Two lawsuits tackle NW salmon issues

Courts - One criticizes Oregon's river standards, and another complains of unnecessary federal rules

December 14, 2005

MICHAEL MILSTEIN

Oregon came under attack Tuesday in a lawsuit seeking to undo the state's river standards as inadequate for salmon and to have the federal government do the job instead.

At the same time, the U.S. government came under attack in a separate lawsuit Tuesday that contends federal officials wrongly consider many salmon species imperiled when abundant hatchery-born fish make them plentiful. Protection for salmon that do not need it unnecessarily drives prices up and costs the region jobs, the group behind the lawsuit claims.

The legal actions underscore the high stakes surrounding a federal salmon recovery program with costs reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Depending on their success, the suits could affect activities from logging to the operation of hydroelectric dams -- possibly making them easier or tougher.

The case filed by Northwest Environmental Advocates of Portland demands that the federal government throw out Oregon's new river and stream standards because they do not keep water cool enough for salmon.

It says the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should not have approved the state standards developed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

The state rules are riddled with loopholes and ignore the precarious state of salmon and steelhead populations, the lawsuit claims.

It asks that a judge order the EPA to cancel its approval of the state standards and immediately issue tougher federal standards to take their place. The standards form the basis for plans to clean up and restore rivers and streams across the state.

"Oregon's standards for the protection of salmon habitat and water quality are like a piece of Swiss cheese -- more loopholes than substance," said Nina Bell, executive director of Northwest Environmental Advocates. "There's no silver bullet to achieve clear water. It's a series of steps that all start with setting good standards.

The other lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation in Eugene asks a judge to overturn government findings that salmon across four Western states, including Oregon, warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act.

It says the National Marine Fisheries Service should not distinguish between hatchery-born and wild-spawned fish. The origin of fish is an issue because wild fish are seen as a key to restoring natural runs of native salmon, but hatcheries produce hordes of salmon to provide for fishing and other demands.

"NMFS claims salmon are threatened with extinction; taxpayers spend billions of dollars to 'save' salmon; and builders can't build and farmers can't farm, all out of fear salmon might somehow be harmed," the lawsuit says. "Yet, NMFS allows millions of salmon to be taken every year."

The case builds on a 2001 ruling the group won from U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan saying the government erred by excluding hatchery fish from protections afforded wild Oregon Coast coho salmon.

Michael Milstein: 503-294-7689; michaelmilstein@news.oregonian.com