Table 2. Watershed management strategies. Note that barrier removal can describe either the physical removal of the barrier or modifying the barrier so that it is passable to fish.
| |
| |
|
Strategy name |
Strategy description |
Actions included in strategy |
Area prioritization |
Total cost |
| |
Barriers (Fig. 3A) |
All funds allocated to barrier removal |
Barrier removal |
Barriers blocking the lowest cost/distance of historically accessible
stream km are removed first. |
$1,918,784 |
Barriers and Riparian (Fig. 3B) |
50% of funds allocated to barrier removal and 50% of funds allocated to
riparian protection |
Barrier removal; riparian protection |
Barriers blocking the lowest cost/distance of historically accessible
stream km are removed first. Riparian protection was limited to public lands
that did not already have a protection ordinance. Riparian areas were
prioritized from upstream to downstream within those that were estimated to be
in good condition (riparian condition model) and that bordered stream segments
estimated to be of high spawning suitability (remotely-sensed suitability and
capacity model). |
$1,988,638 |
Federal (Fig. 3C) |
50% of funds allocated to barrier removal and 50% of funds allocated to
road decommissioning |
Barrier removal; road decommissioning |
Barriers on federal land blocking the lowest cost/distance of
historically accessible stream km are removed first. Roads were selected by
the amount of modeled sediment entering the stream segment to which that road
segment drains (sediment model). Roads in areas of high sediment yield had the
highest priority for decommissioning. |
$1,908,093 |
EDT (Fig. 3D) |
50% of funds allocated to reaches prioritized for protection and 50% of
funds allocated to reaches prioritized for restoration. |
Riparian protection; riparian restoration; in-stream restoration;
floodplain restoration; and road decommissioning |
A model was developed to convert EDT reach restoration and preservation
priorities output to a set of specific restoration and preservation actions
(Appendix A). |
$2,015,401 |
Landscape (Fig. 3e) |
Five pairs of local and modeling experts were given the results of the
landscape scale riparian, sediment, and hydrology models (Table 4) and asked to
develop a watershed management strategy based on model output and their own
knowledge. They were asked to prioritize based on Chinook salmon. |
Barrier removal; riparian protection; riparian restoration; in-stream
restoration; floodplain restoration; and road decommissioning |
Each pair of experts prioritized actions differently. All five strategies
were modeled individually. The presented results are the average of these five
modeling strategies. |
$1,953,674 |
Expert (Fig. 3F) |
Four teams of local experts were given all available information about the
watershed, including information from other published watershed analyses (R2
resources 2004) and modeled output for current conditions from all available
models. They were asked to prioritize based on Chinook salmon. |
Barrier removal; riparian protection; riparian restoration; in-stream
restoration; floodplain restoration; road decommissioning and fixing
road |
Each team of experts prioritized actions differently. All four strategies
were modeled individually. The presented results are the average of these four
modeling strategies. |
$2,023,894 |
|
| |
|