Strategy Table of Contents

Return to NOPLEGroup.org Site Map

List of Figures, Tables and Appendices

F. Priority Actions and Areas Strategy

This Priority Actions and Areas Strategy should be used as a guide or as a default (but see “Note” below), to prioritize among action recommendations for watersheds for which specific Salmon Habitat Recovery Priorities have not yet been developed, as reflected in the relevant Watershed Page (Appendix D).

Priority Actions and Areas Strategy
Roni et al. (2002) is a review of the literature on the effectiveness of salmon restoration projects. It is designed to be “a first step in assisting with prioritizing site-specific restoration activities and for providing guidance for allocating monies spent on [the] restoration of Pacific Northwest watersheds inhabited by anadromous salmonids.” The review found that “watershed restoration should focus on restoring natural processes that create and maintain habitat rather than manipulating instream habitat.” Based on that philosophy, the authors suggest that restoration efforts are usually most effective if they adhere to the following hierarchical strategy:

  • Analyze the site: The first step is an analysis of the watershed or project site. The analysis should identify both healthy and degraded habitat based on the natural characteristics of the site. If degraded habitat is found, determine what habitat-forming processes specific to that site are altered and the factors responsible.
  • Protect the best: The most effective step after the analysis is to protect salmonid habitat that is already healthy.
  • Reconnect healthy habitat: The next most effective action is to reconnect healthy but isolated habitat. Examples include removing culvert barriers and reconnecting the stream or river to sloughs, wetlands, blind channels or estuarine habitat.
  • Fix bad roads: Road repair is high on the list because failing and poorly designed roads hurt salmonid habitat in many ways. Roads can increase delivery of fine sediment that chokes spawning beds. Culverts can change stream hydrology or block the transport of sediment, wood and nutrients. Road-related landslides can increase bedload supply, filling rearing pools and decreasing stream stability.
  • Restore riparian processes: Damage to the riparian zone includes any alteration that disrupts its natural interaction with the stream, river or wetlands. Examples include: timber harvest; conversion of riparian zones from conifers to hardwoods, which can reduce the long-term supply of LWD; and livestock grazing in riparian corridors, which can cause streambank erosion, channel sedimentation and widening and decreased water quality.
  • Restore instream habitat: Instream habitat restoration (adding LWD, boulders, spawning gravel and nutrients) is last because it tends to be a temporary fix and because results are variable. Roni et al. (2002) found that most instream structures last less than 20 years (Ehlers 1956; House 1996), which means they require regular replacement unless habitat-forming processes outside of the stream are restored.

When developing salmon habitat projects, project applicants should also consider the following:

  • projects must be for the purpose of production or the recovery of wild stocks, and must consider current hatchery and out-plant activity information (Table 4).
  • projects must be designed to maintain or improve habitat-forming processes: human alterations of various habitat-forming processes are often represented in the literature as limiting factors (Section E).
  • projects must consider the ecological and species life history factors set forth below.
    • Ecological Connectivity – Will the project improve ecological connectivity (i.e., biological, chemical, and physical) within the ecosystem?
    • Scale – Is the benefit (i.e., spatial, temporal, and biological) of the project appropriate for the degree of impairment to the habitat structure or ecological processes or functions? Biological scale includes stocks, populations, life histories, components, etc.
    • Human Induced Threats – Does the project address the threats to the habitat structure, ecological process or functions?
    • Natural Threats – Does the project interrupt the natural ecological processes or functions? What are the natural vulnerability or risks, associated with the habitat structure or ecological processes or functions in need of protection and restoration, including risks inherent with low population numbers?
    • Appropriate Time Frame – Does the project address the cause of the problem within an appropriate time frame?
    • For nearshore: Proximity to Productive Stocks and Priority Watersheds - What is the proximity of the nearshore habitat to productive stocks and priority watersheds? (Refer to the tiered watershed priorities for guidance.)
    • For nearshore: Support Migrating Stocks – Does the project support stocks or populations from outside of the area that potentially utilize our extensive nearshore as migratory corridors?

Note.
It should be noted that this Priority Actions and Areas Strategy is intended to only serve as a guide for prospective project sponsors to identify projects that will be highly likely to provide meaningful benefit to salmon within watersheds without established Salmon Habitat Recovery Priorities. However, it is not intended that the Priority Actions and Areas Strategy dictate the type of projects that are proposed for these watersheds. To the extent that information exists to suggest that a proposed project will have a high benefit to salmon (based on project scope, scale, location, etc.), the use of that information is encouraged in order to bring forward the best projects possible for a given watershed. Conversely, a high priority project type may not be applicable within a given basin, and so may not actually provide the high benefit to salmon suggested by the Priority Actions and Areas Strategy. For example, a culvert replacement project that only provides access to a limited amount of high quality habitat will not have the same benefit to salmon as an extensive project that restores riparian processes of a significant portion of a watershed. In all cases, it is the responsibility of the project applicant to justify the project selected, and carefully describe the anticipated benefits to salmon, particularly in answering the “Project Fit to Strategy Questions” on the NOPLE Addendum that must be submitted with the relevant SRFB Application.

Previous / Next