Elwha lawsuit again

Just saw a notice in the PA paper that WFC et al has filed a notice of intent to sue on the Elwha (again). It seems that that the ESA approval to use hatchery fish in recovery is supposed to include a rack on the river to filter out hatchery fish.

Apparently, the rack sits on the bank where it doesn't filter well.

This seems to be kept awfully quiet as nothing has showed up here, my contacts at WDFW had heard nothing. Anybody here heard anything?

I have heard only what you wrote...that the weir was an "integral" part of the project so that only the fish they wanted to pass would be passed, and that the weir is "inoperable"...and that the WFC/WSC/NFS and a couple of others are suing on that basis.

In a perfect world they'd just go and fix the damn weir...but this is an imperfect world.

Fish on...

Todd

http://wildfishconservancy.org/about/pre...-to-violate-esa

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Elwha Hatchery Programs Continue To Violate ESA
Jul 18, 2014
WILD FISH CONSERVANCY

PO Box 402 Duvall, WA 98019 • Tel 425-788-1167 • Fax 425-788-9634 •
info@wildfishconservancy.org

Contact: Kurt Beardslee, Wild Fish Conservancy, 425-788-1167
Brian Knutsen, Smith and Lowney, PLLC, 971-373-8692

Elwha Hatchery Programs Continue To Violate ESA


Four conservation groups have filed a 60-day notice letter to three federal agencies as well as officials of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe’s salmon hatchery alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act. Wild Fish Conservancy, The Conservation Angler, the Federation of Fly Fishers Steelhead Committee, and the Wild Steelhead Coalition issued the letter to the Tribe’s hatchery manager and natural resources director (in their official capacities) for their activities implementing hatchery programs, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Park Service, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for approving and funding those hatchery programs. Although the hatchery programs in question had received ESA approval, the approval relied on a functioning Elwha River mainstem “weir” as an essential component. The weir would have provided critical functions for monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management of the programs’ effects on ESA-listed Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. Unfortunately, the Elwha River mainstem weir is not currently functioning, and therefore the hatchery programs cannot comply with the requisite conditions of the ESA approval.

“The approval of these programs was contingent on monitoring and adaptive management, and the weir was deemed absolutely essential for those to occur,” said Kurt Beardslee, executive director of Wild Fish Conservancy. "Without adaptive management, the Elwha River gets flooded with 7.5 million maladapted hatchery fish per year with no way to determine the effects on threatened salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. It’s a recipe for disaster.”

The federal government is spending nearly $325 million for the removal of the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams, which will open nearly seventy miles of pristine riverine habitat in Olympic National Park, much of which is designated a wilderness area. Instead of natural colonization by wild salmonids, however, the agencies and the Tribal officials are going ahead with a plan that will eventually allow the release of more than seven million juvenile hatchery salmonids annually. Expenditures for hatchery facilities and operations have contributed to inadequate funding for the research and monitoring activities that are necessary to evaluate whether restoration is succeeding and whether hatchery activities are harming restoration and resulting in take of listed fish.

The four conservation groups agree with a recent review by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) that restoration of the lower Elwha River and re-colonization of the pristine upper Elwha River should prioritize recovery of wild fish. The proposed reliance on large-scale hatchery releases undermines ecosystem recovery and violates the ESA, and threatens recovery of bull trout and Puget Sound Chinook salmon and steelhead, all listed as threatened species under the ESA. While the groups support the right of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe to harvest salmon and steelhead, spending $325 million to open a wilderness watershed but then stocking it with hatchery fish is poor public policy and will likely lead to skepticism over future salmon recovery efforts, especially dam removal projects.

This is latest effort by the four groups to ensure that the hatchery programs comply with the ESA; a federal lawsuit over the hatcheries was first filed in February 2012. For more information, see http://wildfishconservancy.org/what-we-do/advocacy/elwha-river-restoration.

The groups are represented by Smith and Lowney, PLLC, of Seattle.

- 60 Day Notice of Intent to Sue Letter Alleging Violations of the Endangered Species Act

###

**************

Fish on...

Todd

wtf...

Well, I'm all for anything that messes up the plans to plant hatchery fish in the Elwha, so this time around, "Go, WFC (et al)!"

And of course, taxpayers will pay the legal costs of these groups.

I'm not so fond of that part, but I think the case of the Elwha is different from the recent lawsuits regarding Puget sound hatchery plants (to which I was opposed) in two important ways:

1. We're not losing any meaningful sport fishing opportunity on the Elwha by not planting hatchery fish.
2. The habitat in the Elwha drainage is as near to pristine as exists in the lower 48 anymore, and I think it's an important testing ground for the concept of a self-sustaining, wild run of steelhead.

Ah, the irony that is advocating for sport fishing opportunity and wild fish recovery at the same time....

We have an example of a river where the fish were left on their own to repopulate a section of river with fish passage restored. That is the Cedar, Approx 12 miles of river and 8 miles of creeks.

After building fish passage around the Landsburg Dam, every fish was trapped and DNA sampled, etc. The wild kings and coho were on their own. The interesting part of the experiment is wild kings mating with hatchery strays actually out produced the WXW pairings in recruits.

The sample size was small however, so maybe not enough to be conclusive. This needs more study as similar results are happening elsewhere with king salmon.

The kings and coho are increasing in number but nothing gangbusters. The steelhead in that river are pretty much gone. As a biologist explained it to me, the migrating lifestyle lost out to the stay in the river lifestyle. The rainbows in the Cedar are genetically identical to the steelhead, they just don't migrate to the ocean.

The kings prefer the main channel and the coho are taking up residence in the small feeder creeks. There is a lot to be learned here.

The river is open to C&R a few months a year.

I don't disagree that the Cedar has a lot to teach us, but it's an oranges to apples comparison with the Elwha. Two very different rivers. The Cedar presents many challenges (Puget Sound, Lake Washington, and habitat compromised by development to name a few). In the case of the Elwha, now that the dams are gone, Ma Nature has a legitimate opportunity to show us what she can do when left to her own devices. If we continue to plant hatchery fish (without making any guesses as to the actual threat hatchery fish pose to wild fish), that opportunity will be lost.

I'm not an outspoken, anti-hatchery guy; I think we have a lot of evidence on the books to suggest that without hatchery supplementation, many of our rivers are currently incapable, for whatever reason, of sustaining fishable populations of anadromous fish, and as such, hatchery fish are the only thing providing us with sport fishing opportunities. That's not the case on the northern Olympic Peninsula (or, at least there are several self-sustaining populations of salmonids in that region). We have every reason to believe that the Elwha should be the river most capable of meaningful recovery. That's not to say we will see meaningful natural recovery (who really knows?), but I do think it's the best opportunity we have seen (or will likely see again) to find out just how much hope lies in the prospect of wild recovery. To squander that (and I'm pretty sure we will), would be nothing less than a shame.

I don't think we fully understand how (or even if) hatchery influence negatively affects wild fish, but I do think we have plenty of examples that suggest hatchery supplementations do not improve rates of wild recovery.

FF, I think many people can confidently make the statement that the damage has already been done on the Elwha. The tired argument that hatchery fish will somehow hinder the natural process doesn't really make much sense when you consider that the dams extirpated and/or nearly wiped out the native runs. A considerable component of the recolonization of the Elwha will consist of strays from other areas, hatchery and natural origin, whether people are willing to accept it or not.

Where hatchery fish have have had some usefulness other than eating purposes are introductions and reintroductions.

I think the difference between the Elwha and any other river systems that we can try this on is the healthy trout population in the upper reaches. many of those fishes offspring will likely out-migrate. creating once again a robust steelhead population. (I hope)

the reason the Cedar fish "lost out" to becoming steelhead is due to predators at the locks made the survival of the out-migrants to low to sustain them. I would bet many still try to leave the river but are wiped out. either in the lake trout fisheries or to the same death as the rest of the Puget Sound Smolts.

the Elwha fish on the other hand may actually be encouraged to smolt due to better estuary conditions being created now and the benefits of size at spawning. it may not be a quick fix... but a natural one. and yes strays will help. its all part of the natural process... to me thats what national forests are for, seeing how nature works.

I wish we could get more updates on the status of the river and the newly forming estuary. What I have seen is pretty cool except my favorite halibut spot is likely sanded in now. I get so tired of lawsuit after lawsuit. What ever happened to cooperation? My way or I will sue accomplishes nothing.

I am the public, and its my money that pays for this garbage. I would rather my money went to restoration instead of enriching lawyers.

It is not a case of "My way" but a case of doing what was agreed to be done by a lengthy process which was negotiated and agreed to by folks on the payroll of...the taxpayers. If they complied with the agreement, there would be no threat of a lawsuit, possibly freeing up funds for more monitoring, restoration, study, etc.

That is the amazing part. They agree to do something, don't do it, and are amazed that somebody calls them on it.