One of the major challenges with the fish passage improvement programs is the funding is mostly connected to ownership/jurisdiction. For example WSDOT has a fish passage program for state highways driven by the court case. WSDOT did have an ongoing program prior to the court case but the legislature chose to direct funding to other needs. However many crossings were improved as part of other large projects.
The state, counties, cities, US Forest Service, Tribes etc, either fund programs to improve crossings out of existing revenues or compete for grants. This has created the disconnected approach that exists today. A watershed approach that addresses needs regardless of ownership would likely provide a better short term result. The legislature has provide some direction on coordination but without funding it has limited benefit.
WDFW has a map on their website that shows culverts that have been inventoried including species present, upstream habitat potential and various data related to the culvert and location. Crossing addressed by projects are also shown. See https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/fishpassage/index.html
The state, counties, cities, US Forest Service, Tribes etc, either fund programs to improve crossings out of existing revenues or compete for grants. This has created the disconnected approach that exists today. A watershed approach that addresses needs regardless of ownership would likely provide a better short term result. The legislature has provide some direction on coordination but without funding it has limited benefit.
WDFW has a map on their website that shows culverts that have been inventoried including species present, upstream habitat potential and various data related to the culvert and location. Crossing addressed by projects are also shown. See https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/fishpassage/index.html