1. Fish Passage Barriers & Salmon Recovery
Fish Passage Oversight Committee Training January 15, 2015
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

2. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board
Developed a recovery plan to restore salmon, steelhead and bull trout to healthy harvestable levels
Facilitates recovery plan implementation through federal, state and local partnerships
Builds public awareness and support
Guides recovery investments
Monitors progress
Is one of 7 regional salmon recovery organization in Washington
Recovery Plan was adopted by NMFS
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

3. Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery Facts
2,280 miles anadromous streams, 268 miles of marine shoreline
89 of the 224 distinct populations reside in our 18 major subbasins.
7% of the state
5 Counties, 21 Cities, 3 Tribes
8 Dams, 4 Hydro-electric Operators
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

4. Passage Barriers: A Salmon Recovery Priority
Passage Limiting Factors
Barriers due to culverts
Other passage barriers:
Dikes, Levees, Flow Alterations
Water Quality or Channel Morphology
Direct Mortality through
injury or stranding
Blockage from off-channel due to flow alteration, dikes, and levees
Blockage due to water quality or channel morphology
Direct mortality due to structures
Direct mortality due to stranding in diversion channels
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

5. Prioritizing Passage Barriers: Strategically getting work done
Priorities:
Primary Populations
Prioritized streams
Density of barriers
Why Prioritize
Number of Primary Populations benefited
Number of barriers on the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model (Mobrand, 2007) Prioritized streams
Density of barriers in the watershed
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

6. Prioritizing Passage Barriers: Strategically getting work done
Primary Populations
17 of the 18 subbasins support 1 or more Primary populations
Priorities:
Number of Primary Populations benefited
Primary = Must be restored to a High Level of Viability (<5% chance of extinction over next 100 years)
Contributing = Must be restored to a Medium Level of Viability (<25% chance of extinction)
Stabilizing = Must be maintained at current status, typically at low viability
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

7. Prioritizing Passage Barriers: Strategically getting work done
Prioritized Streams
Of the 2280 anadromous miles in the region, 675 are considered high priority
Priorities:
Number of barriers on the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model (Mobrand, 2007) Prioritized streams
Tier 1 Through 4
Tier 1 supports the highest productivity in each basin
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

8. Lower Columbia Regional Stats
Culvert Density
Strata
Subbasin Name
# Barriers on Tiered Reaches
Primary Stocks
Culvert Density*
Coast
Chinook** 3
0.00
Grays 21
7.52
Eloch/Skam 31
4.16
MAG 41
2.56
Cascade
Lower Cowlitz 85 1
4.19
Tilton
Upper Cowlitz 4
30.75
Cispus
Toutle 99 5
3.11
Coweeman 32
2.88
Kalama 9 2
13.56
NF Lewis
4.67
EF Lewis 28
6.25
Salmon
60.50
Washougal
14.89
Gorge
Lower Gorge Tribs
46.00
Wind
Upper Gorge Tribs**
Passage is the top priority in the Recovery Plan
5000 culverts ID’d
380 on tiered reaches
Culvert density is based on the average number of anadromous stream miles between barriers.
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

9. Other Priority Considerations
Populations, Prioritized habitat, and Culvert Density prioritize to the subbasin level
Other considerations needed to prioritize within subbasins
Sequencing
% passability
Coordination with other barrier programs
Coordination with restoration efforts
Landowner willingness
Habitat quality/quantity
Watershed processes
Cost
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

10. Lower Columbia Regional Project Stats
1999 WDOT funded the SW WA counties to complete an inventory of county-owned culverts
Since 2001 Washington Dept of Natural Resources has completed 1754 projects as part of their Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plans
Since 2004, FFFPP has funded $3.8 million for 31 projects
2007 a regional culvert inventory was completed for private roads and crossings
2010 tidegates were added to the database and habitat surveys were completed
2011 USFS removal of Hemlock Dam opening passage to 12 miles of high quality habitat
2012 removal of Condit Dam opening passage to 48 miles of spawning and rearing habitat
Regional Cooperative Effort to Meet Recovery Goals for Fish Passage
47 projects funded by 13 organizations
USFS
WDNR
WDFW
WDOT
SRFB
FFFPP
PacifiCorp
NFWF
5 counties
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

11. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Project Stats
24 fish passage projects including inventories and dam removals
$7,051,316 used to restore passage
$4,221,014 in PCSRF Grant Funds
Culverts, Dam Removals, Relic Splash Dam removal
Trending toward replacing culverts with bridges.
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

12. Project Sponsor: Cowlitz Conservation District
Removing passage barriers opens habitat and restoration opportunities Case Study: Monahan Creek
Project Sponsor: Cowlitz Conservation District

13. Case Study: Monahan Creek
Two 10’ wide concrete box culverts
5’ drop on outlet, depth, and velocity led to passage issues
Coho is a Primary Population for recovery
Fall Chinook, winter steelhead, Chum spawning
Collaborated on design with WDFW
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

14. Case Study: Monahan Creek
32’ wide arch culvert
450’ of reconstructed channel to control velocities through the culvert and downstream
Opens 4.8 miles of anadromous habitat
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

15. Case Study: Monahan Creek
Subsequent Restoration in the Area
Japanese Knotweed Removal from 2.3 miles of stream bank, 150 acres
Large wood structures to provide stability and habitat.
Knotweed and other invasive riparian plants decimate the riparian zone contributing to reduced large wood inputs, reduced shade, higher water temperatures and simplified stream habitat.
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

16. Case Study: Monahan Creek Subsequent Restoration
Established native trees and shrubs to provide cover, competition, shade/temperature control
2 year management plan, landowner continues to spot-treat
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

17. Case Study: Monahan Creek Subsequent Restoration
Stream channel continued to respond downstream over the next decade
Sediment that deposited upstream of culvert was moving
Stream channel continued to respond downstream 10+ years after
Sediment that deposited upstream of culvert was moving
Lateral migration was negatively impacting farmland and riparian vegetation planted during knotweed project
LWD Project to protect property by routing sediment, slowing lateral migration, protect riparian vegetation, and provide habitat
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

18. Case Study: Monahan Creek Subsequent Restoration
Lateral migration was negatively impacting farmland and riparian vegetation planted during knotweed project
Large wood to protect property by routing sediment, slowing lateral migration, protect riparian vegetation, and provide habitat
Stream channel continued to respond downstream 10+ years after
Sediment that deposited upstream of culvert was moving
Lateral migration was negatively impacting farmland and riparian vegetation planted during knotweed project
LWD Project to protect property by routing sediment, slowing lateral migration, protect riparian vegetation, and provide habitat
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

19. Logistical Issues Funding Period
Permitting and Access - 2 months to 1 year (or longer)
WDFW
USACE
DNR
Cultural Resources
Ecology
NMFS – Section 7 consultation
Match
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

20. Biological Benefits Make it Worth it.
Opening habitat
Strategically allows further work to be done
Upstream AND downstream benefits
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

21. How Can We Help? Available to provide priorities for barrier removal
Interested in partnering with you ensure recovery goals and priorities are a part of your decision making
Offer a link to local governments, organizations, and landowners
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

22. Jeff Breckel, Executive Director jbreckel@lcfrb.gen.wa.us 360-425-1553
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board
Jeff Breckel, Executive Director
Karen Adams – Habitat Coordinator
The End