCHOOL SIZE IS EQUAL TO:

A. 538 FT. 2 FOR SMALL SCHOOLS AND IS EQUAL TO 1 R.A.I. (RELATIVE

ABUNDANCE INDEX).

B. 2,690 FT. 2 FOR MEDIUM SCHOOLS, WHICH IS THE APPROXIMATE MID­

POINT BETWEEN A SMALL AND LARGE SCHOOL, AND IS EQUAL TO

5 R.A.I.'S, AND

C. THE TOTAL SURFACE AREA OF ALL LARGE SCHOOLS, DIVIDED BY

538 FT. 2 EQUALS THE NUMBER OF R.A.I.'S FOR LARGE SCHOOLS.

3. ALL R.A.I. 'S ARE THEN TOTALED BY INDEX AREA;

4. BIOMASS CONVERSION(S) ARE AVAILABLE FOR 19 SEPARATE DATA POINTS

AND SHOW THE FOLLOWING:

1.52 SHORT TONS PER R.A.I. FOR 16FT. OF WATER OR LESS,

2.5B

2.83

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II 16-26 FT. WATER,

II ALL ESTIMATES.

5. APPROPRIATE CONVERSIONS ARE SELECTED BY INDEX AREA, AND THE TOTAL

R.A.I. 'S MULTIPLIED BY THE CONVERSION YI.ELDS THE BIOMASS ESTIMATE.

0

i

i.e

I ~ ~0

l ··-i

:i 0

I I

'

' • 1 ' .' 0

c

c

·c

icC ''/!I I :

l!~~D 1t!~ll [Tl!) 1m - m - ra - 1!:.!1 rr;::li:l - - - - - a E!l Cl:·)I\J.t>endix 'l'able 1. SUrface area and blanaoo converoion estimates of herring schools, by aerial survey,

in the 'lbgiak district, Bdotol Bay, 1978-83. '

Year Mont tV

O;!y

Est. of School TOns Per Size 511111 sq. m. 1/ in Feet .

Weight of-

Catch in Metric Tons

l\Ctual · or Est. lielght of Catch

Fish Condition

lncation of Puroe Seine Set

1978 5/13 18

6.7 11.0

2/ 00 X 60'

2/ 100

Estimated Estimated

2/ Nunavachak Bay 2/ Nunavachalc Bay

1979 5/ 4

1980 5/15 15 16 16

20 20

1981 5/ 3 8

10

1902 5/15

1903 4/30 30 30

5/11

18 10

2.4

1.2 ·1.6 1.1 3/ 1.2

3.0 2.6

1.1 1.7 4.0

1.9

1.1 1.0 1.5 1.8

1.7 2.2

40 dia.

60 X 40 40 X 30 ·

220 X 50 65 X 20

70 X 70 150 X 75

400x-200 80 X 30 .

150 !!'60'

200 X 150

150 X 80 350 X 143 60 X 30

200 X 200

300 :x' 50 60 X 60

5

5 4

19-3

27 54

80 7

40

100

55 91

3 127

45 14

(kt~ab Ripe

.1\Ctual Ripe Estimated . Spawn-outs

(_lii:l:iiiil"'J Spawn-outs kiiUmated Fish lost

''·'

Estimated Ripe Estimated Fish loot

l:~~=~"l ~;;;

Ripe Spawn-outs Ripe'

Estimated Green

Estinated Green Eiittm ted Greeri i EStimated' Green ·· Estimated Ripe'ftnd

Spawn-outs Estimated Spawn-outs Estimated Spawn-outs vl< ;;l.'iJ- 2.6 He~ All Esti~tes . ·. ·

6)11) 5 1.5'~ -1.4 Mean Estimates at 7-16 ft. water De. pth . .\' n :7.5( - ·2.3 Mean Estimates !It . 20-26 ft. Water [lepth

1/ _Metric tons of fioh per 50 sq. m. of ourface area. 2/ lnC<Jitllete data • ' i

3/ Average of 2 Observers estimates.

I)Jgalikthluk Bay

Ungalikthluk Bay Ungalikthluk Bay Nunavachak Bay .1 Mile west Ungalikthluk pt. East of Eagle Bay Eagle'~y ·

West Side, Tongue pt. TOgiak Bay, Mouth Aslqyukpak Spit Bight

Kulukak Bay

'lbgiak Bay 'lbgiak Bay 'lbgiak Bay 'lbgiak Bay

Nushagak Peninsula Nushagak Peninsula •

water Depth in Feet

20

10 25 15

16 20

2/ 2/

20

7 18 25

24

13 10 25 11

12 14

. .. ~

"' U1

-

\

11!:11-CV/201 (:t2J IIERR IIIG 1\Eilll\1. SIIIIVEY tKliiKSIIEET

' '· . Flight llo. .~_'~

1\lrcrart( \'Sill··

/

lla te :<,/;:,'r.J,, ~· Start Time O?: '15/'-11.1,

0 • •r . . . , , '11liB flight ·<'", I" '<·'I·. ; \Flight Duration• .: .

llccumlated 1/ ~ • I ,, ' i

\ , .. i

- \

End Time >·;!Hpll>.. Ohserver(s)_de/~.__:: ____ '. ' This flight A' 4YO ~~-

Cost• _11 Oudget l:111h! <· 11 I llccllllllated~f 7, .;( /S ~jl. .. - --·-.

I1

111I~1C I Sttner J/ _ll!!!!f!guU~~Ii 'II Jollf ff R.A.I. 1111115 · IICJAss fill••••• __lp .. nw COIIfllenls (tMII.It~nllfled fhlt

1 lire• • :~~!'CM~ Siiiilr-Reii:-I•r•~"'3f{ 2 1 2 scl111ols. Nl!llher. nssel

~11!!9_ s.o.u "''· ''l!L ar Lrt .. ., 1•11 I•SI (Jr;ui . lat•l •M~''""' •"·~~''"" '~'''"' "'..,•r l.e•••h Jh'6Fr·, '1~·1·1~ · .1:!2 ? --e- -&- ___l_r_ oro~ 110~ fr · .o- Wii!J -:?. iV S, ?, S I K. 7 '1' f) 'L'i'3 7 .e-- (/ o,rl-o-tl) : 1LL ? -fr. J!ill $.~.1- !:?'lt?bo• -lr _'j_?!.!_ Jl~~tl. ~t;;dCJ. L!J1 7ll3 fi4 IS) ~gSOl~ -8- 1.1.1~~ ~·J''iiZd~,',i?., \"'; 1lll. lj~ -6-- ..iQ. _}_ __ JZ!!!i. ~:::. 30o 13 313 £f31 -Ln.il' 3 &dL r-oo 1 lY.l_ ,1/ ./J-- D _2L S•·J~-~,,, iJ __:}_.!2_ I !lO~ /, 'W I. <t<l'> I ( i ~ u<f -&: ),Suo) JLL 3l'f ...:~t::.M 1 !>.?~bo~ -11·· ~ qgJ nKt. t:J soo y o.r; < c~.m) n Jc -if /0~ fO'i Zt5?,f•• -(J- 6~S' 1'160'1 ,.;;13'1 '/.;- 11''.1 ~ v~ t.) ('<1/Wfr. I d. A . (IS.hv) 1L J.,h · .v 2- ?>o lt3/,Yfol -u-- ,.,.- /.17'1 /1~'1 "'i'Tt.iK J <173~ -G-<- .;,mw· F:H~~.U~ t!lL '{/<) -fr I ____!}__ l/O,D04 -e- !) -7..,

171 ( I I I '_ . ...e- b 1 ' I'( '"W;;'\,...

Q_L 3/tl .L ~ .....:1-. t,~.dO·l _/"~, ..1!!2.-1,~'- l,frf -=§y? <), !W /,'J. 'i5'" -TJ- f;),oou\ tdfild __Jl__~ 7_f~ 5't11J · <( ),',2. 11 /d]JJIJ)

L :---- :::1 -- _::__ __, L "- ~2.~~ · -~ -.~~ /·- . --~- I Q -----(1~. I \'ol'l'fr$fol·' E}/1t1J;t.- 9~'t'3l}·tui/S Ro ;:: . \ . '''" - .;? f g ~ . . = ' -j)J, ¥d:ff-R s- -; m ~& -=> ~r.~~;~~.~~:Jf ~ ~ ~ . -- -----· ------· c ~"""'-··· 0 ~ ~ . . :::l ()

VJ ~ ()

~-8 U>

!/ I·Excellenl (ul•, no !larel 2•Good (llgllt r lpple, uneven lighting, easr

to see sct10ol') l"'h lr (light chop, SOtiM! _glue or shadows

relatively easy to spot 'chools) 4•ronr (rough seas, strong glne, dtrflcull

to s1•ol schools) - ..

2( S.O.II•less lhon ar eqo11l ta ~~>o2 ISIO rt21 - ftedh••grealer th•n 61111112, but leu lh•R or

eqo11l Ia 450o2(4,B44 n 21 l.uge .. greller l11an 45o.2

' :-:~~-:----_.._.~~-~~~~~ _:o:~~:~:-.. -~~.:;.,· :, .c-o-:;_.-,;:-.='=' - • :- · ,...-.;=. <;.,:--! "· ·~-'-~:. :-::~---=~._-:~--:~ _.... -:~~" !£=! -:_·-~..-_ .. _-_ -~~·-- ~ - .:.:_; .. ~~~N'tri #Jl:cbii t ·;.::.~~ .~/s~:t:t*'ri · :. -;;;.±- ... ~-;.. · -?,;·::'. ·--=· _.,__ '"'-·

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0