YES on Bill 6241
- Thread starter skyrise
- Start date
1 AN ACT Relating to enhancing steelhead populations with wild
2 broodstock conservation programs; adding a new section to chapter77.105 RCW; and creating a new section.
3
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that steelhead trout
6 are one of the anadromous fish populations in Washington state that
7 are struggling from weak returns, habitat reduction, and predator
8 pressure. The legislature further finds that salmon and steelhead
9 hatchery production and capacity are being reduced. The legislature
10 further finds that on the other side of the Columbia river, steelhead
11 fisheries in Oregon are stabilizing and ocean returns are increasing
12 in part due to wild broodstock conservation programs. Therefore, the
13 legislature finds that the department of fish and wildlife shall
14 pursue similar programs in Washington to stabilize steelhead
15 populations, implement the goals set forth in chapter 77.110 RCW, and
16 manage steelhead trout in a way to encourage and increase recovery of
17 the steelhead population.
18 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 77.105
19 RCW to read as follows:
1 SB 62411 (1) In every WRIA as defined in RCW 90.82.020 with a native
2 steelhead population, the department must implement a steelhead wild
3 broodstock conservation program in which volunteers deliver live
4 broodstock to a hatchery or rearing facility. The department then
5 shall rear the wild fish for release at the appropriate time.
6 (2) The wild broodstock conservation program shall derive
7 broodstock from the wild population in each WRIA. The program shall
8 identify effective population size targets and other strategies to
9 reduce risk of inbreeding depression, genetic drift, anddomestication for broodstocks.
10
11 (3) The department shall conduct rule making to develop hatchery
12 management plans that utilize wild broodstock to sustain wild
13 populations in each WRIA that contains a native population of
14 steelhead trout. The department shall implement rules to: (a) Establish fish health requirements;
15
16 (b) Require wild broodstock for the conservation program;
17 (c) Establish effective population size targets;
18 (d) Identify strategies to reduce risk of inbreeding depression,genetic drift, and domestication;
19
20 (e) Establish methods to minimize stress and maximize survival offish to spawning; and
21
22 (f) Establish policies for disposition of kelts to encourage
23 iteroparity, spawning protocols, incubation protocols, rearing
24 protocols, release protocols, and predator control.
25 (4) The wild broodstock conservation program must have clear
26 management objectives, including species conservation, watershedhealth, and fisheries supply.
27--- END ---
2 broodstock conservation programs; adding a new section to chapter77.105 RCW; and creating a new section.
3
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that steelhead trout
6 are one of the anadromous fish populations in Washington state that
7 are struggling from weak returns, habitat reduction, and predator
8 pressure. The legislature further finds that salmon and steelhead
9 hatchery production and capacity are being reduced. The legislature
10 further finds that on the other side of the Columbia river, steelhead
11 fisheries in Oregon are stabilizing and ocean returns are increasing
12 in part due to wild broodstock conservation programs. Therefore, the
13 legislature finds that the department of fish and wildlife shall
14 pursue similar programs in Washington to stabilize steelhead
15 populations, implement the goals set forth in chapter 77.110 RCW, and
16 manage steelhead trout in a way to encourage and increase recovery of
17 the steelhead population.
18 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 77.105
19 RCW to read as follows:
1 SB 62411 (1) In every WRIA as defined in RCW 90.82.020 with a native
2 steelhead population, the department must implement a steelhead wild
3 broodstock conservation program in which volunteers deliver live
4 broodstock to a hatchery or rearing facility. The department then
5 shall rear the wild fish for release at the appropriate time.
6 (2) The wild broodstock conservation program shall derive
7 broodstock from the wild population in each WRIA. The program shall
8 identify effective population size targets and other strategies to
9 reduce risk of inbreeding depression, genetic drift, anddomestication for broodstocks.
10
11 (3) The department shall conduct rule making to develop hatchery
12 management plans that utilize wild broodstock to sustain wild
13 populations in each WRIA that contains a native population of
14 steelhead trout. The department shall implement rules to: (a) Establish fish health requirements;
15
16 (b) Require wild broodstock for the conservation program;
17 (c) Establish effective population size targets;
18 (d) Identify strategies to reduce risk of inbreeding depression,genetic drift, and domestication;
19
20 (e) Establish methods to minimize stress and maximize survival offish to spawning; and
21
22 (f) Establish policies for disposition of kelts to encourage
23 iteroparity, spawning protocols, incubation protocols, rearing
24 protocols, release protocols, and predator control.
25 (4) The wild broodstock conservation program must have clear
26 management objectives, including species conservation, watershedhealth, and fisheries supply.
27--- END ---
Yes, you will hear from me that this bill will have dubious benefit to most of our wild steelhead populations. Have followed this idea for nearly 50 years and have seen little evidence that such programs lead to "healthy" steelhead populations.
Yes, many in Oregon claim great success but to date I have virtually no monitoring data that supports those claims.
And Yes, for those that get to collect the brood stock is satisfying and generally fun.
Curt
I'll just echo Smalma here. He and I are in the "been there, done that" level of experience.
Programs of this nature "mine" native broodstock from existing wild populations. It's legitimately arguable whether it would be better to simply leave those broodstock fish in the river system to spawn naturally. These programs do result in some unknown number (always unknown) of subsequent returning marked adult steelhead that can be allocated to harvest if management so wishes. The Skagit/Sauk program showed that wild broodstock programs could be used to maintain a population that has become depressed to very low numbers. The Sol Duc program showed that marked steelhead from the program resulted and could be harvested. I used the term "mine" above because in no case has monitoring shown any measurable increase in wild steelhead population numbers from a wild broodstock program.
Unless Oregon has some "secret sauce" yet to be reported in the scientific literature, the Oregon experience has been no different than that in Washington.
A major concern I have with Bill 6241 is that it creates yet another unfunded mandate for WDFW. Where is WDFW supposed to get the money to fund these programs if not from other things the Department is already doing. The Department already lost the funding necessary to monitor recreational fishing for the Skagit and other locations in its Quicksilver Portfolio.
I won't support Departmental actions that don't enhance fishing opportunities for my friends and me. If there is a hearing, I will testify against the bill.
I agree with Curt that collecting broodstock is fun. It even felt like we were doing something to help the resource even though the results did not support that optimism.
Programs of this nature "mine" native broodstock from existing wild populations. It's legitimately arguable whether it would be better to simply leave those broodstock fish in the river system to spawn naturally. These programs do result in some unknown number (always unknown) of subsequent returning marked adult steelhead that can be allocated to harvest if management so wishes. The Skagit/Sauk program showed that wild broodstock programs could be used to maintain a population that has become depressed to very low numbers. The Sol Duc program showed that marked steelhead from the program resulted and could be harvested. I used the term "mine" above because in no case has monitoring shown any measurable increase in wild steelhead population numbers from a wild broodstock program.
Unless Oregon has some "secret sauce" yet to be reported in the scientific literature, the Oregon experience has been no different than that in Washington.
A major concern I have with Bill 6241 is that it creates yet another unfunded mandate for WDFW. Where is WDFW supposed to get the money to fund these programs if not from other things the Department is already doing. The Department already lost the funding necessary to monitor recreational fishing for the Skagit and other locations in its Quicksilver Portfolio.
I won't support Departmental actions that don't enhance fishing opportunities for my friends and me. If there is a hearing, I will testify against the bill.
I agree with Curt that collecting broodstock is fun. It even felt like we were doing something to help the resource even though the results did not support that optimism.
FinLuver
Native Oregonian…1846
Too bad that they have the program, yet continually reducing the number of smolt releases. Return numbers are not that great the last few years for winter steelhead.
Pink Nighty
Legend
I can really only see this approach being successful in an area that is limited by available quality spawning gravel and, to a lesser extent, rearing habitat. Unfortunately for the last 20 or so years, ocean returns have left a lot of available habitat unused.
The cost of this proposal is enormous, in the tens of millions of dollars annually and huge upfront costs. That is money that would be better spent improving those degraded habitats, buying riparian zones, improving puget sounds survivability and funding our current, limited fisheries.
The cost of this proposal is enormous, in the tens of millions of dollars annually and huge upfront costs. That is money that would be better spent improving those degraded habitats, buying riparian zones, improving puget sounds survivability and funding our current, limited fisheries.
Pretty sure this or a similar broodstock program was done on the Nooksack system 15 or 20 years ago.
A local steelheading group got the job of supplying fish to the Kendall hatchery. Pretty sure that was the only time I've seen drift boats on the South Fork.
It didn't work....or if it did, it was short lived. We haven't had a decent steel head season in years....didn't even have a season this year.
A local steelheading group got the job of supplying fish to the Kendall hatchery. Pretty sure that was the only time I've seen drift boats on the South Fork.
It didn't work....or if it did, it was short lived. We haven't had a decent steel head season in years....didn't even have a season this year.
Denwor54
Life of the Party
My 2 cents is no, I lived on the coast and was highly against the Snider creek program on Sol duc. The early fish they captured were fish that were from the upper water shed. This affects the diverse spawning range of the fish and did have a negative impact on the run. I’m not a biologist but if you trap a fish that is destined to spawn 25 miles upstream and relocate them in the lower river are you benefiting the population?
So, each WRIA with native steelhead is going to have to do this?
Feels like a really bad idea.
Honest question, why is this a bill and not something WDFW would decide on?
1 SB 62411 (1) In every WRIA as defined in RCW 90.82.020 with a native
2 steelhead population, the department must implement a steelhead wild
3 broodstock conservation program in which volunteers deliver live
4 broodstock to a hatchery or rearing facility. The department then
5 shall rear the wild fish for release at the appropriate time.
List of Washington WRIAs
The following list is ordered numerically by the assigned WRIA number:
Feels like a really bad idea.
Honest question, why is this a bill and not something WDFW would decide on?
1 SB 62411 (1) In every WRIA as defined in RCW 90.82.020 with a native
2 steelhead population, the department must implement a steelhead wild
3 broodstock conservation program in which volunteers deliver live
4 broodstock to a hatchery or rearing facility. The department then
5 shall rear the wild fish for release at the appropriate time.
List of Washington WRIAs
The following list is ordered numerically by the assigned WRIA number:
- 1:
Nooksack - 2:
San Juan - 3:
Lower Skagit-Samish - 4:
Upper Skagit - 5:
Stillaguamish - 6:
Island - 7:
Snohomish - 8:
Cedar-Sammamish - 9:
Duwamish-Green - 10:
Puyallup-White - 11:
Nisqually - 12:
Chambers-Clover - 13:
Deschutes - 14:
Kennedy-Goldsborough - 15:
Kitsap - 16:
Skokomish-Dosewallips - 17:
Quilcene-Snow - 18:
Elwha
-Dungeness - 19:
Lyre-Hoko - 20:
Soleduc-Hoh - 21:
Queets-Quinault - 22:
Lower Chehalis - 23:
Upper Chehalis - 24:
Willapa - 25:
Grays-Elochoman - 26:
Cowlitz - 27:
Lewis - 28:
Salmon-Washougal - 29:
Wind-White Salmon - 30:
Klickitat - 31:
Rock-Glade - 32:
Walla Walla - 33:
Lower Snake - 34:
Palouse - 35:
Middle Snake - 36:
Esquatzel-Coulee - 37:
Lower Yakima - 38:
Naches - 39:
Upper Yakima - 40:
Alkali-Squilchuck - 41:
Lower Crab - 42:
Grand Coulee - 43:
Upper Crab - 44:
Moses Coulee - 45:
Wenatchee - 46:
Entiat - 47:
Chelan - 48:
Methow - 49:
Okanogan - 50:
Foster - 51:
Nespelem - 52:
Sanpoil - 53:
Lower Lake Roosevelt - 54:
Lower Spokane - 55:
Little Spokane - 56:
Hangman - 57:
Middle Spokane - 58:
Middle Lake Roosevelt - 59:
Colville - 60:
Kettle - 61:
Upper Lake Roosevelt - 62:
Pend Oreille
I admittedly dont know a lot about fish biology or legislative action like this.
It's nice to know that bill's bipartisan sponsors from around the state support restoration of Steelhead runs enough to create legislation for it.
Do or should well crafted bills like this:
It's nice to know that bill's bipartisan sponsors from around the state support restoration of Steelhead runs enough to create legislation for it.
Do or should well crafted bills like this:
- Include funding provisions?
- List references to studies that support what the legislature says they "find"?
- Have continuance of the program contingent on return outcomes by WRIA?
32mm
Smolt
Here is the response to the bill from WDFW to the Sen. ANR Committee and the fiscal note is attached (and to be clear, Cunningham only signed this letter and in no way helped draft it):
January 29, 2026
Honorable Chair Chapman and members of the Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee
Re: Senate Bill 6241, Enhancing steelhead populations with wild broodstock conservation programs.
Chair Chapman and members of the Committee,
SB 6241 requires that a wild steelhead broodstock conservation program will be established in every WRIA statewide.
Conservation and integrated hatchery programs supporting native steelhead already exist in 14 of Washington’s 36 WRIAs that have naturally occurring steelhead populations. These programs were developed through watershed-specific scientific assessments, co-manager coordination, and federal permitting processes.
WDFW currently runs broodstocking programs like those in Oregon, although not at every WRIA that has a natural steelhead population. In most locations, natural origin broodstock is collected at a trap or weir, and some are collected by staff (hook and line). The current language for SB 6241 requires use of volunteer anglers for steelhead broodstock collection. However, a flexible, watershed-specific approach to fish collection will be far more effective and cost efficient than a one-size-fits-all use of volunteers. As described below, the use of angler-caught fish may not provide the desired conservation or fishery benefits, and the unilateral use of volunteers may add considerable cost.
A recent study in Oregon showed that, contrary to expectations, angler-collected steelhead broodstock produced half as many returning offspring that contributed to the catch as traditional facility-collected broodstock (Johnson et al. 2023). The authors attributed this result to lower egg-to-fry survival in angler-collected broodstock, resulting from higher handling, transport, and holding stress for angler collected brood.
Further, at the statewide scale of volunteer activity that is proposed, significant departmental resources will be needed to recruit, schedule, deliver materials, and coordinate receipt of broodstock. In watersheds where there is no hatchery collection facility, volunteers may indeed be useful to accomplish the intent of SB 6241 and worth the additional investment in volunteer coordination. However, volitional entry of fish into hatchery facilities is the typical method of capture for integrated programs and, in most cases, is far more efficient than in-river collection.
Page 2
SB 6241 identifies habitat loss and predator pressure as primary causes of steelhead population declines but prescribes widespread implementation of wild broodstock conservation hatchery programs as the principal management response.
A substantial body of scientific evidence indicates that recent trends in steelhead abundance are driven largely by widespread persistent declines in marine survival, a dominant driver of population dynamics for many stocks. For example, recent work by WDFW and collaborators demonstrates that adult returns in coastal populations would have remained relatively stable absent declines in marine survival (Ohlberger et al. 2025). Marine survival is not directly influenced by hatchery-based conservation programs.
In addition, the prevalence and severity of limiting factors varies widely among populations.
Some populations are at little risk of extinction and continue to fully seed available freshwater habitat and therefore would experience little benefit from broodstock conservation hatcheries, whereas others would experience greater benefit.
As a result, a prescriptive, WRIA-by-WRIA mandate for conservation hatchery programs does not reflect stock-specific limiting factors and risks and applies a solution that does not address the dominant drivers of population change in many systems.
In watersheds where wild populations already fully utilize available freshwater habitat, increasing adult returns through conservation hatchery programs is unlikely to increase natural-origin production of offspring. Instead, additional spawners may intensify density-dependent processes, resulting in:
• No net increase in smolt or adult production,
• Reduced productivity of wild-origin fish, and
• Substitution of hatchery-origin production for wild-origin reproductive output.
In these cases, conservation hatchery programs may provide little or no net conservation benefit and may reduce the proportional contribution of naturally produced fish, contrary to the bill’s stated objectives.
The bill cites Oregon’s use of wild broodstock programs as evidence of successful conservation outcomes. However, many integrated hatchery programs in Oregon were not established with conservation as their primary objective. In many cases, their primary purpose has been to support harvest opportunity, with any conservation benefits being secondary or incidental. To date, there has not been a comprehensive, statewide evaluation of Oregon’s programs that demonstrate these populations have stabilized or increased steelhead returns at the scale suggested in the bill.
While integrated hatchery programs that utilize hatchery broodstock alongside natural-origin steelhead are an often-presented solution to enhance recovery efforts, integration is not always the best solution. WDFW uses integrated or segregated stocks depending on program objectives
Page 3
and feasibility of implementation, while segregated programs are implemented in locations where there is not a high abundance of natural origin fish.
Another consideration is basins where no existing steelhead hatcheries exist. There are basins with multiple WRIAs where there is no existing steelhead hatchery. For example, the Yakama Nation has already implemented an extensive kelt reconditioning program in the Yakima Basin. Besides a WDFW trout hatchery, all other facilities in the basin are owned and operated by Yakama Nation. Steelhead programs have been discontinued in the Yakima Basin since the early 1990s, and the focus has been focused on wild steelhead recovery.
In WRIAs without existing steelhead hatchery infrastructure, broodstock would need to be transferred across watersheds for rearing. Transfers elevate the risk of disease transmission and may conflict with fish health policies and federal permit conditions. Disease management considerations can significantly constrain broodstock movement and may render some WRIA-level programs infeasible without substantial new infrastructure investment.
Implementation of new or expanded conservation hatchery programs would require federal permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in all WRIAs outside of the Washington Coast. These permits typically include Section 7 or 4D consultations and Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs), which can require multiple years to develop, review, and approve. Mandating programs on a WRIA-by-WRIA basis without accounting for these federal processes creates a significant risk that statutory timelines and expectations cannot be met and puts the Department at risk of litigation.
Under U.S. v. Washington, U.S. v. Oregon, and related agreements, tribal co-managers must approve hatchery programs affecting treaty-reserved fisheries resources. Tribal support for conservation hatchery programs varies by watershed based on biological objectives, cultural priorities, and cumulative impacts. A statewide mandate that does not explicitly recognize the need for tribal co-manager agreement risks conflict with co-management frameworks and could delay or prevent implementation in multiple WRIAs.
SB 6241 does not identify operational and maintenance (O&M) funding to support the expansion of conservation hatchery programs. Establishing and operating these programs requires sustained funding for staffing, facilities, monitoring, evaluation, fish health, and compliance reporting. Without dedicated funding, WDFW would be required to divert limited resources from existing programs, potentially undermining ongoing conservation and recovery efforts.
In several WRIAs, WDFW and federal partners have established or are required to maintain wild steelhead gene banks, including watersheds where hatchery steelhead programs are restricted or prohibited under ESA permits. Mandated conservation hatchery programs in these areas may directly conflict with gene bank objectives and existing federal permit conditions, creating legal and biological inconsistencies.
Stakeholders such as local PUDs have mitigation agreements in place that are part of regulatory requirements to ensure that any adverse impact on steelhead populations is appropriately addressed. Because these agreements are legally binding, any adjustments related to programs
Page 4
such as altering production levels or shifting hatchery operations will require their involvement and agreement.
As explained above, Washington manages steelhead populations to meet conservation goals and provide sustainable fisheries under a complicated regime that is driven by legal requirements under numerous tribal treaties, case law, federal laws on endangered species, and cooperative agreements with other west coast states.
A one size fits all approach mandating wild steelhead broodstock hatchery programs in every water resource inventory area will run afoul of legal obligations, will drive significant expense, and most importantly will not provide the desired conservation benefit for our Washington State fish.
WDFW is available for further discussion on this important issue, but please do not advance SB 6241.
Sincerely,
Kelly Cunningham
Fish Program Director
References:
Johnson, M., Jones, M., Falcy, M., Spangler, J., Couture, R., and Noakes, D. 2023. Can angler-assisted broodstock collection programs improve harvest rates of hatchery-produced steelhead? Environmental Biology of Fishes 106: 1-14. doi:10.1007/s10641-023-01401-5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10641-023-01401-5.
Ohlberger, J., Buhle, E.R., Buehrens, T.W., Kendall, N.W., Harbison, T., Claiborne, A.M., Losee, J.P., Whitney, J., and Scheuerell, M.D. 2025. Declining marine survival of steelhead trout linked to climate and ecosystem change. Fish Fish. 26(3): 331–345. doi:10.1111/faf.12878. https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/02578
January 29, 2026
Honorable Chair Chapman and members of the Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee
Re: Senate Bill 6241, Enhancing steelhead populations with wild broodstock conservation programs.
Chair Chapman and members of the Committee,
SB 6241 requires that a wild steelhead broodstock conservation program will be established in every WRIA statewide.
Conservation and integrated hatchery programs supporting native steelhead already exist in 14 of Washington’s 36 WRIAs that have naturally occurring steelhead populations. These programs were developed through watershed-specific scientific assessments, co-manager coordination, and federal permitting processes.
WDFW currently runs broodstocking programs like those in Oregon, although not at every WRIA that has a natural steelhead population. In most locations, natural origin broodstock is collected at a trap or weir, and some are collected by staff (hook and line). The current language for SB 6241 requires use of volunteer anglers for steelhead broodstock collection. However, a flexible, watershed-specific approach to fish collection will be far more effective and cost efficient than a one-size-fits-all use of volunteers. As described below, the use of angler-caught fish may not provide the desired conservation or fishery benefits, and the unilateral use of volunteers may add considerable cost.
A recent study in Oregon showed that, contrary to expectations, angler-collected steelhead broodstock produced half as many returning offspring that contributed to the catch as traditional facility-collected broodstock (Johnson et al. 2023). The authors attributed this result to lower egg-to-fry survival in angler-collected broodstock, resulting from higher handling, transport, and holding stress for angler collected brood.
Further, at the statewide scale of volunteer activity that is proposed, significant departmental resources will be needed to recruit, schedule, deliver materials, and coordinate receipt of broodstock. In watersheds where there is no hatchery collection facility, volunteers may indeed be useful to accomplish the intent of SB 6241 and worth the additional investment in volunteer coordination. However, volitional entry of fish into hatchery facilities is the typical method of capture for integrated programs and, in most cases, is far more efficient than in-river collection.
Page 2
SB 6241 identifies habitat loss and predator pressure as primary causes of steelhead population declines but prescribes widespread implementation of wild broodstock conservation hatchery programs as the principal management response.
A substantial body of scientific evidence indicates that recent trends in steelhead abundance are driven largely by widespread persistent declines in marine survival, a dominant driver of population dynamics for many stocks. For example, recent work by WDFW and collaborators demonstrates that adult returns in coastal populations would have remained relatively stable absent declines in marine survival (Ohlberger et al. 2025). Marine survival is not directly influenced by hatchery-based conservation programs.
In addition, the prevalence and severity of limiting factors varies widely among populations.
Some populations are at little risk of extinction and continue to fully seed available freshwater habitat and therefore would experience little benefit from broodstock conservation hatcheries, whereas others would experience greater benefit.
As a result, a prescriptive, WRIA-by-WRIA mandate for conservation hatchery programs does not reflect stock-specific limiting factors and risks and applies a solution that does not address the dominant drivers of population change in many systems.
In watersheds where wild populations already fully utilize available freshwater habitat, increasing adult returns through conservation hatchery programs is unlikely to increase natural-origin production of offspring. Instead, additional spawners may intensify density-dependent processes, resulting in:
• No net increase in smolt or adult production,
• Reduced productivity of wild-origin fish, and
• Substitution of hatchery-origin production for wild-origin reproductive output.
In these cases, conservation hatchery programs may provide little or no net conservation benefit and may reduce the proportional contribution of naturally produced fish, contrary to the bill’s stated objectives.
The bill cites Oregon’s use of wild broodstock programs as evidence of successful conservation outcomes. However, many integrated hatchery programs in Oregon were not established with conservation as their primary objective. In many cases, their primary purpose has been to support harvest opportunity, with any conservation benefits being secondary or incidental. To date, there has not been a comprehensive, statewide evaluation of Oregon’s programs that demonstrate these populations have stabilized or increased steelhead returns at the scale suggested in the bill.
While integrated hatchery programs that utilize hatchery broodstock alongside natural-origin steelhead are an often-presented solution to enhance recovery efforts, integration is not always the best solution. WDFW uses integrated or segregated stocks depending on program objectives
Page 3
and feasibility of implementation, while segregated programs are implemented in locations where there is not a high abundance of natural origin fish.
Another consideration is basins where no existing steelhead hatcheries exist. There are basins with multiple WRIAs where there is no existing steelhead hatchery. For example, the Yakama Nation has already implemented an extensive kelt reconditioning program in the Yakima Basin. Besides a WDFW trout hatchery, all other facilities in the basin are owned and operated by Yakama Nation. Steelhead programs have been discontinued in the Yakima Basin since the early 1990s, and the focus has been focused on wild steelhead recovery.
In WRIAs without existing steelhead hatchery infrastructure, broodstock would need to be transferred across watersheds for rearing. Transfers elevate the risk of disease transmission and may conflict with fish health policies and federal permit conditions. Disease management considerations can significantly constrain broodstock movement and may render some WRIA-level programs infeasible without substantial new infrastructure investment.
Implementation of new or expanded conservation hatchery programs would require federal permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in all WRIAs outside of the Washington Coast. These permits typically include Section 7 or 4D consultations and Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs), which can require multiple years to develop, review, and approve. Mandating programs on a WRIA-by-WRIA basis without accounting for these federal processes creates a significant risk that statutory timelines and expectations cannot be met and puts the Department at risk of litigation.
Under U.S. v. Washington, U.S. v. Oregon, and related agreements, tribal co-managers must approve hatchery programs affecting treaty-reserved fisheries resources. Tribal support for conservation hatchery programs varies by watershed based on biological objectives, cultural priorities, and cumulative impacts. A statewide mandate that does not explicitly recognize the need for tribal co-manager agreement risks conflict with co-management frameworks and could delay or prevent implementation in multiple WRIAs.
SB 6241 does not identify operational and maintenance (O&M) funding to support the expansion of conservation hatchery programs. Establishing and operating these programs requires sustained funding for staffing, facilities, monitoring, evaluation, fish health, and compliance reporting. Without dedicated funding, WDFW would be required to divert limited resources from existing programs, potentially undermining ongoing conservation and recovery efforts.
In several WRIAs, WDFW and federal partners have established or are required to maintain wild steelhead gene banks, including watersheds where hatchery steelhead programs are restricted or prohibited under ESA permits. Mandated conservation hatchery programs in these areas may directly conflict with gene bank objectives and existing federal permit conditions, creating legal and biological inconsistencies.
Stakeholders such as local PUDs have mitigation agreements in place that are part of regulatory requirements to ensure that any adverse impact on steelhead populations is appropriately addressed. Because these agreements are legally binding, any adjustments related to programs
Page 4
such as altering production levels or shifting hatchery operations will require their involvement and agreement.
As explained above, Washington manages steelhead populations to meet conservation goals and provide sustainable fisheries under a complicated regime that is driven by legal requirements under numerous tribal treaties, case law, federal laws on endangered species, and cooperative agreements with other west coast states.
A one size fits all approach mandating wild steelhead broodstock hatchery programs in every water resource inventory area will run afoul of legal obligations, will drive significant expense, and most importantly will not provide the desired conservation benefit for our Washington State fish.
WDFW is available for further discussion on this important issue, but please do not advance SB 6241.
Sincerely,
Kelly Cunningham
Fish Program Director
References:
Johnson, M., Jones, M., Falcy, M., Spangler, J., Couture, R., and Noakes, D. 2023. Can angler-assisted broodstock collection programs improve harvest rates of hatchery-produced steelhead? Environmental Biology of Fishes 106: 1-14. doi:10.1007/s10641-023-01401-5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10641-023-01401-5.
Ohlberger, J., Buhle, E.R., Buehrens, T.W., Kendall, N.W., Harbison, T., Claiborne, A.M., Losee, J.P., Whitney, J., and Scheuerell, M.D. 2025. Declining marine survival of steelhead trout linked to climate and ecosystem change. Fish Fish. 26(3): 331–345. doi:10.1111/faf.12878. https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/02578
That's a great reply. It's pretty much a professional "WTF dudes?"
We can't even get the Skagit monitoring paid for. They think WDFW is going to implement this program in ALL WRIAs? It's a nice thought, but the nuts & bolts don't even come close to adding up. Good on Kelly for telling them in pretty direct fashion.
Leave the wild fish alone! If you're gonna use hatcheries, upgrade them and USE them! And if you do use them, be smart about WHERE you use them.
Use them in urban rivers that get pounded. Rivers like the Green, Snoqualmie, Puyallup, Washougal, Lewis forks, Kalama, etc.
Why in the world would you do this in places like WRIA 31- Rock & Glade creeks? Or Moses Coulee? What are we even talking about??
People don't fish for steelhead in Rock Creek or Glade Creek. Moses Coulee???
Why REMOVE the few precious native fish that actually make it back through the shit show that is the Columbia? We really think we can somehow make a tougher, more resilient smolt that will be more successful surviving that shit show and actually come back to spawn than those incredible fish that do it on the spawning grounds? Even with dry years and flood years, the data shows that after several years they're still just hatchery fish.
It's someone's "well Oregon has better steelheading than we do now so let's do what they do." without any forethought whatsoever.
Look at the Vedder. Look at the Thompson. We've been over this people. It doesn't work in the long run. Even when you DO have the money and WDFW, apparently, does not.
Wow, I haven't vented about steelhead in a while. I feel better I think?? Not sure. I'm going to go tie some carp flies.
We can't even get the Skagit monitoring paid for. They think WDFW is going to implement this program in ALL WRIAs? It's a nice thought, but the nuts & bolts don't even come close to adding up. Good on Kelly for telling them in pretty direct fashion.
Leave the wild fish alone! If you're gonna use hatcheries, upgrade them and USE them! And if you do use them, be smart about WHERE you use them.
Use them in urban rivers that get pounded. Rivers like the Green, Snoqualmie, Puyallup, Washougal, Lewis forks, Kalama, etc.
Why in the world would you do this in places like WRIA 31- Rock & Glade creeks? Or Moses Coulee? What are we even talking about??
People don't fish for steelhead in Rock Creek or Glade Creek. Moses Coulee???
Why REMOVE the few precious native fish that actually make it back through the shit show that is the Columbia? We really think we can somehow make a tougher, more resilient smolt that will be more successful surviving that shit show and actually come back to spawn than those incredible fish that do it on the spawning grounds? Even with dry years and flood years, the data shows that after several years they're still just hatchery fish.
It's someone's "well Oregon has better steelheading than we do now so let's do what they do." without any forethought whatsoever.
Look at the Vedder. Look at the Thompson. We've been over this people. It doesn't work in the long run. Even when you DO have the money and WDFW, apparently, does not.
Wow, I haven't vented about steelhead in a while. I feel better I think?? Not sure. I'm going to go tie some carp flies.
skyrise
Steelhead
I guess i had better go run up right now to the Wallace hatchery and tell them the Brood stock program they are doing with Chum salmon doesn’t/wont work !
OH WAIT ! It IS working, with great results. And of course the Snider creek program. Oh No it worked Too !
Amazing what can happen when you TRY !
I know those Oregon folks are so sad that their brood stock programs are successful.
And remind me again how hatcheries work again ? Oh that’s right, they use fish that return from previous years returning. Damm I better go tell the folks at reiter this whole hatchery idea is a big fat lie.
I know I’m crazy because my folks taught me to always Try and Cant was an ass whooping word.
OH WAIT ! It IS working, with great results. And of course the Snider creek program. Oh No it worked Too !
Amazing what can happen when you TRY !
I know those Oregon folks are so sad that their brood stock programs are successful.
And remind me again how hatcheries work again ? Oh that’s right, they use fish that return from previous years returning. Damm I better go tell the folks at reiter this whole hatchery idea is a big fat lie.
I know I’m crazy because my folks taught me to always Try and Cant was an ass whooping word.
Are there any as hopeless as the willfully ignorant? I will say that it is hard to learn if you don't pay attention. Did anyone here say that a broodstock program with chum salmon doesn't or will not work? I don't think so. Here's why: Chum salmon are not steelhead. That's important because hatchery culture for the two species is different. Think on that for a moment if you will. Chum salmon brood are collected, the eggs incubated and hatched in one of several times of artificial production facilities (many have been tried). The fry are then immediately released into a stream or held are reared artificially for a few weeks and then released. Contrast that with collecting steelhead broodstock, artificially incubating, hatching, and then rearing the offspring for 12 months or longer prior to releasing them into a stream.
Why does this difference matter? One artificial factor affects both species about the same: spawning pairs are selected by humans rather than the fish selecting mates naturally. The extremely important difference, however, is that when a salmonid fry emerges from the gravel, it divides its time between foraging and seeking cover from predators. In a hatchery setting a fry can focus on foraging and existing among a crowd of its peers, but learns nothing about avoiding predation. In the case of the chum salmon fry, they enjoy that luxury for only a few weeks at most, and then it's out into the natural world they go. And woe unto any that focus solely on foraging and not avoiding predation. The broodstock steelhead, on the other hand, spends all of its first year focused on foraging (when the hatchery feed truck drives by) and nipping at the fins of its brothers and sisters, and never learns to give a thought to avoiding predation because there are no predators in the hatchery environment. Upon release at age one year plus, the hatchery steelhead smolt enters natural environment full of predators in both the freshwater and marine environments. Like most life history attributes, foraging for food and trying to avoid predators and heritable traits. After a year or so of hatchery living, the young steelhead has no idea that he should concern himself with predator avoidance - until it's too late. And then, well, it's too late.
And this Skyrise, is the one major reason why a broodstock program can produce chum salmon adults more effectively than can a steelhead broodstock program. You mentioned the Sol Duc Snider Creek broodstock program and claim that it worked. I guess we should define what "work" means. Can a wild steelhead broodstock program produce returning adult steelhead? Yes, it can. That has been verfied with several projects of which I am aware. Does a wild steelhead broodstock program result in subsequent net increases in wild steelhead populations? Not in any of which I am aware. This doesn't mean that it couldn't, but no program sponsor has expended the kind of monitoring that would be necessary to substantiate that it does. What we know is that wild steelhead broodstock programs can return subsequent marked (hatchery/wild) steelhead that can be available for harvest, if the fishery managers so wish. In those cases, that means that the wild adult steelhead were "mined" from the natural spawning population such that there are fewer natural spawners from that population to spawn. The surviving offspring from those broodstock are made available to treaty and non-treaty harvesting, with the unknown number of those fish mingling among other natural spawners that that return year.
The benefits and liabilities go something like this: Those broodstock spawners add to the natural spawning population. However, we have learned that even a single generation of hatchery culture changes the survival prospects of fish. So when an H x H (hatchery fish mates with another hatchery fish) mating occurs, the survival prospects of any fry that are produced are significantly less than that of an W x W (wild fish mates with another wild fish) mating. And when a H x W mating occurs, the survival prospects of resulting fry are also less than from a W x W mating. Admittedly, there remains a lot to learn about these aspects of fish culture and natural fish production, be we have learned enough to know that the benefits are far less than what the wild broodstock program proponents would have us believe.
Now maybe you have a better idea why some of us who have been down this path are not as enthusiastic about another wild steelhead program as you appear to be.
Pink Nighty
Legend
All of this! The other point I've been mulling over on the chum vs steelhead broodstock are the factors limiting their success. Chums are heavily affected by our increasingly frequent november/December flood events. It both disrupts their ability to find gravel while it's happening and scours out what has already been laid.
So to that end, securing an amount of chums successful spawning could possibly increase/stabilize the populations affected by this.
Steelhead? Not so much, for all the reasons you just listed and also because available, stable spawning habitat isn't an issue in the spring
Paige
Wishing I was fishing the Sauk
Another issue not mentioned, is the only reason the Wallace broodstock was needed is because of record harvest by comercial fisheries, this is a direct quote from the area biologist.
If the state stopped those fisheries the chum would have recovered all on their own.
If the state stopped those fisheries the chum would have recovered all on their own.
charles sullivan
Life of the Party
Is there any available data on the Vedder broodstock hatchery and vedder wild run sizes?