Wild Fish Conservancy v. National Marine Fisheries Service

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedOctober 10, 2024
Docket3:24-cv-05296
StatusUnknown

This text of Wild Fish Conservancy v. National Marine Fisheries Service (Wild Fish Conservancy v. National Marine Fisheries Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wild Fish Conservancy v. National Marine Fisheries Service, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Opinion

HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 WILD FISH CONSERVANCY; and WILD Case No. 3:24-cv-05296-BHS 11 SALMON RIVERS d/b/a THE CONSERVATION ANGLER, 12 CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS WILD FISH 13 CONSERVANCY AND THE CONSERVATION ANGLER AND 14 v. DEFENDANTS WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 15 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES OFFICIALS 16 SERVICE; et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 I. STIPULATIONS. 20 On January 26, 2024, Plaintiffs Wild Fish Conservancy and The Conservation Angler 21 (the “Conservation Groups”) issued a sixty (60) day notice of intent to sue (“First Notice Letter”) 22 for violations of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544 (“ESA”). The First 23 Notice Letter alleged ESA violations against the following: 24  The United States Department of Commerce and Gina Raimondo in her officially 25 capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce (collectively, 26 “Commerce”); 27  The National Marine Fisheries Service and Janet Coit in her official capacity as NOAA’s 28 Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (collectively, “NMFS”); 29 1  The Director for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the 2 Commissioners of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (collectively, 3 “WDFW”); 4  The Director for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Commissioners of 5 the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (collectively, “ODFW”); and 6  Clatsop County Oregon, Don Bohn in his official capacity as the County Manager of 7 Clatsop County Oregon, Clatsop County Fisheries, and Steve Meshke in his official 8 capacity as the Natural Resources Manager for Clatsop County Fisheries (collectively, 9 “Clatsop County”). 10 The First Notice Letter alleged violations of sections 7 and 9 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 11 1536, 1538, related to hatchery programs in the Lower Columbia River basin (i.e., below 12 13 Bonneville Dam) that are funded under the Mitchell Act and violations of section 9 of the ESA, 14 16 U.S.C. § 1538, related to three Select Area Fisheries Enhancement (“SAFE”) salmon hatchery 15 programs. 16 On April 17, 2024, the Conservation Groups filed a complaint against Commerce, 17 NMFS, WDFW, ODFW, and Clatsop County alleging violations of the ESA identified in the 18 First Notice Letter (“Complaint”). 19 On April 9, 2024, the Conservation Groups issued a second sixty (60) day notice of intent 20 to sue (“Second Notice Letter”) to Commerce and NMFS alleging violations of section 7 of the 21 ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1536, related to federal funding for the three SAFE hatchery programs. 22 On June 17, 2024, the Conservation Groups issued a third sixty (60) day notice of intent 23 to sue (“Third Notice Letter”) to Commerce, NMFS, WDFW, ODFW, and Clatsop County 24 alleging violations of sections 7 and 9 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536, 1538, related to hatchery 25 programs in the Lower Columbia River basin (i.e., below Bonneville Dam) that are funded under 26 27 the Mitchell Act and violations of section 9 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1538, related to the three 28 SAFE salmon hatchery programs and a Select Area Bright fall Chinook salmon hatchery 29 program. 1 The Conservation Groups’ Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and an 2 award of litigation expenses, including attorney and expert fees. 3 The Conservation Groups and WDFW (collectively, the “Settling Parties”) have engaged 4 in settlement negotiations. Following a settlement meeting on June 6, 2024, the Settling Parties 5 agreed to work collaboratively on a modeling effort intended to predict future compliance and 6 non-compliance with certain ESA requirements applicable to WDFW’s salmonid hatcheries at 7 issue in this lawsuit, and thereby aid in identifying measures needed to comply with those ESA 8 requirements. To facilitate that collaborative modeling effort, the Settling Parties sought and 9 were granted a stay of the litigation through August 19, 2024. The Settling Parties held another 10 settlement meeting on August 19, 2024. 11 In addition to the measures specifically required under this Consent Decree, WDFW 12 13 intends to undertake certain additional measures that WDFW represents, based in part on the 14 aforementioned modeling efforts, will be sufficient to ensure compliance with ESA requirements 15 applicable to WDFW’s salmonid hatchery programs at issue in this litigation. 16 WDFW denies any fault, wrongdoing, or liability for the claims and violations alleged in 17 the Conservation Groups’ First Notice Letter, Second Notice Letter, and Third Notice Letter 18 (collectively, “Notice Letters”), and in the Complaint; 19 Solely for the purposes of this Consent Decree, the Conservation Groups and WDFW 20 stipulate that the Court has jurisdiction over the Settling Parties and the subject matter of this 21 action under section 11(g) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g); 22 The Settling Parties agree that settlement of this matter is in the best interest of the 23 Settling Parties and the public and that entry of this Consent Decree without additional litigation 24 is the most appropriate means of resolving in full this action against WDFW. The Settling Parties 25 agree that this Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, equitable, does not violate the law or public 26 27 policy, comes within the scope of the pleadings, and furthers the broad objectives upon which 28 the Conservation Groups based the Complaint. See Sierra Club, Inc. v. Elec. Controls Design, 29 Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990). 1 The Settling Parties stipulate to entry of this Consent Decree without trial, adjudication, 2 || or admission of any issue of fact, allegation, issue of law, or legal argument regarding the claims 3 || and allegations set forth in the Conservation Group’s Notice Letters and Complaint; 4 The signatories for the Settling Parties certify that they are authorized by the party(ies) 5 they represent to enter into these Stipulations and Consent Decree. WILD FISH CONSERVANCY THE CONSERVATION ANGLER My. Loma Wook? f □ By: By: ; MNMehy 9 Emma Helverson, Executive Director David Moskowitz, Executive Direct 10 11 || WDFW 12 13. || By: fluc. HyASuséwind, Director 4 ih. ORDER AND DECREE. 8 THES MATTER came before the Court upon the foregoing Stipulations of the Settling Parties and joint motion for entry of Consent Decree. Having considered the Stipulations of the 18 Settling Parties and the terms and conditions set forth below, the Court hereby ORDERS, 19 ADJUDGES, and DECREES as follows: 29 DEFINITIONS. 21 1. The term “Conservation Groups” refers to Plaintiffs Wild Fish Conservancy and 22 || The Conservation Angler. 23 2. The term “WDFW” refers collectively to Defendants the Director for the 24 || Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Commissioners of the Washington Fish 25 || and Wildlife Commission. 26 3. The term “NMFS” refers collectively to the National Marine Fisheries Service 27 (also known as NOAA Fisheries Service) and Janet Coit in her official capacity as NOAA’s 28 Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. 29 KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN, PLLC

1 4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wild Fish Conservancy v. National Marine Fisheries Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wild-fish-conservancy-v-national-marine-fisheries-service-wawd-2024.