Halibut Bycatch Mortality in the Eastern Bering Sea
Mortality of halibut due to bycatch in non-target fisheries in the Eastern Bering Sea (EBS) has severely curtailed the directed halibut fishery in this area. Halibut harvesters in the EBS are strongly dependent on the resource and have seen their catch limits decrease substantially while the limit on bycatch mortality has remained static. Since 2011, bycatch mortality has increased steadily while directed halibut harvests have plummeted. The impacts of bycatch mortality are distributed throughout the range of Pacific halibut as fish from the EBS undertake lifelong migrations to other areas of the stock distribution, as far south as Oregon. The IPHC is working with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to correct this imbalance and develop a framework whereby controls on the groundfish fisheries will also contribute to conservation of the halibut resource.
For further information and reading:
- PowerPoint presentation at joint IPHC/NPFMC meeting
- IPHC Technical Report No. 57 - Report of the 2010 Halibut Bycatch Work Group
Halibut Bycatch Work Group
The Commission began an initiative in 2011 aimed at better understanding the implications of current halibut bycatch and to explore possible actions to address those concerns. The initiative created a Bycatch Project Team, composed of the IPHC Commissioners, to direct the work and lead the effort. Additionally, a Bycatch Working Group was created to provide analytic support to the Project Team. The IPHC staff also participates by providing analytic and editorial support.
The Project Team has recently completed its report, which includes the Work Group's analysis of bycatch across all areas, the effects of bycatch on the resource and fishery yields, options for reducing bycatch, and options for mitigating the impact of bycatch. The report includes changes made following public comment (Nov-Dec 2013) and direction from the Commission at the 2014 Annual Meeting.
Earlier products of the Work Group are archived at these links:
- 2014 Annual Meeting presentation
- Summary of Public Comments (Nov - Dec 2013)
- Public Comments (Nov - Dec 2013)
- Report of the Halibut Bycatch Work Group (ver. 9, dated 11 Nov 2013)
Estimating Bycatch Mortality
IPHC relies on US and Canadian federal agencies for estimates of bycatch in the major fisheries. Several at-sea monitoring programs exist where halibut bycatch is sampled to provide data for catch estimation and size composition. IPHC assembles these data each year to inform the stock assessment and also to understand the impacts of bycatch on stock productivity and long term health.
- Incidental catch and mortality of Pacific halibut, 1962-2011
- The Bering Sea trawl fishery Prohibited Species Donation Program: Results from 2011
Research and Analysis
Listed below are citations for many of the studies conducted by IPHC staff or in collaboration with other researchers. We have provided active links to the papers where possible.
Leaman, B. M. and G. H. Williams. 2005. Collaborative Pacific halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis, bycatch control by Canada and the United States. Mar. Fish. Rev., 66(2):31-37.
Pikitch, E. K., J. R. Wallace, E. A. Babcock, D. L. Erickson, M. Saelens, and G. Oddsson. 1998. Pacific halibut bycatch in the Washington, Oregon, and California groundfish and shrimp trawl fisheries. No. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 18(3):569-586.
Rose, C. 1996. Behavior of North Pacific groundfish encountering trawls: Applications to reduce bycatch. [IN] Solving bycatch: Considerations for today and tomorrow. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Rep. No. 96-03, Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks.
Salveson, S., B. M. Leaman, L.-L. Low, and J. C. Rice. 1992. Report of the Halibut Bycatch Work Group. Int. Pac. Halibut Comm., Tech. Rep. No. 25. 29 p.
Trumble, R. J. 1996. Management of Alaskan longline fisheries to reduce halibut bycatch mortality. [IN] Solving bycatch: Considerations for today and tomorrow. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Rep. No. 96-03, Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks.
Trumble, R. J., S. M. Kaimmer, and G. H. Williams. 2002. Review of the methods used to estimate, reduce, and manage bycatch mortality of Pacific halibut in the commercial longline groundfish fisheries of the Northeast Pacific. Pages 88-96 in J. A. Lucy and A. L. Studholme, editors. Catch and release in marine recreational fisheries. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 30, Bethesda, Maryland.
Williams, G. H., C. C. Schmitt, S. H. Hoag, and J. D. Berger. 1989. Incidental catch and mortality of Pacific halibut, 1962-1989. Int. Pac. Halibut Comm., Tech. Rep. No. 23. 94 p.
Gear effects and Survival studies
Clark, W. G., S. H. Hoag, R. J. Trumble, and G. H. Williams. 1992. Re-estimation of survival for trawl caught halibut released in different condition factors. Int. Pac. Halibut Comm. Rep. of Assess. & Res. Activ. 1992: 197-206.
Gauvin, J. R., K. Haflinger, and M. Nerini. 1996. Implementation of a voluntary bycatch avoidance program in the flatfish fisheries of the eastern Bering Sea. [IN] Solving bycatch: Considerations for today and tomorrow. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Rep. No. 96-03, Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks.
Geernaert, T. O., H. L. Gilroy, S. M. Kaimmer, G. H. Williams, and R. J. Trumble. 2001. A feasibility study that investigates options for monitoring bycatch of the Short-tailed albatross in the Pacific halibut fishery off Alaska. Int'l. Pac. Halibut Comm., Seattle, WA. [Addendum]
Hoag, S. H. 1971. Effects of domestic trawling on the halibut stocks of British Columbia. Int. Pac. Halibut Comm., Sci. Rep. No. 53. 18 p.
Hoag, S. H. 1975. Survival of halibut released after capture by trawls. Int. Pac. Halibut Comm., Sci. Rep. No. 57. 18 p.
Hoag, S. H. and R. R. French. 1976. The incidental catch of halibut by foreign trawlers. Int. Pac. Halibut Comm., Sci. Rep. No. 60. 24 p.
Kaimmer, S. M. 1994. Halibut injury and mortality associated with manual and automated removal from setline hooks. Fish. Res. 20. p. 165-179.
Kaimmer, S. M. and R. J. Trumble. 1997. Survival of Pacific halibut released from longlines: hooking location and release methods. In: Fisheries Bycatch: Consequences And Management. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Rep. No. 97-02, Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks, p. 101-105.
Kaimmer, S. M. and R. J. Trumble. 1998. Injury, condition, and mortality of Pacific halibut bycatch following careful release by Pacific cod and sablefish longline fisheries. Fish. Res. 38:131-144.
Neilson, J. D., K. G. Waiwood, and S. J. Smith. 1989. Survival of Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) caught by longline and otter trawl gear. Can. J. Fish . Aquat. Sci., 46(5):887-897.
Smith, W. T. 1996. Reduction of halibut bycatch and associated mortality in the Bering Sea cod fishery. [IN] Solving bycatch: Considerations for today and tomorrow. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Rep. No. 96-03, Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks.
Stone, M. and C. G. Bublitz. 1996. Cod trawl separator panel: Potential for reducing halibut bycatch. [IN] Solving bycatch: Considerations for today and tomorrow. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Rep. No. 96-03, Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks.
Trumble, R. J., S. M. Kaimmer, and G. H. Williams. 2000. Estimation of discard mortality rates for Pacific halibut in groundfish longline fisheries. No. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 20:931-939.
Trumble, R., J., G. H. Williams, and S. E. Hughes. 1995. Methods to improve survival of Pacific halibut bycatch discarded from a factory trawler. Pages 591-610 [In] Proceedings Of The International Symposium On North Pacific Flatfish. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Rep. No. 95-04, Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks.
Williams, G.H., D. McCaughran, S. Hoag, and T. Koeneman. 1982. A comparison of Pacific halibut and Tanner crab catches in (1) side-entry and top-entry crab pots and (2) side-entry crab pots with and without Tanner boards. Int. Pac. Halibut Comm., Tech. Rep. No. 19. 35 p.
Clark, W. G., and S. R. Hare. 1998. Accounting for bycatch in management of the Pacific halibut fishery. No. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 18:809-821.
Sullivan, P. J., R. J. Trumble and S. A. Adlerstein. 1994. Pacific halibut bycatch in the groundfish fisheries: Effects on and management implications for the halibut fishery. Int. Pac. Halibut Comm., Sci. Rep. No. 78. 28 p.
Ames, R. T. 2005. The efficacy of electronic monitoring systems: A case study on the applicability of video technology for longline fisheries management. Int. Pac. Halibut Comm., Sci. Rep. No. 80. 64 p.
Ames, R. T., B. M. Leaman, and K. L. Ames. 2007. Evaluation of video technology for monitoring of multispecies longline catches. No. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 27:955-964.
Ames, R. T., G. H. Williams, and S. M. Fitzgerald. 2005. Using digital video monitoring systems in fisheries: Application for monitoring compliance of seabird avoidance devices and seabird mortality in Pacific halibut longline fisheries. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-152, 93 p.
Cahalan, J.A., B.M. Leaman, G.H. Williams, B.H. Mason, and W.A. Karp. 2010. Bycatch characterization in the Pacific halibut fishery: A field test of electronic monitoring. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-213, 66 p.
McElderry, H., R. Reid, and D. Pahti. 2008. A pilot study to evaluate the use of electronic monitoring on a Bering Sea groundfish factory trawler. Intl. Pac. Halibut Comm., Tech Rep. 51. 31 p.
F/T Northern Glacier
October 7-28, 1993
International Pacific Halibut Commission
National Marine Fisheries Service
December 15, 1993
The International Pacific Halibut Commission, the Highliners Association (with Natural Resource Consultants), and the NMFS Alaska Fishery Science Center (AFSC) conducted an experiment to evaluate methods of increasing halibut bycatch survival in bottom trawls. The experiment involved sorting and discarding halibut from the groundfish catch more rapidly than is now current practice, and estimating the savings in halibut discard mortality rates. The experiment took place aboard the F/T Northern Glacier from October 6 through 29.
Halibut are caught as bycatch by most gear types used in North Pacific groundfish fisheries, but the majority are taken by trawls, especially those targeting on Pacific cod. Bycatch mortality could be reduced by improving survival and several methods have been suggested to accomplish this goal. One way would be to sort the halibut from the catch on deck, before groundfish and halibut are dumped into the below-deck holding tanks. A screen or grid has been suggested as a means of filtering halibut, particularly large halibut, from the catch. Another possibility is to improve the sorting methods used in the factory, in a manner that returns halibut to the sea more quickly than is currently practiced. Termed enhanced sorting, this practice could improve survival for the smaller fish that previously passed through the grid. This experiment was designed to address these issues.
The experiment involved sorting and discarding halibut from the groundfish catch more rapidly than is now current practice, and estimating the savings in halibut discard mortality rates.
The experiment addressed the following questions:
1) What percent of the total halibut bycatch can be screened by the grid?
2) What percent of the total halibut bycatch can be sorted during the period of enhanced sorting?
3) What is the survival rate of halibut discarded from the grid screening and the enhanced sorting, compared to normal discards?
4) How much additional operating time accrues from the sorting procedures?
5) Will grid screening or enhanced sorting increase overall survival of halibut bycatch from trawls?
Specific objectives were:
1) Determine the sorting capability of a grid or screen placed over the deck opening to the factory holding tanks.
2) Determine if overall halibut mortality is reduced by sorting large halibut out on deck and immediately returning them to the sea.
3) Determine if halibut mortality is reduced by "speed sorting" of bycatch from the groundfish in the factory.
The vessel targeted Pacific cod in a normal commercial manner over the full 24-hour period. The experiment focused on the bottom trawl Pacific cod fishery because it is allotted the greatest portion of bycatch in the Bering Sea. The vessel operated in the Bering Sea (NMFS areas 517 and 521) and on Sanak Bank in the Gulf of Alaska. Two NMFS observers, one supplied by the vessel and one by the AFSC, determined halibut viability from each haul and sampled the groundfish catch on most hauls.
Two specific experiments were conducted. The first experiment (the Grid Sorting Experiment) evaluated two improved methods of sorting halibut from groundfish against a control method. For many factory layouts, halibut and other prohibited species and discards transit a series of conveyor belts to reach the exit chute. Forty-five minutes or more may elapse for the discard to move from the hold to the exit chute. We considered this procedure for handling discards to be the control method. The second experiment (Live Tank Holding) examined the relative survival of halibut within the established condition categories of excellent, poor, and dead.
For the Grid Sorting Experiment, three treatments were performed: (1) deck sorting with a grid; (2) enhanced sorting of the catch in the factory; and (3) normal sorting in the factory (the control). On the Northern Glacier, a single, short conveyor led from the hold to the exit chute. Retained fish were selected from the conveyor, and all else was quickly discarded. The regular procedure on the Northern Glacier was designated the enhanced treatment, while the control treatment was simulated by delaying processing for 45 minutes. Thirty hauls for each treatment were conducted, for a total of 90 hauls. We randomized the order of treatments. Other factors monitored were tow duration, haul size, time on deck, and fish size. A factorial analysis will be conducted on the results to determine significance among these factors. In some cases, the data may be post-stratified for the analysis.
The Live Tank Holding Experiment was conducted to reaffirm relative differences in survival of the three condition categories. Halibut sorted from the catch on deck and in the factory were placed in holding tanks with running seawater for 3 days (72 hours) until the end of the trip, when holding time was reduced to about 12 hours. Differences in viability going in and coming out of the tanks will be compared among the 3 conditions (excellent, poor, and dead). Approximately 20 halibut at a time were selected for placement into a tank. Post-stratification will also be done on important factors, notably sorting method, tow duration, time on deck, and fish size. An ANOVA analysis is planned for the results.
The first four hauls on the first fishing day were used to set up specific sampling procedures, and the first haul tested appropriate grid dimensions. The two grid dimensions examined were 9 inches by 11 inches and 11 inches by 14 inches. These are based on an even division of the deck opening, the first yielding a grid 3 openings deep and 6 wide. The second provided 2 openings deep by 6 wide. The vessel had on-board welding equipment to modify the grid dimensions, which proved to be unnecessary.
Tow duration was not predetermined, but two duration strata of > 3 hr and < 3 hr were established. The distribution of tow times was adjusted so that equal numbers of short and long hauls occurred for each treatment.
While no limit was set on the catch of groundfish or halibut, we anticipated catching the following quantities of fish:
Groundfish (other than Pacific cod) 700 mt
Pacific cod 1,500 mt
Pacific halibut less than 50 mt
The vessel was allowed to retain, process, and sell the groundfish caught. Only the traditional prohibited species (crabs, salmon, halibut, herring) were required to be discarded.
Grid Sorting Experiment
During this experiment, data on length (cm), condition factor (excellent, poor, or dead) observations, and time of observation from the net coming on board were collected from each halibut encountered. Such data will allow enumeration and frequency distributions for the treatments (total halibut, total halibut from grid screening or enhanced sorting, and total halibut missed by the experimental treatment). NMFS observers conducted basket sampling to define the groundfish catch and determined halibut condition, so that these data are consistent with data collected in commercial fishery situations.
A schedule of the treatment for each haul alerted the bridge and the factory so that hauls could be made with factory processing capacity available. As each codend came on board, a biologist started a stopwatch; time of each halibut was recorded to the nearest minute. The observer and the skipper each estimated the groundfish catch. For grid sort treatments, the grid was placed over the hold, the deck crew grabbed halibut prior to the hatch and on the grid, and passed them to biologists for measurement and viability determination by the observer. When deck sampling was completed, the biological team moved to the factory where length, viability and time data were collected for all remaining halibut. For enhanced and control treatments, the sampling process started in the factory. Enhanced treatments started processing groundfish and sorting halibut quickly after dumping to the hold, while control treatments started processing 45 minutes after dumping to simulate the time needed for halibut to transit the factory to the exit chute typical of most layouts.
Live Tank Holding
Three specially-constructed deck-mounted holding tanks, each about 80 square feet by 36 inches high, with seawater circulation, an inside lip, dump door, and water overflow sump were used for holding halibut. Originally, only halibut sorted on deck were scheduled for these tanks, but halibut sorted out from the factory were also placed in these tanks when the factory tanks proved impractical. Initially, halibut collected from the factory were held in one or two 4'x4'x15' holding bins fed with circulating water. Water flow rates exchanged bin volumes about once per hour. Unfortunately, water jets in the holding bins, designed to lubricate large volumes of dead fish flowing to an exit, churned the water significantly, greatly diminishing survival. Halibut from the factory were carried as quickly as possible to the holding tanks on deck.
When a fish was selected for holding, a round, uniquely-numbered ID tag was placed on the tail using a nylon electrical tie. Selected fish were measured, condition factor assessed, and ID number noted on a form. Halibut were released after three days, and date and time of release, ID number, and viability noted on a separate form.
Ninety five hauls made during the experiment included four test hauls, one invalid haul caused by a ripped net, and the ninety hauls specified in the experimental design (Table 1). Catch weight ranged from about 5 mt to 35 mt per haul, but most were in the 10 to 15 mt range. The experimental hauls were divided into 30 hauls for each treatment, and the hauls of each treatment partitioned equally among < 3 hr and > 3 hr tows. The number of halibut caught reached 13,861, at an estimated weight of 38,000 kg (2.75 kg/halibut). Groundfish harvest totalled 1,189 mt, of which the retained portion was 243 mt of Pacific cod and 496 mt of pollock. The remaining 450 mt, mostly arrowtooth flounder, other flatfish, and Atka mackerel, were discarded. The halibut bycatch rate was 32 kg/mt. Total Pacific cod and halibut were significantly below the anticipated catch of 1,500 mt of Pacific cod and the maximum 50 mt of halibut. Pollock and discarded groundfish somewhat exceeded the 700 mt anticipated for other groundfish. Bycatch rates were higher than expected, and had the anticipated 2,200 mt of groundfish been harvested, halibut catch would have reached approximately 70 mt.
Approximately equal numbers of halibut were caught in each of the three treatments, with 4,714 in the grid sorting, 4,244 in the control sorting, and 4,903 in the enhanced sorting. In the grid sorting, 1,927 halibut (41%) were collected on deck. While weights have not yet been calculated, larger sizes of halibut sorted on deck probably put the proportion of deck-sorted halibut at least at 50% by weight.
The grid selected for use, although the smaller of the two available, did not directly filter out many of the halibut. The high proportion of deck-sorted halibut was due to the slower rate of dumping catch from the cod end to the hold, and the opportunity for the deck crew to sort out halibut pouring from the cod end to the hatch. Time required to dump a cod end after the net came on board normally ranged from about 90 seconds to 2 1/2 minutes, while a grid sort took about 10 to 15 minutes to dump.
While condition factor data and survival estimates are not yet available, several obvious conclusions result from observing halibut in the treatments. Halibut collected on deck during the grid sort experienced a high proportion of excellent condition factors. Only a few poor condition halibut were encountered, and halibut in dead condition were rarely seen. For enhanced sorting or grid sorting in the factory, nearly all halibut were in poor condition for about the first 40-50 minutes after the net came on board. A few excellent and dead halibut were noted. For control sorting and for enhanced or grid sorting after about 40-50 minutes, nearly all halibut were in dead condition, with occasional poor and the rare excellent halibut.
Holding tank experiments did not provide as much useable data as anticipated, because of situations with high mortality of halibut in the tanks. Bleeding tanks in the factory did not work because the water flow system agitated the halibut. A sloped floor in the bleeding tanks that prevented halibut from resting without piling up may have also contributed to the mortality. Of three tanks on deck, only one provided consistent data. The best tank was nearly square, while the other two were long and narrow. Vessel movement caused traveling waves in the narrow tanks that disrupted the halibut. In cases of prolonged rough weather, nearly all halibut died, regardless of initial condition factor. A total of 320 halibut from 17 hauls were placed in the live tanks for the standard three day period. Eighty-one more from four hauls were held for 12 hours. Nine hauls of the long holding period were from grid sort hauls, three from control sort hauls, and five from enhanced sort hauls. Three hauls from the short holding period were grid sort, and the last was enhanced sort.
Ninety hauls equally divided among three sorting treatments provided 13,861 halibut for which condition factor, length, and time on deck were collected. On-deck sorting provided the highest survival, and control sorting caused the most mortality. Pollock and Pacific cod made up the retained catch. About 62% of the total was retained, and the remaining 38% was discarded. At 32 kg/mt, the halibut bycatch rate was higher than expected.
Holding tank experiments were less successful than anticipated. Tanks in the factory could not be used because of excessive mortality, and periods of rough weather caused mortality not related to condition factor in two of the three deck tanks. Periods of good weather during several holding periods permitted useable data from several hauls.
Trip 1: Trip 2: October 7 -- October 19 October 19 -- October 28 Gregg Williams, IPHC Gregg Williams, IPHC Janet Wall, NMFS/AFSC Observer Pgm Janet Wall, NMFS/AFSC Observer Pgm Steve Hughes, NRC Steve Hughes, NRC Brent Paine, NPFMC Chris Oliver, NPFMC Tracy Schall, NMFS/D. Hbr Observer Pgm Tracy Schall, NMFS/D. Hbr Observer Pgm Mike Sloan, NMFS/AKR Bob Trumble, IPHC Robert Morrow, vessel observer Robert Morrow, vessel observer Shari Gross, HANA
IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission, Seattle
NMFS/AFSC National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle
NMFS/AKR National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region Office, Juneau
NMFS/D Hbr National Marine Fisheries Service, Observer Program, Dutch Harbor
NRC Natural Resources Consultants, Seattle
NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage
HANA Halibut Association of North America, Seattle
For further information, please call Bob Trumble or Gregg Williams at the International Pacific Halibut Commission, Seattle, Washington, (206)634-1838.
Table 1. Preliminary catch totals during 1993 Halibut Bycatch Survival/Sorting Study. Codes for treatment are CL=Control, ES=Enhanced Sort, and GS=Grid Sort. Haul 590 was considered invalid.
Number Haul of Cumul. Live Cumul. Date No. Halibut Total Tank Total Treatment Deck Factory Total 07Oct 567 Test 20 n/a 20 20 568 Test 88 173 261 281 569 Test 105 n/a 105 386 570 Test 66 n/a 66 452 08Oct 571 GS 182 178 360 360 0 0 572 CL 0 37 37 397 0 0 573 ES 0 9 9 406 0 0 09Oct 574 CL 0 13 13 419 0 0 575 ES 0 57 57 476 0 0 576 GS 94 38 132 608 14 14 577 GS 41 23 64 672 8 22 578 CL 0 68 68 740 12 34 10Oct 579 ES 0 58 58 798 0 34 580 CL 0 53 53 851 0 34 581 GS 24 4 28 879 7 41 582 ES 0 64 64 943 0 41 11Oct 583 GS 60 14 74 1,017 0 41 584 ES 0 8 8 1,025 0 41 585 CL 0 29 29 1,054 0 41 12Oct 586 ES 0 65 65 1,119 0 41 587 CL 0 6 6 1,125 0 41 588 GS 12 4 16 1,141 3 44 589 CL 0 55 55 1,196 0 44 13Oct 590 591 GS 53 9 62 1,258 18 62 592 ES 0 69 69 1,327 13 75 593 GS 2 37 39 1,366 0 75 14Oct 594 ES 0 96 96 1,462 0 75 595 CL 0 79 79 1,541 0 75 596 ES 0 50 50 1,591 0 75 15Oct 597 CL 0 2 2 1,593 0 75 598 GS 4 6 10 1,603 0 75 599 CL 0 54 54 1,657 0 75 600 GS 3 25 28 1,685 0 75 601 ES 0 52 52 1,737 0 75 16Oct 602 GS 45 55 100 1,837 18 93 603 ES 0 85 85 1,922 20 113 17Oct 604 CL 0 145 145 2,067 22 135 605 ES 0 143 143 2,210 0 135 606 CL 0 123 123 2,333 0 135 18Oct 607 GS 32 109 141 2,474 0 135 608 CL 0 27 27 2,501 0 135 609 GS 111 116 227 2,728 0 135 610 ES 0 479 479 3,207 0 135 611 CL 0 172 172 3,379 0 135 612 ES 0 196 196 3,575 0 135 19Oct 613 GS 107 242 349 3,924 0 135 614 ES 0 160 160 4,084 0 135 615 GS 72 82 154 4,238 63 198 20Oct 616 CL 0 108 108 4,346 0 198 617 CL 0 169 169 4,515 19 217 618 GS 52 113 165 4,680 0 217 21Oct 619 ES 0 87 87 4,767 21 238 620 GS 55 93 148 4,915 0 238 621 CL 0 519 519 5,434 0 238 22Oct 622 ES 0 107 107 5,541 0 238 623 ES 0 119 119 5,660 0 238 624 CL 0 272 272 5,932 0 238 625 GS 68 125 193 6,125 22 260 626 CL 0 191 191 6,316 0 260 627 GS 19 13 32 6,348 0 260 23Oct 628 ES 0 252 252 6,600 0 260 629 GS 74 109 183 6,783 0 260 630 ES 0 139 139 6,922 0 260 631 CL 0 134 134 7,056 0 260 632 ES 0 136 136 7,192 20 280 24Oct 633 CL 0 214 214 7,406 0 280 634 GS 140 227 367 7,773 0 280 635 CL 0 201 201 7,974 0 280 636 GS 80 144 224 8,198 0 280 637 ES 0 221 221 8,419 20 300 638 GS 82 186 268 8,687 0 300 25Oct 639 ES 0 313 313 9,000 0 300 640 CL 0 255 255 9,255 0 300 641 ES 0 232 232 9,487 0 300 642 CL 0 108 108 9,595 0 300 643 GS 43 68 111 9,706 20 320 644 CL 0 263 263 9,969 0 320 26Oct 645 GS 97 174 271 10,240 0 320 646 ES 0 273 273 10,513 0 320 647 GS 37 107 144 10,657 0 320 648 CL 0 187 187 10,844 0 320 649 ES 0 163 163 11,007 0 320 27Oct 650 ES 0 260 260 11,267 0 320 651 CL 0 158 158 11,425 0 320 652 GS 146 167 313 11,738 19 339 653 CL 0 44 44 11,782 0 339 654 GS 42 75 117 11,899 0 339 655 ES 0 99 99 11,998 0 339 656 GS 51 61 112 12,110 20 359 28Oct 657 ES 0 281 281 12,391 0 359 658 CL 0 351 351 12,742 0 359 659 CL 0 207 207 12,949 0 359 660 ES 0 630 630 13,579 22 381 661 GS 99 183 282 13,861 20 401