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