Priorities Effort
Ecotrust staff created a dynamic priorities tool in response to one of the requests made by the partners at the April 14th PCWP meeting. The partners asked us to compile and analyze all scientific priorities studies that have been completed for coastal Oregon and Washington. The purpose of such an analysis is to verify that the watersheds where the partnership has been working are among the top ecological priorities for restoration and protection. Our intent was to identify additional watersheds in which the PCWP should be working, not to drop any existing focus basins.

Analyzing the various priorities studies turned out to be more complicated than the group originally thought, because the studies varied in geography and methodology. To allow us to compare the outcomes of each of the priority studies on the Oregon and Washington coastal areas, Ecotrust did a considerable amount of work standardizing the available data sets for both states. The scales used in the various studies that we compiled were often different, creating difficulties in comparing the studies. For instance, applying a scheme developed in Oregon equally to Washington can be difficult, because the data used to build the scheme in Oregon may not be available in Washington or it may have been collected using significantly different methods. After compiling the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data layers from the studies, we then built a database that contains comparable information for the coastal areas of Oregon and Washington and that captured the terrestrial and aquatic attributes used in each prioritization study.

The priorities tool that we created is an iterative process using various data layers collected for the area. The maps produced by the GIS analyses are meant to demonstrate how it is possible to produce different priorities using the tool depending on how data are weighted. Data can be weighted differently depending on the goals of a particular study or inquiry. This flexibility serves the partners' diverse restoration goals. For instance, two different goals for establishing restoration priorities could be terrestrial biodiversity and high salmonid production. By giving terrestrial biodiversity data more weight when running the GIS tool, a different set of priority watersheds will emerge than would be the case if salmonid production data are weighted more heavily.

Sample Analyses
We chose to run the GIS analysis three times, and each time we chose a different restoration goal to demonstrate the possibilities of the tool. The attributes that we chose for our restoration goals were 1) healthy salmonid stocks and their habit; 2) high biodiversity; and 3) watershed health, or the absence of threats. Each time the analysis was run, we chose to give each 4th field watershed a relative index ranking. The results from the three sample analyses are all different. Yet we did find that certain watersheds consistently came out as high priorities no matter what the objectives. Several of the PCWP focus watersheds are among those that stand out. Given that implementing the group's mission and vision across the entire Oregon and Washington coasts will take more resources than currently available, the sample maps and the priorities tool are meant to guide the PCWP in its selection of areas in which to focus its attention.

Studies and Data Used in the Creation of the PCWP's GIS Priorities Tool
The following is a summary of the objects, strengths, and weaknesses of the major studies that developed priority areas for the Pacific Northwest. These priority areas include: Key Watersheds; Aquatic Diversity Areas; Essential Salmonid Habitat; Source Watersheds; the Bradbury Process areas; Salmon Core Areas; and Ecotrust's Regional Priorities. Data from other studies (such as more recent salmon distribution data, economic data, and other relevant information) is currently being researched and gathered to add to this collaborative effort. New data can continually be added to the tool to increase its utility. If you are aware of additional relevant data sets that were not included in this effort, please contact the PCWP Coordinator, Brent Davies.

Key Watersheds, Aquatic Diversity Areas, Essential Salmon Habitat, and Source Watersheds
The first four prioritization studies will be considered together, because they were the first efforts to prioritize areas of critical importance to salmon in the Pacific Northwest, and because they used similar methods and had similar constraints. A group of federal biologists selected the FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team) Key Watersheds as part of the President's Forest Plan completed in 1994. All of these Key Watersheds are predominantly located on federal land. A committee of members from the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society selected the Aquatic Diversity Areas (ADA). Personnel from the ODFW selected the Division of State Land's Essential Salmon Habitat and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's (ODFW) Source Watersheds.

These studies are important, because they recognize that certain parts of the landscape are more ecologically vital than other parts. Yet it is also important to note that the researchers who completed these priority analyses had to complete their work in a timely fashion to meet political deadlines. All of these studies had similar flaws. The data are not consistent. The studies are based on input from a large number of people who weighed factors differently. All of these studies also looked at only a portion of the landscape, at a limited set of landscape attributes, or a limited set of species. Inadequate documentation of the selection process and choices also contributes to the drawbacks of using these data sets.

Salmon Core Areas
Salmon Core Area mapping was done to provide a prioritization scheme for the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI). It was an effort to provide a more objective and better prioritization scheme than the previous efforts. Salmon Core Areas are defined as reaches or watersheds within coastal basins that are judged to be of critical importance to salmonids.

Salmon Core Areas were based on available population abundance and habitat surveys. The stream layer that was used in the process was a 1:100,000 hydrologic layer. In each basin, the following data were examined as part of the Salmon Core Area mapping process:

• the coho spawning data, (1990-1995);
• inventories of Chinook spawning habitat in the north coast;
• predictions of coho smolt density derived from the ODFW habitat-limiting factors model; and
• densities of juvenile coho salmon observed during snorkel counts.

After the initial maps were drawn, an iterative process was used to examine the results for each species and to make some modifications. Other areas that were determined to be important for other salmonid species were included using data from the above-mentioned four studies that pre-date the Salmon Core Area mapping.

Using coho spawning data to identify critical areas within a basin is extremely difficult and weakens the value of the data. The coho spawning data is the product of a randomized scheme designed to estimate the number of spawning fish in the basin. For instance, in the Siuslaw basin approximately 50 miles of the over 550 miles of anadromous stream in the basin are surveyed each year-an adequate sampling frequency for determining the number of fish in the basin, but not adequate for determining if there are portions of the basin that have more fish than others. Also, the field data necessary for the mapping process was not available for many areas. In addition, the process was aimed entirely on the current conditions within the basin, with no consideration given to the historical production of salmonids or other historical factors.

Bradbury Process
The Bradbury Process was an attempt to develop a regional prioritization scheme for the Oregon North Coast. The goal was to protect and restore native fishes by focusing on strategies that provide the greatest benefits to native fishes and aquatic ecosystems.

The elements of the process include:

• an evaluation of the aquatic and terrestrial resources;
• watershed integrity and risks; and
• the potential for restoration.

Current ecological resources were the fundamental interests of this study, while the other factors are used to modify the rankings. The ecological resources were prioritized based on the number of native anadromous species and races, the relative abundance of each (high, medium, and low), the diversity of terrestrial and aquatic species, and the number of Key Watersheds, Sources Watersheds, and Aquatic Diversity Areas.

The strength of the Bradbury Process is that it focused on the areas with the greatest diversity of a variety of species including salmonids. It also recognized the importance of the diversity of current salmonid populations' life histories by giving populations with rare life histories a higher ranking. A major weakness of the Bradbury Process is that it does not consider the historical carrying capacity of basins to hold salmon (such as the amount of salmon a basin held historically) or the life history strategies of the various salmonids, which were historically found in the system. Another weakness is that it selects against basins where the dominant salmonid is coho, because the high production coho basins generally have lower diversity of other salmonids. Lastly, it also builds in the priorities from the four prior studies (such as Key Watersheds, ADAs, Source Watersheds, and Essential Salmon Habitat).Thus it has the same weaknesses as those studies.

Huntington and Frissell
In 1997, Oregon Trout commissioned a priorities study done by Huntington and Frissell for the North Coast of Oregon. Their criteria included:

• a measure of regional biodiversity;
• the importance of a watershed for current salmon conservation;
• the amount of land in public ownership; and
• road density.

The measure of regional biodiversity was based on whether a basin was designated as a priority stream by one or more of the first four prioritization studies and an additional regional terrestrial conservation plan. The importance of current salmon conservation was calculated using the percent of Salmon Core Areas (described above) found in each watershed. Higher restoration potential was given to areas with a high amount of public land and a low density of roads.

The Huntington and Frissell study was an improvement over the first generation of priority studies. It built on the earlier work, but it also attempted to provide objective criteria to determine the current value of salmon. It also included a criterion for the restoration potential. However, the study was partially based on the earlier work and suffers from the same weaknesses. It is also primarily based on the amount of Salmon Core Areas and habitat inventories from ODFW, and it did not examine the current salmonid production or the historical capacity of the systems to produce salmon.

Ecotrust's Regional Priority Report
The Ecotrust regional priority report ranked watersheds based on these five factors:

• historical production of salmonids;
• current production of salmonids;
• effects of dams;
• effects of hatcheries; and
• development of floodplains.

All of these factors are recognized as important in prioritizing watersheds based on salmonid populations. The data for these factors are generally available in a standardized format for the major basins in the region. The scores are continuous and not broken down into arbitrary groups.

The strength of the Regional Priorities study is that it went through a simple mechanical process. The weakness of the study is that the historical salmon production for all basins that drain into Puget Sound were lumped together. This combination of data from different basins was done because historical data is collected from harvest records and harvest mostly occurred in the Sound, making it difficult to determine from which basin the fish came. A second weakness is that data is only available for large basins. Small basins, such as many southern Oregon basins, do not have the historical data that are available for larger basins. Also, the study currently does not adequately address the importance of rare and diverse life histories.

Further Use of the GIS Priorities Tool
As more recent data and new sets of data are compiled and standardized, Ecotrust will re-run the GIS priorities tool. We will work with groups and agencies that are interested in understanding how the tool works and in seeing which watersheds stand out as high priorities under various conditions. Upon request, Ecotrust staff will demonstrate the tool for partners and supporters.