277 



DRAFT 



confusion. The sources include ODFW and WDF (1991) (erroneously cited) and 

 ODFW (1992) not listed in References. 



Page 235, Table 1.2-6. Summary of 1990 Oregon Salmon Escapement Goals, 



Compliance for the Major Coastal lUvers and Columbia 

 River Stocks, and Compliance Status of Eight Wild 

 Salmon Stocks. 



This is a two-part table. The first part is a summary for salmon only (does not include 

 steelhead) from the previous table. This table shows eight salmon stocks met the 

 escapement goal and six did not meet the goal. With all the problems we listed earlier 

 for Table 1.2-S we have no confidence at all in the accuracy of information displayed 

 here. 



The second part of the table is more clear in that * 1990 Wild Salmon Stock Escapement 

 Compliance" is rated under headings of "goal met" or "goal not met. " Under the 

 headings are listed the species-runs. The ratings are accurate for 1990 for seven 

 categories. However, for three of the seven we point out the species-runs listed are not 

 wild but are a combination of hatchery and wild fish. The eighth category is Snake 

 River spring Chinook and it is listed as "goal not met." The Department certainly 

 concurs but points out that this category is double-counted in that it is a component of 

 upper Columbia spring chinook and that category is also listed as "goal not met." It is 

 the extremely low level of the Snake River component that causes the upper Columbia 

 spring Chinook category to fall into "goal not met." 



Page 236, Table 1.2-7. Oregon Coastal Fall Chinook Index. 



This table continues the "apples and oranges" comparison observed in previous tables 

 in that it shows Oregon coastal chinook catch (ocean sport and commercial catch and, 

 since 1978, tributary sport spring chinook catch - the authors probably intended to 

 include the tributary sport fall chinook catch) compared to esc^ment based on adults 

 per mile from stream surveys. The spawning escapement data is an accurate 

 reproduction of Table B-12 from the 1990 "Review Report" from PFMC. The "apples 

 and oranges' comes into play in that north-migrating Oregon coastal fall chinook 

 comprise a very small percentage of Oregon's ocean chinook catch. Furthermore to 

 include coastal tributary spring chinook catch as a factor in whether Oregon's coastal 

 fall chinook escapement goal is met is wrong. 



Page 237, Table 1.2-8. Estimated Total Escapement and Goals of Oregon Coastal 



Coho Salmon and Total Freshwater and Ocean Catch of ' 

 Sport and Commercial Fisheries, 1971-90. 



This table lists total ocean catch and coastal tributary sport catch of hatchery and wild 

 coho compared to the Oregon Coastal Natural (OCN) escapement. The escapement is 

 compared to the goal to determine a yes or no annually if the goal was met. It is not 

 clear where th^e catch estimates were derived as they do not resemble those presented 

 in PFMC (1991), Table 111-4. These estimates appear to be inflated if they are 

 intended to rqnesent the catch of wild coastal coho. 



A-71 



