This document is a revision of the chapter on mapping Core Areas that was included in the August 1996 draft of the Conservation plan. Included are descriptions of the background and basis of mapping Core Areas, description of methods used to conduct the mapping, and a discussion of the results of this work. Also included is: (1) a summary of comments received from reviewers, and (2) a description of the procedure and schedule for revising the maps based on these comments. Until this revision is complete, it should be noted that these maps represent the initial attempt at defining Core Areas and, therefore, are provisional.

Salmon Core Areas are defined here as reaches or watersheds within individual coastal basins that are judged to be of critical importance to the persistence of salmon populations that inhabit those basins. Ideally, Core Areas contain the resources and habitats necessary for the survival of each population. Furthermore, Core Areas will be a major source for seeding new habitats as restoration programs are implemented. Identification of Core Areas is needed to enable resource managers to better prioritize protection and restoration efforts that are planned to occur as part of the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI) to recover these stocks. Core Areas are also key in the design of the monitoring that is planned to track progress of OCSRI.

Selections of Core Areas were based primarily on available population abundance and habitat inventory data. Rationale for selecting each Core Area have been documented in detail. Additionally, selections were not associated with specific land uses or land ownership. Because of this approach, mapping of Core Areas differs from previous mapping exercises conducted to identify important salmonid areas.

Description of a Core Area

Under pristine conditions, salmon (including coho, chum, and chinook salmon; steelhead; and cutthroat trout) are not evenly distributed throughout river basins. Instead, they tend to concentrate in local reaches of river basins to spawn and rear. These concentrations reflect the combination of local differences in the character of the stream environment and preferences of each species for certain habitat features. Stream reaches where these habitats occur are called Core Areas. Many factors explain why certain river reaches support higher concentrations of spawning or rearing salmon than other reaches. For example, some stream reaches may have better spawning gravel, better winter rearing areas, and more optimal water temperatures than others.

Core Areas Differ by Species

Each species of salmon has a somewhat distinct life history and exhibits different habitat preferences throughout its life. However, because considerable overlap exists in the habitats used by different species, they are only occasionally completely isolated, either in space or in time within a river basin. These differences in habitat preferences make it common for certain stream reaches to be coho domain, and others to be mostly the domain of coho, chinook, steelhead or chum.

This general segregation within habitat types in a river basin is noticeable at both the adult-spawning and juvenile-rearing life-stages. At spawning, for example, it is common to find chinook, coho, and steelhead segregated in rather distinct stream reaches. It is also common to observe somewhat different distributions of rearing juvenile chinook, coho, and steelhead, although some stream reaches may contain rearing juveniles of all species. Where juveniles coexist in the same stream reach, habitat preferences often are exhibited at the micro-habitat scale.

Need for Mapping Core Areas

The concept of identifying on maps the portions of river basins particularly important to salmon is appealing. Foremost reasoning for a mapping efforts such as this is that knowledge of areas currently supporting the highest concentrations of spawning and rearing salmon is essential in any efforts to stabilize and improve the health of salmon populations. In addition, the mapping information would help state and federal agencies and private landowners in deciding where to focus their limited budgets on management actions that will conserve and improve the status of salmon populations in these areas. In utilizing maps of Core Areas, it is important to distinguish among scopes of geographic coverage. Core Areas strictly represent stream reaches identified to contain critical habitats for anadromous salmonids. In many cases, protection and restoration measures need to recognize watersheds as the level of landscape where the measures need to be focused. Core Areas simply serve as a tool in helping to prioritize where these watersheds occur.

Previous Approaches to Identifying Important Areas for Salmon

A number of other processes were used to identify important areas of Oregon coastal streams for salmon in the past. Other designations used to identify areas considered to be important to salmon and other aquatic species include:

• FEMAT Key Watersheds (selected by federal biologists as part of the Presidents Forest Plan; all located on federal lands)

• AFS Aquatic Diversity Areas (selected by committee of members from the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society)

• DSL Essential Salmonid Habitat; and ODFW Source Watersheds (both selected by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Although these processes were useful as a first step in determining important locations, they are limited in their application as a means of identifying critical salmon habitat for all species throughout all coastal basins. Limitations associated with these prior designations include inconsistent and undocumented rationale for particular selections, selections based on associations with particular land uses or land ownership, and ambiguous correspondence to particular salmon species. For example, rationale used to select AFS Aquatic Diversity Areas, DSL Essential Salmonid Habitat and ODFW Source Watersheds varied appreciably among locations and was based on professional judgment without documentation of selection rationale. FEMAT Key Watersheds are located almost exclusively on federal land and, therefore, are lacking in coastal basins where little federal land exists.

We set out to improve upon the limitations of these prior mapping exercises in determining Core Areas. Our goal was to produce a product based on more consistent and well-documented rationale. This rationale was to be based primarily on contemporary inventories of populations and their habitats. Furthermore, Core Area selections were to be unrestricted by land use or land ownership, readily revisable as new data became available.

Appropriate Use of Core Area Maps

Mapping, or otherwise identifying, core salmon areas has strong overall support. Already several conservation-oriented uses of these maps have been proposed, in large part due to recognition of their importance in providing guidance to resource managers. Providing knowledge of salmon and rearing salmon areas does carry some risk of being misunderstood or misrepresented. However, given the declines in numerous salmon populations, there is greater risk associated with not mapping Core Areas as presently known.

To address concerns of landowners and other people interested in continued utilization of natural resources, as well as people interested in conserving and restoring salmon populations, it should be emphasized that the maps are intended to allow managers of the coastal landscape to make informed decisions regarding the effects of human activity on salmon. They are not part of a plan to prohibit any human activity near Core Areas, nor by default, to indicate that non-Core Areas of rivers can be discarded or exempted from basic environmental protection rules. As noted earlier, almost every part of a river basin is crucial to the survival of some species of salmon at one time of the year or another. Therefore, stream reaches not identified as Core Areas for salmon should not be construed as unimportant. In fact, many non-Core Areas provide critical migration corridors for fish traveling between the Core Areas and the ocean.

Maps of Core Areas for salmon are not intended to result in economic penalties to private landowners if salmon currently concentrate for spawning or rearing in stream reaches on their property. The maps are not intended to endorse relaxation of existing environmental protection rules in areas presently outside of Core Areas. Such actions would serve to perpetuate existing geographic patterns of salmon production within river basins and would inhibit the restoration process.

Technical Obstacles to Mapping Core Areas

Mapping Core Areas is a challenging task. Part of the challenge is determining a map scale that allows for effective display of Core Area designation. Another challenge is meeting people's expectations that the areas will: (1) represent some relatively small subset of the overall watershed, (2) be similarly important to all salmonid species or races, and (3) be clearly definable by unambiguous data that are currently available.

Few situations exist where a particular species of salmon depends on only a specific portion of a river basin. Usually, species are best adapted to certain types of habitat within a river basin. These species-specific adaptations result in different habitats being used as the fish grow and seasons change.

Essentially all reaches of a river serve critical function in the life cycle of anadromous fish at some time throughout the year. Also, protection of discrete, distinct stream reaches will not secure salmon populations because these stream reaches are functionally interacting with adjacent stream reaches and with the riparian and upslope areas of the watershed.

However, there are differences in aspects of anadromous salmonid life history among species that can be associated with certain portions of coastal basins and, thus, lend themselves to be identified through Core Area mapping. Coho, for example, tend to spawning the fall and winter, rear during the summer, and over-winter in small tributaries. Alternatively, chinook generally concentrate in portions of the mainstem or larger tributaries of a river when they spawn during November, but the young fish distribute throughout the entire basin below these spawning areas as they rear and migrate downstream through the estuary from April through October.

Another obstacle associated with producing Core Area maps is the adequacy of appropriate data. Data suitable to identify important salmon areas are not equally available for all species. Relatively more data are available for coho than for chum or chinook, and very little data exist for steelhead and sea-run cutthroat. Preparing maps of Core Areas for salmon does not imply that all areas of the basins have been surveyed for all species. For example, while there is a reasonably good "feel" for identifying locations having high densities of spawning chinook, chum, and coho, there is not a similar basis for identifying stream reaches having the highest spawning density of steelhead and sea-run cutthroat. Data identifying stream reaches that support especially high densities of rearing juveniles are also scant. As a consequence of inadequate surveying, maps of Core Areas for salmon will not identify some stream reaches that are especially important to salmon production.

There were a number of key considerations in developing our procedure for determining Core Areas:

• The process should be conducted separately for each major coastal basin and, to the degree possible, separately for each species.

• The procedure to identify and screen candidates for Core Areas should be sufficiently defined to allow it to be as repeatable as possible. Although because of information gaps, it will not be possible to maintain complete consistency across all species or basins, the procedure should be defined in enough detail to specify what criteria were used for identifying candidate Core Areas for each species in each basin.

• To the largest extent possible, the process of identifying Core Areas candidates should be "data driven". Selection of candidates should be based on data that identifies these areas as having above-average population densities or habitat quality.

• The rationale for selecting each Core Area should be well documented to facilitate review and revision of this exercise.

Working within the framework defined by the above list of considerations, the following procedure was used to select Core Areas:

1. Electronic versions of 1:100,000 Hydrologic Unit (HUC) maps for coastal basins were obtained from the USGS. Using ARC-INFO software (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), preliminary maps for each of the nineteen individual HUC's of coastal basins were prepared that displayed the spawning and rearing distribution of anadromous fish, land ownership and locations of stream reaches previously identified as important for salmon. The spawning and rearing coverage was represented by the spawning and rearing distribution of coho salmon because of limitations of the availability and accuracy of this information for other species (steelhead, chum and chinook), and the fact that the spawning and rearing distributions of these other species were generally well encompassed by that for coho. Also plotted on the maps were the locations of areas that have been identified as being important to salmon and other aquatic species in prior mapping exercises.

These areas included:

• FEMAT Key Watersheds
• AFS Aquatic Diversity Areas
• DSL Essential Salmon Habitat
• ODFW Source Watersheds

2. For each basin, databases of adult spawner density, juvenile density and, habitat quality were assembled and perused to identify stream reaches having either above-average fish density or habitat quality. These databases consisted of: (A) Adult spawner densities of spring and fall chinook, coho, and chum salmon observed in surveys conducted by ODFW during the last six years (1990-95); (B) Inventories of chinook spawning habitat in the Nehalem, Wilson, Siletz, Alsea and Siuslaw basins conducted by ODFW in 1995; (C) Predictions of coho smolt density derived from aquatic habitat inventories and the ODFW habitat-limiting factors model (see chapter on population sustainability modeling); and (D) densities of sub-yearling coho observed on juvenile fish surveys. Criteria for identifying candidate reaches were not consistent among species, nor were they consistent among different basins; however for each case, we documented the criteria that were used. Criteria could not be consistently applied across all basins because of the high variability in both spawner abundance and habitat quality among basins, and the inconsistent proportion of each basin that had been inventoried for habitat and fish abundance.

3. Once these reaches were identified their locations were plotted on the map to assess correspondence between candidate reaches based on habitat or abundance attributes or areas identified under item 1. Additionally, we plotted locations identified by special studies or local experts to be important for salmon spawning and rearing.

4. After the plotting was completed, we reviewed the map to select Core Areas. This exercise was conducted separately for each species. Our initial choices were reaches or watersheds that showed the highest overlap between attributes of population abundance and habitat quality, and were previously identified as any of the areas listed under item 1. Remaining candidates were reviewed and included as selections based on a variety of other factors, such as correspondence with future stream restoration sites, anecdotal observation of apparent high juvenile or adult abundance, presence of important recreational fisheries, etc. Initially, arbitrary limits were not set on the number of Core Areas selected for each species in each basin. As many areas as could be identified were selected based on the information available. One weakness of this approach is the scope of coverage was dependent on the information base, so that species or basins with better databases automatically had the highest number of selections regardless of any other factors. However, it did minimize inconsistencies among locations that were designated as Core Areas.

5. As reaches were selected as Core Areas, the basis for each inclusion was documented in a relational database that included a description of the location of each Core Area and a list of the factors used in making the selection.

Description of Core Areas

Preliminary maps of Core Areas for each of the 19 coastal HUCs were distributed as part of the August 1996 CSRI plan draft and are available from the ODFW Geographic Information Systems Branch of the upon request. Because no revisions have been made to the original versions of these maps, they are not included here. Table 1 lists the total miles of Core Areas, the proportion of total anadromous habitat that are Core Areas, and the proportion of total stream miles that are Core Areas for each HUC. Overall, we designated about 2,900 miles of coastal streams as Core Areas. This constituted about 40% of the overall anadromous salmonid habitat and 15% of the overall stream mileage. A listing of the designated Core Areas for each coastal basin is provided in Table 2. Note that because of its length, Table 2 appears at the end of the document.

Among the species or races of anadromous salmonids reviewed, coho received the highest number of Core Area miles (Table 3). This was due to a couple of factors. First, coho tend to be widely distributed throughout coastal basins and therefore inhabit a fairly large proportion of available habitat. Secondly, a greater volume of inventory data on population abundance and habitat availability exists for coho than for other species, providing a more direct means of identifying Core Areas for this species than for others. The least amount of Core Area miles were assigned to chum salmon, a reflection of the limited distribution of this species in coastal basins. Core areas for chum salmon were restricted to the five northernmost HUC's (Necanicum-Alsea). Over half of the Core Area miles for chum salmon were located in the Tillamook HUC, the location having the overwhelmingly highest population of chum salmon in the state.

Table 1. Mileage of Core Areas identified for all anadromous salmonids for each hydrological unit.

Core Areas for fall chinook salmon were identified for all HUC's except the Necanicum, Siltcoos, North Umpqua and Upper Rogue. These areas are primarily sites where intensive spawning occurs, and thus, do not encompass essential riverine and estuarine rearing habitats. Nine of the nineteen coastal HUC's support populations of spring chinook salmon and have Core Areas for this species. These Core Areas constitute the primary holding and spawning areas for this species.

The 795 miles of Core Areas designated for winter steelhead should be viewed as incomplete. Except for a few locations where detailed studies have occurred, data are generally lacking to make informed choices for this species. We expect to make substantial revisions to Core Area designations for this species following review by field staff. Native populations of summer steelhead occur only in the Siletz, North Umpqua and Rogue Basins. Core Areas for this species represent locations in these basins that are known to be important for spawning and rearing of summer steelhead. We were unable to designate Core Areas for sea-run cutthroat trout because of the lack of detailed inventory data for this species and a generally poor understanding of its life history in freshwater.

Table 3. Total mileage of Core Areas for each species or race of anadromous salmonids for all coastal hydrological units.

	Core Areas
Species or race	Miles	Percent of anadromous salmonid habitat	Percent of total stream miles
Coho Salmon	1,489.1	20	8
Chum Salmon	63.9	1	<1
Fall Chinook Salmon	705.1	9	4
Spring Chinook Salmon	248.7	3	1
Winter Steelhead	795.4	10	4
Summer Steelhead	175.4	2	1

Basis for Core Area Selection

A detailed description of the rationale for selecting each Core Area was presented in Appendix A of the August 1996 CSRI plan draft of this chapter. The basis of these rationale are summarized in Table 4 for each species or race. Except for winter steelhead, most Core Areas included criteria associated with population abundance as part of their rationale for selection. For example, 83% of the 105 Core Areas selected for coho salmon had selection criteria based on population abundance. Because little quantitative inventory data exists for coastal populations of winter steelhead, rationale for Core Area selection was based primarily on professional judgment. This is a major weakness in our ability to determine Core Areas for this species.

Table 4. Basis for selecting Core Areas for each species or race of anadromous salmonid. Values in the four right-hand columns indicate the percent of Core Areas for each species or race that included a given criterion as part of the selection rationale.

		Percent of Core Areas selected because of each criterion
Species or Race	Number of Core Areas	Population abundance	Habitat quality	Professional judgment	Prior designations
Coho Salmon	105	83	59	7	85
Chum Salmon	26	73	0	27	73
Fall Chinook Salmon	101	86	14	14	75
Spring Chinook Salmon	14	57	14	21	80
Winter Steelhead	28	32	4	61	64
Summer Steelhead	5	80	0	20	80

Habitat quality also composed a major portion of the rationale used to select Core Areas for coho salmon. This was possible because of extensive habitat surveys conducted during the last six years and the ability to readily apply these data to a habitat -limiting factors model developed by ODFW. The relatively high degree of overlap between stream reaches or watersheds having apparently good winter rearing habitat (as indicated by this model's output) and above-average population abundance supports the validity of this model's application for determining Core Areas for coho salmon.

Summary of Reviewer Comments

Preliminary Core Area maps were distributed to the following entities for review:

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
• Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (AFS)
• Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC)
• Oregon Trout (OT)
• Pacific Rivers Council (PRC)
• Coastal Watershed Councils (CWC)
• Coastal District Fishery Biologists of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

In soliciting the reviews, we asked each reviewer to address the following questions:

1. Are there significant errors of inclusion or omission?
2. Is adequate information provided to explain each selection?
3. If not, how should selections be documented?
4. Few areas are identified for steelhead. How can we do a better job identifying steelhead Core Areas?
5. How often should these maps be revised and updated?

Table 5 summarizes the comments that we received and list how each will be addressed during the revision process.

Table 5. Summary of comments and concerns received for Core Area maps. Comments and concerns are grouped into major categories followed by a list of which reviewers provided comments pertaining to each category and how each category will be addressed during the revision process. Acronyms for reviewers are defined in the text.

Comment or Concern	Reviewer(s)	Planned Revision Action
Failure to utilize "Watershed Approach" in identifying Core Areas	AFS, OT, CWC	None. As defined, Core Areas consist of stream reaches where critical salmonid habitats occur. This is not to say that the persistence of these habitats is independent of the rest of the watershed. Core Areas are identified to assist in guiding CSRI actions in all coastal watersheds.
Lack of specification of protection and restoration measures associated with Core Areas	AFS, OT, PRC	None. Addressed in other portions of the CSRI.
Failure to assess adequacy of core areas as to whether there are enough core areas and whether they are spatially close enough to conserve the species (coho)	PRC	Ask that the Independent Scientific Review Group address this question.
Lack of including non-stream areas such as floodplains and wetlands as Core Areas	AFS	None. Such areas are not identifiable at the resolution used to map Core Areas. Will be considered in designing CSRI restoration and protection measures.
Inconsistencies in selection rationale among different Core Area designations	AFS, OFIC, OT, CWC	Subjective rationale will be documented in greater detail during revision.
Errors in inclusion or omission	All reviewers except NMFS	Suggestions will be considered on a case-by-case basis during revision. Changes will be made where sufficient rationale are available.
Errors associated with using abundance indexes that are inflated by hatchery-reared strays	AFS, OT	Most data on spawner abundance was adjusted to reflect natural production. Specific designations where hatchery strays may exist will be reviewed during revision process.
Lack of sufficient data to adequately define Core Areas	AFS, OT, CWC	Implementation of the CSRI monitoring plan will increase available data in future. Future revisions will incorporate new data as it becomes available. Need to maintain "data driven" selection approach.
Failure to utilize water quality data in identifying Core Areas	AFS	None. Rationale based primarily on abundance. Little reach-specific water quality data currently exists.
Incorporation of data sources other than those collected by ODFW	AFS, OT	Utilized all data sources available. Little additional data was suggested by reviewers. Will solicit additional data during revision.

Proposed Revision Process

Because of other work commitments, we were unable to update Core Area Maps prior to submitting the revised CSRI plan to the National Marine Fisheries Service. We plan to complete these revisions prior to the winter of 1997. Revisions will address the applicable comments and concerns listed in Table 5. In completing the revisions, we plan to incorporate a review team comprised of representatives from watershed councils, private and industrial landowners, conservation organizations, local state and federal biologists. Peer reviewers of the draft plan also will be invited to participate on this team.

Our proposed schedule for completing the map revisions is to meet the following objectives by the dates listed below. Given the uncertainty in upcoming work schedules and availability of interested participants, this schedule should be viewed as a general guide that may be modified.

Mid-May 1997: Obtain commitments from participants of the review team.

Mid-June 1997: Hold initial meetings to determine procedure for completing revisions and schedule team work sessions.

Mid-October 1997: Complete revisions of all HUCs.

January 1998: Complete GIS production of revised data layer and revised printed maps.

February 1998: Complete report that documents revision process, revised maps and selection rationale.

Core Areas presented in this document should be considered preliminary until this revision process is complete. However, given the limitations of available data and knowledge, even upon completion of this review, designations of Core Areas should be viewed as a dynamic process that is periodically updated as new information becomes available. Core Area maps will be revised, perhaps on a biannual basis, as new data become available.

The next step in this process is to map potential Recovery Areas for coastal basins. Our intent would be to perform GIS analysis to identify locations where restoration activities have the highest likelihood of providing critical habitats for coastal salmonids. The planned approach of this analysis is to extrapolate physiographic and biographic attributes associated with Core Areas to entire coastal watersheds using available GIS data layers. If successful, this exercise would exceptionally valuable in guiding restoration efforts. It is our intent to complete mapping of Recovery Areas by the end of 1998.Table 2. Listing of designated Core Areas for coastal basins. Coastal basins containing Core Areas are listed north to south.

BASIN	SUBBASIN	ID CODE	SPECIES	STREAM REACH
NECANICUM RIVER	MAIN STEM	NCCU1	CHUM	NECANICUM R
NECANICUM RIVER	MAIN STEM	NCCO1	COHO	NECANICUM R
ECOLA CREEK	NORTH FORK	ECCO1	COHO	ECOLA CR, N FK
NEHALEM RIVER	MAIN STEM	NCU1	CHUM	FOLEY CR
NEHALEM RIVER	MAIN STEM	NCO1	COHO	FOLEY CR
NEHALEM RIVER	MAIN STEM	NSTW2	WINTER STEELHEAD	COOK CR
NEHALEM RIVER	MAIN STEM	NCHF2	FALL CHINOOK	HUMBUG CR
NEHALEM RIVER	MAIN STEM	NCO3	COHO	FISHHAWK CR
NEHALEM RIVER	MAIN STEM	NCHS1	SPRING CHINOOK	NEHALEM R
NEHALEM RIVER	MAIN STEM	NCO4	COHO	DEER CR
NEHALEM RIVER	MAIN STEM	NCO6	COHO	CLEAR CR
NEHALEM RIVER	MAIN STEM	NCO7	COHO	NEHALEM R
NEHALEM RIVER	NORTH FORK	NCU2	CHUM	ANDERSON CR
NEHALEM RIVER	NORTH FORK	NCHF4	FALL CHINOOK	SOAPSTONE CR
NEHALEM RIVER	NORTH FORK	NCO2	COHO	GODS VALLEY CR
NEHALEM RIVER	NORTH FORK	NCHF3	FALL CHINOOK	NEHALEM R, N FK
NEHALEM RIVER	SALMONBERRY RIVER	NCHF1	FALL CHINOOK	SALMONBERRY R
NEHALEM RIVER	SALMONBERRY RIVER	NSTW1	WINTER STEELHEAD	SALMONBERRY R
NEHALEM RIVER	ROCK CREEK	NSTW3	WINTER STEELHEAD	ROCK CR
NEHALEM RIVER	ROCK CREEK	NCO5	COHO	ROCK CR
MIAMI RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCU1	CHUM	MOSS CR
MIAMI RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCU8	CHUM	MIAMI R
MIAMI RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCU2	CHUM	MIAMI R
MIAMI RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCO1	COHO	MIAMI R
MIAMI RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCU3	CHUM	PROUTY CR
KILCHIS RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCU4	CHUM	COAL CR
KILCHIS RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCU5	CHUM	KILCHIS R
KILCHIS RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCU9	CHUM	KILCHIS R
KILCHIS RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCU7	CHUM	CLEAR CR
KILCHIS RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCO2	COHO	KILCHIS R, N FK
KILCHIS RIVER	LITTLE SOUTH FORK	TBCO3	COHO	KILCHIS R, LITTLE S FK
WILSON RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCHF2	FALL CHINOOK	WILSON R
WILSON RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCU10	CHUM	WILSON R
WILSON RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCHS1	SPRING CHINOOK	WILSON R
WILSON RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCHF3	FALL CHINOOK	WILSON R
WILSON RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCHF4	FALL CHINOOK	WILSON R
WILSON RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCHS2	SPRING CHINOOK	WILSON R
WILSON RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCO4	COHO	CEDAR CR
WILSON RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCHF5	FALL CHINOOK	WILSON R
WILSON RIVER	LITTLE NORTH FORK	TBCU6	CHUM	WILSON R, N FK, LITTLE
WILSON RIVER	LITTLE NORTH FORK	TBCHF1	FALL CHINOOK	WILSON R, N FK, LITTLE
WILSON RIVER	DEVIL'S LAKE FORK	TBCO5	COHO	WILSON R, DEVIL'S LAKE FK
TRASK RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCHF10	FALL CHINOOK	TRASK R
TRASK RIVER	NORTH FORK	TBCHS3	SPRING CHINOOK	TRASK R, N FK
TRASK RIVER	NORTH FORK	TBCHF8	FALL CHINOOK	TRASK R, N FK
TRASK RIVER	NORTH FORK	TBCO6	COHO	ELKHORN CR
TRASK RIVER	SOUTH FORK	TBCHF6	FALL CHINOOK	EDWARDS CR
TRASK RIVER	SOUTH FORK	TBCHF9	FALL CHINOOK	TRASK R, S FK
TILLAMOOK RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCO7	COHO	TILLAMOOK R
TILLAMOOK RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCU12	CHUM	TILLAMOOK R
TILLAMOOK RIVER	MAIN STEM	TBCHF7	FALL CHINOOK	TILLAMOOK R
NESTUCCA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	NSCU2	CHUM	HORN CR
NESTUCCA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	NSCU1	CHUM	CLEAR CR
NESTUCCA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	NSCO3	COHO	CLEAR CR
NESTUCCA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	NSCHF3	FALL CHINOOK	CLEAR CR
NESTUCCA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	NSCO1	COHO	EAST CR
NESTUCCA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	NSCHF2	FALL CHINOOK	MOON CR
NESTUCCA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	NSCHS1	SPRING CHINOOK	NESTUCCA R
NESTUCCA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	NSSTW1	WINTER STEELHEAD	NESTUCCA R
NESTUCCA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	NSCHF1	FALL CHINOOK	NIAGARA CR
NESTUCCA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	NSCO2	COHO	ELK CR
NESTUCCA RIVER	LITTLE NESTUCCA	NSCU3	CHUM	FALL CR
NESTUCCA RIVER	LITTLE NESTUCCA	NSCO4	COHO	LITTLE NESTUCCA R
NESKOWIN CREEK	MAIN STEM	NWCU1	CHUM	NESKOWIN CR
SALMON RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	SRCU2	CHUM	SALMON CR
SALMON RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	SRCU3	CHUM	SALMON R
SALMON RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	SRCHF1	FALL CHINOOK	SALMON R
SALMON RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	SRCHF2	FALL CHINOOK	BEAR CR
SALMON RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	SRCU1	CHUM	BEAR CR
SALMON RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	SRSTW1	WINTER STEELHEAD	SALMON R
SALMON RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	SRCHF3	FALL CHINOOK	SALMON R
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	SCU1	CHUM	BEAR CR
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	SCHF1	FALL CHINOOK	CEDAR CR
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	SCU2	CHUM	CEDAR CR
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	SSTW1	WINTER STEELHEAD	EUCHRE CR
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	SCHF2	FALL CHINOOK	EUCHRE CR
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	SCHF3	FALL CHINOOK	SILETZ R
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	S1	COHO	DEWEY CR
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	S2	COHO	BENTILLA CR
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	S3	COHO	SAM CR
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	S4	COHO	MILL CR
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	S6	COHO	PALMER CR
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	SCHF4	FALL CHINOOK	SILETZ R
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	SCHS1	SPRING CHINOOK	SILETZ R
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	SSTW2	WINTER STEELHEAD	SILETZ R
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	SCHF7	FALL CHINOOK	SUNSHINE CR
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	SSTW4	WINTER STEELHEAD	SUNSHINE CR
SILETZ RIVER	MAIN STEM	S5	COHO	SUNSHINE CR
SILETZ RIVER	ROCK CREEK	SCHF6	FALL CHINOOK	BIG ROCK CR
SILETZ RIVER	NORTH FORK	SSTS1	SUMMER STEELHEAD	SILETZ R, N FK
SILETZ RIVER	DRIFT CREEK	SCHF8	FALL CHINOOK	DRIFT CR
SILETZ RIVER	DRIFT CREEK	SSTW3	WINTER STEELHEAD	DRIFT CR
SILETZ RIVER	DRIFT CREEK	SCHF5	FALL CHINOOK	DRIFT CR
YAQUINA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	YCO1	COHO	MILL CR
YAQUINA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	YCU1	CHUM	MILL CR
YAQUINA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	YSTW1	WINTER STEELHEAD	MILL CR
YAQUINA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	YCHF1	FALL CHINOOK	SIMPSON CR
YAQUINA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	YCU2	CHUM	SIMPSON CR
YAQUINA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	YCO2	COHO	THORNTON CR
YAQUINA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	YCO8	COHO	BALES CR
YAQUINA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	YCHF6	FALL CHINOOK	BALES CR
YAQUINA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	YCO3	COHO	BUTTERMILK CR
YAQUINA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	YCHF2	FALL CHINOOK	YAQUINA R
YAQUINA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	YSTW2	WINTER STEELHEAD	YAQUINA R
YAQUINA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	YCO4	COHO	YAQUINA R
YAQUINA RIVER	ELK CREEK	YCO7	COHO	DEER CR
YAQUINA RIVER	ELK CREEK	YCHF5	FALL CHINOOK	DEER CR
YAQUINA RIVER	ELK CREEK	YSTW3	WINTER STEELHEAD	WOLF CR
YAQUINA RIVER	ELK CREEK	YCO5	COHO	WOLF CR
YAQUINA RIVER	ELK CREEK	YCHF3	FALL CHINOOK	ELK CR
YAQUINA RIVER	LITTLE ELK CREEK	YCHF4	FALL CHINOOK	SALMON CR
YAQUINA RIVER	LITTLE ELK CREEK	YCO6	COHO	SALMON CR
BEAVER CREEK	NORTH FORK	BCCO1	COHO	BEAVER CR, N FK
ALSEA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	ALCU1	CHUM	CANAL CR
ALSEA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	ALCHS1	SPRING CHINOOK	ALSEA R
ALSEA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	ALCHF3	FALL CHINOOK	ALSEA R
ALSEA RIVER	DRIFT CREEK	ALCHF1	FALL CHINOOK	DRIFT CR
ALSEA RIVER	DRIFT CREEK	ALCO1	COHO	DRIFT CR
ALSEA RIVER	FIVE RIVERS	ALCHF2	FALL CHINOOK	LOBSTER CR
ALSEA RIVER	FIVE RIVERS	ALCO3	COHO	LOBSTER CR
ALSEA RIVER	FIVE RIVERS	ALCO2	COHO	FIVE RIVERS
ALSEA RIVER	FIVE RIVERS	ALCHF4	FALL CHINOOK	FIVE RIVERS
ALSEA RIVER	SOUTH FORK	ALCO4	COHO	TOBE CR
YACHATS RIVER	MAIN STEM	YACO2	COHO	YACHATS R, SCHOOL FK
YACHATS RIVER	NORTH FORK	YACO1	COHO	YACHATS R, N FK
SIUSLAW RIVER	MAIN STEM	SUCHF5	FALL CHINOOK	SWEET CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	MAIN STEM	SUCO7	COHO	SWEET CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	MAIN STEM	SUSTW5	WINTER STEELHEAD	SAN ANTONE CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	MAIN STEM	SUCO6	COHO	MILLER CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	MAIN STEM	SUCHF8	FALL CHINOOK	SIUSLAW R
SIUSLAW RIVER	MAIN STEM	SUCHF7	FALL CHINOOK	WHITTAKER CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	MAIN STEM	SUSTW6	WINTER STEELHEAD	ESMOND CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	MAIN STEM	SUCHF6	FALL CHINOOK	ESMOND CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	MAIN STEM	SUCO3	COHO	SIUSLAW R
SIUSLAW RIVER	NORTH FORK	SUCO1	COHO	SIUSLAW R, N FK
SIUSLAW RIVER	NORTH FORK	SUCO2	COHO	SIUSLAW R, N FK
SIUSLAW RIVER	NORTH FORK	SUCHF3	FALL CHINOOK	SIUSLAW R, N FK
SIUSLAW RIVER	LAKE CREEK	SUCHF2	FALL CHINOOK	INDIAN CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	LAKE CREEK	SUCO4	COHO	INDIAN CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	LAKE CREEK	SUSTW1	WINTER STEELHEAD	INDIAN CR, W FK
SIUSLAW RIVER	LAKE CREEK	SUCHF1	FALL CHINOOK	LAKE CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	LAKE CREEK	SUSTW2	WINTER STEELHEAD	GREEN CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	LAKE CREEK	SUCHF4	FALL CHINOOK	DEADWOOD CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	LAKE CREEK	SUCO5	COHO	DEADWOOD CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	LAKE CREEK	SUSTW3	WINTER STEELHEAD	GREENLEAF CR
SIUSLAW RIVER	LAKE CREEK	SUSTW4	WINTER STEELHEAD	FISH CR
SILTCOOS RIVER	MAPLE CREEK	SCCO1	COHO	MAPLE CR
SILTCOOS RIVER	FIDDLE CREEK	SCCO2	COHO	ALDER CR
SILTCOOS RIVER	FIDDLE CREEK	SCCO3	COHO	FIDDLE CR
TAHKENITCH CREEK	FIVEMILE CREEK	TKCO1	COHO	FIVEMILE CR
TAHKENITCH CREEK	LEITEL CREEK	TKCO2	COHO	MALLARD CR
UMPQUA RIVER	MAIN STEM AND BAY	UMCO1	COHO	SCHOLFIELD CR
UMPQUA RIVER	SMITH RIVER	UMCHF2	FALL CHINOOK	SMITH R, N FK
UMPQUA RIVER	SMITH RIVER	UMCO4	COHO	SMITH R, N FK
UMPQUA RIVER	SMITH RIVER	UMCHF1	FALL CHINOOK	WASSEN CR
UMPQUA RIVER	SMITH RIVER	UMCO2	COHO	WASSEN CR
UMPQUA RIVER	SMITH RIVER	UMCHF3	FALL CHINOOK	BUCK CR
UMPQUA RIVER	SMITH RIVER	UMCO3	COHO	BUCK CR
UMPQUA RIVER	SMITH RIVER	UMCHF4	FALL CHINOOK	SMITH R, W FK
UMPQUA RIVER	SMITH RIVER	UMCO5	COHO	SMITH R, W FK
UMPQUA RIVER	SMITH RIVER	UMCO6	COHO	TWIN SISTER CR
UMPQUA RIVER	SMITH RIVER	UMCO7	COHO	BIG CR
UMPQUA RIVER	SMITH RIVER	UMCO8	COHO	SMITH R, S FK
UMPQUA RIVER	ELK CREEK	UMCO9	COHO	BRUSH CR
UMPQUA RIVER	ELK CREEK	UMPCO11	COHO	SAND CR
UMPQUA RIVER	NORTH UMPQUA	NUMCHS1	SPRING CHINOOK	N UMPQUA R
UMPQUA RIVER	NORTH UMPQUA	NUMSTW1	WINTER STEELHEAD	N UMPQUA R
UMPQUA RIVER	NORTH UMPQUA	NUMSTS1	SUMMER STEELHEAD	STEAMBOAT CR
UMPQUA RIVER	SOUTH UMPQUA	SUMCHF1	FALL CHINOOK	S UMPQUA R
UMPQUA RIVER	SOUTH UMPQUA	SUMCHF2	FALL CHINOOK	COW CR
UMPQUA RIVER	SOUTH UMPQUA	SUMCO1	COHO	COW CR, W FK
UMPQUA RIVER	SOUTH UMPQUA	SUMCO2	COHO	MIDDLE CR
UMPQUA RIVER	SOUTH UMPQUA	SUMSTW1	WINTER STEELHEAD	S UMPQUA R
UMPQUA RIVER	SOUTH UMPQUA	SUMCHS2	SPRING CHINOOK	JACKSON CR
UMPQUA RIVER	SOUTH UMPQUA	SUMCHS1	SPRING CHINOOK	S UMPQUA R
UMPQUA RIVER	CALAPOOYA CREEK	UMCO10	COHO	CALAPOOYA CR
TENMILE CREEK	NORTH TENMILE LAKE	TMLCO1	COHO	NOBLE CR
TENMILE CREEK	SOUTH TENMILE LAKE	TMLCO2	COHO	JOHNSON CR
COOS RIVER	MAIN STEM	CBCO1	COHO	LARSON CR
COOS RIVER	MILLICOMA RIVER	CBCHF2	FALL CHINOOK	MILLICOMA R, E FK
COOS RIVER	MILLICOMA RIVER	CBCO3	COHO	MILLICOMA R, E FK
COOS RIVER	MILLICOMA RIVER	CBSTW2	WINTER STEELHEAD	MILLICOMA R, E FK
COOS RIVER	MILLICOMA RIVER	CBCHF3	FALL CHINOOK	MILLICOMA R, W FK
COOS RIVER	MILLICOMA RIVER	CBSTW1	WINTER STEELHEAD	MILLICOMA R, W FK
COOS RIVER	MILLICOMA RIVER	CBCO4	COHO	MILLICOMA R, W FK
COOS RIVER	SOUTH FORK	CBCO2	COHO	DANIELS CR
COOS RIVER	SOUTH FORK	CBCHF1	FALL CHINOOK	COOS R, S FK
COOS RIVER	SOUTH FORK	CBSTW3	WINTER STEELHEAD	TIOGA CR
COOS RIVER	SOUTH FORK	CBCHF4	FALL CHINOOK	TIOGA CR
COOS RIVER	SOUTH FORK	CBCO5	COHO	TIOGA CR
COOS RIVER	SOUTH FORK	CBCO6	COHO	CEDAR CR
COOS RIVER	SOUTH FORK	CBCHF5	FALL CHINOOK	WILLIAMS R
COQUILLE RIVER	NORTH FORK	CQCHF2	FALL CHINOOK	MIDDLE CR
COQUILLE RIVER	NORTH FORK	CQCO2	COHO	MIDDLE CR
COQUILLE RIVER	NORTH FORK	CQCHF1	FALL CHINOOK	COQUILLE R, N FK
COQUILLE RIVER	NORTH FORK	CQCO1	COHO	COQUILLE R, N FK
COQUILLE RIVER	EAST FORK	CQCHF3	FALL CHINOOK	COQUILLE R, E FK
COQUILLE RIVER	EAST FORK	CQCO3	COHO	HANTZ CR
COQUILLE RIVER	MIDDLE FORK	CQCO4	COHO	BIG CR
COQUILLE RIVER	MIDDLE FORK	CQCHF5	FALL CHINOOK	ROCK CR
COQUILLE RIVER	MIDDLE FORK	CQCHF4	FALL CHINOOK	COQUILLE R, M FK
COQUILLE RIVER	MIDDLE FORK	CQCO5	COHO	SANDY CR
COQUILLE RIVER	MIDDLE FORK	CQCO6	COHO	SLATER CR
COQUILLE RIVER	SOUTH FORK	CQCHS1	SPRING CHINOOK	COQUILLE R, S FK
COQUILLE RIVER	SOUTH FORK	CQSTW1	WINTER STEELHEAD	COQUILLE R, S FK
COQUILLE RIVER	SOUTH FORK	CQCHF6	FALL CHINOOK	COQUILLE R, S FK
COQUILLE RIVER	SOUTH FORK	CQCO7	COHO	SALMON CR
FOURMILE CR	MAIN STEM	NRCO1	COHO	FOURMILE CR
NEW RIVER	CROFT LAKE	NRCO2	COHO	DAVIS CR
FLORAS CREEK	MAIN STEM	FCCO1	COHO	WILLOW CR
FLORAS CREEK	MAIN STEM	FCCHF1	FALL CHINOOK