Two steps forward, three steps back. That’s how the recovery of salmon — our region’s canary in the coalmine — is doing in Washington state.

Every year, local, state, federal and Tribal governments spend millions of dollars on efforts to restore salmon habitat and salmon populations. The health of our salmon populations tells us a lot about the health of our marine environment. And what it’s telling us now is we’ve got a long way to go to correct a century-and-a-half of shoreline alterations, spills, stream impacts, and polluted runoff.

The latest report from the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, “State of Salmon in Watersheds,” show Washington’s progress in trying to recover the 15 salmon populations declared as at risk of extinction by the federal government and listed under the Endangered Species Act.

According to the report, populations of Hood Canal summer chum and Snake River fall chinook are near the recovery goal; middle Columbia River steelhead, Lake Ozette sockeye, Snake River spring and summer chinook, and upper Columbia River steelhead are below recovery goal but are increasing.

But the following are below recovery goal and are consistently low or are decreasing in population: lower Columbia River fall and spring chinook; lower Columbia River steelhead and chum; Snake River steelhead; Puget Sound chinook and steelhead; and upper Columbia River spring chinook.

According to the report, rivers and streams being assessed by monitoring stations have stable or increasing flows. That’s good — having enough water in rivers and streams is important for keeping the water cool enough for salmon to thrive. But shoreline armoring, through bulkheads and riprap, is increasing at a rate of about a mile a year — more than the amount of shoreline being restored. That’s bad — hardening shorelines deprives young salmon of food and shelter.

Here’s why shoreline hardening and other alterations may still be occurring. Under the state’s Shoreline Management Act, each city and county with “shorelines of the state” must prepare and adopt a Shoreline Master Program that is based on state laws. But each program can be “tailored to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community,” according to the act. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation. For example, according to one natural resources director, some local rules allow existing uses, although many of those uses contribute to environmental degradation.

In addition, salmon recovery involves many agencies and jurisdictions, but those efforts are often not in sync; in fact, they frequently conflict with federal salmon habitat-recovery goals. According to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission report, “State of Our Watersheds,” the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued permits for shoreline structures that salmon recovery goals seek to remove. In the state’s Shoreline Management Act, homes are considered a “preferred” shoreline use, although shoreline home development often is accompanied by the construction of bulkheads and docks. Shoreline armoring and riparian vegetation removal are within the jurisdiction of National Marine Fisheries Service’s policy governing enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, but “there appears to be only one instance of NMFS exercising its enforcement authority over these activities during the past decade,” according to the fisheries commission.

Until that changes, our steps back in salmon recovery will continue to outnumber our steps forward.

• ONLINE: To view the State of Salmon in Watersheds Executive Summary and interactive Web site,go to www.rco.wa.gov/documents/gsro/2014StateofSalmonExecSummary.pdf.