FINAL REPORT

SOUTHERN OREGON SURFPERCH STUDIES

Prepared by Darrell Pruden

Marine Resources Program

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

December 2000

This project was financed in part with funds provided by the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

SOUTHERN OREGON SURFPERCH STUDIES

1991-2000

FINAL REPORT

INTRODUCTION Several members of the surfperch family (Embiotocidae) are an important part of the Oregon shore and estuary recreational fishery. There has also been a recent increase in the commercial take of redtail surfperch on the southern Oregon coast for markets in California. The surfperch season in Oregon is open year-round for recreational anglers, but closed for commercial fishing in August and September. The overall condition of the surfperch population along the Oregon coast had been assumed to be healthy, but because of the low fecundity of these live-bearing fishes, increased effort by both sport and commercial fishers could pose a threat. In 1990, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) intensified research on the most often angled species of surfperch in Oregon, to establish a biological database for use in future management. Fish were tagged for movement and harvest rate studies and carcasses were sampled for age structures, sex, maturity, and embryo information. The main focus was on redtail surfperch (Amphistichus rhodoterus) due to its accessibility and popularity, but the study also included striped surfperch/seaperch (Embiotoca lateralis), pile surfperch/seaperch (Damalichthys vaca), white surfperch/seaperch (Phanerdon furcatus), walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon aregenteum), silver surfperch (Hyperprosopon ellipticum), and calico surfperch (Amphisticus koelzi). This report covers research conducted from December 1990 to December 2000.

METHODS AND MATERIALS Study area Initially, a sampling program was set up to cover the south coast of Oregon from Florence to the California border with ODFW supervision coming from Charleston. Because the study area was too large to properly facilitate, it was later reduced to an area just north of the Umpqua River to the California border. The primary focus was on redtail surfperch so all accessible sandy beaches were included. The Coos Bay estuary was also sampled, with occasional samples taken from Winchester Bay (Umpqua River) and Bandon (Coquille River).

1

Carcass Collection Recreational angling volunteers were the primary source of fish samples (carcasses) and assistance in tagging. Signs describing the project, recruiting volunteers, and informing the angler who to contact were placed at common angler access points. Participating anglers were rewarded with baseball type caps with a designed surfperch logo to stimulate carcass collection and return of tags. An annual newsletter was distributed describing the project and emphasizing different themes each year, such as: fishing methods and tackle, migration, and species description. These newsletters were mailed out to volunteers and were distributed as handouts at various tackle shops. The large sample area made it necessary to set up systems to collect carcasses. In the Brookings area assistance came from a sporting goods store where carcasses were collected and stored frozen until they were transported to Charleston. In most of the remaining area a network of communication and collection was used. Anglers were asked to bring their carcasses directly to the Charleston office when possible. Volunteers were supplied with the following material: 18” x 36” 4 mil plastic bags, one gallon freezer bags, and preprinted “Rite in the Rain” cards to identify the catch. Information on the cards included: date, location, hours fished, number of anglers, and the name-address-phone number of the volunteer. The volunteers were then instructed on how to fill out the information and package the carcass. Each carcass was cataloged, fork length measured, sex identified, maturity noted, and ageing structures collected. In addition, snout to hypural plate length was measured from one “normal” embryo (Bennett and Wydoski, 1977) from each gravid female. The minimum length measured for the embryo was established at 10 mm. Initially, fecundity counts were conducted. These were soon eliminated because of observed ovary damage caused by angler filleting, and also after observing females aborting embryos during capture. Ageing Ageing was done in the winter months when carcass collection was slow. After two years of collection and observation, the decision was made to use only the pair of sagittae otoliths as the preferred ageing structure. Scale collection was discontinued because otoliths were easier to handle and consistently clearer to read. The otoliths were aged whole in an alcohol bath by using a dissecting microscope under magnification of 6 or 12 depending on the species, size, and clarity of the otolith. No other procedure was used to enhance the otolith in determining the age. Examination of the embryo otoliths provided a starting point from which to age the fish. This “birth check” was obvious in all species unless the otolith was crystallized. The international accepted birth date of January 1 was used (Chilton and Beamish 1982). Confirmation and validation of the age also came from recaptured tagged fish.

2

Tagging Migration and biological studies Tagging occurred annually starting in May 1992. Redtail, silver, striped, white, pile, and walleye surfperch were tagged. Volunteers were recruited to angle for surfperch at predetermined locations and to sacrifice their catch for tagging. Successful tagging required coordinating angler participation, cooperative weather, appropriate surf conditions and tides, and proper bait. Both ODFW staff and volunteers collected bait in advance to supply the volunteers on the chosen day. Ghost shrimp (Callianassa californiensis) were used to catch surfperch for estuary tagging, while ghost shrimp, sand worms (Nephtys californiensis), sand crabs (Emerita analoga), and sea mussels (Mytilus califonianus) were used for beach tagging. Tagging in the estuary was accomplished from a boat, with volunteers angling. Fish were deposited in a live-well and immediately released after tagging. Most estuary tagging was done at locations within the confines of Coos Bay. When tagging on the open coast the volunteers, which could be as many as 20 anglers, were asked to fish within a close proximity of the tagging station. After a fish was caught it was placed in a plastic ice chest measuring 12”x12”x25” (top removed) partially filled with fresh seawater (approximately 10 gallons). When six fish were in the cooler, or sooner if collection was slow, the fish were tagged with a yellow T-Bar anchor tag (see tag retention study mentioned later), fork length measured, and sex identified. The sex was identified externally by examining the modified ventral fin on males of one plus years. The tagged fish were then released by carrying them in a five-gallon plastic bucket partially filled with seawater back to the surf. It was important to keep fresh seawater in the cooler and release bucket, especially during clear warm weather. Tagging locations were from the mouth of Tahkenitch Creek south to the mouth of Pistol River (Figures 1 and 2). Except for a few tagging sites, successful historic fishing areas were chosen that were also easily accessible for volunteers. Areas such as the north spit of the Umpqua River, New River area, and the mouth of Elk River required either special vehicle transportation or landowner permission. These locations helped fill voids in the study area. Tag Retention Study Since very little tagging has been done on surfperch, a tag retention study was initiated under laboratory conditions on November 18, 1993 at the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology in Charleston. Fourteen redtail and one silver surfperch were captured and placed in a five-foot diameter fiberglass tank, which had an average capacity of approximately 300 hundred gallons of circulating seawater. One-half of the tank was covered in order to give the fish solitude. Due to varying water pressure in the water supply to the tank, an accurate measure of flow was not obtained. Air was pumped into the water with two plastic lines (1/4” ID) attached to aerating

3

stones. This not only added oxygen, but also gave the water turbulence to produce a more natural condition. Five days after capture all surfperch were tagged with yellow plastic T-Bar anchor tags (manufactured by Halprint pty.ltd in Australia). These tags were used because they offered excellent print durability (Waldman, J.R. 1989 and personal communication). The tag was inserted about midway and just below the dorsal fin near the start of the soft rays (Barss and Demory 1989). Care was taken to anchor the tag between the pterygiophores. The fish were monitored and fed daily for 48 days. They were then released at the same capture location (Bastendorff Beach near Charleston). Refer to Tag Retention Study on page 7 for results.

RESULTS Carcass Collection Volunteers collected over 20,000 carcasses. More than two-thirds were redtail surfperch carcasses (Table 1). Most carcasses came from areas south of Cape Arago. An intensified inter-agency beach management strategy north of Cape Arago limited access, shifting redtail surfperch angling effort elsewhere. Redtail surfperch were found on every sandy beach sampled. Sample information and carcass handling by the volunteers was found to be very satisfactory. Carcass examination produced data on life history characteristics. Fish were captured by recreational anglers during normal fishing trips. Females were more frequent in the catch than were males, regardless of surfperch species (Table 1 and Figure 3). For example, an average ratio of three females to one male was observed for redtail surfperch (Table 1). Anglers were observed targeting larger females and releasing immature females and males. The average female body length was longer than for males at the same age. This was true for all surfperch species (Figure 4). Silver surfperch were generally smaller than other surfperch species, averaging approximately 200 mm in length, compared with most other species at about 250 mm (Figure 4). All redtail surfperch sampled inside estuaries were mature pregnant females, except for areas with surf-type habitat close to the entrance. Examination of male gonads confirmed redtail surfperch mate in the winter during December and January. No spent redtail females were seen until August, and by the end of September most pregnant females had given birth. Females of all surfperch species were usually pregnant by their third year. Embryo lengths provided information on the embryo growth. Redtail surfperch embryo length at parturition was very similar and increased only slightly as female length increased (Figure 5). The average length of redtail surfperch embryos by month is illustrated on Figure 6.

4

Only embryos that were 10 mm or longer in length were measured. Embryos smaller than 10 mm in length were identified only as “eyed”. There seemed to be very little size difference between normal embryos in any given redtail surfperch ovary. Ageing The male otoliths were much easier to age compared to female otoliths. Mature females often had false annuli, perhaps caused by stress from embryo development. When both sexes were older than ten years, material build-up on the otolith made it difficult to observe the annuli when surface ageing the whole otolith. The “break and burn” technique was found to be a difficult procedure, unless the otolith was thick enough to withstand the burning technique (about 12 years of age). Sexual size (body length) dimorphism was observed in all species and was most apparent for redtail surfperch (Figure 7). There was not enough data obtained to properly evaluate sexual dimorphism in calico surfperch. A maximum age of 14 years for redtail surfperch was observed. The maximum age observed for striped surfperch was 11 years, 10 for white and pile surfperch, 8 for both walleye and calico surfperch, and 7 for silver surfperch (Table 2). The average age observed for all surfperch species was 4 years, although there was insufficient data to evaluate average age of calico surfperch. The average age of male redtail surfperch exceeded the female average, while females tended to be older in striped, pile and silver surfperch populations. The average age for males and females of white and walleye surfperch were similar (Figure 8). There was not enough data to properly compare the average age of male and female calico surfperch. The average age for several surfperch species during the eight-year study remained fairly constant, whereas, the trend for striped surfperch was for a decrease in age (Figure 9). The average body length of each of the seven surfperch species studied by sex and age is detailed in Table 3. Tagging Biological studies A total of 9,219 surfperch were tagged at several locations (Table 4). Nearly 87 percent of the surfperch tagged were redtail surfperch. Silver, striped, white, pile and walleye surfperch were also tagged (Table 5). We did not encounter any calico surfperch during the tagging. All species except white surfperch were encountered in estuaries and on the open coast. Anglers recaptured and returned tags from approximately 8.5 percent (784) of the tagged fish (Table 5). This percentage is expected to increase due to successful tagging operations in 1999 and 2000.

5

Tag loss was presumed to have been high. During tagging operations and carcass examinations a number of fish were observed with healed wounds that appeared to have been caused by a tag. Even though the maximum recovery interval was 3 years and 10 months, the majority of tags were recovered the same year the fish was tagged. A very poor tag retention rate for some of the estuary species was observed, especially white surfperch (Table 5). Many recaptured tagged surfperch may not have been reported due to anglers not observing the tag. In some cases tags were completely covered with material within a few months. Overall, anglers usually reported tags promptly, although several tags were reported lost while cleaning the catch. Some lack of angler participation is also presumed. A number of the commercial processors cooperated by contacting us when tagged fish were landed. The redtail surfperch sex ratio encountered while tagging was 60% females to 40% males (Table 5). However, the final two tagging years were conducted on beach areas with historically known concentrations of females. Prior to 1999, the sex ratio while tagging was 50% females to 50% males. This differs from the two-thirds females observed in the catch, which is probably a result of anglers sorting for the larger females (Table 1). Due to sorting by anglers for female redtail, pile, and silver surfperch, the rate of tags recaptured and returned was much higher for females than for males. For example, the return rates for redtail surfperch were 12 percent for females, 4.5 percent for males, and a combined rate of 9 percent (Table 5). Considering tagging mortality, tag loss, and that an unknown number of tags recovered were not returned, the actual harvest rate is likely much higher than 12 percent on redtail surfperch females. Length information obtained from tag recoveries, along with age determined from otoliths, provided the data necessary to calculate age at time of tagging. Movement study All species of surfperch demonstrated movement. While redtail surfperch were observed to move considerable distances along the open coast (Figures 1 and 2). Movement of other species, except silver surfperch, was mostly within estuaries, although sample sizes for these species were small. It was presumed decreased salinity within the estuary caused some movement toward the open sea during wet the winter months. Tagging results not only indicated random movement of redtail surfperch along the coast, but also indicated barriers obstructing movement. No credible movement of redtail surfperch was observed around Cape Arago (just south of Coos Bay), even though large numbers were tagged both just north and south of this headland (Figures 1 and 2). Redtail are capable of moving substantial distances, but they do not necessarily move in tight organized schools in one direction. Fish tagged the same day at the same location and only minutes apart could be caught months later many miles apart, either north or south of the original location, and have almost the same recapture date.

6

At some locations during the spring, schools of mature females were found separate from schools containing immature females and males. This phenomenon was observed with redtail and some estuarine surfperch species (i.e., pile, white and striped surfperch). Attempts were made to tag redtail surfperch in the Umpqua River estuary on several occasions without success. During the late spring and early summer redtail surfperch have historically entered this large estuary. Their appearance is very difficult to predict for it does not seem correlated with any known event. It is known that they stay within the “salt wedge” of the incoming tide, which can move dramatically up river in this area.

Tag Retention Study The silver surfperch died nine days after tagging, however, it was not certain if death was due to tagging. The tag wounds were examined on the remaining fish 31 days after tagging. The wounds had almost completely healed externally, and seemed to have no effect on manipulation of the dorsal fin. Other than some “feathering” on the caudal fin (probably from contact with the tank), all 14 redtail surfperch appeared to be in very good shape including the tag wound. It was later discovered that field tags collected different kinds of foreign material. The amount increased with time and type of material depended on habitat (i.e., beach or estuary). For example, one tag out for less than three years was completely covered with barnacles, and had two-year-old mussels attached. Initially, bryozoans or filamentous algae usually attached, followed by barnacles and young mussels. The tag wounds never healed in the field as they had under laboratory conditions.

DISCUSSION Redtail Surfperch Life History Observations Interestingly, gravid redtail females were observed in estuaries, but no males were present except near entrances where surf-like conditions existed. This was observed in carcasses from estuary fisheries. It is common for mature redtail females to enter even small estuaries during high tide, or school near a freshwater outfall in the surf during the summer months. This behavior does not appear to be food related, otherwise male and immature female redtail surfperch would also be present. Estuaries do not appear to be a destination to give birth, because parturition primarily takes place during August and September when redtail surfperch are rarely observed in estuaries in any abundance. While tagging fish during August and September on ocean beaches not adjacent to any estuary, both pregnant and recently spent females were present together, which may indicate parturition was taking place. Two other patterns of redtail surfperch behavior observed were (1) females did not appear to fast during gestation, including the period they were present in estuaries and available to anglers, and (2) seining in estuaries did not produce juveniles. However, all other juvenile surfperch species common to this area, except calico surfperch, have been observed in estuaries (personnel communications with Bender and Johnson of ODFW).

7

The lack of movement around Cape Arago may indicate a separation in redtail surfperch stocks. Mixing of tagged redtail surfperch was observed south of Cape Arago all the way to beaches near Orick, California. An annual migration pattern to the south from Cape Arago to the Rogue River in the spring, and return of mature females to the north during late summer and fall was observed. Fish tagged north of Cape Arago were recovered as far north as Seal Rocks located near Newport, Oregon. A reduction in angler effort north of Cape Arago, due to beach closures, limited recovery information in that area. Management Implications Even though present redtail surfperch stocks appear healthy, further fishery restrictions may be necessary in the future due to angler selection of larger females, increasing interest by recreational anglers and commercial fishers, and the low fecundity of the species. Commercial fishing for surfperch in Oregon may increase due to marketing, increased availability of commercial fish processors, attractive price, and restrictions on other species. Oregon initiated a commercial regulation in 1999 and closed the season in August and September, temporarily causing the catch to drop. California also closes their commercial season from May to mid-July. Most processors in southern Oregon abide by the California closure, since their markets are presently in California. The Oregon commercial effort is expected to increase as local markets increase. Because sport angling restrictions have increased on many other species, surfperch fishing is gaining popularity in Oregon, and increased fishing pressure should be expected. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) reports a reduction in average weights of surfperch from 1960 to 1980. The average weight of redtail surfperch decreased from 0.82 to 0.33 kg (CDFG Kelp Forest #4). Redtail females are intentionally targeted because they are larger than males. Anglers were often seen grading their catch, especially when large numbers of fish were available. Grading suggests a higher harvest rate on mature females compared with males and immature fish. Data indicate a three to one catch ratio of females to males (Table 1). In some areas the percentage could be as high as 90 percent females. Redtail surfperch live to at least 14 years, however, ages 3 through 5 are the dominant ages observed in the fishery. Mature age 3 females alone account for 25 percent of the total redtail recreational catch (Figure 10). Because only a few vital age groups dominate the redtail surfperch population, excessive fishing mortality could become a serious problem on recruitment. This situation applies to other surfperch species as well. Presuming a substantial tag loss, non-reporting of captured tagged fish, and targeting of females, an apparent 12 percent tag return rate on female redtail surfperch may indicate the harvest rate is too high. Although no decrease in average age of redtail surfperch was observed during the eight ten-year study, there was a decrease observed for striped surfperch in Coos Bay. Precautionary management measures are recommended for redtail and other surfperch species prized in the recreational fishery. Recommended regulatory changes include lowering the bag limit and (or) closing the season during parturition. The present recreational bag limit in Oregon is 25 surfperch per day, which is more than twice that of California, most zones in Washington,

8

and Canada. This limit appears excessive and may contribute to waste. Time and area closures could be designed to protect surfperch during peak periods when pregnant females are concentrated and vulnerable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This program would not have been possible without the volunteers who willingly contributed their time, vehicles, equipment, and catch when tagging. Their efforts to save carcasses and to accurately document their catch was beyond any of our expectations. Their enthusiasm during the tagging operations, which was often under inclement weather and marginal surf conditions, was exceptional. Many of these volunteers have assisted the program through its entirety. There were several ODFW employees in the Marine Resources Program who were directly involved with this study. Jerry Butler had the foresight to initiate this study and provide the primary leadership prior to his retirement. Carol Perkins in the ODFW Newport office programmed and assembled almost all the mounds of data from the very beginning of the program. Her accuracy and willingness to assist the program deserves a special acknowledgement. Dean Headlee who worked directly with the project for the last two years enabled us to increase sampling. Bill Barss and Don Bodenmiller helped direct the final completion of this report. Doris Kollodge deserves special thanks for her extra effort in editing and developing most of the graphics, and making it possible to include the last two years of data in the final report. Lorings’ Lighthouse Sporting Goods in Brookings collected and stored many of the carcasses from that area. This enhanced our ability to cover an area all the way to the California border. Oregon Institute of Marine Biology (University of Oregon) allowed use of their facilities during the tag retention study. They also allowed use of their holding tanks throughout the year for bait survival, which increased our tagging success.

9

10

REFERENCES Barss, W.H. , and R.L. Demory. 1989. Movement of Lingcod Tagged off the Central Oregon

Coast. ODFW Information Report #89-8 Bennett, D.E., and R.S. Wydoski. 1977. Biology of the Redtail Surfperch (Amphisticus

rhodoterus) from the Central Oregon Coast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Technical Paper #90.

Chilton, D.E. and R.J. Beamish. 1982. Age Determination Methods for Fishes Studied by the

Groundfish Program at The Pacific Biological Station. Department of Fisheries. Northern California Marine Sportfishing and Diving Newsletter, Kelp Forest #4. May 1986.

California Department of Fish and Game. Fort Bragg, California. Waldman, John R. 1989. Hudson River Striped Bass Tag Recovery Program. March 1987 to

February 1988. Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research. Phone conversation September 1999 with J.J. Johnson. ODFW Marine Resources Program.

Newport, Oregon. Annual Coos River System Recruitment Survey. 1999. ODFW S.W. Region. Reese E. Bender.

Charleston, Oregon.

Table 1. Length distribution of all surfperch collected from the southern Oregon recreational fishery during 1991-2000 by species and sex.

Fork Length in mm Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total

110-119 1 1 2 1 1120-129 2 2130-139 4 2 6140-149 3 3 6 4 2 6 1 1 2150-159 7 14 21 1 1 1 2 3 4 7 11160-169 18 9 27 3 3 6 4 10 5 10 15 3 3170-179 12 22 34 4 4 13 26 39 14 6 20 2 3 5180-189 39 51 90 3 10 13 57 21 78 21 17 38 5 11 16190-199 105 97 202 19 26 45 65 17 82 34 28 62 30 33 63 3 3200-209 156 176 332 73 23 96 81 22 103 1 5 6 44 38 82 53 71 124 1 1210-219 175 324 499 78 79 157 28 7 35 7 4 11 70 79 149 63 69 132 3 5 8220-229 157 466 623 141 115 256 23 23 9 5 14 117 129 246 81 54 135 3 4 7230-239 266 452 718 274 155 429 8 8 19 4 23 208 136 344 54 23 77 8 5 13240-249 441 621 1062 204 140 344 2 2 4 35 11 46 188 66 254 45 2 47 6 7 13250-259 873 706 1579 167 77 244 1 1 68 8 76 173 82 255 12 12 6 10 16260-269 1290 675 1965 111 25 136 79 12 91 198 84 282 4 4 15 2 17270-279 1245 510 1755 39 2 41 94 19 113 241 55 296 2 2 6 6280-289 1025 326 1351 12 1 13 70 11 81 222 51 273 2 2290-299 1140 140 1280 1 1 88 7 95 223 42 265 1 1 5 1 6300-309 1033 60 1093 69 3 72 127 26 153 1 1310-319 593 21 614 50 1 51 37 8 45320-329 472 3 475 26 2 28 22 1 23330-339 271 2 273 21 21 2 1 3 1 1340-349 144 1 145 15 15350-359 81 81 3 3360-369 40 1 41 2 2370-379 13 13380-389 6 6390-399 3 3400-409 1 1Total 9616 4683 14299 1126 657 1783 288 104 392 656 92 748 1951 867 2818 352 271 623 58 35 93

Average Length 279 248 269 238 232 236 198 189 196 282 261 280 260 242 255 222 211 217 254 240 249

Number of FishRedtail White Silver Pile Striped Walleye Calico

11

Table 2. Age distribution of surfperch collected from the southern Oregon recreational fishery during 1991-2000 by species and sex.

Age Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total1 49 40 89 1 1 2 2 Total 44 60 104 1 1

2 715 575 1290 51 28 79 12 16 28 19 8 27 316 252 568 12 10 22

3 3537 1077 4614 405 196 601 76 34 110 114 21 135 520 246 766 116 70 186 13 5 18

4 2459 1068 3527 405 250 655 122 29 151 208 29 237 432 147 579 116 85 201 14 9 23

5 1444 880 2324 187 122 309 58 17 75 168 24 192 317 76 393 76 67 143 20 9 29

6 707 593 1300 56 47 103 14 7 21 82 8 90 177 41 218 23 25 48 7 8 15

7 424 249 673 17 10 27 4 1 5 46 1 47 94 19 113 7 12 19 4 3 7

8 172 121 293 3 3 6 13 1 14 29 16 45 2 1 3 1 1

9 72 56 128 1 1 5 5 11 7 18

10 21 20 41 1 1 1 1 8 2 10

11 9 2 11 3 1 4

12 5 1 6

13 2 2

14 1 1

Total 9616 4683 14299 1126 657 1783 288 104 392 656 92 748 1951 867 2818 352 271 623 58 35 93

Average Age 4.0 4.3 4.1 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.7 3.9 4.6 4.1 4.5 4.0 3.3 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.6 4.9 4.7

Number of FishRedtail White Silver Pile Striped Walleye Calico

12

Table 3. Average length of surfperch in millimeters by sex, species and age for 1991-2000.

Sex Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Female Redtail 166 215 261 286 302 317 329 342 349 362 370 373 382

White 203 206 225 241 255 265 264 269 279

Silver 142 174 187 199 211 223 225

Pile 227 255 275 289 308 317 330 348 346

Striped 180 221 246 269 284 291 300 308 306 309 324

Walleye 201 209 222 233 246 247 244

Calico 222 246 263 278 294

Male Redtail 164 208 229 248 262 273 283 291 297 303 311 320 345

White 204 217 234 245 251 259 261 281

Silver 174 182 194 201 205 214

Pile 211 245 264 273 298 303 324

Striped 182 220 239 262 276 284 293 295 306 317 290

Walleye 203 181 199 209 219 227 230 233

Calico 221 229 239 252 272 262

Age

13

Table 4. Number of surfperch tagged by location and species, 1992-2000.

Tag Location (North to South) Redtail Silver Striped White Pile Walleye Total

Three Mile Creek (N. Spit Umpqua) 605 16 621

Buoy #25, Umpqua River 5 5

Horsfall Beach 1223 68 1291

Hwy 101 Bridge, Coos Bay 79 103 26 11 219

Sitka Docks, Coos Bay 35 2 37

Empire Docks, Coos Bay 4 2 1 7

Point Adams, Coos Bay 5 5

Buoy #7, Coos Bay 208 4 212

Coos Head, Coos Bay 72 1 73

Yonker Point (South Slough), Coos Bay 4 4

Crown Point, Coos Bay 22 350 50 422

Bastendorf Beach 155 40 1 196

Arago Lighthouse 8 8

Mouth of Cut Creek (Incl. Bullards Beach) 2298 36 2334

S. Jetty Beach, Bandon 199 52 8 259

Mouth of China Creek, Bandon 139 4 143

New River 362 2 364

Mouth of Elk River 2683 2683

Paradise Point, Port Orford 34 34

Humbug Mountain 16 1 17

Nesika Beach 4 4

Mouth of Rogue River 3 3

Pistol River 274 4 278

Total for Oregon 8000 222 402 491 82 22 9219

Number of surfperch tagged by species

14

Table 5. Number of surfperch tagged and tags returned from angler recoveries by species and year. Tagging occurred from 5/23/1992 through 11/17/2000. Tag returns cover the period from 8/7/1993 through 12/22/2000.

Species 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Female Male All Female Male All Female Male All

Pile 0 0 0 0 2 5 34 19 22 75 7 82 2 0 2 2.67 0.00 2.44

Redtail 3 321 412 950 517 1283 925 1707 1882 4605 3392 8000 569 154 723 12.36 4.54 9.04

Silver 0 53 45 26 24 35 8 13 18 90 132 222 3 1 4 3.33 0.76 1.80

Striped 0 12 0 0 17 13 134 115 111 248 154 402 27 17 44 10.89 11.04 10.95

Walleye 0 8 0 0 2 10 0 0 2 12 10 22 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

White 0 1 0 0 16 1 149 174 150 421 70 491 11 0 11 2.61 0.00 2.24

All 3 395 457 976 578 1347 1250 2028 2185 5451 3765 9219 612 172 784 11.23 4.57 8.50

Percent ReturnedNumber of Tags

Returned From Tagged Fish Caught*

Total TaggedNumber Tagged by Year

* Tag return numbers do not include fish caught by tagging crews and re-released. These account for an additional 109 redtail perch, 4 striped perch, and 5 white perch. Four redtail perch tags were returned after a tagging crew re-release, and one tagged fish was caught and re-released twice.

15

Figure 1. Redtail surfperch tagging and selected recoveries from Newport to Bandon, Oregon (1992-1998). Arrows show movement to distant tag recovery areas. Crosshatched areas denote tagging sites.

16

Figure 2. Redtail surfperch tagging and selected recoveries from Coos Bay, Oregon, to Orick, California (1992-2000). Arrows show movement to distant tag recovery areas. Crosshatched areas denote tagging sites.

17

White

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

80-89

110-1

19

140-1

49

170-1

79

200-2

09

230-2

39

260-2

69

290-2

99

320-3

29

350-3

59

380-3

89

Length (mm)

Num

ber o

f fis

h

FemaleMale

Pile

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80-89

110-1

19

140-1

49

170-1

79

200-2

09

230-2

39

260-2

69

290-2

99

320-3

29

350-3

59

380-3

89

Length (mm)

Num

ber o

f fis

hFemaleMale

Redtail

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

80-89

110-1

19

140-1

49

170-1

79

200-2

09

230-2

39

260-2

69

290-2

99

320-3

29

350-3

59

380-3

89

Length (mm)

Num

ber o

f fis

h

FemaleMale

Silver

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

80-89

100-1

09

120-1

29

140-1

49

160-1

69

180-1

89

200-2

09

220-2

29

240-2

49

260-2

69

280-2

89

300-3

09

320-3

29

340-3

49

360-3

69

380-3

89

400-4

09

Length (mm)

Num

ber o

f fis

h

FemaleMale

Striped

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

80-89

100-1

09

120-1

29

140-1

49

160-1

69

180-1

89

200-2

09

220-2

29

240-2

49

260-2

69

280-2

89

300-3

09

320-3

29

340-3

49

360-3

69

380-3

89

400-4

09

Length (mm)

Num

ber o

f fis

h

FemaleMale

Walleye

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

80-89

110-1

19

140-1

49

170-1

79

200-2

09

230-2

39

260-2

69

290-2

99

320-3

29

350-3

59

380-3

89

Length (mm)

Num

ber o

f fis

h

FemaleMale

Figure 3. Length distribution of surfperch species from the southern Oregon recreational fishery, 1991-2000.

18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Redtail White Striped Pile Silver Calico Walleye

Species

Leng

th (m

m)

FemaleMale

Figure 4. Average length of various surfperch species by sex from the Oregon recreational fishery, 1991-2000.

19

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

230-2

39

240-2

49

250-2

59

260-2

69

270-2

79

280-2

89

290-2

99

300-3

09

310-3

19

320-3

29

330-3

39

340-3

49

350-3

59

360-3

69

370-3

79

380-3

89

Length of pregnant female

Leng

th o

f em

bryo

(mm

)

Figure 5. Average length of redtail surfperch embryo near parturition (August) by length of gravid female, 1991-2000.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

March April May June July Aug Sept

Month

Leng

th (m

m)

Figure 6. Average embryo length of redtail surfperch by month, 1991-2000.

20

Figure 7. Average length at age of surfperch species from the southern Oregon recreational fishery, 1991-2000.

Redtail

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Age (years)

Ave

rage

leng

th (m

m)

FemaleMale

White

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Age (years)

Ave

rage

leng

th (m

m)

FemaleMale

Silver

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Age (years)

Ave

rage

leng

th (m

m)

FemaleMale

Pile

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Age (years)

Ave

rage

leng

th (m

m)

FemaleMale

Striped

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Age (years)

Ave

rage

leng

th (m

m)

FemaleMale

Walleye

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Age (years)

Ave

rage

leng

th (m

m)

FemaleMale

21

Figure 8. Age distribution of surfperch species by sex from the southern Oregon recreational fishery in percent, 1991-2000.

Redtail

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Age

Perc

ent

FemaleMale

White

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Age

Perc

ent

FemaleMale

Silver

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Age

Perc

ent

FemaleMale

Pile

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Age

Perc

ent

FemaleMale

Striped

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Age

Perc

ent

FemaleMale

Walleye

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Age

Perc

ent

FemaleMale

22

Redtail

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999Year

Ave

rage

age

(yea

rs

Figure 9. Average age by surfperch species, sex and year, 1991-2000.

)

FemaleMale

White

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Year

Ave

rage

age

(yea

rs)

FemaleMale

Silver

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999Year

Ave

rage

age

(yea

rs)

FemaleMale

Pile

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Year

Ave

rage

age

(yea

rs)

FemaleMale

Striped

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999Year

Ave

rage

age

(yea

rs)

FemaleMale

Walleye

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Year

Ave

rage

age

(yea

rs)

FemaleMale

23

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Age (years)

Num

ber o

f fis

h

FemaleMale

Figure 10. Redtail surfperch age frequency by sex from the southern Oregon recreational fishery, 1991-2000.

24