Opinion ID: 214218
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consultation under Section 7(a)(2)

Text: As noted above, two criteria must be met before consultation is required under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Those criteria are: (1) there must be a proposed agency action, and (2) the proposed agency action may affect a listed species or its habitat. I conclude that each of these criteria have been satisfied.
The Forest Service takes agency action under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in deciding whether to approve or deny NOIs for suction dredge mining if it exercises discretion in making that decision. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.03 (Section 7 appl[ies] to all actions in which there is discretionary Federal involvement or control). I conclude that the Forest Service exercised discretion in three ways in approving or denying NOIs for suction dredge mining in the Klamath National Forest. Because the Forest Service exercised discretion in approving or denying these NOIs, it took agency action within the meaning of Section 7(a)(2). First, the Forest Service exercised discretion in formulating criteria for the protection of critical habitat of listed coho salmon. Those criteria governed the approval or denial of NOIs for suction dredge mining. As described in detail above, District Ranger Vandiver of the Happy Camp District prepared for the 2004 mining season by meeting with Forest Service biologists Bemis and Grunbaum. After consulting with them, Vandiver formulated criteria for protecting critical habitat from the effects of suction dredge mining conducted pursuant to NOIs. He specified by name each of the tributaries to the Klamath River that provided cold-water refugias that should be protected; he specified the maximum number of dredges per mile on the river and on its tributaries; and he required that tailings be raked back into dredge holes. Once Vandiver had exercised his discretion to formulate these specific criteria, they became conditions with which any would-be miner submitting an NOI in the Happy Camp District had to comply. For example, Nida Johnson's NOI indicated that she would respect a cold-water refugia by refraining from dredging within 500 feet of the mouth of Independence Creek. But she made clear that she was doing so only because of the condition imposed by Vandiver, and that, absent compliance with that condition, she would not be allowed to engage in mining: I totally disagree with these distances and believe that dredging is actually beneficial to fish survival, but I am willing to follow these recommendations in order to continue with my mining operations. Similarly, a week after Vandiver had communicated the criteria to the New 49'ers, that group submitted an eight-page single-spaced NOI for suction dredge mining in the Happy Camp District that complied with the criteria. Vandiver approved the NOI the next day. In one sense, Vandiver is to be commended. He recognized the danger that suction dredge mining posed to the critical habitat of coho salmon, and he consulted with Forest Service biologists Bemis and Grunbaum in formulating protective criteria for approving mining under NOIs. The problem is that Vandiver failed to consult with employees of the required agencies. The ESA requires Vandiver consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, not merely within his own agency. Therefore, Vandiver's consultation with Forest Service biologists Bemis and Grunbaum did nothing to comply with Section 7. Second, the Forest Service exercised discretion in refusing to approve a detailed NOI submitted by the New 49'ers for suction dredge mining in the Orleans District. Acting Forest Supervisor Metz refused to approve the NOI because, in his view, it provided insufficient protection of fisheries habitat: first, a cold-water refugia at the mouth of a particular creek was not mentioned in the NOI; second, there was insufficient mitigation of the dangers posed by loose tailings piles left by the dredges. The New 49'ers submitted a new NOI, but then withdrew it five days later. The New 49'ers' representative wrote that despite a substantial ... dialog, the Forest Service's protective conditions meant that there are too many sensitive issues for us to try and manage a group mining activity along the Salmon River at this time. Third, the Forest Service exercised discretion when its employees applied different criteria for the protection of fisheries habitat in different districts of the Klamath National Forest. District Ranger Vandiver developed and applied very specific protective criteria for granting or denying NOIs in the Happy Camp District. Different protective criteria for NOIs were developed and applied in the Scott River District. There is nothing in the record to tell us how the criteria were developed in the Scott River District. But it is clear from the record that those criteria were different, at least in their application, from those in the Happy Camp District. The New 49'ers submitted an NOI to District Ranger Haupt in the Scott River District that complied in full with one of the criteria applied in the Happy Camp District by specifying the maximum number of dredges per mile. The NOI complied, to some degree, with a second Happy Camp criterion by committing to work[ing] with the Forest Service to identify cold-water refugia. But the NOI did not promise to observe any particular cold-water refugia and did not promise to stay a specified distance from any creek mouth. Finally, the NOI did not comply at all with the third Happy Camp criterion, for it did not mention raking tailings piles back into dredge holes. Scott River District Ranger Haupt denied the NOI for reasons unrelated to these three criteria, and he did not include these criteria in the Plan of Operations. A discretionary decision is one that is not dictated or controlled by precise rules or regulations. District Rangers Vandiver and Haupt each formulated and applied their own, differing criteria in deciding whether to grant or deny NOIs for suction dredge mining in their districts. In neither district were those criteria dictated or controlled by precise rules or regulations. See 70 Fed.Reg. at 32720, 32724 (explaining that NOIs must be evaluated on a site-specific basis, and that there is no universal definition of significant disturbance). This difference in formulating and applying criteria is the very definition of the exercise of discretion. In every instance in the record before us, except one in which the NOI was withdrawn, the Forest Service affirmatively acted. In each of those instances, it either approved or denied the NOI in which suction dredge mining was proposed. In each instance, the Forest Service took some kind of discretionary action. Those actions were agency actions within the meaning of Section 7 of the ESA.
Section 7 and an implementing regulation require consultation whenever an agency action may affect ... critical habitat of a listed species. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). An NOI is required whenever proposed suction dredge mining might cause significant disturbance of surface resources. 36 C.F.R. § 228.4(a). Surface resources include fisheries habitat. Id. at § 228.8(e). The Klamath River system is a critical habitat for listed coho salmon. Whether suction dredge mining under NOIs may affect critical habitat can almost be resolved as a textual matter, without the necessity to consult the factual record. That is, by definition, suction dredge mining under an NOI might cause significant disturbance of fisheries habitat in the Klamath River system. If the phrase might cause significant disturbance of fisheries habitat is given an ordinary meaning, it follows almost automatically that suction dredge mining pursuant to an NOI may affect critical habitat of the coho salmon. Indeed, the Forest Service does not dispute that suction dredge mining in the Klamath River system pursuant to NOIs may affect the listed coho salmon and its critical habitat. However, the New 49'ers contend that the record is devoid of any evidence whatsoever that the four challenged suction dredge mining activities `may affect' the coho salmon `species' listed in Northern California. The New 49'ers make two arguments in support of their contention. Neither argument withstands scrutiny. First, the New 49'ers argue that there is no evidence that even a single member of any listed species would be `taken' by reason of the suction dredge mining at issue. Take has a particular definition under the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) (The term `take' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.); Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmties. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 691, 115 S.Ct. 2407, 132 L.Ed.2d 597 (1995). Even if it is true (which I will assume arguendo ) that suction dredge mining does not effectuate a taking of coho salmon under the ESA, this has no bearing on whether such mining may affect the salmon or its critical habitat under 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). Second, the New 49'ers argue that Vandiver's consultation process within the Forest Service, and its resulting guidelines, assured that there would be no impact whatsoever on listed species. This argument cuts against rather than in favor of the New 49'ers. The fact that District Ranger Vandiver formulated his own criteria to mitigate effects of suction dredging on the coho salmon and their critical habitat does not mean that the may affect standard was not met. Indeed, the fact that Vandiver consulted with Forest Service biologists in an attempt to reduce any adverse impact on coho salmon and their habitat suggests exactly the opposite. A review of the record reveals abundant evidence that suction dredging under NOIs in the Happy Camp District may affect coho salmon and their critical habitat. Coho salmon in the Klamath River system were listed as threatened in 1997, and the river was listed as critical habitat two years later. 62 Fed.Reg. 24588, 24588 (May 6, 1997); 64 Fed.Reg. 24049 (May 5, 1999). In listing the salmon, the National Marine Fisheries Service noted that its population was very depressed. 62 Fed.Reg. at 24588. The Fisheries Service concluded that human-induced impacts, including overharvesting, hatchery practices, and habitat modification including mining had played a significant role in the decline, and had reduced the coho salmon populations' resiliency in the face of natural challenges. Id. at 24591-92. The Fisheries Service also concluded that existing regulatory mechanisms are either inadequate or not implemented well enough to conserve the salmon. Id. at 24588. The record also includes information that Forest Service biologist Grunbaum provided on the effects of suction dredge mining at a meeting of Forest Service personnel on April 20, 2004. Grunbaum wrote that relatively few studies of suction dredging had been performed, but the majority ... showed that suction dredging can adversely affect aquatic habitats and biota. The effects varied across ecosystems; in some, dredging may harm the population viability of threatened species. Grunbaum summarized specific potential adverse effects. First, [e]ntrainment by suction dredge can directly kill and indirectly increase mortality of fishparticularly un-eyed salmonid eggs and early developmental stages. Second, disturbance from suction dredging can kill the small invertebrates that larger fish feed on, or alter the invertebrates' environment so that they become scarce. Third, destabilized streambeds can induc[e] fish to spawn on unstable material, and fish eggs and larvae can be smothered or buried. Fourth, because the streams the salmon occupy are already at near lethal temperatures, even minor disturbances in the summer can harm the salmon. Fifth, juvenile salmon could be displaced to a less optimal location where overall fitness and survival odds are also less. Finally, a long list of other factorsdisturbance, turbidity, pollution, decrease in food base, and loss of cover associated with suction dredging could combine to harm the salmon. I therefore conclude that the suction dredge mining challenged in this case may affect the listed coho salmon and its critical habitat.