Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board briefs commissioners on salmon, steelhead recovery progress and local habitat work

The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife briefed Cowlitz County commissioners on salmon and steelhead recovery in the Lower Columbia region, presenting recent viability updates, habitat restoration metrics, fish-passage priorities and ongoing challenges such as predation and multi-jurisdictional coordination.

Steve Manlow, director of the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, said the region is “in a different position” from historical runs and summarized statewide and regional trends: Pacific Northwest salmon returns are a fraction of 19th-century levels and the Lower Columbia hosts many listed populations that require coordinated recovery action. Manlow said 35% of the region’s populations now show greater viability than at the time of their ESA listing and that 19 populations meet or exceed delisting abundance targets in recent assessments.

The presenters discussed the board’s roles: preparing locally driven recovery plans under RCW 77.85 and serving as the “lead entity” to solicit and rank habitat projects for state Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) grants. Bryce Glasser, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Southwest Washington fish program manager, explained hatchery and harvest actions used to reduce risk to natural populations, including program-type changes, mass marking of hatchery fish and targeted harvest approaches.

Manlow and Glasser walked commissioners through habitat results in Cowlitz County: roughly 30 miles of stream have been treated with habitat restoration, about 474 riparian acres restored, and roughly 266 miles of improved fish passage from culvert and barrier work; additional miles and acres are planned or designed. Presenters noted intensive-monitoring watershed studies that indicate restoration can increase production but that substantial watershed-scale treatment (on the order of 30% of anadromous stream miles in treatment areas) is often required to detect population-scale responses.

Predation and marine-mammal impacts were highlighted as continuing constraints; presenters referenced a program to remove pinnipeds from lower-Columbia locations (removals of several hundred animals in recent years) and said funding limits limit program scale. Presenters also described truck-and-haul programs and the ongoing goal of volitional passage above structures such as the SRS (Swift Reservoir) and other dam-affected areas; staff said collectors and trap-and-haul operations have allowed reintroduction and production above barriers but noted collector performance and funding remain challenges.

Commissioners and the public asked about forest-practices proposals, multijurisdictional coordination, how “wild” versus hatchery-origin fish are defined and monitored, and the economic implications of fisheries and funding. Presenters said hatchery programs have pros and cons and that integrated broodstock programs, mass marking and harvest management are tools to reduce hatchery impacts while providing fisheries benefits.

Manlow and Glasser left commissioners with references to data sources and inventories (state salmon-portal, barrier inventories) and offered to share presentation slides and supplemental materials with county staff.