Section 3: Results

The resulting ranking of watersheds in Oregon and Washington for restoration opportunities are given in Table 3 and Map 1. In general, the northern most watersheds historically had more species of salmonids. Puget Sound as a whole had the largest number of all species in the region. Historical salmonid production in Puget Sound watersheds could not be examined separately because the fish were caught in sound prior to entering the streams. So for the analysis, all Puget Sound streams were given the maximum score for historical abundance. The current populations of salmonids in the region is in general lower than the historical populations in all river systems. The streams of Puget Sound are impacted by dams, hatcheries, and development to a greater extent than are the coastal watersheds of Oregon and Washington.

The result is a rather even distribution of watersheds from north to south (Table 3 and Map 1). This result is a little surprising given the fact that Puget Sound has more species and historically greater production. The watersheds with the highest rankings by these criteria were the Stillaguamish in Washington and the Siuslaw in Oregon.

The hatchery production in Washington, especially in Puget Sound region, is especially high. This analysis only includes the state hatcheries (Table 2B). Even though the Puget Sound streams were given high historical values, the recovery potential, especially hatchery production, with few exceptions negated the high historical index.

The most important result of this project is to highlight the fact that California does not conduct watershed surveys. As a result there is no body of information to begin watershed prioritization. Starting systematic watershed wide surveys in California should be a high priority of restoration efforts in the region. Without those surveys intelligent choices about restoration can not be made.

Tables

Table 1A - Historical Abundance of Salmonids in Coastal Watersheds of Washington and Oregon
	Abundance (1000s of fish)			Historical Scoring
Basin	Chinook	Coho	Chum	Chinook	Coho	Chum
WA
Puget Sound*	2,549	7,583	13,619
Hoh-Quillayute	1.9	4.8	1.7	0.06	0.05	0.02
Queets-Quinault	24	120	98.4	0.77	1.37	0.99
Grays Harbor-Chehalis	100	401	495.7	3.22	4.5	5
Willapa	59.5	219	348	1.92	2.5	3.5
OR
Nehalem	36	188	72	1.16	4.29	0.73
Tillamook-Nestucca	83.5	266	278	2.7	6.07	2.81
Siletz	27.5	96	61	0.89	2.19	0.61
Alsea-Yaquina	43	174	58	1.38	3.97	0.58
Siuslaw-Siltcoos	19	438	66	0.61	10	0.67
Umpqua	40	159	12	1.29	3.6	0.12
Coos	45	129		1.45	2.94
Coquille	23	273		0.74	6.23
Lower Rogue	155	113		5	2.58

*Puget Sound streams are combined because most of the commercial fishery was in the Sound itself. Included are: Nooksack, Strait of Georgia, Lower Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Duwamish-Green, Puyallup, Nisqually, Deshutes, Hood Canal, Skokomish, Dungeness, and Elwha.

Abundance for Oregon from Lichatowich, J.A. and J. Nicholas. 1992. Washington calculated by the same method, data from Cobb, J. 1930.

Historical scoring based on % of largest population x10 if population is endangered, x5 if not.

Table 1B - Current Population of Salmonids in Coastal Watersheds of Washington and Oregon
	Abundance of Fish			Scoring
Basin	Chinook	Coho	Chum	Chinook	Coho	Chum
WA
Nooksack	358	900	19,500	0.03	0.07	1.39
Strait of Georgia	3,985	6,919	7,0737	0.32	0.56	0.51
Lower Skagit	4,996	32,600	34,311	0.4	2.66	2.45
Stillaguamish	1,156	6,996	36,287	0.09	0.57	2.59
Snohomish	4,295	61,334	51,575	0.34	5	3.68
Duwamish-Green	9,967	2,000	116,363*	0.8	0.16	3.68
Puyallup	1,554	2,000	1,400	0.12	0.16	0.1
Nisqually	340	1,500	67,000	0.03	0.12	4.79
Deshutes	1,980	200		0.16	0.02
Hood Canal	5,447	5,400	70,025	0.44	0.46	10
Skokomish	2,337	1,386	35,012	0.19	0.12	5
Dungeness	1	1,851	600	0	0.16	0.04
Elwha	2,527	22,400	600	0.2	1.92	0.04
Hoh-Quillayute	7,070	20,598	3,000	0.28	1.68	0.21
Queets-Quinault	3,757	8,000	12,000	0.15	0.65	0.85
Grays Harbor-Chehalis	17,000	22,400	12,000	0.68	1.92	0.85
Willapa	2,000		25,000	0.08		1.78
OR
Nehalem	11,000	14,575		0.44	2.38
Tillamook-Nestucca	43,000	3,111	41,000	1.72	0.51	2.93
Siletz	4,600	1,700		0.18	0.28
Alsea-Yaquina	18,000	4,100		0.72	0.67
Siuslaw-Siltcoos	11,000	6,571		0.44	1.07
Umpqua	11,000	10,314		0.44	1.86
Coos	10,000	5,326		0.4	0.86
Coquille	10,000	6,063		0.4	0.98
Lower Rogue	125,000	3,566		5	0.61
* Chum numbers for Duwamish combined with others in the region. Assumed equal to the Snohomish.

Table 2A - Scores for Coastal Watersheds of Washington and Oregon
HUC Name	Historical Production	Current Production	Hatcheries	Dams	Population
WA
Nooksack	20	1.49	0	20	17.3
Strait of Georgia	20	1.39	0	15	17
Lower Skagit	20	5.51	0	15	16.8
Stillaguamish	20	3.25	9.18	20	18.3
Snohomish	20	9.02	0	17	6.1
Duwamish-Green	16	4.64	0	0	0
Puyallup	20	0.38	0	10	10.4
Nisqually	16	4.94	0	10	16
Deshutes	16	0.18	0	20	17.9
Hood Canal	25	10.9	0	15	17.4
Skokomish	25	5.31	0	10	18.7
Dungeness	20	0.2	0	20	16.5
Elwha	20	2.16	0	0	16.5
Hoh-Quillayute	0.13	2.17	20	20	19.4
Queets-Quinault	3.13	1.65	20	20	19.8
Grays Harbor-Chehalis	12.72	3.45	0	20	10.4
Willapa	7.92	1.86	0	20	18.9
OR
Nehalem	6.18	2.82	0	19	19.4
Tillamook-Nestucca	11.58	5.16	0	10	18.7
Siletz	3.69	0.46	16.05	18	18.5
Alsea-Yaquina	5.93	1.39	11.05	20	19.1
Siuslaw-Siltcoos	11.28	1.51	15.5	20	19.3
Umpqua	5.01	2.12	0	0	13.5
Coos	4.39	1.26	2.96	20	16.4
Coquille	6.97	1.38	15.9	20	18.7
Lower Rogue	7.58	5.61	0	0	4.7

Table 2B - Scores for Hatcheries in Coastal Watersheds of Washington and Oregon
Basin	Total Score
WA
Nooksack	-74.5
Strait of Georgia	-94
Lower Skagit	-54.4
Stillaguamish	-10.82
Snohomish	-86
Duwamish-Green	-130
Puyallup	-30
Nisqually	-30
Deshutes	-20.6
Hood Canal	-316
Skokomish	-42.15
Dungeness	-72.1
Elwha	-82.95
Hoh-Quillayute	0
Queets-Quinault	0
Grays Harbor-Chehalis	-139
Willapa	-170
OR
Nehalem	-28.2
Tillamook-Nestucca	-42.15
Siletz	-3.95
Alsea-Yaquina	-8.95
Siuslaw-Siltcoos	-4.5
Umpqua	-36.14
Coos	-17.04
Coquille	-4.1
Lower Rogue	-42.6

Table 3 - Ranking of Salmonid Restoration Potential in Coastal Watersheds of Washington and Oregon
HUC	Score	Rank
Nooksack	60.3	high
Strait of Georgia	53.44	medium
Lower Skagit	59.93	high
Stillaguamish	77.92	high
Snohomish	48.01	medium
Duwamish-Green	20.04	low
Puyallup	41.9	low
Nisqually	42.22	low
Deshutes	54.09	medium
Hood Canal	62.9	high
Skokomish	56.36	high
Dungeness	68	high
Elwha	38.44	low
Hoh-Quillayute	60.93	high
Queets-Quinault	63.66	high
Grays Harbor-Chehalis	46.13	medium
Willapa	47.74	low
Nehalem	45.22	low
Tillamook-Nestucca	43.46	low
Siletz	56.46	high
Alsea-Yaquina	56.89	high
Siuslaw-Siltcoos	66.67	high
Umpqua	19.55	low
Coos	44.59	low
Coquille	62.38	high
Lower Rogue	17.8	low

Summary

While this exercise is certainly not the last word on watershed prioritization in the Pacific Northwest. We believe that any sound restoration strategy will be built on at least the major elements that are included here; a measure of the historical capacity of watersheds to produce salmonids, the current production of salmonids, and the extent of development of hatcheries, dams, and land use in the watershed. In lieu of adequate watershed surveys conducted on the ground, we believe that this represents the first steps in a regional strategic prioritization for Pacific salmon given current conditions. In October 2002 we will be making additional improvements to the scheme. One change that we will be including is using 5-year running averages as the measure of current production for each of the salmonids species. This will smooth out the year-to-year variability due to annual environmental conditions.

Literature Cited

Cobb, J.N. 1930. Pacific Salmon Fisheries. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries Document #1092. Appendix XIII to the Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for 1930. Washington, D.C.

Dewberry, T.C. L. Hood, and P. Burns. 1998. After the Flood: The effects of the storm of 1996 on a creek restoration project in Oregon. Restoration and Management Notes 16(2):174–182

Doppelt, B, M. Scurlock, C. Frissell, and J.R. Karr. 1993. Entering the watershed: A new approach to save America's river ecosystems. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

FEMAT 1993. (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management and Assessment Team. Portland, Oregon, USA.

Frissell, C.A. and S.C. Ralph. 1999. Stream and watershed restoration. In: Naiman, R.J. and R.E. Bilby. River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer, New York, New York pp599–624.

Frissell, C.A., S.B. Adams, and N.P. Hitt. 1999. Identifying priority areas for salmon conservation in Puget Sound Basin. Open File Report, Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of Montana, Polson, MT.

Li, H.W., C.B. Schreck, C.E. Bonds, and E. Rexstad. 1987. Factors influencing changes in fish assemblages of Pacific streams. Pp103-202. In: Mathews, W.J. and D.C. Heins. (eds). Community and evolutionary ecology in North American stream fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Lichatowich, J. 1999. Salmon Without Rivers. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Lichatowich,J. A., and J. Nicholas. 1992. Oregon's first century of hatchery intervention in salmon production: Evolution of the hatchery Program, legacy of a utilitarian philosophy and management recommendations. Proceedings of International Symposium on Biological Interactions of Enhanced and Wild Salmonids, Nanaimo, B.C., Canada, June 17–20, 1991.

Reeves, G.H. P.A. Bisson, and J.M. Dambacher. 1999. Fish Communities. In: Naiman, R.J. and R.E. Bilby. 1999. River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, pp200–234.

Financial Support

Funding in support of Ecotrust for this project was provided principally by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation with matching funds from the Moore Family Foundation, The Giles F. and Elise G. Mead Foundation, the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Foundation, the Flintridge Foundation, and the Compton Foundation.