Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board tells Cowlitz County commissioners some salmon and steelhead populations are improving but long‑term work remains

Representatives of the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife told the Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners that salmon and steelhead recovery in the Lower Columbia shows mixed progress: some populations have improved or approach abundance targets, but recovery will require sustained, long‑term habitat restoration, coordinated harvest and hatchery management, and expanded fish‑passage work.

"Back in the 1850s, there was anywhere between 11 and 17000000 salmon and steelhead coming back to the Columbia Basin... Today... we're... down to about 2,000,000 fish coming back to the basin each year," said Steve Manlow, director of the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, placing current returns in historical perspective. He said roughly two‑thirds of present returns are hatchery fish, and the Lower Columbia has a very high number of ESA‑listed populations requiring recovery actions.

Manlow described the board’s dual role as a regional recovery organization created under the Salmon Recovery Act (RCW 77.85) and as a lead entity that solicits and recommends projects for Salmon Recovery Funding Board ("SRFB" or "Surfboard") grants. "So we wear two hats in a lot of parts of the state. They don't; those roles are separated, but we cover both of those roles in Southwest Washington," he said.

Manlow and Bryce Glasser, Southwest Washington fish program manager for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, summarized recent status updates and monitoring: 35% of Lower Columbia populations show greater viability now than at the time of federal ESA listing, and roughly 20% are meeting numeric delisting abundance targets; coho and some Chinook populations show notable gains. The presenters highlighted habitat work metrics in Cowlitz County: about 30 miles of restored stream, roughly 474 riparian acres restored to date, and more miles and acres planned or funded.

The board emphasized that habitat work takes time and that positive population responses often require multiple fish life cycles and watershed‑scale treatment. Manlow described an intensively monitored watershed (IMW) study in Abernathy Creek that found measurable coho production gains when roughly 30% of anadromous stream miles in the watershed were treated with woody debris placement and riparian reconnection.

Fish passage was another focus: the board and its partners completed a region‑wide fish‑passage barrier inventory and prioritization with the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, and they urged correcting the highest‑value barriers first so that upstream fixes are not negated by downstream blockages. Predation — from pinnipeds at the dams and birds and native predator species — was highlighted as a major annual mortality source for returning fish; Manlow said agency removal programs have been estimated to save tens of thousands of salmon and steelhead annually but are funding‑limited.

On hatcheries and harvest, Glasser described tradeoffs and management actions: some hatchery programs are "integrated" (they use natural‑origin broodstock to reduce genetic divergence), while "segregated" programs use hatchery broodstock only. He said most Washington hatchery programs now mass‑mark hatchery fish (for example an adipose fin clip) to allow mark‑selective fisheries that target hatchery fish and reduce harvest impacts on natural spawners. "There aren't really a lot of big actions left to take," Glasser said; "we're really kind of in an adaptive management phase and refining these actions."

Commissioners and audience members pressed presenters on funding, interjurisdictional coordination, treaty and ocean‑fisheries effects, and the role of forest practices in protecting water temperature and run‑off. Manlow acknowledged the complexity of federal, tribal and international fisheries management and said the LCFRB participates in processes to advocate for conservation‑minded actions and funding. He said local implementation and habitat restoration remain central to moving populations toward recovery.

The presenters provided handouts and noted data and mapping are available on the state Salmon Recovery Portal and the board’s website. They encouraged local officials and residents to stay engaged on barrier remediation and habitat projects the board recommends for SRFB funding.