throbber
Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`Brian A. Knutsen, WSBA No. 38806
`Emma Bruden, WSBA No. 56280
`Kampmeier & Knutsen, PLLC
`1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
`Portland, Oregon 97214
`Telephone: (503) 841-6515
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00169
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`WILD FISH CONSERVANCY,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH &
`WILDLIFE; KELLY SUSEWIND, in his official capacity
`as the Director of the Washington Department of Fish &
`Wildlife; LARRY CARPENTER, in his official capacity
`as Chair of the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission;
`BARBARA BAKER, in her official capacity as Vice
`Chair of the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission;
`JAMES ANDERSON, in his official capacity as a
`member of the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission;
`LORNA SMITH, in her official capacity as a member of
`the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission; FRED
`KOONTZ, in his official capacity as a member of the
`Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission; MOLLY
`LINVILLE, in her official capacity as a member of the
`Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission; DONALD
`MCISAAC, in his official capacity as a member of the
`Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission; and KIM
`THORNBURN, in her official capacity as a member of
`the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission,
`
` Defendants.
`___________________________________________
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`COMPLAINT - 1
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
`
`
`
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The State of Washington declared steelhead the official state fish in 1969.
`1.
`Despite that designation, wild Puget Sound steelhead have declined precipitously since that time.
`The average region-wide abundance between 1980 and 2004 was less than four percent of levels
`present in 1900. Puget Sound steelhead have continued to decline since being listed as a
`threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) in 2007. The most recent five-
`year average puts Puget Sound steelhead abundance at less than three percent of historical levels.
`
`2.
`It was once believed that hatchery production could replace salmonid-sustaining
`ecosystems and provide an abundance of fish. It is now understood that, not only have hatcheries
`failed to meet those expectations, but they have contributed to the decline of wild salmonids.
`Hatchery fish harm wild salmonid populations and their ability to recover through a variety of
`mechanisms, including genetic introgression and ecological interactions. Genetic introgression
`occurs when hatchery fish spawn with wild fish and thereby transfer their maladapted
`(domesticated) genetic traits to the wild salmonid populations. Ecological interactions occur
`when hatchery fish compete with wild fish for resources, such as food and territory.
`
`3.
`Defendants the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, its Director, and the
`members of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (collectively, “WDFW”) implement
`hatchery programs in the Puget Sound region using highly domesticated stocks known as
`“Skamania” summer steelhead and “Chambers Creek” winter steelhead. The National Marine
`Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) excluded those stocks when it listed the Puget Sound steelhead
`distinct population segment (“DPS”) as a threatened species under the ESA in 2007 because
`those hatchery stocks are genetically diverged from the local native populations. 72 Fed. Reg.
`26,722, 26,722 (May 11, 2007). This divergence increases the potential for passing on
`maladaptive traits to ESA-listed Puget Sound steelhead, thereby undermining recovery efforts.
`NMFS also found that efforts to prevent natural spawning of those hatchery fish is unlikely to be
`completely effective, “with significant potential to reduce natural productivity.” Id. at 26,728.
`COMPLAINT - 2
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`Despite these findings, WDFW continued to implement hatchery programs using these out-of-
`basin stocks and without undergoing review, approval, and restrictions required by the ESA.
`4.
`Wild Fish Conservancy sued WDFW for operating these programs in violation of
`the ESA; first in 2014 for the Chambers Creek winter steelhead programs and then in 2019 for
`the Skamania summer steelhead programs. The consent decree reached in the latter of those
`lawsuits required WDFW to, inter alia, discontinue releases of Skamania summer steelhead in
`Puget Sound watersheds that are not authorized under the ESA with the exception of one final
`release in 2019 to the North Fork Stillaguamish River and several releases to the Skykomish
`River. For the Skykomish River, the consent decree allows for decreasing annual releases that
`terminate with a release of 40,000 fish in 2022, after which releases are prohibited unless they
`have been approved under the ESA.
`
`5.
`Apparently determined to maintain an artificial steelhead propagation program on
`the Skykomish River to support recreational fishing, WDFW submitted a hatchery and genetic
`management plan (“HGMP”) dated April 12, 2019 to NMFS proposing to implement an
`“integrated” South Fork Skykomish River summer steelhead program. As WDFW’s HGMP for
`this new hatchery program recognizes, this hatchery program will “take” ESA-listed salmonids.
`WDFW nonetheless commenced its new summer steelhead hatchery program on the South Fork
`Skykomish River before NMFS reviewed the HGMP and before NMFS or the United States Fish
`and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) authorized the new program to “take” ESA-listed species.
`
`6.
`WDFW’s implementation of this program in the absence of ESA-review or
`approval follows a long and disconcerting pattern of the agency’s willingness to violate the
`ESA’s prohibition on unauthorized “take” of protected species when it comes to artificial fish
`propagation.
`Plaintiff Wild Fish Conservancy is concerned that the continued implementation
`7.
`of the South Fork Skykomish River summer steelhead hatchery program, along with other
`WDFW hatchery programs in the Puget Sound region, are harming wild salmonids and their
`COMPLAINT - 3
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`ability to recover, including threatened Puget Sound steelhead. Moreover, Wild Fish
`Conservancy is disconcerted by WDFW’s pattern showing the agency’s willingness to violate
`the ESA’s prohibition against unauthorized “take” of protected species within the context of
`artificial fish propagation.
`8.
`This action challenges WDFW’s failure to comply with the ESA in its
`implementation of the South Fork Skykomish River summer steelhead program. Wild Fish
`Conservancy seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring WDFW to comply with the ESA
`and an award of litigation expenses, including fees and costs.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has jurisdiction under section 11(g) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)
`9.
`(citizen suit), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). The requested relief is also proper under
`28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory relief) and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (injunctive relief). As required by the
`ESA citizen suit provision, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A)(i), Wild Fish Conservancy provided
`60 days’ notice of its intent to sue to WDFW and the Secretaries of the United States Department
`of Commerce and the United States Department of the Interior through a letter dated and
`postmarked December 2, 2020. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit 1 to this complaint
`and incorporated herein by this reference.
`10.
`The Western District of Washington is the proper venue under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1391(e) and 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(3)(A) because the violations alleged, and/or substantial parts
`of the events and omissions giving rise to the claim, occurred and are occurring within such
`District. This matter is properly assigned to a District Judge in Seattle under LCR 3(d) because a
`substantial part of the events and omissions that give rise to the claim occurred within a county
`for which actions are assigned to a district judge in Seattle. Specifically, the challenged hatchery
`program is implemented primarily in Snohomish County.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 4
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
`
`
`
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Wild Fish Conservancy is a membership-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit
`11.
`organization incorporated in the State of Washington with its principal place of business in
`Duvall, Washington. Wild Fish Conservancy is dedicated to the preservation and recovery of
`Washington’s native fish species and the ecosystems upon which those species depend. Wild
`Fish Conservancy brings this action on behalf of itself and its approximately 2,400 members.
`Wild Fish Conservancy changed its name from “Washington Trout” in 2007. As an
`environmental watchdog, Wild Fish Conservancy actively informs the public on matters
`affecting water quality, fish, and fish habitat in the State of Washington through publications,
`commentary to the press, and sponsorship of educational programs. Wild Fish Conservancy also
`conducts field research on wild fish populations and has designed and implemented habitat
`restoration projects. Wild Fish Conservancy advocates and publicly comments on federal and
`state actions that affect the region’s native fish and ecosystems. Wild Fish Conservancy routinely
`seeks to compel government agencies to follow the laws designed to protect native fish species,
`particularly threatened and endangered species.
`12. Wild Fish Conservancy’s members regularly spend time in areas in and around
`Puget Sound and its tributaries, including the Skykomish and Snohomish Rivers and other
`watersheds where WDFW’s hatchery steelhead programs are implemented. Wild Fish
`Conservancy’s members intend to continue to visit these areas on a regular basis, including in
`the summer of 2021 and beyond. These members observe, study, photograph, and appreciate
`wildlife and wildlife habitat in and around these waters. These members also fish, hike, camp,
`swim, and snorkel in and around these waters. Wild Fish Conservancy’s members would like to
`fish in these waters for wild Puget Sound steelhead, wild Puget Sound Chinook salmon, and wild
`bull trout, or increase opportunities for such activities, if those species were able to recover to a
`point where such activities would not impede the species’ conservation and restoration.
`
`COMPLAINT - 5
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
`
`
`
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`13. Wild Fish Conservancy’s members derive scientific, educational, recreational,
`health, conservation, spiritual, and aesthetic benefits from Puget Sound, its tributaries, the
`surrounding areas, and from wild native fish species in those waters and from the existence of
`natural, wild, and healthy ecosystems.
`
`14.
`The past, present, and future enjoyment of Wild Fish Conservancy’s interests and
`those of its members, including the recreational, aesthetic, spiritual, and scientific interests, have
`been, are being, and will continue to be harmed by WDFW’s failures to comply with the ESA as
`described herein and by Wild Fish Conservancy’s members’ reasonable concerns related to
`WDFW’s violations. These injuries include reduced enjoyment of time spent in and around the
`waters described above, fewer visits to those areas than would otherwise occur, and refraining
`from engaging in certain activities while visiting these areas, such as fishing, than would
`otherwise occur. These injuries also include an inability to fish for wild salmonids due to their
`depressed status.
`
`15. Wild Fish Conservancy’s injuries and those of its members are actual, concrete
`and/or imminent, and are fairly traceable to WDFW’s violations of the ESA as described herein
`that the Court may remedy by declaring that WDFW’s omissions and actions are illegal and
`issuing injunctive relief requiring WDFW to comply with its statutory obligations. Wild Fish
`Conservancy’s members will benefit from increased enjoyment of time spent in and around the
`waters described above and/or will visit the areas more frequently if WDFW is required by the
`Court to comply with the ESA.
`
`16.
`Defendant Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is an agency of the State
`of Washington that owns and implements the South Fork Skykomish River summer steelhead
`hatchery program challenged herein.
`
`17.
`Defendant Kelly Susewind is the Director of the Washington Department of Fish
`and Wildlife and is being sued in that official capacity. As the Director of the agency, Mr.
`Susewind is responsible for ensuring that the agency complies with applicable laws, is
`COMPLAINT - 6
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`responsible for overseeing the implementation of the challenged South Fork Skykomish River
`summer steelhead hatchery program, and could respond to injunctive relief orders from this
`Court related to the challenged hatchery program.
`
`18.
`Defendants Larry Carpenter, Barbara Baker, James Anderson, Lorna Smith, Fred
`Koontz, Molly Linville, Donald McIsaac, and Kim Thornburn are the Commissioners of the
`Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission and are being sued in that official capacity. As the
`Commissioners of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, they are responsible for
`ensuring that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife complies with applicable laws,
`are responsible for overseeing the implementation of the challenged South Fork Skykomish
`River summer steelhead hatchery program, and could respond to injunctive relief orders from
`this Court related to the challenged hatchery program.
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Endangered Species Act.
`I.
`19.
`The ESA is a federal statute enacted to provide a program to conserve threatened
`
`and endangered species and to protect the ecosystems upon which those species depend.
`16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). “Conserve,” as used is in the ESA, means to use all methods and
`procedures necessary to bring threatened and endangered species to a point where the protections
`afforded by the statute are no longer necessary. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(3).
`20.
`The ESA assigns certain implementation responsibilities to the Secretaries of the
`United States Department of the Interior and the United States Department of Commerce, which
`have delegated these duties to the Director of FWS and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
`of NMFS, respectively.
`
`21.
`Section 4 of the ESA requires FWS and NMFS to determine whether species are
`threatened or endangered of extinction and to list species as such under the statute. 16 U.S.C.
`§§ 1533(a)(1) and (c)(1). Such a listing triggers various protective measures intended to
`
`COMPLAINT - 7
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
`
`
`
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`conserve the species, including the designation of critical habitat and the preparation of a
`recovery plan. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1533(a)(3) and (f).
`
`22.
`Section 9 of the ESA makes it unlawful for any person to “take” species listed
`under the statute as endangered. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1). The take prohibition has been applied to
`certain species listed as threatened under the statute though regulations promulgated under
`section 4(d) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1533(d). 50 C.F.R. §§ 223.102, 223.203(a); 50 C.F.R. §§
`17.21, 17.31(a). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits a violation of those regulations. 16 U.S.C. §
`1538(a)(1)(G).
`23.
`“Take” is defined broadly under the ESA to include harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
`shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
`16 U.S.C. § 1532(19).
`24.
`“Harass” is defined to include an intentional or negligent act or omission which
`creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly
`disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or
`sheltering. 50 C.F.R. § 17.3.
`25.
`“Harm” is defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation
`where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,
`including breeding, feeding or sheltering. 50 C.F.R. § 17.3; 50 C.F.R § 222.102.
`26.
`Section 10 of the ESA provides a mechanism by which NMFS and FWS may
`issue permits exempting from liability under section 9 of the ESA the take of threatened or
`endangered species associated with activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of
`the affected species. 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(1)(A). Such permits are issued upon consideration of
`several factors, including the effects the activity would have on wild populations and whether the
`proposed activity would conflict with other programs intended to enhance the survival
`probabilities of the species. 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 222.308(c).
`
`COMPLAINT - 8
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
`
`
`
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`Section 10 of the ESA also allows for the issuance of permits exempting from
`27.
`
`liability under section 9 the take of threatened or endangered species incidental to projects
`determined by NMFS or FWS not to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery
`of the protected species. 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(B)(iv); 50 C.F.R. § 222.307(c)(2)(iii); 50 C.F.R.
`§ 17(b)(2)(i)(D). Parties seeking such a permit are required to develop a habitat conservation
`plan that will minimize adverse effects to ESA-listed species. 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(A);
`50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(1)(iii); 50 C.F.R. § 222.307(b)(5).
`
`28.
`NMFS has promulgated regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA that apply the
`take prohibition of section 9 of the ESA to certain salmonid species—known as the “4(d)
`Rule”—while also providing exemptions from that take prohibition—known as the “4(d)
`Limits.” 50 C.F.R. § 223.203. One such exemption is for artificial propagation programs for
`which a HGMP has been approved by NMFS as meeting detailed criteria. 50 C.F.R.
`§ 223.203(b)(5). Another exemption exists for joint State-Tribe resource management plans
`implementing treaty fishing rights that have undergone a NMFS review and approval process.
`50 C.F.R. § 223.203(b)(6).
`
`29.
`Section 7 of the ESA imposes substantive and procedural requirements on federal
`actions. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.03. Substantively, it mandates that federal agencies “insure that any
`action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the
`continued existence of any endangered . . . or threatened species or result in the destruction or
`adverse modification” of such species’ critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); Pyramid Lake
`Paiute Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 898 F.2d 1410, 1415 (9th Cir. 1990).
`30.
`Procedurally, section 7 of the ESA requires an agency planning an action that
`“may affect” listed species (the “action agency”) to consult with NMFS and/or FWS (the
`“consulting agency”). 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). Such consultation is intended to facilitate
`compliance with the substantive mandate. See Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754, 763–65 (9th
`
`COMPLAINT - 9
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
`
`
`
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds, Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 789
`F.3d 1075, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2015).
`
`31.
`Consultation under section 7 of the ESA results in the consulting agency’s
`issuance of a biological opinion (“BiOp”) determining whether the action is likely to jeopardize
`listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(3); see id. § 402.02. If
`jeopardy and adverse modification are not likely, the BiOp includes an incidental take statement
`(“ITS”) defining the “take” anticipated from the action. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4)(C)(i); 50 C.F.R.
`§ 402.14(i)(1)(i). The ITS also includes requirements to minimize impacts to species and to
`monitor the take that occurs. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4)(C)(iii), (iv); 50 C.F.R § 402.14(i)(1)(ii),
`(i)(1)(iv), (i)(3); Wild Fish Conservancy v. Salazar, 628 F.3d 513, 531–32 (9th Cir. 2010). Take
`in compliance with an ITS is exempt from liability under section 9 of the ESA. 16 U.S.C. §
`1536(o)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(5).
`
`32.
`NMFS’s approval of an HGMP under the 4(d) Rule for salmonids is an action that
`requires consultation under section 7 of the ESA and therefore generally requires a BiOp.
`
`33.
`NMFS’s issuance of a take permit under section 10 of the ESA is also an action
`that generally requires consultation under section 7 of the ESA and therefore generally requires a
`BiOp.
`NMFS’s 4(d) Rule for salmonids that provides for the 4(d) Limits specifies that
`34.
`
`those limits provide an affirmative defense to a claim alleging that the activity is causing “take”
`in violation of section 9 of the ESA. 50 C.F.R. § 223.203(c). Specifically, the regulation
`provides: “Affirmative Defense. In connection with any action alleging a violation of the
`prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section (which applies the ESA section 9 “take” prohibition)
`with respect to the threatened West Coast salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs . . . , any person
`claiming the benefit of any limit listed in paragraph (b) of this section or § 223.204(a) shall have
`a defense where the person can demonstrate that the limit is applicable and was in force, and that
`the person fully complied with the limit at the time of the alleged violation. This defense is an
`COMPLAINT - 10
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`affirmative defense that must be raised, pleaded, and proven by the proponent. If proven, this
`defense will be an absolute defense to liability under section 9(a)(1)(G) of the ESA with respect
`to the alleged violation.” Id.
`
`35.
`Parties claiming an exemption from liability for take of ESA-listed species
`through an incidental take statement issued under section 7 of the ESA or a take permit issued
`under section 10 of the ESA have a similar burden to that under the salmonid 4(d) Rule. Section
`10(g) of the ESA provides: “Burden of Proof. In connection with any action alleging a violation
`of [section 9 of the ESA], any person claiming the benefit of any exemption or permit under this
`chapter shall have the burden of proving that the exemption or permit is applicable, has been
`granted, and was valid and in force at the time of the alleged violation.” 16 U.S.C. § 1539(g).
`II.
`Factual Background.
`A.
`ESA-Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat.
`36.
`The Puget Sound DPS of steelhead was listed as a threatened species in 2007. 72
`
`Fed. Reg. 26,722 (May 11, 2007); see also 79 Fed. Reg. 20,802 (Apr. 14, 2014) (revision to
`listing); 50 C.F.R. § 223.102. NMFS has applied the ESA section 9 take prohibition to this
`species. 50 C.F.R. §§ 223.102, 223.203(a).
`
`37.
`The Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit (“ESU”) is listed
`as a threatened species. 64 Fed. Reg. 14,308 (Mar. 24, 1999); 70 Fed. Reg. 37,160 (June 28,
`2005); see also 79 Fed. Reg. 20,802 (Apr. 14, 2014) (revision to listing); 50 C.F.R. § 223.102.
`NMFS has applied the ESA section 9 take prohibition to this species. 50 C.F.R. §§ 223.102,
`223.203(a).
`The coterminous United States bull trout population is listed as a threatened
`
`38.
`species. 64 Fed. Reg. 58,910 (Nov. 1, 1999). FWS has applied the ESA take prohibition to this
`species. 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.21, 17.31(a).
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 11
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
`
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`South Fork Skykomish River summer steelhead hatchery program.
`B.
`
`39. WDFW’s HGMP for the new South Fork Skykomish summer steelhead hatchery
`
`program explains that WDFW will develop stock by collecting up to 30% of the wild, natural-
`origin, summer steelhead returning to the Sunset Falls fishway, or up to 120 fish, during the first
`4 years of the program. Those adult steelhead will be trapped from July through October and
`held in captivity at Reiter Ponds and/or Wallace River hatchery facilities until ready to be
`spawned. Once ripe, WDFW will lethally or live spawn the fish at those hatcheries.
`40.
`The new hatchery program will target an annual release of 116,000 yearling
`steelhead from Reiter Ponds and/or the Wallace River hatchery facilities. Once adult hatchery
`summer steelhead begin to return to the Skykomish River from this new program, WDFW will
`incorporate those hatchery-origin fish into the broodstock, along with the natural-origin
`steelhead.
`
`41. WDFW’s HGMP provides that South Fork Skykomish summer steelhead are not
`recognized as a demographically independent population (“DIP”) and asserts that they are
`therefore not included in the ESA-listed Puget Sound steelhead DPS.
`42.
`However, the HGMP also explains that an objective of this program is to
`conserve and recover the immediately adjacent North Fork Skykomish River summer steelhead
`DIP, which is included within the ESA-listed Puget Sound steelhead DPS. Further, the South
`Fork Skykomish River, above and below Sunset Falls, is designated as critical habitat for
`threatened Puget Sound steelhead. See 50 C.F.R. § 226.212(a)(15), (u)(7)(i). Salmonids
`generally, and summer steelhead especially, stray to non-natal freshwater bodies before
`spawning in their natal streams.
`43.
`It is therefore almost certain that some of the fish trapped at Sunset Falls are
`North Fork Skykomish River summer steelhead or another DIP recognized as part of the
`threatened Puget Sound steelhead DPS protected under the ESA. WDFW admitted as much
`
`COMPLAINT - 12
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
`
`
`
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`when it identified broodstock collection activities at Sunset Falls as an activity that may lead to
`take of ESA-listed species.
`44. WDFW nonetheless commenced this new hatchery program, catching and killing
`wild summer steelhead for broodstock, prior to NMFS reviewing and approving the HGMP and
`prior to NMFS or FWS providing an authorization for WDFW to “take” ESA-listed species.
`45.
`Available data indicate that WDFW began removing wild steelhead from the
`South Fork Skykomish River for this new program in the summer of fall of 2019. Data obtained
`from WDFW’s In-Season Hatchery Escapement Reports indicate the following transfers (capture
`and live-ship via truck) of “wild, W” steelhead were made from the South Fork Skykomish
`Sunset Falls Fishway to the Reiter Ponds, a Summer Steelhead Program located on the
`Skykomish River:
` April 16, 2020 report: 52 W (final in-season estimate); and
` November 25, 2020 report: 36 W.
`46.
`Of the wild steelhead held in Reiter Ponds between October 2019 and March
`2020, 29 were lethally spawned on or about March 19, 2020 and 101,300 eggs were taken.
`47.
`Further, the WDFW Escapement Reports document one additional wild steelhead
`mortality at Reiter Ponds. It is presumed that the 36 “W” transferred to Reiter Ponds documented
`in the November 25, 2020 report are currently being held in captivity there, and those still alive
`will be lethally or live spawned in early 2021.
`48.
`Data are not available to Wild Fish Conservancy on mortalities of juvenile
`steelhead offspring resulting from the spawning and rearing of wild Skykomish summer
`steelhead at Reiter Ponds.
`
`C.
`
`The Take Caused by WDFW’s Unauthorized South Fork Skykomish River
`Summer Steelhead Program.
`49. WDFW’s new integrated South Fork Skykomish River summer steelhead
`
`program, as described in the April 12, 2019 HGMP, causes take through a variety of mechanisms
`
`COMPLAINT - 13
`No. 2:21-cv-00169
`
`
`
` KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC
` 1300 S.E. Stark Street, Suite 202
` Portland, Oregon 97214
` (503) 841-6515 
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`and activities. These include the broodstock collection activities, genetic introgression,
`ecological interactions, and increased fishing pressures.
`i.
`Take Through Broodstock Activities.
`
`
`
`50.
`All or some of the wild adult summer steelhead captured by WDFW, beginning in
`2019, and taken to Reiter Ponds, Wallace River hatchery, and/or other hatchery facilities as part
`of broodstock collection activities, are threatened Puget Sound steelhead protected under the
`ESA.
`
`51. WDFW does not have any applicable authorization or exemption for the taking of
`these ESA-listed fish.
`52. WDFW’s trapping, collection, transferring, holding, rearing, spawning, and
`killing of these fish constitute take of an ESA-listed species.
`
`
`ii.
`Take Through Genetic

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket