November 26, 2019 

 
To: Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission 
4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE 
Salem, OR 97302 
 
Fr: Mark Sherwood, Executive Director 
Native Fish Society 
813 7th St. Suite 200A  
Oregon City, OR 97045 
 
Re: Petition for Temporary Rule Change for Catch and Release in the Southwest Zone for 2020 
Winter Steelhead Season 
 
Dear Vice-Chair Wahl and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commissioners,  
 
Too little is known, too much is at stake, and the data points to a high likelihood that too many wild 
steelhead are being killed in southwest Oregon’s winter steelhead fishery. The concern driving our 
request for a temporary catch and release angling regulation for the East Fork Coquille, Sixes, Elk, 
Euchre Creek, Rogue, Illinois, Hunter Creek, Pistol, Chetco, and Winchuck rivers for 2020 is a 
biological concern based on ODFW’s limited data.  
 
Let’s take the Sixes River. The Sixes is a small coastal river just north of Port Orford. According to an 
ODFW report, the Sixes River receives an average of 1,000 wild winter steelhead per year. We have 
concerns with the methods employed by ODFW to arrive at this estimate for the Sixes, but to our 
knowledge this is the best available science available to the public. This report is from 1980-1985.  
 
The Sixes River winter steelhead fishery was part of the Commission adopted 2014 Coastal 
Multi-Species Management Plan. In wild steelhead harvest fisheries sanctioned under this plan, like the 
Sixes, a limit on total harvest was set to avoid harm to wild steelhead population from overfishing. 
Anglers could take 1 fish per day and 5 per year, but total harvest from all anglers was not to exceed 
10% of the total winter steelhead population.  
 
“All of the wild steelhead fisheries identified in the CMP will be capped at 10% for those wild 
fish that are exposed to the fishery. ODFW will monitor in some of these areas to evaluate the 
 impact of the wild winter steelhead fishery, and adjustments will be made to the fishery if 
harvest rates are found to be higher than the cap of 10%.”(CMP, p66).  
 
So for the Sixes River that’s easy math, 10% of a 1,000 fish average creates a harvest cap of 100 fish. No 
more than an average of 100 wild winter steelhead, according to this data, should be harvested from 
the Sixes River each season according to the Commission adopted Coastal Management Plan.  
 
Last year, we requested and received harvest data from angler catch cards. Our understanding is that 
this data is the best available, but we also have concerns with its accuracy. Because of non-reporting 
bias, an expansion factor is applied to this data to arrive at an estimate of total harvest. but, uncertainty 
exists as only a small fraction of angler catch cards are returned and anglers. 
 
Those concerns for the veracity of ODFW’s data aside, let’s look at this harvest data for the Sixes River 
winter steelhead fishery (see attached graph). From 2005-2018, in 12 of the past 15 years, harvest 
exceeds the 10% cap. This includes years leading up to the development of the Coastal Management 
Plan, its adoption and afterward. Why ODFW didn’t flag overharvest on the Sixes during their 
management planning process and make adjustments to management is unknown. Keep in mind this 
estimate of harvest from tags does not include an estimate of additional harvest from catch and release 
(5-10% mortality) and illegal, unregulated, and under-reported harvest. As a result, these harvest 
numbers are a bare minimum estimate of total wild steelhead harvest in the Sixes.  
 
ODFW may insist that increasing harvest trends are a sign of more fish, but that would run contrary to 
the redd count estimates that demonstrate average or lower than average counts from 2014-2017 
(attached graph for redd counts from the rest of the Oregon coast, as south coast data are not available 
after 2015), which show legacy effects from recent poor ocean conditions, which disproportionately 
impacted steelhead. What local anglers and guides, who are on the water every day will testify to, is that 
we have more anglers who are fishing in more effective ways due to improved angling and information 
technology, and low water conditions that isolate fish making them more susceptible to the fishery.  
 
The scarce data available, points to significantly increasing harvest, caps on harvest (where they exist, 
which is just 2 of the 10 rivers in SW Oregon) not being enforced, and that is due to the lack of recent 
creel and spawning survey data (the last coastal surveys were done in 2015, on the Rogue in 2009) - the 
department lacks the robust data sets to substantially prove otherwise. In the attached 2018 Annual 
Report for coastal winter steelhead you can see the significant data gap resulting from uncollected 
information in the Klamath Mountain Province and Rogue River DPS.  
 
Commissioners, there are small streams that currently allow wild steelhead harvest, like Hunter Creek, 
Euchre Creek, and the Winchuck River that might receive 500 winter steelhead per year. If we apply 
the same harvest caps to these fisheries set for those under the Coastal Management Plan, of no more 
than 10% of the population - how are we not overfishing these populations when we allow 1 fish per 
day and 3 per year to every participating angler? These small streams have ample public access and clear 
quickly, making steelhead fishing possible most of the winter. It is highly unlikely that current 
management, with its lack of monitoring, is preventing wild steelhead from being overfished in these 
small streams.  
 
Simply put, too many wild steelhead are being harvested and there is a significant biological concern 
for wild steelhead populations in Southwest Oregon. Where a management plan exists, ODFW is not 
enforcing its caps on harvest set by the Commission adopted Coastal Management Plan in 2014. For 
the other 8 streams without a management plan to govern the majority of the wild steelhead kill 
fisheries in southwest Oregon, ODFW is waiting for a crisis before they act - which can only be defined 
as a petition to list these fish under the Endangered Species Act.  
 
Commissioners, we have the ingredients for a crisis, but we don’t need to have one. Crises waste 
energy, time, and precious resources and they impact rural local communities with total fishing 
closures such as those experienced in the past with coastal coho, and seen this past year on fisheries 
across the Northwest. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It is much less costly to the 
fish and the communities to err on the side of caution than to wait until a full crisis is irretrievably 
underway. Your leadership is imperative for a different outcome.  
 
To remedy this biological concern in the short term, we are asking the Commission to instruct the 
department to make a temporary rule for the 2020 season (January 1-March 31) requiring catch and 
release for all wild steelhead in the following rivers in the Southwest Zone: the East Fork Coquille, 
Sixes, Elk, Euchre Creek, Rogue, Illinois, Hunter Creek, Pistol, Chetco, and Winchuck rivers. Catch 
and release for wild steelhead will significantly reduce harvest impacts on wild fish while allowing the 
continued retention of hatchery fish, which are present in most basins on the southwest coast. Catch 
and release is also simple to understand and enforce, will have zero cost to the agency to implement, 
and will equitably apply to all anglers regardless of their gear, boat vs. bank, private vs. guide 
preferences. It’s something all anglers can do together to rebuild the health of the fishery. The 2020 
pause on wild steelhead harvest will give the fish a break while the department convenes the 
stakeholder group to work through the management actions in the South Coast Multi-Species Plan in 
preparation for the plan’s adoption by the Commission in late 2020 or early 2021.   
 
In the longer term, we ask that the Commission ensure that ODFW staff complete the South Coast 
Multi-species Management Plan in a timely and scientifically rigorous fashion. Properly managed, the 
remarkable rivers and streams of southwest Oregon can sustain a durable and abundant population of 
wild steelhead valuable for their own sake, for the fisheries they support, and for the wellbeing of our 
coastal communities.   
 
 
Best Regards, 

 
Mark Sherwood, Executive Director 
 
Attached:  
2014 ODFW Coastal Multispecies Management Plan  
Sixes River Harvest Data - ODFW data requested in 2018 prepared by NFS 
ODFW Report on Coastal Winter Steelhead Estimates 1980-85 
Mid-Coast Wild Winter Steelhead Redd Estimate  
2018 Oregon Winter Steelhead Annual Report 
 
 
 
 Sixes River Wild Steelhead Harvest
400
380

350

300
265

250
Number of Fish Harvested

209

200 188
182 179
165 160
157
142 142
150
126

94
100 85

50 41

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Year

Data from blue bars obtained from raw catch card data (with appropriate expansion applied)
Data from red bars obtained from catch card summaries because raw data is not yet avaliable (may include some stray hatchery fish)
Dashed green line represents the Sixes 10% of the total population estimate generated by ODFW information report #89-1:
Estimated Run Size of Winter Steelhead in Oregon Coastal Streams, 1980-85.
 Coastal Multi-Species Conservation and Management Plan
June 2014

While there appears to be resistance to wild winter steelhead harvest, the Oregon State University opinion survey
commissioned by ODFW showed that the majority of anglers and the general public support the harvest of wild winter
steelhead when it will not jeopardize the health of the population (see Appendix VI – Opinion Survey). The support of anglers
for wild winter steelhead harvest was nearly five times greater than those who opposed it (60% to 13% - with 14% unsure and
14% not responding/no opinion). It is for this reason that ODFW will implement a limited number of wild winter steelhead
fisheries to offset hatchery adjustments and to create new opportunities.

ODFW believes that wild winter steelhead in these areas are healthy enough to provide a fishery without a significant risk to
the populations’ long-term persistence. All but one of these fisheries will be allowed in only a portion of any population area,
and so only a portion of the population will be subjected to harvest. The fisheries will be designed to limit the number of wild
winter steelhead that can be harvested to a low percentage of the population – no more than 10% of the wild fish exposed to
the fishery. These populations persisted for many generations while being harvested at higher levels than identified in this
plan. ODFW expects that the abundance of these populations will continue to primarily be driven by changes in marine
survival and will not be significantly affected by harvest.

ODFW analysis indicates that wild winter steelhead populations can support harvest without affecting the populations’
viability. For the North Umpqua, which has the most accurate information on wild winter steelhead abundance, the PVA
Model found that the population could withstand a sustained harvest rate close to 50% without increasing its long-term risk of
extinction (Figure 14). There is little information available to determine if the North Umpqua is a more productive winter
steelhead population than others in the SMU or if it is similar to most. The only other population with adequate data to assess
productivity (Salmonberry wild winter steelhead in the Nehalem) has higher productivity than the North Umpqua. While
harvest on the North Umpqua or Salmonberry populations is not identified in the CMP, ODFW has no indication that the
overall conclusion of this assessment (i.e., a small level of harvest will not jeopardize viability) should not be inferred to those
management areas where harvest is identified in the plan. ODFW expects that improvements in habitat and the lower risk
25
from shifted hatchery programs in two of the locations where harvest is identified should also more than offset the minimal
risk associated with a very modest harvest. The CMP does not identify wild harvest rates that have been shown to increase the
extinction risk of wild winter steelhead populations. All of the wild steelhead fisheries identified in the CMP will be capped at
10% for those wild fish that are exposed to the fishery. ODFW will monitor in some of these areas to evaluate the impact of
the wild winter steelhead fishery, and adjustments will be made to the fishery if harvest rates are found to be higher than the
cap of 10%.

25
Wild winter steelhead harvest is expected to off-set some of the lost local fishing opportunity in two of the locations where hatchery programs are
shifted.

66 – Fishing/Harvest Actions
THE
OREGON
PLAN for
Salmon and
Watersheds

Western Oregon Adult Winter Steelhead and

Lamprey, 2018 Redd Survey Data Report

Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2018-09

 The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and
services on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. If you believe that you have been
discriminated against as described above in any program, activity, or facility, please contact the ADA
Coordinator, 4034 Industrial Drive SE, Salem, OR 97302, 503-947-6000.

This material will be furnished in alternate format for people with disabilities if needed. Please
call (541) 757-4263 to request.
 Western Oregon Adult Winter Steelhead and Lamprey, 2018 Redd Survey Data Report

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

Monitoring Report No. OPSW-ODFW-2018-09

January 2019

Ryan Jacobsen
Jonathan Nott
Eric Brown
Matt Weeber
Mark Lewis

Oregon Adult Salmonid Inventory and Sampling Project

Western Oregon Research and Monitoring Program
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
28655 Highway 34
Corvallis, OR 97333

Citation: Jacobsen, R., J. Nott, E. Brown, M. Weeber and M. Lewis. 2019. Western Oregon adult winter steelhead
and lamprey, 2018 redd survey data report. Monitoring Program Report Number OPSW-ODFW-2018-09.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.
 SUMMARY

This report provides a summary of results from winter steelhead spawning ground
surveys conducted in Lower Columbia (Oregon side only) and Oregon Coast basins in 2018.
Also included is a brief summary of lamprey data collected from the same monitoring efforts.
Total winter steelhead redd estimates in the Southwest Washington (SWW) Evolutionary
Significant Unit (ESU) were below the 5-year average, while estimates in the Lower Columbia
River (LCR) ESU were above the 5-year average. Total winter steelhead redd estimates were
approximately 98% of both the 5- and 10-year averages for the Oregon Coast (OC) Distinct
Population Segment (DPS). Estimate precision goals were met for steelhead redd estimates in
the LCR ESU, the OC DPS and the Nestucca River population. Precision goals were not met in
the SWW ESU, nor in any of the four OC Monitoring Areas. Surveys were not conducted in the
Klamath Mountains Province (KMP) DPS. Regional patterns are apparent for winter steelhead
redd density, proportion of hatchery origin spawners and spawn timing. Indices for Pacific
Lamprey were lower in 2018 in the Lower Columbia compared to recent years, but above
average in the Oregon Coast.

INTRODUCTION AND METHODS

As part of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, the Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife (ODFW) initiated a project to monitor spawning winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus
mykiss) in coastal Oregon streams in 2003 under the Oregon Adult Salmonid Inventory and
Sampling (OASIS) project. The project is designed to assess yearly status and trend in
abundance, proportion of hatchery origin spawners (pHOS), and distribution of winter steelhead
spawners in four Oregon ESU/DPS units (Figure 1). The SSW and LCR ESU’s are currently
monitored at the population scale, though funding limited efforts in 2018 to only the Clatskanie,
Scappoose, Clackamas, and Sandy populations. No monitoring occurred in the Youngs Bay, Big
Creek, Gorge, or Hood populations. In the OC DPS, monitoring is evaluated at the monitoring
area (MA) scale, and in 2018 at the population scale in the Nestucca River basin. The KMP DPS
was not monitored in 2018 and has not been monitored since 2015.

A spatially balanced, probabilistic sampling design (Stevens 2002) was used to randomly
select survey sites across a stream network of winter steelhead spawning habitat. Within the
sampling frame there are (or were) dams or fish traps where counts of winter steelhead are
available, including: River Mill (Clackamas River), Marmot (Sandy River), Winchester (North
Umpqua River) and Gold Ray (Rogue River) dams, Bonnie Falls Trap (Scappoose River), and
Big Creek Hatchery Weir. Counts of steelhead passed upstream of these sites are used for
monitoring these areas and are not included in this report. In accordance with prior work (Susac
and Jacobs 1999) conducted by ODFW in coastal streams, monitoring of winter steelhead
abundance is based on counts of redds; rearing origin is determined from live and dead fish
observations. Repeat visits to each site, at least once every 14 days, from February through May
generate a total redd count for each survey site. Specific descriptions of project protocols can be
found in the annual survey procedures manual (ODFW 2018).

Estimates of steelhead redd abundance are converted to estimates of fish abundance using
a standard conversion redd to fish factor developed in the OC ESU (ODFW 2013). Steelhead

1
abundance estimates are reported in Table 5, but do not include data for areas where counts are
available and spawning ground surveys are not conducted.

Standard procedures for pHOS estimation require at least 10 fish with known adipose fin
status (clipped or not clipped). Preference is given to using data from dead fish. If the number
of dead fish is less than 10, then live and dead fish samples are combined. If this still results in a
sample of less than 10 fish, results from recent years are used.

Survey sites adjacent to hatcheries and/or their acclimation areas typically have a higher
proportion of both hatchery fish and redd densities and can therefore bias estimates of abundance
and pHOS. In order to reduce bias and increase accuracy of winter steelhead estimates use of a
stratified approach was initiated in 2017. These efforts differ slightly between the various
monitoring units. In the SWW ESU the Clatskanie population is divided into two strata:
Plympton Creek and the remaining Clatskanie basin. There are no hatchery steelhead releases in
the Clatskanie population, but hatchery fish are abundant in Plympton Creek. In the LCR ESU,
in each of the Sandy and Clackamas populations, strata are defined as migration corridors, areas
adjacent to hatchery releases, and the remaining portions of each population (i.e. areas outside of
direct hatchery influence). In each case, strata estimates are calculated individually, then rolled
up to final population and ESU estimates. In the OC DPS, the ODFW Coastal Multi-Species
Conservation and Management Plan (CMP) allows for higher maximum pHOS rates in areas
adjacent to acclimated hatchery release sites (ODFW 2014). These areas are known as hatchery
Hot-Spots. Implementation of this stratification results in abundance and pHOS estimates for the
areas of each MA that are outside of these Hot-Spots. Estimates within the Hot-Spots are
presented in Table 7 as a conglomerate for the Oregon Coast DPS.

RESULTS

Survey Effort

SWW & LCR ESU’s

 Survey effort in the SWW and LCR ESU’s was similar to recent years (Table 1).
 The percentage of sites which were successfully surveyed in the SWW ESU (47%) was
below the 5-year average (62%). Survey success in the LCR ESU (59%) was slightly
above the 5-year average (50%).
 Due to budget constraints, surveys in the Young’s Bay and Big Creek populations have
not been conducted since 2013 and surveys in the Gorge and Hood populations have not
been conducted since 2012.
 Conditions in the SWW and LCR ESU’s were generally challenging, but amenable to
survey protocols in 2018.

Oregon Coast DPS

 Survey effort in the OC DPS was similar to recent years.
 The percentage of sites successfully surveyed (46%) was somewhat below the 15-year
average (53%).

2
  Survey success by MA was near average for three of the four MA’s. Only 12 of 45
(27%) attempted sites were successfully surveyed in the Mid-South Coast MA.
 Survey conditions in the OC DPS were generally challenging, but amenable to survey
protocols in 2018, though extended periods of high and turbid flows contributed to poor
site performance in the Mid-South Coast MA.

Redd Abundance

SWW & LCR ESU’s

 The 2018 wild winter steelhead redd abundance in the SWW ESU (224 redds) was
among the lowest recorded in the seven years of record (Figure 2).
 In contrast, the wild redd abundance for the LCR ESU (4,424 redds) was one of the
highest in that period (Figure 2).
 The 2018 wild estimate in the Sandy River population is the highest of any observed in
that population over the seven years of record (3,516 redds), while the Clackamas River
population estimate of 908 redds remains slightly below the 5-year average of 1,086
redds (Table 2).

Oregon Coast DPS

 The 2018 wild winter steelhead redd abundance in the OC DPS (54,938 redds) was just
below average (91% of the 15-year average).
 The wild winter steelhead redd abundance estimate was above average in the Mid-Coast
and Umpqua MA’s, while the North Coast and Mid-South Coast MA’s were below
average. The North Coast MA wild winter steelhead redd abundance estimate was the
lowest of the four MA’s (49% of the 15-year average).

Hatchery Proportion

SWW & LCR ESU’s

 In the SWW ESU, pHOS was comparable to that observed in recent years, and below
10% in all populations.
 In the LCR ESU, pHOS was higher than the prior 5-year average, was still below 10% in
the Sandy population, and slightly higher than 10% in the whole-basin Clackamas
population (11.6%) which includes North Fork Clackamas dam counts.
 In 2018, nearly all populations had a sample size below the 10 live/dead fish-observation
target, with the exception of the Sandy and Cedar creek sub-strata in the Sandy
population (Table 3).
 Given that the 2018 pHOS estimate exceeded 5% in the Sandy and Clackamas basins, an
estimate of Summer Steelhead hatchery percentage was calculated. The February pHOS
for the Sandy and Clackamas River basins was 0.7% and 2.5% respectively.

Oregon Coast DPS

 In the OC DPS, pHOS was about average for the DPS, but above 10% for the DPS and in
three of the four MAs (North Coast, Mid Coast, and Mid-South MAs).

3
  pHOS was above the prior 15-year average in the North Coast MA, about average in the
Mid-South Coast MA and below average in the Mid Coast and Umpqua MAs.
 In 2018, nearly all areas had a sample size above the threshold 10 live/dead fish-
observation target, with only the Mid-South MA not meeting the goal (Table 3).

Distribution and Timing

LCR & SWW ESU’s

 SWW ESU site occupancy (percent of sites with at least one steelhead redd) was
aproximately half of average, while occupancy in the LCR ESU was above average
(Table 4).
 2018 steelhead redd timing in the SWW and LCR ESUs (Figure 6) was slightly later than
average compared to the 2013 -2017 averages.

Oregon Coast DPS

 The percentage of occupied sites in the OC DPS was near average, with the exception of
the Mid Coast MA which had only 58% sites occupied (average = 80%, Table 3).
 Winter steelhead spawn timing was fairly normal, though the North Coast MA peaked
earlier than usual. All four MA’s peaked during the month of March (Figure 10).

Pacific Lamprey Information

SWW & LCR ESU’s

 In the LCR and SWW ESUs, Pacific Lamprey redd densities (peak redds per mile)
appeared to be below average, with the exception of the Clatskanie River where densities
were close to average (Figure 12).

Oregon Coast DPS

 In the OC DPS, Pacific Lamprey redd densities were well above the 15-year average
during the 2018 spawning season (Figure 14).
 Within Pacific Lamprey index surveys on the Oregon Coast, 2018 spawn timing had the
typical peak in May, though spawning began a little later than average as very few redds
were observed in April (Figure 15). This later timing is likely due to stream conditions
and water temperature, as flows were relatively high in April (Figure 11).
 Pacific Lamprey redd counts continue to track occupancy metrics in the OC DPS random
sites. These results suggest that occupancy may provide a valuable index of abundance
(Figure 14).

4
 REFERENCES

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz and I.V.
Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of West Coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum,
NMFS-NWFSC-27.

Lewis, M., E. Brown, B. Sounhein, M. Weeber, E. Suring, and H. Truemper. 2009. Status of
Oregon stocks of coho salmon, 2004 through 2008. Monitoring Program Report Number
OPSW-ODFW-2009-3, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A. Marshall, D. Teel, D.M. Van Doornik, and M.T. Maher.
2006. Historical Population structure of Pacific salmonids in the Willamette River and
lower Columbia River basins. U.S Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-
NWFSC-73, 311 p.

ODFW. 2005. 2005 Oregon native fish status report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Salem, Oregon.
Available: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/native_fish_status_report.asp

ODFW. 2013. Winter Steelhead Redd to Fish Conversion, Spawning Ground Survey Data.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.
Available: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ODFW/spawn/reports.htm

ODFW. 2014. Coastal Multi-Species Conservation and Management Plan. Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.
Available: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/coastal_multispecies.asp

ODFW. 2018. Coastal steelhead spawning surveys procedures manual 2018. Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.
Available: https://odfw.forestry.oregonstate.edu/spawn/reports.htm

Stevens, D.L. 2002. Sampling design and statistical analysis methods for integrated biological
and physical monitoring of Oregon streams. OPSW-ODFW-2002-07, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

Susac, G.L. and S.E. Jacobs. 1999. Evaluation of spawning ground surveys for indexing the
abundance of adult winter steelhead in Oregon coastal basins. Annual Progress Report,
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

5
 APPENDIX

Table 1. Sites status in Oregon winter steelhead ESU/ DPS’s by monitoring area or population,
2018. Target sites were within and non-target sites were outside of steelhead spawning habitat.
Response sites were successfully surveyed. Non-response sites were not successfully surveyed
because of issues such as: lack of landowner permission, site inaccessibility, or gaps in survey
effort typically due to stream turbidity. ns = no surveys conducted.
Population or Target Target
ESU/DPS Monitoring Area Response Nonresponse Nontarget
Youngs Bay ns ns ns

Southwest Big Cr ns ns ns
b
Washington Clatskanie 15 12 1
Scappoose 17 21 2
Total 32 33 3
b
Clackamas 30 16 0
b
Lower Columbia Sandy 28 21 4
River Gorge ns ns ns
Total 58 37 4
North Coast 64 24 18
c
Nestucca 36 7 5
a Mid Coast 38 16 6
Oregon Coast
Mid South Coast 12 49 8
Umpqua 31 34 14
Total 145 123 46
South Coast ns ns ns
Klamath Mountains
Rogue River ns ns ns
Province
Total ns ns ns
a = Oregon Coast DPS does not include sites that were within hatchery hotspots.
b = Surveys in the Clatskanie, Clackamas and the Sandy River basin are shown here as the sum of all components.
c = Estimate obtained for Nestucca population, which is included in the North Coast estimate.

6
Table 2. Oregon winter steelhead redd abundance estimates, 2018. Wild proportions are derived
from fin-mark observations on live and dead steelhead. ns = no surveys conducted.
Winter Steelhead Redd Abundance
Survey Effort Total Wild
95% 95%
Population or Number of Confidence Confidence
ESU/DPS Monitoring Area Surveys Miles Estimate Interval Estimate Interval
Youngs Bay ns ns ns ns ns ns
Big Cr ns ns ns ns ns ns
Southwest ab
Clatskanie 15 14 229 169 216 -
Washington b
Scappoose 17 12 8 11 8 -
Total 33 25 237 170 224 -
ab
Clackamas 30 31 1,142 385 908 -
Lower Sandy
a
28 35 3,844 1,225 3,516 -
Columbia River Gorge ns ns ns ns ns ns
Total 59 65 4985 1282 4,424 -
North Coast 64 51 13,066 4,738 9,104 3,385
d
Nestucca 36 30 2,820 820 1,757 511
c Mid Coast 38 24 22,791 7,240 18,992 6,034
Oregon Coast b
Mid South Coast 12 10 13,161 5,906 10,882 -
Umpqua 31 21 15,960 6,052 15,960 6,052
Total 145 107 64,978 12,099 54,938 -
Klamath South Coast ns ns ns ns ns ns
Mountains Rogue River ns ns ns ns ns ns
Province Total ns ns ns ns ns ns
a = Estimates for these populations are derived from stratified samples. See intro/method section for stratification overview.
b = Not Adequate Sample. Less than 10 known-fin-clip-status (live or dead) fish were observed, therefore a special case
wild estimate was calculated.
c = Oregon Coast DPS does not include sites that were within hatchery hot-spots.
d = Estimate obtained for Nestucca population, which is included in the North Coast estimate.
* = Due to small sample sizes in 2018, wild estimates in orange are derived from an alternate estimate method using a
cumulative pHOS calculation from from all years sampled.
* = Due to small sample sizes in 2018, wild estimates in green are derived from an alternate estimate method. A 5-year
average was used in the Mid South MA, and the OC DPS total is the sum of the MA estimates.

7
Table 3. Number of known adipose fin-mark status steelhead observed on spawning grounds,
and resulting percent hatchery fish in 2018. Hatchery percentage based on adipose fin clip
observations of live and dead steelhead in successfully conducted surveys. ns = no surveys
conducted.
Population or Number Known Fish Percent Hatchery
a a
ESU/DPS Monitoring Area 2018 Average 2018 Average
Young's Bay ns ns ns ns
Big Cr ns ns ns ns
c
Southwest Clatskanie 2 21 4% 9%
Washington Plympton 8 - 0% -
Scappoose 1 3 0% 0%
Total 11 3 0% -
Clackamas Population
(area below North Fk. Clackamas Dam) 16 19 20% 4%
Clackamas 4 - 15% -
Migration Corridor 5 - 22% -
Lower Eagle Creek 7 - 55% -
Columbia Sandy Population 129 41 9% 4%
River Sandy 35 - 6% -
Migration Corridor 6 - 22% -
Cedar Creek 88 - 68% -
Gorge ns ns ns ns
Total 290 - - -
North Coast 122 101 30% 11%
d
Nestucca 69 - 38% -
Oregon Coast Mid Coast 48 71 17% 22%
b
Mid South Coast 8 95 17% 17%
Umpqua 21 51 0% 5%
Total 199 321 15% 14%
Klamath South Coast ns ns ns ns
Mountains Rogue River ns ns ns ns
Province Total nn ns ns ns
a = Average for period of monitoring: Oregon Coast is 2003-2017; SWW and LCR is 2012-2017.
b = Oregon Coast DPS does not include sites that were within hatchery hotspots.
c = Average includes samples from whole population including Plympton Cr.
d= Estimate obtained for Nestucca population, which is included in the North Coast estimate.
* = Due to small sample sizes in 2018, wild estimates in orange are derived from an alternate estimate method using a
cumulative pHOS calculation from from all years sampled.
* = Due to small sample sizes in 2018, wild estimates in green are derived from an alternate estimate method. A 5-
year average was used in the Mid South MA.

8
Table 4. Oregon winter steelhead redd density and site occupancy, 2018. Sites must have at
least one confirmed redd to be considered occupied. ns = no surveys conducted.

Population or Redds / Mile % Sites With Redds

a a
ESU/DPS Monitoring Area 2018 Average 2018 Average
Young's Bay ns 6.3 ns 56%
Big Creek ns 5.7 ns 59%
Southwest
Clatskanie 3.6 10.5 33% 69%
Washington
Scappoose 0.1 1.7 13% 35%
Total 1.9 6.0 23% 57%
Clackamas 6.9 7.2 65% 57%
Lower Sandy 26.2 12.6 82% 66%
Columbia River Gorge ns ns ns ns
Total 16.6 9.2 74% 63%
North Coast 12.0 17.7 77% 77%
Mid Coast 14.7 11.2 58% 80%
Oregon Coast Mid-South Coast 14.2 17.5 83% 87%
Umpqua 10.3 8.5 73% 72%
Total 12.8 12.9 73% 79%
Klamath South Coast ns ns ns ns
Mountians Rogue River ns ns ns ns
Province Total ns ns ns ns
a = Average for period of monitoring: Oregon Coast is 2003-2017; SWW and LCR is 2012-2017.

9
Table 5. Oregon winter steelhead fish abundance estimates, 2018. Estimates do not include
steelhead above counting stations and are thus not complete population estimates in all areas, see
Appendix Tables 6 and 7. ns = no surveys conducted.

Winter Steelhead Abundance

Total Wild
95% 95%
Population or Confidence Confidence
ESU/DPS Monitoring Area Estimate Interval Estimate Interval
Youngs Bay ns ns ns ns
Big Cr ns ns ns ns
Southwest ab
Clatskanie 393 291 371 -
Washington b
Scappoose 18 22 17 -
Total 406 292 385 -
ab
Clackamas 1,944 658 1,547 -
a
Lower Columbia Sandy 6,538 2,086 5,981 -
River Gorge ns ns ns ns
Total 8,478 2,184 7,525 -
North Coast 22,216 8,058 15,481 5,758
d
Nestucca 4,798 1,398 2,991 872
c Mid Coast 38,748 12,312 32,290 10,262
Oregon Coast b
Mid South Coast 22,377 10,044 18,503 -
Umpqua 27,136 10,292 27,136 10,292
Total 110,466 20,572 93,398 -
North Coast ns ns ns ns
Klamath Mountains
Rogue River ns ns ns ns
Province
Total ns ns ns ns
a = Estimates for these populations are derived from stratified samples. See intro/method section for
stratification overview.
b = Not Adequate Sample. Less than 10 known-fin-clip-status (live or dead) fish were observed, therefore a
special case wild estimate was calculated.
c = Oregon Coast DPS does not include sites that were within hatchery hot-spots.
d = Estimate obtained for Nestucca population, which is included in the North Coast estimate.
* = Due to small sample sizes in 2018, wild estimates in orange are derived from an alternate estimate method
using a cumulative pHOS calculation from from all years sampled.
* = Due to small sample sizes in 2018, wild estimates in green are derived from an alternate estimate method.
A 5-year average was used in the Mid South MA, and the OC DPS total is the sum of the MA estimates.

10
Table 6. Annual redd abundance estimates of naturally spawning wild steelhead by Monitoring
Area (MA), in Oregon Coast Steelhead DPSs, run years 2003 to 2018. n.a.= not available.
Highlighted cells do not include estimates for areas above counting stations.
Klamath Mountains
Oregon Coast DPS
Province DPS
North Coast Mid Coast Mid-South Umpqua South Coast Rogue River
Year
MA MA Coast MA MA MA MA
2003 28,726 18,092 11,853 26,044 4,852 7,105
2004 28,599 14,043 10,195 11,922 9,093 n.a.
2005 19,125 7,890 22,871 10,628 10,035 4,995
2006 21,065 13,496 19,550 8,786 5,667 7,372
2007 20,592 10,133 24,312 13,900 6,917 6,986
2008 11,859 12,628 18,806 15,556 5,520 5,822
2009 10,433 12,080 9,136 9,282 14,268 12,352
2010 18,928 16,684 19,927 16,266 4,430 n.a.
2011 9,961 19,347 9,504 11,394 1,808 n.a.
2012 15,864 19,074 7,414 11,416 2,738 n.a.
2013 29,371 27,927 15,423 21,895 8,961 n.a.
2014 14,185 9,012 10,877 9,791 4,449 n.a.
2015 24,641 15,443 11,548 10,975 1,682 n.a.
a
2016 15,491 23,776 14,049 9,120 n.a. n.a.
a
2017 10,720 5,522 6,909 5,982 n.a. n.a.
a
2018 9,104 18,992 10,882 15,960 n.a. n.a.
a = Oregon Coast DPS does not include sites that were within hatchery hot-spots after 2015.

11
Table 7. Oregon Winter Steelhead redd abundance estimates within Oregon Coast Hotspots.
Estimates are calculated at the DPS scale, due to insufficient sample size at the MA scale.
Winter Steelhead Redd Abundance
Survey Effort Total Wild
Spawning
Number Miles 95% 95%
of within Confidence Confidence
DPS Monitoring Area Surveys Miles Hotspots Estimate Interval Estimate Interval
North Coast Hotspots 3 2 49 - - - -
Mid Coast Hotspots 4 4 89 - - - -
Oregon Coast
Mid South Coast Hotspots 1 1 61 - - - -
Umpqua Hotspots 0 0 42 - - - -
Total 8 6 241 6,402 7,575 474 561

Table 8. Oregon Winter steelhead redd abundance estimates within stratified samples, 2018.
Due to small sample sizes in 2018, wild estimates in orange are derived from an alternate
estimate method using a cumulative pHOS calculation from all years sampled.

Winter Steelhead Redd Abundance

Survey Effort Total Wild

Number Aproximate 95% 95%

of Spawning Confidence Confidence
ESU Population Surveys Miles Miles Estimate Interval Estimate Interval
Clatskanie Strata 14 11 53 203 170 195 -
Southwest
Plympton Cr.Strata 2 2 1 26 0 21 -
Washington
Clatskanie Total 16 14 54 229 169 216 -
Clackamas Strata 18 15 140 964 347 819 -
Clackamas Migration Strata 7 11 32 27 14 21 -
Eagle Cr. Hatchery 5 5 10 151 165 68 -
Lower Lower Clackamas Total 30 31 181 1,142 385 908 -
Columbia Sandy Strata 19 22 124 3,599 1,222 3,393 1,152
River Sandy Migration Strata 8 12 22 98 55 76 -
Cedar Cr. Hatchery Strata 2 1 1 147 0 47 -
Sandy Total 29 35 147 3,843 1,225 3,516 1,154
Lower Columbia ESU Total 92 91 446 5,222 1,294 4,424 1,152

12
Figure 1. Geographic scope of winter steelhead monitoring, 2018. Monitoring scales include:
Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU), Dependent Population Segment (DPS), Monitoring Area
(MA), and population. Areas without color were not monitored in 2018. Boundaries as defined
by Busby et.al. (1996) for ESU/DPS, by Myers et al. (2006) for the LCR ESU populations, by
the 2005 Oregon Native Fish Status Report (ODFW 2005) for other populations.

13
Figure 2. Wild winter steelhead redd estimates in the Oregon portions of the SWW and LCR
ESUs based on random surveys, 2004 to 2018. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
Inclusion of survey data from specific populations and from above counting stations has varied
across years. Note: 2017 and 2018 error bars were not available because estimates were
calculated with alternative methods.

14
Figure 3. Wild winter steelhead redd estimates in the Clackamas and Sandy River populations
based on random surveys, 2004 to 2018. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note:
2017 and 2018 error bars were not available because estimates were calculated with alternative
methods.

15
16
Figure 6. Winter steelhead spawn timing, represented by proportion of the maximum redd count
in a) SWW ESU populations and b) LCR ESU populations, 2018.

17
Figure 7. Estimated number of wild winter steelhead redds in the Oregon Coast DPS, 2003 to
2018. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: 2018 error bar was not available
because estimates were calculated with alternative methods.

18
19
Figure 10. Winter steelhead spawn timing, represented by proportion of the maximum redd
count in each of the four OC DPS monitoring areas, 2018.

20
Figure 11. Stream discharge at Alsea River near Tidewater during 2018, compared to mean
discharge from 1940 to 2011. (Flood stage = 19,500 CFS)

21
Figure 12. Lower Columbia Pacific Lamprey Peak Redd Density in Random Steelhead
Spawning Surveys, 2003-2018. Note that not all populations were monitored in all years.

Figure 13. Lower Columbia Pacific Lamprey spawn timing in random steelhead surveys in 2018
and average daily max water temperature in the Clackamas River.

22
 Figure 14. Oregon coast Pacific Lamprey peak redd density and percent of sites occupied in
random steelhead spawning surveys, 2003 to 2018.

Figure 15. Oregon coast Pacific Lamprey spawn timing in index surveys, 2018.

23
4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE
Salem, OR 97302

24