Opinion ID: 175356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout

Text: The Gallatin Plan requires that [h]abitat that is essential for [Yellowstone cutthroat trout] be managed to maintain the[ ] species. As the Service recognized in the EA, streams in the Project area are extremely important to conservation and recovery of the species. Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the area are at risk from non-native fish and from habitat degradation due to roads and timber harvest. In particular, the Service noted that any increase in sediment yield from this proposal would perpetuate degraded spawning habitat conditions. Plaintiffs argue that the Project would violate the Gallatin Plan by increasing sediment levels in the streams due to ground disturbance from harvesting and increased road use. We disagree. The Project, along with its associated road improvements, would reduce rather than increase long-term sediment levels. Plaintiffs argue that some of the improvements in sediment levels will result from pre-Project road improvements that have already been completed, and therefore are no longer considered part of the Project. But even putting those improvements aside, the Project would reduce long-term levels through other road improvements. Plaintiffs argue that these improvements are not yet fully funded, and therefore not guaranteed. But Plaintiffs fail to show any likelihood of increased long-term sediment levels from the Project even if the road improvements are not completed. We therefore find that the Service was justified in concluding that the Project does not present a threat to cutthroat trout through increases in long-term sediment levels. The Service has also adequately taken short-term sediment increases into account. We have held agency decisions to be unlawful where they focused only on long-term effects, ignoring short-term effects that jeopardize species. See Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Ass'ns v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082, 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2005) (the agency failed to provide analysis showing that the coho would receive sufficient protection against jeopardy under the proposed plan); Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917, 935 (9th Cir.2008) (proposal at issue would have significant negative impacts on each affected species' critical habitat and the agency analysis failed to demonstrate that these impacts would not affect the fishes' survival and recovery, in light of their short life-cycles and current extremely poor habitat conditions). But the Project incorporates a number of mitigation measures intended to limit short-term increase in sediment levels. All ground-based harvest activities using tractors or skidders would be done over snow or frozen ground, limiting soil disturbance that might eventually reach the streams; the Project would limit harvest activities within 100 feet of any stream; and the Project would leave untouched those trees identified as most likely to provide stability to soil around streams. The EA explains that any small short-term increases in sediment levels that nonetheless occur despite the Service's mitigation efforts would not threaten the viability of the Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Current sediment levels vary by location. In the most severely affected areas, sediment levels are predicted to be 26% above natural levels over the short term. According to Service studies, such levels permit a stream to provide for a population of cutthroat trout 90% the size of its inherent capability. We therefore conclude that the Service was not arbitrary and capricious in concluding that the Project would not threaten Yellowstone cutthroat trout through either long-term or short-term increases in sediment levels.