ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT

FISH RESEARCH PROJECT OREGON

PROJECT TITLE: Scale Analysis

PROJECT NUMBER: F-144-R-09

PROJECT PERIOD: October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998

Prepared by: L.A. Borgerson

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2501 S.W. First Street P.O. Box 59 Portland, Oregon 97207

This project was partially financed with Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act funds from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY ...... 1

Objectives for FY 1998 ...... 1 Accomplishments in FY 1998...... 1 Findings in FY 1998...... 1

INTRODUCTION ...... 2

METHODS...... 2

REARING ORIGINS OF COHO SALMON...... 3

AGE COMPOSITION OF CHINOOK SALMON ...... 5

AGE COMPOSITION OF CHUM SALMON ...... 9

MISCELLANEOUS SCALE COLLECTIONS ...... 9

REFERENCES ...... 12

APPENDIX ...... 13 SUMMARY

Objectives for FY 1998

1. Identify the rearing origin of coho salmon (wild or hatchery) spawning in Oregon coastal streams.

2. Determine the age composition and length at age of chinook salmon in Oregon coastal index streams.

3. Determine the age composition of chum salmon spawning in Tillamook Bay tributaries.

4. Provide scale analysis support to other research and management projects.

5. Maintain scale archives.

Accomplishments in FY 1998

We accomplished all objectives.

Findings in FY 1998

We identified the rearing origin of 1,319 coastal coho salmon returning to spawning grounds in 1997. The Salmonid Inventory Project personnel will use the data to exclude stray hatchery fish from the escapement estimates for wild coho salmon. We also read scales from an additional 46 coho salmon from various sources.

We read scales from 1,913 fall chinook salmon that returned to spawning grounds of seven coastal index rivers. In 1997, the combined age composition for fish from the seven index rivers was 1.0% age-2, 8.5% age-3, 27.9% age-4, 61.6% age-5, and 1.0% age-6. Managers used these data to evaluate the status of coastal fall chinook salmon stocks. We also read scales from a subsample of fall chinook salmon from the Rogue River in 1997 and found that the age composition was 4.0% age-2, 16.8% age-3, 61.1% age-4, 17.9% age-5, and 0.2% age-6.

Analysis of scales from 259 chum salmon returning to Tillamook Bay in 1997 showed that the age composition was 27.8% age-3, 70.3% age-4 and 1.5% age-5, and 0.4% age-6.

Under the fourth objective, we analyzed scales for the Hood River/Pelton Ladder , Lake Billy Chinook, Native Trout, and Salmonid Life Cycle Monitoring research projects; Inter- Jurisdictional Management and Ocean Salmon Management programs; the Mid-Coast, Mid- Columbia, and Klamath Fish districts; and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Scale Analysis Project determines the rearing origin (hatchery or wild) of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and the age composition of coastal chinook (O. tshawytscha) and chum salmon (O. keta). We also provide scale reading assistance to other projects. In 1997, we analyzed scales for the Hood River/Pelton Ladder, Lake Billy Chinook, and Salmonid Life Cycle Monitoring research projects; Inter-Jurisdictional Management and Ocean Salmon Management programs, Warm Water Fish Management Program, and the Mid-Coast, Mid- Columbia, and Klamath Fish districts.

Before 1988, we analyzed the scales of coho salmon from the spawning grounds of the Lincoln District and Coos Bay basin to identify strays from private hatcheries. In 1988, we began analyzing coho salmon scales from all coastal spawning grounds to identify strays from public and private hatcheries (Borgerson 1989). Currently, no private hatcheries are releasing coho salmon, so all hatchery strays are from public hatcheries.

Since 1986, we have monitored the age composition and mean length at maturity of fall chinook salmon from the Nehalem, Wilson, Salmon, Siletz, Siuslaw, Coquille, and Chetco rivers. In this report we present data for the 1997 return year. Data for previous years are reported by Nicholas and Hankin (1988), Lewis et al. (1989), and Borgerson and Bowden (1997).

We also received chinook salmon scales from other coastal rivers including the Rogue and Elk rivers. Fall chinook salmon from the Rogue River have been sampled for age composition in previous years (Borgerson and Bowden 1997)

We analyzed scales from chum salmon returning to the Nehalem River and Tillamook Bay tributaries in 1997. For comparison, we included data from the Tillamook basin for other years.

METHODS

Most of the scales that we analyzed were collected by others. We provided each collector with a sampling procedure, including a diagram showing location of the key scale area (Nicholas and Van Dyke 1982), so that all collections were sampled by the same methods.

We received most scale samples in individual envelopes; a few were sent to us already mounted on gummed tape or glass slides. We mounted all scales that we received in envelopes on gummed cards and made acetate impressions using a heat press. All data recorded on the individual scale envelopes were either transcribed onto our scale reading form or entered directly into a computer database.

Experienced personnel determined rearing origin and age by visual interpretation of the scale pattern. Two people read most collections and resolved disagreements during a joint, third reading. When time or training did not allow for each of two people to read a collection, one person read the scales twice, and if the two readings were different, that person read them a third time. The first reading was made without knowledge of field data, such as length or date, so that the reading was based only on information provided by the scale pattern and was not biased by conflicting field data. Field data were taken into consideration for the third reading.

Fish age was determined by counting winter annuli. We identified annuli as bands of closely spaced circuli with broken circuli and occasional, small areas of resorption. For

2 chinook and chum salmon returning to fresh water to spawn, total age equaled the count of annuli plus one. For fish sampled during the summer, we may have added a "+" to the age to denote that a significant amount of growth had occurred since the last annulus. A spawning check may accompany the annulus of fishes capable of living past spawning, such as trout (Oncorhynchus spp.). We identified a spawning check as narrowed circuli with a lot of resorption along the perimeter of the check (Figure 1).

We identified the rearing origin of coho salmon (coastwide), chinook salmon (Chetco and Elk rivers), and steelhead (O. mykiss) (Alsea and Hood rivers) as hatchery or wild. The Chetco River is the only index river for chinook salmon into which unmarked hatchery fish are released. Scale patterns vary by hatchery or wild stock so known-origin reference collections were studied to ensure the most accurate classification. We defined a wild fish as a fish that formed its scales in the natural environment. Progeny of hatchery strays and hatchery stock planted as fry or that emerged in a stream from an artificial hatchbox were also classified as wild.

The scale pattern of a wild coho salmon typically has an obvious freshwater annulus of very narrow, often broken circuli near the center of the scale, followed by very wide "spring" circuli ending at a vague ocean entrance check. A hatchery scale pattern usually has a vague freshwater annulus relatively far from the center of the scale, "spring" circuli spacing that may not be noticeably wider than previous circuli, and an ocean entrance check that is often strong. Hatchery fish are usually larger than wild fish at ocean entrance and that is reflected on the scale pattern by greater distances from the center of the scale to the freshwater annulus and the ocean entrance check, and by higher circuli counts to those features.

Chinook salmon from the Chetco and Elk rivers differ from coho salmon by being subyearlings at ocean entrance so there is no freshwater annulus on the scales. Differences between hatchery and wild scale patterns of Chetco and Elk chinook salmon are similar to coho salmon in that hatchery fish are “large” at ocean entrance with a high count of evenly spaced circuli. Wild chinook salmon from the Chetco and Elk rivers are “small” at ocean entrance with a low circuli count and a zone of tightly spaced circuli near the scale center followed by widely spaced circuli near the ocean entrance check.

The scales of most wild steelhead display two annuli formed in freshwater, while hatchery steelhead released into the Hood and Alsea rivers have only one annulus. Like chinook and coho salmon, hatchery steelhead are usually larger than the wild fish.

Data from visual interpretation of scales were entered into and stored in a database. In all basins except the Rogue River, surveyors took scale samples from all carcasses encountered. Because of the large number of fish found in the Rogue River basin, carcasses were subsampled. Therefore age composition data for Rogue River fall chinook salmon were summarized by the week and expanded by the weekly sampling rates.

Measurements of scale growth to annuli or other checks were made using the Optimus Image Analysis system. The Optimus system transferred scale measurements directly into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet where we developed regression lines and back-calculated size at previous ages or other events such as ocean entrance.

REARING ORIGINS OF COHO SALMON

The APPENDIX contains scale classifications from the coastal spawning ground collections of 1997. We supplied data on rearing origin of coho salmon from spawning grounds to Salmonid Inventory Project personnel for use in adjusting wild fish counts. Jacobs

3 and Cooney (1997) describe the criteria for adjustment of counts of wild coho salmon using scale data. In 1997, wild fish counts were adjusted to exclude hatchery strays in the North Fork Nehalem, Miami, Kilchis, Wilson, Trask, Tillamook, Salmon, Yaquina, Digger Creek of the Alsea,

4 Figure 1. Examples of features interpreted on scales. Scale A is from an age-4 chinook salmon from the Alsea River. Scale B is from an age-5 rainbow trout from Spencer Creek, a tributary to the Klamath River.

5 mainstem Umpqua, and South Umpqua rivers (Personal communication with Gary Susac, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, OR).

Table 1 contains a list of coho scales from miscellaneous sources and locations that were read during the past year. Some of these scales were sampled incidentally during spawning surveys or trapping operations for other species and were of marginal interest to the collectors. Other scale samples were collected for a specific reason and results have been reported back to the collectors.

AGE COMPOSITION OF CHINOOK SALMON

Table 2 is a summary of the age composition of fall chinook salmon from seven index rivers. There were significant differences (p<0.05) between the age compositions in 1997 and previous years in all index rivers, except the Chetco River. In the basins with significant differences, the proportion of age-4 fish was much lower than observed for 1986-96, while the proportion of age-5 fish was high. We computed average length at age for each index river (Table 3).

We also received scales from non-index rivers (Table 4). In most cases, the sample sizes were too small to produce meaningful results; however, enough samples were provided from some groups to obtain basic age composition data (Table 5).

The large collection from the Rogue and Applegate rivers is part of the ongoing management of chinook salmon stocks in the Rogue River basin. These data are used to predict the number of fall chinook salmon from the Rogue River that can contribute to ocean fisheries in the next summer (STT 1998). The large samples from Elk River are used by Ocean Salmon Management to forecast stock size for the late summer fishery that occurs off the mouths of the Elk and Sixes rivers.

Table 1. Miscellaneous scale collections from coho salmon returning in 1997- 98. Scales were received from the ODFW and non-government groups working with ODFW. ______

River Source Collecting Agency Number ______

Hood Powerdale Dam trap ODFW 13 Clackamas Spawning grounds ODFW 3 Nehalem Fishhawk Lake trap ODFW 8 Siletz Mill Creek trap ODFW 70 Yaquina Mill Creek trap ODFW 94 Alsea Cascade Creek trap ODFW 40 Tenmile Lakes Spawning grounds Tenmile Watershed Council 41 ______

6 Table 2. Age composition of fall chinook salmon stocks from seven index rivers, 1997. The combined age composition for 1986-1996 is given for comparison. ______

Basin, Percentage of spawners Number of year Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 scales aged ______

Nehalem 1997 0.3 3.7 21.2 74.2 0.6 -- 353 1986-96 0.9 6.2 37.5 47.4 7.7 0.3 2,002

Wilson 1997 -- 2.7 17.0 78.2 2.1 -- 188 1986-96 0.4 4.0 34.0 50.0 11.6 0.1 2,800

Salmon 1997 0.3 5.6 27.8 64.6 1.7 -- 302 1986-96 0.9 9.4 32.0 48.9 8.7 0.1 2,967

Siletz 1997 -- 6.2 17.8 72.6 3.4 -- 146 1986-96 0.9 4.3 27.0 55.1 12.5 0.2 1,883

Siuslaw 1997 1.8 8.7 30.0 59.3 0.2 -- 494 1986-96 3.3 11.3 13.5 38.6 3.2 <0.1 4,262

Coquille 1997 2.4 18.4 35.3 43.3 0.5 -- 374 1986-96 3.8 14.2 48.6 31.8 1.5 -- 2,938

Chetco 1997 -- 12.5 64.3 23.2 -- -- 56 1986-96 6.0 12.3 59.1 21.7 0.9 -- 1,959

Index rivers combined

1997 1.0 8.5 27.9 61.6 1.0 -- 1,913 1986-96 2.4 9.2 40.4 41.7 6.2 0.1 18,811 ______

7 Table 3. Means and standard deviations for length at age of fall chinook salmon stocks from seven coastal index rivers for 1997. Averaged data from 1986-1996 is given for comparison. MEPS = Mid-eye to posterior scale. ______

MEPS Length (cm), 1997 MEPS Length (cm), 1986-1996 Basin, Standard Number Standard Number age Mean deviation aged Mean deviation aged ______

Nehalem Age 2 41.0 0 1 43.8 7.9 17 Age 3 60.9 5.8 13 63.1 6.5 120 Age 4 75.3 5.5 74 75.9 5.3 742 Age 5 81.2 4.1 259 82.9 5.0 935 Age 6 81.5 2.5 2 85.1 4.6 151 Age 7 -- -- 0 85.4 5.3 5

Wilson Age 2 -- -- 0 40.9 4.8 9 Age 3 63.6 3.7 5 62.8 6.0 109 Age 4 77.2 4.4 32 77.3 5.7 935 Age 5 82.4 4.6 144 83.6 5.3 1360 Age 6 81.9 5.0 4 87.4 5.3 318 Age 7 -- -- 0 83.1 2.6 4

Salmon Age 2 37.5 0.0 1 40.5 3.8 24 Age 3 60.8 3.2 16 61.9 4.7 256 Age 4 75.9 4.5 84 75.0 4.9 879 Age 5 81.6 3.8 192 82.8 5.0 1362 Age 6 82.6 1.3 4 86.7 4.8 233 Age 7 -- -- 0 84.8 2.8 2

Siletz Age 2 -- -- 0 39.5 3.2 17 Age 3 61.4 5.1 9 61.9 6.9 81 Age 4 75.3 7.1 26 75.6 5.7 507 Age 5 81.2 4.9 102 82.6 5.5 1034 Age 6 82.7 1.8 5 85.4 5.7 232 Age 7 -- -- 0 85.5 2.3 3

Siuslaw Age 2 37.4 2.4 9 42.8 6.1 138 Age 3 59.7 5.7 43 62.4 6.2 483 Age 4 75.0 5.4 148 75.7 5.6 1854 Age 5 80.0 5.0 293 81.5 5.1 1639 Age 6 81.0 0.0 1 84.4 5.4 137 Age 7 -- -- 0 90.2 5.2 2 ______

8 Table 3. Continued. ______MEPS Length (cm), 1997 MEPS Length (cm), 1986-1995 Basin, Standard Number Standard Number age Mean deviation aged Mean deviation aged ______Coquille Age 2 37.4 2.6 8 40.5 5.2 111 Age 3 61.9 5.5 69 63.2 7.4 413 Age 4 73.3 5.5 131 75.0 5.8 1422 Age 5 78.2 4.7 162 79.9 5.0 931 Age 6 79.0 3.5 2 81.6 5.5 45 Age 7 -- -- 0 79.0 0.0 1

Chetco Age 2 -- -- 0 41.7 4.5 117 Age 3 59.6 2.9 7 58.8 6.7 236 Age 4 70.9 5.4 35 73.2 6.1 1125 Age 5 77.5 3.8 12 79.6 6.1 401 Age 6 -- -- 0 84.2 5.9 16 ______

Table 4. Sampling locations and sample sizes of chinook salmon scale collections from coastal non-index rivers, 1997. SGS = spawning ground surveys. ______River Run Source Sample size ______Miami Fall SGS 1 Tillamook Fall SGS 1 Tillamook Bay Spring Creel 83 Wilson Spring Creel 1 Trask Spring Creel 103 Tillamook Spring Creel 1 Nestucca Spring Creel 41 Salmon Fall Creel 13 Salmon Fall Hatchery 20 Yaquina Fall SGS 1 Yaquina Fall Hatchery 57 Alsea Fall SGS 1 Umpqua Fall SGS 9 Floras/New Fall SGS 2 Elk Fall Creel 324 Elk Fall SGS 124 Elk Fall Hatchery 513 Rogue and Applegate Fall SGS 563 Hunter Fall SGS 26 Pistol Fall SGS 6 Winchuck Fall SGS 10 ______

9 Table 5. Age composition of miscellaneous coastal chinook salmon stocks, 1997. All populations were fall chinook except as noted. Fish were identified as hatchery or wild by visual interpretation of their scale pattern. SGS = spawning ground surveys. ______Percentage of spawners at age: __ Scales Basin, source 2 3 4 5 6 read ______

Tillamook Bay, Spring, creel 0.0 0.0 60.2 38.6 1.2 83

Trask, Spring, creel 0.0 2.9 67.7 29.4 0.0 102

Nestucca, Spring, creel 0.0 4.9 56.1 36.6 2.4 41

Yaquina Bay, hatchery release site 0.0 7.0 26.3 66.7 0.0 57

Elk, creel, wild fish 10.7 14.2 56.7 17.0 1.4 141 Elk, creel, hatchery fish 30.3 5.8 59.0 4.1 0.8 122

Elk, SGS, wild fish 2.5 6.3 53.8 36.3 1.3 80 Elk, SGS, hatchery fish 3.8 7.7 69.2 19.2 -- 26

Elk R. Hatchery broodstock, wild fish 3.0 13.4 49.3 32.8 1.5 67 Elk R. Hatchery broodstock, hatchery fish 16.0 10.5 69.2 4.4 -- 344

Rogue and Applegate, SGS 4.0 16.8 61.1 17.9 0.2 558

Chetco, SGS, hatchery fish 8.5 13.5 64.4 11.9 1.7 59 ______

AGE COMPOSITION OF CHUM SALMON

In 1997, the age composition of chum salmon from Tillamook Bay tributaries was similar to historical age compositions (Table 6). Age-3 fish were more prevalent than age-5 fish. We received and read two additional scale samples collected from spawning grounds of Salmon River.

MISCELLANEOUS SCALE COLLECTIONS

In most years, coho salmon < 50 cm fork length are all age-2 and their count is used in a model to predict the population size of adult (age-3) coho returning the following year. Due to extended El Niño conditions, coho salmon returning in 1997 were smaller than normal. At the request of the Inter-Jurisdictional Management Program, we read scales of 1,918 coho salmon returning to hatcheries at less than 55.9 cm (22 inches) to determine age and provide an accurate count of age-2 fish for the model. Some hatcheries had few age-3 fish in the <50- cm group, while others had many (Table 7). We found no age-2 fish that were >50 cm in length

At the request of other projects, we analyzed scales from a variety of species from around the state (Table 8). In most cases, scale data were reported back to the project for incorporation into their analyses.

10 Table 6. Age composition of chum salmon from Tillamook Bay tributaries, 1997. The age composition from other recent years is given for comparison. ______

Percentage of spawners Number of Location Year Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 Age6 scales aged Source ______

Tillamook Bay 1978 25 72 3 0 239 Sams 1980 Tillamook Bay 1979 50 45 5 0 113 Sams 1980

Tillamook Bay 1982 20.4 78.4 1.1 0.0 88 McGie 1983 Tillamook Bay 1983 24.4 39.0 36.6 0.0 41 McGie 1984

Tillamook Bay 1989 7.9 27.0 65.1 0.0 126 Tillamook Bay 1990 21.5 75.3 3.2 0.0 158 Tillamook Bay 1991 10.9 84.6 4.5 0.0 267 Tillamook Bay 1992 0.0 86.3 13.7 0.0 255

Tillamook Bay 1993 7.1 38.1 54.8 0.0 126 Tillamook Bay 1994 5.9 69.4 14.7 0.0 157 Tillamook Bay 1995 17.5 46.0 36.5 0.0 63 Tillamook Bay 1996 38.7 54.8 1.6 4.8 63

Tillamook Bay 1997 27.8 70.3 1.5 0.4 259 Nehalem 1997 29.6 64.2 6.3 0.0 159 ______

Table 7. Age composition of coho salmon < 50.8 cm returning to Oregon hatcheries. No. scales Smallest size, cm Hatchery % Age 2 % Age-3 read Age-2 Age-3 Sandy 81.9 18.1 155 23.9 38.1 Big Creek 24.2 75.8 128 28.7 35.4 North Nehalem 97.0 3.0 67 33.8 40.8 Trask 90.9 9.1 22 34.0 43.0 Fall Creek 5.4 94.6 203 29.0 37.0 Rock Creek 63.3 36.7 30 36.0 43.0 Noble Creek STEP 90.7 9.3 43 35.0 43.0 Bandon 100.0 0.0 45 35.0 -- Cole Rivers 88.4 11.6 753 27.0 38.0

11 Table 8. Miscellaneous scale collections analyzed 1997-98. ______

Project Location Species N ______

Hood River Research 1997 creel Fall chinook salmon 20

Hood River Research Powerdale Trap Spring chinook salmon 76

Hood River Research Powerdale Trap Fall chinook salmon 30

Hood River Research Hood River Steelhead (juveniles) 2,847

Hood River Research Hood River Winter steelhead (adults) 286

Hood River Research Hood River Summer steelhead (adults) 562

Mid-Columbia Fish District Hood River Steelhead) 64

Round Butte Hatchery Round Butte Hatchery Spring chinook salmon 7

Lake Billy Chinook Res. Lake Billy Chinook Kokanee (O. nerka) 654

Klamath Fish District Upper Klamath L. tribs. Rainbow trout 33

Klamath Fish District Goose Lake Rainbow trout 26

Mid-Coast Fish District Alsea Hatchery Winter steelhead 205

Native Trout Mixed locations Bull trout 246

DEQ Misc. locations Misc. species 86 ______

12 REFERENCES

Borgerson, L.A. 1989. Joint Oregon-Washington salmon stock ID, ocean fishery monitoring and management, and salmon stock assessment. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Research Project AFC-130, Annual Progress Report, Portland.

Borgerson, L.A, and R.K. Bowden. 1997. Scale Analysis. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Research Project F-144-R-8, Annual Progress Report, Portland.

Jacobs, S.E., and C.X. Cooney. 1997. Oregon Coastal Salmon Spawning Surveys, 1994 and 1995. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Information Reports (Fish) 97-5, Portland.

Lewis, M.A., L.A. Borgerson, and J.W. Nicholas. 1989. Scale analysis database summary for Oregon coastal chinook salmon: Age composition and size at age. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, White Paper, Portland.

McGie, A.M. 1983 Spawning salmon surveys and straying of private hatchery coho salmon from Yaquina Bay in coastal watersheds of Oregon, 1982. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division Report, Portland.

McGie, A.M. 1984. Oregon coastal salmon spawning surveys and straying of private hatchery coho salmon from Yaquina and Coos bays, 1983. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division Report, Portland.

Nicholas, J.W., and D.G. Hankin. 1988. Chinook salmon populations in Oregon coastal river basins: description of life histories and assessment of recent trends in run strengths. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Information Reports (Fish) 88-1, Portland. (Updated and reprinted in 1989 by Oregon State University Extension Service, Publication EM 8402, Corvallis.)

Nicholas, J.W., and L.A. Van Dyke. 1982. Straying of adult coho salmon to and from a private hatchery at Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Information Reports (Fish) 82-10, Portland.

Sams, R.E. 1980. Chum salmon egg collection. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division Report, Portland.

Salmon Technical Team (STT) 1998. Preseason report I, stock abundance analysis for 1998 ocean salmon fisheries. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

13 APPENDIX

Rearing Origin of Coho Salmon Sampled on Coastal Spawning Grounds in 1997-98.

14 Appendix. Rearing origin of coho salmon sampled on spawning grounds in 1997-98. (H) or (HRS) following a basin name indicates that a hatchery or major hatchery release site is located within the ______basin. Regen- Survey Survey Hatchery Wild Jacks erated name number No. % No. % (No.) (No.) ______NECANICUM RIVER L. HUMBUG 26232.00 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 0

ECOLA CREEK WEST FORK 26182.00 1 100 0 -- 0 0

MAINSTEM NEHALEM RIVER HUMBUG 25967.00 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0 HUMBUG 25975.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 W. HUMBUG 25981.00 1 33.3 2 66.7 0 0 W. HUMBUG 25985.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 BUSTER 26003.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 LITTLE FISHHAWK 26020.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 OAK RANCH 26077.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 CROOKED 26081.00 0 -- 0 -- 0 1 COOK 26083.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 E.F. NEHALEM 26093.70 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 LOUISIGNONT 26147.70 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 NEHALEM 26150.00 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 1 TOTAL 4 22.2 14 77.8 0 1

NORTH FORK NEHALEM RIVER (H) COAL 25840.00 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0 SOAPSTONE 25864.00 17 89.5 2 10.5 0 0 SALLY 25871.30 12 85.7 2 14.3 0 1 GOD’S VALLEY 25872.00 14 93.3 1 6.7 0 0 NORTH FORK 25881.50 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 LITTLE N. F. 25880.00 4 100.0 0 -- 0 0 TOTAL 49 89.1 6 10.9 0 1

ROCK CREEK, NEHALEM RIVER N. F. ROCK 26112.0 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0

MIAMI RIVER MIAMI 25790.00 2 100.0 0 -- 0 0 MIAMI 25798.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 0

15 ______Appendix. Continued. Regen- Survey Survey Hatchery Wild Jacks erated name number No. % No. % (No.) (No.) ______WILSON RIVER CEDAR 25679.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0 W.F. OF N.F. 25688.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 NORTH FORK 25689.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 SOUTH FORK 25705.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 IDIOT 25709.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 0 -- 8 100.0 0 0

TRASK RIVER (H) GREEN 25587.00 4 100.0 0 -- 0 0 MID. FORK OF N. F. 25627.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 EDWARDS 25612.00 2 50.0 1 50.0 0 0 SOUTH FORK 25617.80 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 TOTAL 7 77.8 2 22.2 0 0 TILLAMOOK RIVER TILLAMOOK 25564.00 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0

NESTUCCA RIVER BAYS 25469.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 L. NESTUCCA 25385.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 0 -- 4 100.0 0 0

SALMON RIVER (H) SALMON 25272.00 3 100.0 0 -- 1 3 DEER 1 25282.00 10 83.3 2 16.7 0 0 HATCHERY AREA 25287.00 7 100.0 0 -- 0 0 HATCH.-PANTHER 25289.00 22 100.0 0 -- 2 2 PANTH.-SLICK RK. 25295.00 6 100.0 0 -- 0 0 BEAR 25296.00 66 95.6 3 4.4 2 3 LOW. SLICK ROCK 25298.00 16 94.1 1 5.9 1 1 LOWER TROUT 25299.00 15 100.0 0 -- 1 2 WIDOW-DEER 2 25309.00 6 100.0 0 -- 0 1 DEER 2-PRAIRIE 25310.00 7 100.0 1 -- 0 0 PRAIR.-LIT. SAL. 25315.00 23 60.7 10 39.3 1 2 LIT. SAL.-TRIB.G 25323.00 2 -- 0 -- 0 2 TOTAL 183 90.5 17 8.5 8 16

DEVIL'S LAKE ROCK 25263.00 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 2

16 ______Appendix. Continued. Regen- Survey Survey Hatchery Wild Jacks erated name number No. % No. % (No.) (No.) ______

SILETZ RIVER (HRS) EUCHRE 25105.00 0 -- 0 -- 1 0 BENTILLA 25125.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 SUNSHINE 25165.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 4TH OF JULY 25168.00 0 -- 5 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 0 -- 8 100.0 1 0

YAQUINA RIVER MILL 24953.70 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0 SIMPSON 24997.00 1 100.0 0 -- 0 1 UPPER YAQUINA 25046.00 1 50.0 1 50.0 2 0 FEAGLES 24974.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 3 42.9 4 57.1 2 1

NORTH FORK BEAVER CREEK NORTH FORK 24924.00 0 -- 8 100.0 0 0

MAINSTEM ALSEA RIVER COW 24793.00 1 100.0 0 -- 1 0 DIGGER 24811.00 5 71.4 2 28.6 0 0 TOTAL 6 75.0 2 25.0 1 0

DRIFT CREEK, ALSEA RIVER LOWER DRIFT 24641.00 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 HORSE 24646.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 NETTLE 24652.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 1 20.0 4 80.0 0 0

FIVE RIVERS, ALSEA RIVER DIGGER 24730.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 UPPPER LOBSTER 24744.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 2 CHERRY 24754.00 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 BUCK 24758.00 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 WILSON 24759.00 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0

TOTAL 3 42.9 4 57.1 0 2

NORTH FORK ALSEA RIVER HONEYGROVE 24838.00 0 -- 0 -- 0 1

17 ______Appendix. Continued. Regen- Survey Survey Hatchery Wild Jacks erated name number No. % No. % (No.) (No.) ______YACHATS RIVER STUMP 24951.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0

CUMMINS CREEK CUMMINS 24544.00 0 -- 0 -- 0 1

MAINSTEM SIUSLAW RIVER LAWSON 24044.00 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 NORTH 24363.60 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 DOE HOLLOW 24411.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 BUCK 24420.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0

NORTH FORK SIUSLAW RIVER MCLEOD 24025.00 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0

LAKE CREEK, SIUSLAW RIVER (HRS) LAKE 24206.00 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 MISERY 24159.00 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 TOTAL 2 100.0 0 -- 0 0

SILTCOOS LAKE HENDERSON 23995.00 0 -- 4 100.0 0 0 MAPLE 23998.00 0 -- 8 100.0 0 1 ALDER 23965.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0 FIDDLE 23974.00 0 -- 17 100.0 1 0 TOTAL 0 -- 32 100.0 1 1

TAHKENITCH LAKE FIVEMILE 23957.00 1 1.3 78 98.7 14 3 LEITEL 23949.00 2 1.3 157 98.7 20 7 TOTAL 3 1.3 235 98.7 34 10

18 ______Appendix. Continued. Regen- Survey Survey Hatchery Wild Jacks erated name number No. % No. % (No.) (No.) ______MAINSTEM UMPQUA RIVER OAR 22393.00 1 9.1 10 90.9 5 1 SCHOLFIELD 22402.00 1 7.1 13 92.9 1 3 DEAN 22624.00 2 40.0 3 60.0 1 0 MEHL 22824.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 CALAPOOYA 22971.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 4 11.8 30 88.2 7 4

SMITH RIVER, UMPQUA RIVER W. BR., NF SMITH 22462.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 SPENCER 22485.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 BUCK 22489.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 BEAVER 22504.00 0 -- 4 100.0 0 0 S. SISTER 22521.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 LITTLE S. FK. 22584.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 0 -- 10 100.0 0 0 ELK CREEK, UMPQUA RIVER JOHNNY 22732.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0

SOUTH FORK UMPQUA RIVER (HRS) MOORE 22502.70 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 OLALLA 23034.00 0 -- 4 100.0 0 0 RICE 23057.00 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 S. MYRTLE 23088.00 0 -- 0 -- 1 0 WEAVER 23095.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 BILGER 23108.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 1 N. MYRTLE 23115.00 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 ASH 23138.00 1 100.0 0 -- 0 1 CATCHING 23146.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 IRON MOUNTAIN 23172.00 0 -- 0 -- 0 1 UPPER RIFFLE 23269.00 1 33.3 2 66.7 0 0 TOTTEN 23291.00 0 -- 0 -- 1 0 WOODS 23299.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 2 BULL RUN 23313.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 DEADMAN 23571.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0

TOTAL 4 20.0 16 80.0 2 5

19 ______Appendix. Continued. Regen- Survey Survey Hatchery Wild Jacks erated name number No. % No. % (No.) (No.) ______NORTH AND SOUTH TENMILE LAKES ROBERTSON 22356.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 R.F. JOHNSON 22357.00 0 -- 7 100.0 0 1 MURPHY 22370.00 0 -- 1 100.0 3 0 ALDER 22379.30 0 -- 3 100.0 1 0 BIG 22379.70 0 -- 10 100.0 2 0 BLACKS ------0 -- 3 100.0 0 1 JOHNSON ------0 -- 3 100.0 0 1 L.F. JOHNSON ------0 -- 3 100.0 0 0 WILKINS ------0 -- 0 -- 1 0 TOTAL 0 -- 31 100.0 7 3

MAINSTEM COOS RIVER (HRS) WILLANCH 22310.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 LARSON 22320.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0

SOUTH FORK COOS RIVER FALL 22180.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 BOTTOM 22198.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0

MILLICOMA RIVER, COOS RIVER DETON 22235.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 DARIUS 22247.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0 DEER 22293.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 WEST FORK 22294.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 KNIFE 22295.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 0 -- 10 100.0 0 0

NORTH FORK COQUILLE RIVER MIDDLE 22006.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0 MIDDLE 22008.00 0 -- 16 100.0 0 1 MIDDLE 22012.00 0 -- 4 100.0 0 0 ALDER 22015.00 0 -- 4 100.0 1 0 MIDDLE 22018.00 0 -- 9 100.0 0 0 PARK 22021.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 MIDDLE 22024.00 0 -- 6 100.0 0 0 HUDSON 22036.00 0 -- 7 100.0 0 0 NORTH FORK 22041.00 0 -- 8 100.0 0 0 NORTH FORK 22047.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 NORTH FORK 22051.00 0 -- 29 100.0 0 2 TOTAL 0 -- 88 100.0 1 3

20 ______Appendix. Continued. Regen- Survey Survey Hatchery Wild Jacks erated name number No. % No. % (No.) (No.) ______EAST FORK COQUILLE RIVER WEEKLY 21949.00 0 -- 0 -- 0 1 ELK 21951.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0 EAST FORK 21954.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 STEEL 21957.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 0 -- 6 100.0 0 1

MIDDLE FORK COQUILLE RIVER BIG 21744.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 ROSLER 21754.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 ROCK 21755.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 SLATER 21782.00 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 TOTAL 1 20.0 4 80.0 0 0

NEW RIVER AND FLORAS CREEK BETHEL 21564.50 1 33.3 2 66.7 0 0 MORTON TRIB. 21566.60 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0 UPPER MORTON 21566.70 1 100.0 0 -- 0 0 LOWER WILLOW 21569.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 2 25.0 6 75.0 0 0

MAINSTEM ROGUE RIVER W.F. EVANS 20897.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 W.F. EVANS 20901.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 W.F. EVANS 20905.00 0 -- 7 100.0 0 0 ROCK 20906.00 0 -- 4 100.0 0 0 COLD 20907.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 0 W.F. EVANS 20909.00 0 -- 39 100.0 1 2 SAND 20910.00 0 -- 11 100.0 0 1 W.F. EVANS 20911.00 1 1.2 82 98.8 0 3 W.F. EVANS 20913.00 0 -- 26 100.0 1 0 S.F. LITTLE BUTTE 21059.00 0 -- 11 100.0 0 0 S.F. LITTLE BUTTE 21063.00 0 -- 13 100.0 0 0 S.F. LITTLE BUTTE 21065.00 0 -- 6 100.0 0 0 S.F. LITTLE BUTTE 21067.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0 S.F. LITTLE BUTTE 21073.00 0 -- 4 100.0 0 0 W.F. TRAIL 21113.00 0 -- 15 100.0 0 1 W.F. TRAIL 21115.00 0 -- 9 100.0 0 2 TOTAL 1 0.4 234 99.6 2 9

21 ______Appendix. Continued. Regen- Survey Survey Hatchery Wild Jacks erated name number No. % No. % (No.) (No.) ______ILLINOIS RIVER, ROGUE RIVER WOOD 20379.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 ELK 20385.00 1 5.6 17 94.4 0 1 ELK 20387.00 0 -- 8 100.0 0 0 ELK 20389.00 0 -- 7 100.0 1 0 ELK 20391.00 0 -- 5 100.0 0 0 BROKEN KETTLE 20391.30 0 -- 19 100.0 1 2 BEAR 20405.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0 SUCKER 20412.00 0 -- 7 100.0 0 0 GRAYBACK 20413.00 0 -- 8 100.0 0 0 SUCKER 20422.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 SUCKER 20428.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 0 DUNN 20475.00 0 -- 1 100.0 1 0 DUNN 20477.00 0 -- 2 100.0 0 1 TOTAL 1 1.2 82 98.8 3 4

APPLEGATE RIVER, ROGUE RIVER

ELLIOT 20684.00 0 -- 3 100.0 0 1 SLATE 20685.00 0 -- 3 100.0 1 0 WATERS 20686.00 1 14.3 6 85.7 2 1 WATERS 20688.00 0 -- 4 100.0 1 0 WATERS 20690.00 0 - 14 100.0 1 0 CHENEY 20703.00 0 -- 1 100.0 0 0 TOTAL 1 3.1 31 96.9 5 2 ______

22