INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHESTATEOFOREGON FORTHECOUNTYOFMARION
DOUGLASCOUNTY,apoliticalsubdivision oftheStateofOregon,UMPQUAFISHERY ENHANCEMENTDERBY,INC.,anOregon non-profitcorporation,andSCOTT WORSLEY, Petitioners, v.
OREGONFISHANDWILDLIFE COMMISSION,andtheOREGON DEPARTMENTOFFISHANDWILDLIFE, anagencyoftheStateofOregon, Respondents.
CaseNo.22CV13979
RESPONSEBRIEFOFTHE CONSERVATIONANGLER, STEAMBOATERS,PACIFICRIVERS, UMPQUAWATERSHEDS,NATIVEFISH SOCIETY,THENORTHUMPQUA FOUNDATION,ANDJEFFDOSEAS AMICI CURIAE –TOPETITIONERS’MOTION FORTEMPORARYRESTRAINING ORDER/PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION
I.SUMMARYOFARGUMENT
PetitionershadtheirdayinCourt,madetheirbestarguments,andlosttheirhatchery releaseclaims. Douglas County v. Or. Fish & Wildlife Comm’n,323OrApp720,729(2023), adh’d to as modified on recons,326OrApp188(2023), rev den,372Or560(2024).Now, Petitionersallegemeritlessclaimstheychosenottobringwhentheyfiledtheiraction29months ago,andtheymoveforanewinjunction,somethingthatisnotneededand wouldharma cherishedwildsummersteelheadpopulation.ThecourtshoulddenyPetitioners’Motionforat leastfourreasons.
First,Petitionerscannotmaketheirprerequisiteshowingthatirreparableharmwilloccur withoutanewinjunction. See Josephine County v. Garnier 163OrApp333,336-37(1999)
(explainingthatproofofirreparableharm“isaprerequisiteofinjunctiverelief”).TheOregon DepartmentofFishandWildlife’s(“ODFW”)datademonstratethatenoughhatcherysummer steelheadreleasedduringtheinjunction(2022-2024)shouldreturnthrough2026tothenrestart theRockCreekHatcherysummersteelheadprogram(“HatcheryProgram”)shouldPetitioners ultimatelyprevailonthemerits(whichAmicithinkishighlyunlikely). See DeclarationofJohn McMillaninSupportofAmiciCuriaeBriefinOppositiontoPetitioners’MotionforTemporary RestrainingOrder/PreliminaryInjunction(“ThirdMcMillanDecl.”)¶7.Therefore,hatchery releasescouldstopfortwo years(2025-2026),aswellasbroodstockcollection(2024-2025), withoutjeopardizingtheHatcheryProgram. Id.
Petitionersspeculateotherwise,butmerespeculationdoesnotmeettheir“burdenof productionorpersuasion”inshowingirreparable harm. See Arlington Sch. Dist. No. 3 v. Arlington Educ. Ass’n,184OrApp97,102(2002)(explainingstandard).Forthisreasonalone, theCourtshoulddenyPetitioners’Motion.
Second,issuinganewinjunctionwouldharmthepublicinterestinprotectingwildNorth Umpquasummersteelhead.TheOregonFishandWildlifeCommission(“Commission”),which representsthepublicinterestofOregon,ORS496.012,determineditmustimmediatelyeliminate theHatcheryProgramto protectthesespecialfish. Issuinganotherinjunctionwouldfurtherharm thesefish,whicharesufferingongoinggeneticandecologicalconsequencesofprevious hatcheryreleasesaswellasconsecutiverecordlowreturns.ThirdMcMillanDecl.¶¶3-5,Exs. 18-20.Thus,anotherinjunctionwouldfurtherharmthepublicinterestinprotectingtheseunique fish.
Third,thebalanceofharmtipsinRespondents’favor.DenyingtheMotion would not harmPetitionersforthereasonsstated.Grantingit,however, would harmODFWandOregon
taxpayersbyforcingthemtofundtheHatcheryProgram.Thatwouldbeespeciallywasteful, consideringthatODFWnowrecommendsclosingtheRockCreekHatcheryduetotheexorbitant costofupgradingit.DeclarationofDavidMoskowitzinSupportofAmiciCuriaeBriefin OppositiontoPetitioners’MotionforTemporaryRestrainingOrder/PreliminaryInjunction (“FourthMoskowitzDecl.”)¶¶2-5,Exs.21-24.BecauseRespondentsandtaxpayershavemuch toloseifanotherinjunctionisissued,whilePetitionershavenothingtoloseifitisnot,theCourt shoulddenytheMotion.
Fourth,Petitionerscannotshow,withclearandconvincingproof,thattheyarelikelyto prevailontheirnewclaims.Petitioners’AdministrativeProceduresAct(“APA”)claims1 are barredbythelawofcasedoctrine.TheOregonCourtofAppeals alreadyheld“theAPAdoesnot provideamechanismforreviewingthecommission’sdecision.” Douglas County,323OrAppat 729.Petitioners’newseparationofpowersclaims2 similarlylackmerit.Oregon’swildlifestatute providespolicyandcriteriatoguidetheCommission’sdecisionsand,therefore,thestatutedoes notunconstitutionallydelegatelegislativepowertotheCommission.ORS496.012.
Petitioners’newwildlifestatuteclaims3 alsofail,becausetheCommission’sdecisionis consistentwiththestatue,andtheCourtcannotsubstitutePetitioners’judgmentforthe Commission’s. See Schlip v. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Comm’n,75OrApp462,465(1985) (denyingsimilarchallengetoaCommissiondecisiontoprotectwildfish). Finally,Petitioners’
1 See AmendedPetitionforJudicialReview¶¶51-57(FirstClaim,CountOne)and62-65,67,70,72 (SecondClaim),79-81(ThirdClaim,CountOne).
2 See id. at¶¶67,69,71(SecondClaim),78-81,83(ThirdClaim,CountOne),and84-86(ThirdClaim, CountTwo).
3 See id. at¶¶67(SecondClaim)78-79,83(ThirdClaim, CountOne).
injunctionclaim4 ismeritless.Aninjunctionisaremedy,notaclaimforrelief,andPetitioners providenoindependentbasisforthispurportedclaim.
SincePetitionersareunlikelytoprevailonanyandalloftheirnewlyallegedclaims,the CourtshoulddenyPetitioners’Motion.
II.BACKGROUND
A. WildNorthUmpquaSummerSteelhead
AmiciCuriaestatethefactsabouttheNorthUmpquaRiver’sspecialpopulationofwild summersteelheadandhistoryofconservationinseparatepriorbriefing. See IntervenorRespondents’ProposedMemoranduminOppositiontoPetitioners’MotionforPreliminary Injunctionatpp.2-3.Amiciincorporatesthosefactshere,buttosparethecourtextrareadingwill notrepeatthosefactsinthisbrief.Aspreviouslydemonstrated,wildNorthUmpquasummer steelheadareextraordinary. Id. Therefore,itmakessensetheCommissionchosetoprotectthem.
B. TheCommission’sDecisiontoEliminatetheHatcheryProgram
AmiciCuriaeexplaintheCommission’sdecisioninseparatebriefingand,therefore,do notrepeatthosefactshere. See AmiciCuriaeBriefinResponsetoPetitioners’MotionforLeave toFileFirstAmendedPetitionforJudicialReviewandComplaintforDeclaratoryReliefand Injunction(“AmiciCuriaeBr.Rsp.Mot.toAmend”).Asdemonstrated,thefactsshowthe Commissionfacilitatedafair,inclusive,andinformeddiscussionabouttheHatcheryProgram and,afterconsideringtheavailableinformation,madearational,science-based,andpublicly supported5 decision. Id. ThefactsdonotsupportPetitioners’attemptatrevisionisthistory.
4 See id. at¶¶87-91(FourthClaim).
5 PetitionersassertthattheCommission“ignored”tribes,ODFW,andotherswhodidnot support eliminatingtheHatcheryProgramatthetime,apparentlybecausetheCommissiondidnot makethedecisionthese groupswanted(i.e.,tocontinuetheHatcheryProgram).SecondMot.forTRO/PIat5.Thatargumentisinconsistent withthedefinitionoftheterm“ignore.”To“ignore”meansto“refusetotake noticeof.”MerriamWebster’s
C. TheInjunctionOrder
RespondentsaccuratelydescribetheOrderGrantingPetitioners’MotionforPreliminary Injunction(“InjunctionOrder”),butPetitionersdonot.Specifically,Petitionersassert“the preliminaryinjunctionrequiredthatODFWraiseandreleaseupto165,000hatcherysteelhead summersteelheadsmolts annually.”Petitioners’MotionforTemporaryRestraining Order/PreliminaryInjunction(“SecondMot.forTRO/PI”)at5-6(emphasisadded).Thatisnot correct.AstheCourtwillrecall,itorderedODFWtorelease a safenumberoffishin2022.
Specifically,itorderedODFWtoreleasethe 2022 smolt cohort pursuanttotwo conditions:first,ODFW wouldreleasesmoltsduringpeak“smolting”and“optimal”migratory conditions;andsecond,ODFW wouldvolitionallyreleasesmoltswhen“hatcherymanagers believethatasignificantportionoffisharelikelytomigratetotheoceanimmediately.”
InjunctionOrderat2(citingDeclarationofShaunClementsinSupportofRespondents’ OppositiontoPetitioners’MotionforPreliminaryInjunction¶12(a)-(b)(“ClementsDecl.”).
Therefore,Petitioners’descriptionoftheInjunctionOrderisinaccurate.
D. TheCoastalMulti-SpeciesConservationandManagementPlan
Petitioners’descriptionsoftheCoastalMulti-SpeciesConservationandManagement Plan(“CMP”)andCMPrule,OAR635-500-6775,arealsoincorrect.Specifically,Petitioners Dictionary, https://www.merriamwebster.com/thesaurus/ignore.ThefactsshowtheCommissioninfacttooknotice ofeveryonewhochosetobeheardonthe matter. See e.g.,AmiciCuriaeBr.Opp.Mot.toAmendat3-4 (summarizingoraltestimonyduringthe April22,2022Commissionmeetingand writtentestimonysubmitted beforehand).Thus,thefactsdonotsupportPetitioners’accusationthattheCommissionignoredcertaingroups. Instead,theyshowthattheCommissionconsideredthosepresentationsbutchoseadifferentresultthanwhatthose presenterswanted.
assertthat“each… requireareleaseof165,000summersteelheadsmoltsannually.”Second Mot.forTRO/PIat6.Thatis notwhattheCMPorCMPrulerequire.
Instead,theCMPdescribeshatcheryproduction goals,nothatcheryrelease requirements.
See DeclarationofNolanSmithinSupportofPetitioners’MotionforTemporaryRestraining Order/OrPreliminaryInjunction(“FirstSmithDecl.”)Ex.104atp.47; see also Declarationof MichaelHarringtoninSupportofRespondents’OppositiontoPetitioners’Motionfor TemporaryRestrainingOrderandPreliminaryInjunctionat¶12; see also ClementsDecl.¶9.The CMPrulesimplyrequiresODFW toimplementtheCMP,whichagain,does notrequireODFW torelease165,000summersteelheadsmoltsannually.OAR635-500-6775(6)-(7).Indeed, no smoltscouldbereleasedbecausetheCMPruleallowstheCommissiontoeliminatetheHatchery Program. Douglas County,323OrAppat728.Therefore,Petitioners’descriptionsoftheCMP andCMPruleareinaccurate.
III. STANDARDOFREVIEW
Injunctivereliefis an“extraordinaryremedy”thatisgrantedsparinglyand“onlyupon clearandconvincingproof.” Jewett v. Deerhorn Enterprises, Inc. 281Or469,473(1978).It “may”beallowedwhenthemovantwouldsufferinjuryduringthelitigationandappearsentitled torelief.ORCP79A.
Oregoncourtsapplyfourequitablefactorswhendecidingwhethertogrant apreliminary injunction. See Elkhorn Baptist Church v. Brown,366Or506,518-19(2020)(describing standard). First,theremustbe“clearand convincing”proofonthemerits. Jewett,281Orat473. Second,themovantmustshowthatirreparableharmwilloccuriftheinjunctionisnotissued, using“evidencethatsatisfiesaburdenofproductionorpersuasionplacedupontheproponentof afact.” Arlington Sch. Dist. No. 3,184OrAppat102. Third,courtscomparethe“relative
hardshiplikelytoresulttothedefendantiftheinjunctionisgrantedandto theplaintiffifitis denied.” York v. Stallings,217Or13,23-25(1959).Fourth,courtsconsiderthepublicinterest. Bennett v. City of Salem,192Or531,546(1951).
Petitionersassertthata“slidingscale”existsthatprovidesthatwhenthebalanceof equitiestipsintheirfavor,theyneedonlyshow“seriousquestionsgoingto themerits”oftheir claims.SecondMot.forTRO/PIat8(citing Alaska Landmine, LLC v. Dunleavy,514F.Supp. 3d1123,1128(D.Alaska2021)). However,thatisnotOregonlaw.InOregon,Petitionersmust showthey“willultimatelyprevailonthemeritsof[their]claim[s],”notjustraisequestions, regardlessofhowtheequityscaletilts. Elkhorn Baptist Church,366Orat518-19.Petitioners failtodosohere.
IV. POINTSANDAUTHORITIES
A. ThereWouldBeNoIrreparableHarmtoPetitioners
Petitionerscannotsatisfytheirthresholdburdenofprovingirreparableharmforthree reasons.First,notreleasinghatcherysteelheadin2025willnotjeopardizetheHatcheryProgram becauseODFWreleased55,115hatcherysummersteelheadthis year(2024)and,therefore,no two-yeargapinhatcheryreleaseswouldoccurnextyear(2025),whichavoidsPetitioners’ adoptedprerequisiteforirreparableharm. See DeclarationofNolanSmithinSupportof Petitioners’[Second]MotionforTemporaryRestrainingOrder/OrPreliminaryInjunction (“SecondSmithDecl.”)Ex.205(explainingthatODFWreleased55,115hatcherysummer steelheadin2024); see also Petitioners’MotionforPreliminaryInjunctionatp.18(adoptingtwoyeargaptheory).Second,thebestavailablescientificdatashowthatODFW releasedenough hatcherysteelheadduringtheinjunction(2022-2024)suchthatODFWcouldpausehatchery releasesfor two yearswithoutendangeringtheHatcheryProgram. See ThirdMcMillanDecl.¶7.
Third,recenthatcheryadultreturns(2023-2024)aretheresultofODFWreleasingnofish in2021andreleasing“fingerling”steelheadtoolateinthe yearin2022.McMillanDecl.at¶¶89.Therefore,recenthatcheryadultreturnsdonotindicatethatnear-futurereturns(2025-2026) resultingfromthe2023-2024releaseswillberelativelylow,too;andPetitionersprovideno evidencetoshowthecontrary.BecausePetitionerscannotsatisfytheirburdentoshowthat irreparableharmwilloccurifanotherinjunctionisnotissued,theCourtshoulddenyPetitioners’ Motion.
1. DenyingtheMotionWouldNotCauseaTwo-YearGapinReleases
Petitioners’purportedprerequisiteforirreparableharmwillnotoccur.Petitioners assertedthattheinjunctionwasnecessarybecause“twoconsecutiveyearsofnohatchery releases***w[ould]meanthat,whenthesegenerationsoffish would bereturning,therewillbe nohatcheryfishtospawnforthecontinuationofthehatcheryprogram.”Petitioners’Replyin SupportofMotionforPreliminaryInjunctionatp.32; see also Petitioners’Motionfor PreliminaryInjunctionatp.18(“[T]wo consecutive lost yearsofasmoltreleasewilleffectively eliminatethebroodstockand,thus,theabilitytocollectbroodstock”).However,inrealityno two-yeargapwouldoccurifODFW doesnotreleasesmoltsin2025, becauseODFWreleased hatcherysteelheadduringthepreviousthreeyears(2022:68,444fishreleased;2023:6,790fish released;2024:55,115fishreleased). See ThirdMcMillanDecl.Ex.25atp.66;SecondSmith Decl.Exs.201,205.
Asaresult,issuinganotherinjunctionisunnecessarytopreventatwo-yeargapin hatcheryreleases-becausenosuchgapwilloccur.BecausePetitioners’perquisitefor irreparableharmwillnotoccurin2025,Petitionerscannotmaketheirprerequisiteshowingfor injunctiverelief.Therefore,theCourtshoulddenyPetitioners’Motion.
Incredibly,Petitionersassertthatthefactsarenotmateriallydifferentin2024thanthey werein2022. See SecondMot.forTRO/PIatp.15.Nothingcouldbefurtherfromthetruth.In 2022,theHatcheryProgramfacedtwopotentialyearsofnoreleases(2021-2022). Incontrast,in 2024,thereisnotwo-yeargapbecauseODFWreleasedfishthis year(2024). Id.Therefore,the facts are materiallydifferent.
Petitionersalsoassertthat“decliningandlow-levelreleasesmakeit more crucialthat ODFWcontinuethe[HatcheryProgram].” See SecondMot.forTRO/PIatp.15(emphasis added).ButPetitionersdonotprovideanyevidence,muchlessclearandconvincingevidence, thatthenumberoffishreleasedduringtheinjunction(2022-2024)willnotreturninsufficient numbersifhatcheryreleasesarepausedforoneormoreyears.BecausePetitionersfailto provideclearandconvincingproofthathatcheryreleasesmustcontinuewhiletheirnewclaims arelitigated,theCourtshoulddenytheirMotion.
2. ODFWCouldPauseHatcheryReleasesforTwoYearsWithout Jeopardizing theHatcheryProgram
ODFW’sfishreleaseandreturndataandotherbestavailablescientificdatashowthat fishreleasedin2023-2024shouldreturninsufficientnumbersthrough2026tocontinuethe HatcheryProgram. See ThirdMcMillanDecl.¶7,Exs.26-27;SecondSmithDecl.Ex.201at p.78and205;FirstSmithDecl.Exs.105atp.42,&109atp.40.Therefore,ODFW couldrelease hatcheryfishintoreservoirsthisyear(2024),notcollectbroodstockfortwo years(2024-2025), restartbroodstockcollectionintheSummerof2026,andresumehatcherysmoltreleasesin 2028,withoutfunctionallyterminatingtheHatcheryProgram.AmiciCuriaedemonstratehow thiswouldbealikelyscenarioinfoursteps.
First,ODFWreleased6,790and55,115hatcherysummersteelheadin2023and2024, respectively.SecondSmithDecl.Exs.201atp78,205atp.1.ODFW’sdatashowthatan averageofonepercentof RockCreekHatcherysummersteelheadreturnasadults.Third McMillanDecl.¶7b,Ex.26.Therefore,approximately619hatcherysummersteelheadshould returntotheNorthUmpquaRiver(i.e.,1%of61,905hatcherysummersteelheadreleasedin 2023-2024).ThirdMcMillanDecl.at¶7b.
Second,tobeconservative,AmiciCuriaeassumethatupto17%ofthosehatchery steelheadmayhaveresidualized.The17%residualizationrateisbasedonameta-analysisof hatcherysteelheadprogramsthroughoutthePacificNorthwest,whichfoundthatresidualism ratesrangefrom0%to17%,withanaverageof5.6%. Id. ¶7c,Ex.27atp.1.Therefore, assumingthemaximumresidualrateapplies(17%),atleast514hatcherysummersteelhead shouldreturnasadults.ThirdMcMillanDecl.¶7c.Becausesome fishthatresidualizedwill likelymigratetotheoceanandreturnasadults,morethan514adulthatcherysummersteelhead shouldreturn. Id
Third,ODFW’sdatashowthatRockCreekHatcherysummersteelheadreturnafter spendingonetofouryearsintheocean.FirstSmithDecl.Ex.105atpp.42-43.Specifically, ODFWassumesthat10%returnafterone yearintheocean(“1-salt”steelhead),66.5%return aftertwo yearsintheocean(“2-salt”steelhead),20%returnafterthreeyearsintheocean(“3salt”steelhead),and3.5%returnafterfour years intheocean(“4-salt”steelhead). Id.; see also ThirdMcMillanDecl.¶7d.Therefore,fish releasedduring2023-2024shouldreturnthrough 2028becausesome4-saltsteelheadfromthe2024releaseshouldreturnin 2028.6
6 Fishthatmigratedtotheoceanin2023 wouldreturnin2024-2027,andfishthatmigrated totheoceanin 2024wouldreturnin2025-2028. See McMillanDecl.at¶7d.
Thisreturnscheduledoesnotaccountforhatcherysteelheadthatlikelyresidualized, migratedtotheoceaninsubsequentyears,and,therefore,wouldreturntotheNorthUmpqua Riverlaterasadults. Id. Inanyevent,tobeconservative,AmiciCuriaeuse2026asthecutoff yearandstillshowthatnoirreparableharmwouldoccuriftheCourtdeniedtheMotion. Id.7
Fourth,ODFWcouldrestarttheHatcheryProgramwithhatcheryfishthatreturnin2026 becauseenoughfishshouldreturnthenduetohatcheryreleasesin2023-2024. Id. ¶7d.For example,assuming17%ofthehatcherysteelheadreleasedin2023-2024residualized,a minimumofapproximately315and93hatcherysummersteelheadshouldreturnin2026and 2027,respectively,becauseofthe2023-2024hatcherysummersteelheadreleases. Id.
Theoffspringofsteelheadreturningin2026(2-saltsteelheadfrom2024releaseand3saltsteelheadfrom2023release)couldbereleasedin2028,andtheoffspringofsteelhead returningin2027(3-salt steelheadfrom2024release)couldbereleasedin2029.Alternatively, ODFWcouldusethe2026broodstockforhatcheryreleasesinboth2028and2029,whichwould beconsistentwiththeHatcheryProgram’sHatcheryandGeneticManagementPlan(“HGMP”).
See FirstSmithDecl.Ex.109atp.40(ODFWproposingtorelease more two-yearoldsmolts thanone-yearoldsmolts); see also ThirdMcMillanDecl.¶7f.Therefore,hatcheryoperations couldpausethroughtheSpringof2026withoutjeopardizingtheHatcheryProgram.
Petitionersdonotciteanypersuasive(muchlessclearandconvincing)evidencethat pausinghatcheryreleasesin2025and2026wouldfunctionallyterminatetheHatcheryProgram. Instead,Petitionersmerelycite astatementbyformerODFW DirectorCurtMelcherduringthe April22,2022Commissionmeeting.SecondMot.forTRO/PIatp.14.However,Director
7 AmiciCuriaearenotcounting4-saltreturnsbecausetheyarerelativelyrare(i.e.,3.5%ofreturns). See Id.
Melcherdidnotcite anythingtosupporthisstatementandthebestavailablescientificdata showsODFWcouldpausehatcheryreleasesfortwoyearswithoutjeopardizingtheHatchery Program.Asaresult,formerDirectorMelcher’sconjectureonthisissueisnotcompelling evidence.
Inshort,Petitionersfailtoshow–byclearandconvincingevidence–thattwoyearsof nohatcheryreleases(2025-2026)wouldterminatetheHatcheryProgram.Asaresult,theCourt shoulddenytheMotion.
3.
HatcheryReturnsShouldIncrease
Therelativelylowhatcherysteelheadreturnsin2023and2024donotindicatethat hatcheryreturnsinthenearfuturewillbedangerouslylow.Thus,continuedhatcheryreleasesin thenear-termarenotnecessarytoavoidirreparableharm.
Indeed,the2023and2024hatcherysummersteelheadreturnsareanunsurprisingresult ofODFW releasingnohatcherysteelheadin2021andreleasing“fingerling”hatcherysteelhead toolatein2022.ThirdMcMillanDecl.¶¶8-9.Asoutlined,hatcherysteelheadreleasedin2023 and2024shouldresultinlargerhatcherysteelheadreturnsin2026suchthatODFWcouldpause theHatcheryProgramfortwoyearswithoutjeopardizingtheHatcheryProgram.Therefore, contrarytoPetitioners’assertion,the2023and2024hatcherysteelheadreturnnumbersdonot makeit“imperative”thatODFWcontinuehatcherysteelheadreleaseswhiletheirsecondround ofclaimsarelitigated.SecondMot.forTRO/PIatp.15.
Hatcherysummersteelheadreturnsin2023wererelativelylowbecausenohatchery summersteelheadwerereleasedin2021and,therefore,notwo-salthatcherysteelheadreturned in2023.Nevertheless,67hatcherysummersteelheadstillreturnedtotheNorthUmpquain2023 despiteODFW releasingzerofishin2021. See ThirdMcMillanDeclarationEx.19.
Hatcherysummersteelheadreturnsarerelativelylowthisyear(2024)fortworeasons. First,in2022,ODFWreleased“fingerling”hatcherysummersteelhead,whicharenotsmolts anddonotmigratetotheocean.ThirdMcMillanDecl.¶9aEx.25.Therefore,thehatchery steelheadreleasedin2022likelyresidualizedintheriverfora yearandthenmigratedtothe oceanthefollowingspring(Springof2023).ThirdMcMillanDecl.¶9a.Second,ODFW releasedthesefishtoolateintheyear. Id.¶9bEx.28.AsAmiciCuriaewarnedtheParties, releasingthosefishoutsidetheirjuvenilemigrationwindow(March-April) wouldlikelycause residualizationand,asaresult,competitionwithwildsummersteelhead. Id Therefore,itisnot surprisingthatrelativelyfewhatcherysummersteelheadreturnedthis year(2024).
However,this year’srelativelylowhatcherysteelheadreturndoesnotrequireODFWto continuereleasingmorehatcherysteelheadin2025or2026tomaintaintheHatcheryProgram. Asoutlined,ODFWcouldreleasenohatcherysummersteelheadin2025and2026without jeopardizingtheHatcheryProgram,regardlessofthenumberoffishreturningthis year(2024). BecausePetitionershavenotandcannotprovideconvincingevidencetothecontrary,theCourt shoulddenytheMotion.
B. GrantingtheInjunctionWouldHarmthePublicInterest
Issuinganotherinjunctionwouldharmthepublicinterestbyplacingmoreharmontopof astrugglingwildsummersteelheadpopulationthattheagencyandthepublicwantsprotected.
1. WildSummerSteelheadareSufferingGeneticandEcological Damagefrom HatcheryReleases
ODFW’sdatashowthattheHatcheryProgramisstillexceedinggeneticandecological safetylimitsand,therefore,theHatcheryProgramisharmingwildsummersteelhead.Third
McMillanDecl.Ex.18.TheCMPsetsa10%pHOSlimitforNorthUmpquasummersteelhead.8 FirstSmithDecl.Ex.104atpp.174-75.ODFWreportsthatthe9-yearpHOSaverageis18%, whichisnearly double thepHOSlimit.ThirdMcMillanDecl.¶3.Asexplainedinseparating briefing,exceedingthatlimitprovestheHatcheryProgramisharmingwildsummersteelhead. See AmiciCuriaeBr.Rsp.Pet.Mot.toAmendatpp.5-6.Asaresult,issuinganotherinjunction wouldcausemoreharmtowildsummersteelheadandthepublicinterestinprotectingthese specialfish.
2. WildSteelheadAreSufferingfromOngoingRecordLowAbundance
Moregenetic andecologicalharmisthelastthingwildsummersteelheadneed, consideringtheirsharpdipinrecentabundance.In2021and2023,only450and960wild summersteelheadreturned,respectively,whicharethetwolowestreturnsonrecordforthe population.ThirdMcMillanDecl.Ex.19(showingannualsummersteelheadreturnsfrom1946 through2023). In2022,1,346wildsummersteelheadreturned,whichisthepopulation’sfourth lowestreturnonrecord. Id
Wildsummersteelheadwilllikelyexperienceanotherlowreturnthis year. See Third McMillanDecl.Ex.20.BasedonODFW’smostrecentdata,1,554summersteelhead(hatchery andwildsummersteelheadcombined)returnedbetweenMay1andSeptember26,2024,which isthethirdworstreturnforthisperiodduringthelasttenyears(2015-2024). Id. Becausethevast
8 The10%pHOSlimit maynotsufficientlyprotectwildsteelhead.AccordingtoODFW’sformerFish DivisionAdministrator,EdwardBowles, whocontributedto theCMP,geneticrisksincreasewhenpHOSexceeds 5% and ecologicalriskshaveoccurred whenpHOSisover10%. Native Fish Soc’y v. NMFS,992F.Supp.2d1095, 1105(D.Or.2014)(citingAmendedDeclarationofEdwardBowlesat¶127, Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. NMFS,839 F.Supp.2d1117(D.Or.2011)(emphasisadded); see also Ex.104at2(listingEdwardBowlesasanODFW contributortotheCMP).Inshort,pHOSlevelsarenearly four timestheamountthatODFW hasassociated with increasedgeneticrisks.
majorityofsummersteelheadreturnbeforeSeptember26th,itisunlikelythattherewillbea surgeoffishthatwouldsignificantlychangetheoutlookforthisyear’sreturn. Id.
Releasingmorehatcherysummersteelheadwillcausemoreharmtowildsummer steelheadthatarealreadystruggling.Therefore,to avoidmoreharmtothesespecialfishandthe publicinterestinprotectingthem,theCourtshoulddenyPetitioners’Motion.
C. TheBalanceofHarmsTipsinRespondents’Favor
ThebalanceofharmstipsinRespondents’favor,becausetheyaretheonlynamedparties withsomethingtolosewhilePetitionerslitigatetheirsecondroundofclaims.Forthereasons outlined,PetitionersfacenoirreparableharmiftheCourtdeniestheirrequesttoissueanother injunction.However,issuinganinjunctionwouldharmODFWbyforcingittospendlimited fundingonthisparticularHatcheryProgram. See HarringtonDecl.at¶29(estimatingannual operatingcosttobe$122,000).Therefore,theCourtshoulddenyPetitioners’Motion.
ForcingODFWtopayforhatcherysummersteelheadreleasesthatareunnecessaryto preventirreparableharmwouldbeespeciallywastefulbecauseODFWnowrecommendsclosing theRockCreekHatchery.FourthMoskowitzDecl.Exs.21&24.ODFWproposesclosingthe hatcherybecauseitisexpensivetooperateandisespeciallyvulnerabletoclimatechange.
“TheSalmonRiverandRockCreekhatcherieswerechosenforclosurebecause ouranalysestodatesuggestthatthesetwofacilitiesarethemostvulnerableto climatechange(decreasedflows,increasedtemperatures,fires,flooding)andwill beamongthecostliesttomaintaingoingforwardbecauseofthedeferred maintenancecosts…”
FourthMoskowitz DeclEx.24.Indeed,outofall17hatcheriesinOregon,theRockCreek Hatcheryhasthehighestinfrastructurecosts(approx.$45million)andistheworstpreparedfor climatechange. Id.Ex.22atp.16.ODFW’sconsultantestimatesitwouldcost$20,651,531just toupgradethefacility’scoolingsystem,whichisnecessaryto“continueto providethe
conditionsrequiredforreproduction”atthehatchery. Id. Ex.23atpp.1&7.Forthesereasons, theCourtshoulddenyPetitioners’requestthatODFWandOregontaxpayersthrowmoremoney intothisproverbialmoneypitwhilePetitionerstrytotakeaproverbialsecondbiteattheapple.
D. PetitionersCannotShowTheyAreLikelytoPrevailontheirClaims
Petitionerscannotshow,withclearandconvincingproof,thattheyarelikelytoprevail ontheirnewclaimsforfivereasons.First,Petitioners’ORS183.490and183.400(2)claimsare barredbythelawofthecasedoctrine.Second,Petitioners’ORS183.490claimalsofailsbecause nothingrequirestheCommission’sinstructiontoODFWstafftobeinwriting.
Third,Petitioners’ORS183.400(2)claimalsofailsbecausetheCommissions’decision andtheCMPruleareconsistentwithOregon’swildlifestatute.Fourth,neithertheCMPrule, Oregon’swildlifestatute,northeCommission’sdecisionviolatetheseparationofpowers doctrine.
Fifth,Petitioners’injunctionclaimprovidesnoindependentbasisforreliefand,therefore, itismeritless.BecausenoneofthePetitioners’claimshavemerit,theCourtshoulddeny Petitioners’Motion.
1. Petitioners’NewAPAClaimsareBarred
Petitioners’ORS183.490and183.400(2)claimsarebarredbythelawofthecase doctrine.Thedoctrineprovides:
“whenarulingordecisionhasbeenoncemadeinaparticularcasebyanappellate court,whileitmaybeoverruledinothercases,itisbindingandconclusiveboth upontheinferiorcourtinanyfurtherstepsorproceedingsinthesamelitigation andupontheappellatecourtitselfinanysubsequentappealorotherproceeding forreview.”
State v. Langley,331Or430,437(2000)(quoting State v. Pratt,316Or561,569(1993) (cleanedup).“Thus,thelawofcaseprecludesrelitigationorreconsiderationofapointoflaw decidedatanearlierstageofthesamecase.”Id.(quoting Koch v. So. Pac. Transp. Co.,274Or 499,512(1976)(cleanedup).
TheOregonCourtofAppealsdecidedseveralpointsoflawthatPetitionerscannot relitigateinthiscase.First,itheldthat“theAPAdoesnotprovideamechanismforreviewing thecommission’sdecision”and,therefore,Petitioners’newAPAclaimsarebarred. Douglas County,323OrAppatp.729.Second,thecourtheldthattheCMPruledoesnotrequireODFW tooperatetwohatcheryprograms. Id. atp.728.Therefore,Petitioners’ORS183.490claimtothe contraryisbarred.Third,thecourtheldthattheCommission’sdecisionbinds ODFW. Id. at p.726.Asaresult,Petitioners’ORS183.490claimthatthedecisionisnotafinalbinding decisiononthepublicisbarred.Becausetheseclaimsarebarred,Petitionerswillnotprevailon them.
2. NothingRequirestheCommission’sDecisiontobeinWriting
NocaselawsupportsPetitioners’newtheorythattheCommission’sinstructionto ODFWtoterminatetheHatcheryProgramisnotfinalbecauseitisnotinwriting.Indeed, PetitionerarguedpreviouslythattheCommission’sdecisionwasinfactaFinalOrdersubjectto APAreview.NordidtheOregonCourtofAppealsrejecttheCommission’sdecisionasnonfinal.Petitioners’assertionthattheCommission’sdecisionissomehownotfinal,becauseitis notinwriting,lacksmerit. /// ///
3. TheCommission’sDecisionisConstitutional
TheLegislaturelawfullydelegatedauthoritytotheCommissiontoclosetheHatchery Program. See, ORS496.146(3);ORS496.012.Oregon’swildlifestatuteauthorizesthe Commissionto“propagateandstockwildlifespeciesinsuchmannerasthecommission determineswillcarryoutthestatewildlifepolicyandmanagementprograms.”ORS496.146(3). Oregon’swildlifepolicystatesthat“wildlifeshallbemanagedtopreventseriousdepletionof anyindigenousspeciesandtoprovidetheoptimumrecreationalandaestheticbenefitsforpresent andfuturegenerationsofthecitizensofthisstate.”ORS496.012.Italsorequiresthe Commissiontoimplementsevenco-equalgoalsofwildlifemanagement. Id.
Forexample,theCommissionmust“makedecisionsthataffectwildliferesourcesofthe stateforthebenefitofthewildliferesources”and“allowforthebestsocial,economicand recreationalutilizationofwildliferesourcesbyall usergroups.”ORS496.012(7).Thestatute doesnotrequiretheCommissiontopropagateorreleasehatcheryfishinanyspecificlocations, letalonetheNorthUmpquaRiver.
BecausethewildlifepolicyanditscriteriainstructtheCommissiononhowtomake decisions,theLegislaturedidnotunlawfullydelegatelegislativeauthoritytotheCommission. ORS496.012; see City of Damascus v. Brown,266Or.App.416,448-49(2014)(focusingon whetherobjectivelegislativestandardsorpolicyguidesexerciseofdelegatedauthority). Therefore,theCommission’sdecisiontoeliminatetheHatcheryProgramdoesnotviolatethe separationofpowersdoctrine.
PetitionerscannotshowthatOregon’swildlifepolicyortheCMPruleopensthedoorto Commissionersclosinghatcheriestoservetheirpersonalinterests. See id. atpp.450-451 (describinglackofadequatesafeguardsrelatingtodecisionmakershavingpersonalinterestsin theoutcome).Here,theCommissionersrepresent different regionsofthestate.ORS496.090(4).
TheCommissionmayonlydecidetocloseahatcheryafterconsideringwhetherthatwouldserve thepublicinterestofOregon,applyingthesevencriteriainthewildlifepolicy.ORS496.012.
ThechancethatCommissionerswouldconspirewitheachothertocloseahatcheryto servetheirpersonalinterestsunderthisscenarioisremoteatbestcompared tocaseswherealack ofsafeguardsopenedthedoortoself-dealingbydecisionmakers. See Corvallis Lodge No. 1411 v. OLCC,67OrApp15(1984); see also City of Damascus,266OrAppat451.Thus,thereare adequatesafeguardstoprotectagainstarbitrarydecisionstoclosehatcheries.Asaresult, Petitionerswillnotprevailonthisclaim.
4. TheCommission’sDecisionImplementsOregon’sWildlifePolicy
TheCommissionhasdiscretionindetermininghowtoachieveOregon’swildlifepolicy goals.PetitionerssimplydisagreewiththeCommissions’determinationthatitisinthepublic interesttoclosetheHatcheryProgramtoprotectwildNorthUmpquasummersteelheadfor currentandfuturegenerationsofOregonianstoexperience.ItisnotforthisCourttosubstitute itsjudgment–orPetitioners’–fortheCommission’s.
TheCourtofAppealsrejectedasimilarchallengetotheCommission’sauthorityin Schlip v. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Comm’n,75Or.App.462(1985).Thepetitionersinthatcase challengedrulesrelatedtosalmonmanagementandharvestoperationsbecausetheyallegedly ledtomanagementdecisionsthat“devastated”fisheries. Id. at607.Thepetitionersclaimedthe CommissionexceededitsstatutoryauthorityunderORS506.109,whichprovidesthat“[i]tisthe policyof[Oregon]thatfoodfishshallbemanagedtoprovidetheoptimumeconomic, commercial,recreational,andaestheticbenefitsforpresentandfuturegenerationsofthecitizens ofthisstate.” Id. (quotingORS506.109).TheCourtdisagreed,holdingthatwhiletherulesmay havenegativeeffectsonfisheries,theCommissionwaswellwithinitsauthorityunderORS
506.109toadoptrulestoprotectwildstocksandthat“itisnotforth[e]courttosubstituteits judgement–orpetitioners’–forthatoftheCommission’s.” Id. at465.
TheCommissionwaswellwithinitsauthoritytoadopttheCMPruleandimplementit whenitdecidedtoeliminatethisparticularHatcheryProgram.ORS496.138,496.012.Whilethe Commission’sdecisiontoeliminatethisHatcheryProgramwouldhavenegativeeffectson recreationalfishingforhatcherysteelheadin one riverinOregon,theCommissionwaswell withinitsstatutoryauthoritytomakethatdecisiononbehalfofcurrentandfutureOregonians. Again,itisnotforthisCourttosubstituteitsjudgement–orPetitioners’–forthatofthe Commission’s. Id. Therefore,neithertheCMPrule,northeCommission’sdecisionunderthat rule,exceedtheCommission’sstatutoryauthority.
BecausePetitionersdonot,andcannot,demonstratewithclearandconvincingproofthat theyarelikelytoprevailonanyoftheirclaims,theCourtshoulddenyPetitioners’Motion.
5.
Petitioners’InjunctionClaimLacksMerit
Aninjunctionisaremedy,notaclaimforrelief.Also,Petitionersprovidenoindependent basisfortheirinjunctionclaim.Therefore,itlacksmerit.
CONCLUSION
Noequitablefactorsupportsissuinganewinjunction.Thedatashowthatnoirreparable harmwilloccurbecauseenoughhatcherysteelheadfrompriorreleasesshouldreturnthrough 2026suchthatODFW couldpausehatcheryoperationsthroughtheSpringof2026without jeopardizingtheHatcheryProgram.Issuinganinjunctionwouldactuallyharmthepublic interest,becausemorehatcheryreleaseswouldfurtherharmastrugglingpopulationofwild summersteelheadthatneedstobeprotected.
Petitionershavenothingtolosewhiletheirsecondroundofclaimsarelitigated,while RespondentsandOregontaxpayersdonothavemoneytowasteonthisparticularfailing HatcheryProgram.NoneofPetitioners’newclaimshavemerit,whichislikelywhytheydidnot allegethem29monthsago,whentheyfiledtheiraction.Petitioners’caseagainstthe Commission’sdecisionisfunctionallyextinct,andthereisnoequitablereasontojeopardizea belovedwildsummersteelheadpopulationanylonger.TheCourtshoulddenyPetitioners’ Motion.
Datedthis14th dayofOctober,2024
/s/Karl G. Anuta
KarlG.AnutaOSB#861423
LawOfficeofKarlG.Anuta,P.C.
735SW Firstave,2nd Fl. Portland,OR97204
T:503-827-0320F:503-386-2168
KGA@lokga.net
CoreyJ.Oken,OSB#240290
LawOfficeofKarlG.Anuta,P.C. 735SW Firstave,2nd Fl. Portland,OR97204
T:503-827-0320F:503-386-2168
corey@lokga.net
Attorneys for Amici Curiae
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
IherebycertifythatonOctober14,2024,Ie-filedtheforegoing AmiciBriefin OppositiontoPetitioners’MotionforTemporaryRestrainingOrder/Preliminary
InjunctionwiththeCircuitCourtoftheStateofOregonforMarionCounty.Ifurthercertifythat onOctober14,2024Iservedatrueandcorrectcopyofthesamebyemailontheattorneyslisted belowattheaddresseslistedbelow.
DominicM.Carollo
NolanSmith
CarolloLawGroup P.O.Box2456
Roseburg,OR97470 dcarollo@carollolegal.com nsmith@carollolegal.com
Attorney for Petitioners
TomH.Castelli
AlexanderC.Jones YoungWooJoh OregonDepartmentofJustice 1162CourtSt.NE Salem,OR97301
Thomas.Castelli@doj.oregon.gov Alex.Jones@doj.oregon.gov YoungWoo.Joh@doj.oregon.gov
Attorney for Respondents
/s/Karl G. Anuta
KarlG.AnutaOSB#861423
CoreyJ.Oken,OSB#240290 LawOfficeofKarlG.Anuta,P.C. 735SW Firstave,2nd Fl. Portland,OR97204 T:503-827-0320F:503-386-2168
KGA@lokga.net corey@lokga.net
Attorneys for Amici Curiae