Opinion ID: 2737007
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fisheries

Text: Wild Swan further argues that the Forest Service failed to analyze adequately the potential cumulative impact of the two projects on the native fishery, particularly the risk of increased sedimentation on the bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout within the main channel of the South Fork of the Flathead River, even though the projects will occur in the same segment of the South Fork (across the river from one another). For its analysis area, the Forest Service selected a roughly seven-mile stretch along the Flathead River, beginning at its confluence with the Spotted Bear River and continuing downstream to the Hungry Horse Reservoir. The upstream point was chosen because the greatest risk of sediment discharge from either project would be from the possibility of runoff from a severe rainstorm shortly after a prescribed burn, and the substantial majority of burn units and other project improvements, such as culvert upsizing, are located downstream of that confluence point. The endpoint of the Service’s cumulative analysis was the entrance to the Hungry Horse Reservoir. The Service did not consider areas downstream of the reservoir because the reservoir is so large that it would have a “very significant buffering effect” so that there would be “virtually no measurable effect of any proposed management activity to water quality or water quantity” in or downstream from the reservoir. The Service has offered reasonable justifications 16 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER for selecting the beginning and endpoint along the river that are not arbitrary or capricious. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d at 973. The EAs also addressed each project’s potential sediment impact on this main channel of the South Fork,3 but concluded there would be little significant impact because: (1) 99% of the potential sediment would occur only in the “worst-case scenario,” i.e., if there were a high-intensity rainstorm shortly after a prescribed burn, which the EAs concluded was not likely based upon recent local fire history4; and (2) even if the worst-case scenario occurred, it would be diluted by the considerably larger flow of the South Fork and “not . . . outside the range of natural variability” in that system. Relying in large part on the hydrology discussion, the EAs also analyzed each project’s impacts on fisheries, including fish and fish habitat within the agency’s defined cumulative effects area. The EAs concluded that although there could be “short-term negative effect[s] on the westslope cuttroat trout,” in light of the robust population in the area, the action would not likely contribute towards a loss of viability to the population or species. Similarly, noting that bull trout do not spawn within the project area, there would be “no adverse modification of critical habitat” for that species, and determined that the projects would actually improve the habitat quality in the long term. 3 The EA for each project recognized the potential to discharge additional sediment to the South Fork of the Flathead River. 4 This is because most high-intensity storms occur during the summer, and the prescribed burns in the project are scheduled for spring or fall. FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 17 Wild Swan correctly points out that the EAs did not specifically consider the impact to the main channel of South Fork if the “worst-case” scenario for both projects occurred and delivered sediment to the main channel simultaneously. However, even assuming Wild Swan has shown a possibility of success on this issue or at least serious questions on the merits, we nonetheless affirm the denial of the preliminary injunction because Wild Swan has not established a likelihood of irreparable harm to the fisheries in the absence of an injunction. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[P]laintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.”). Both EAs indicate it is highly unlikely that the “worst-case scenario” event (intense storm following prescribed burn) for either project would ever occur because of the seasonal timing of the burns, and thus it appears doubly unlikely that all potential sediment discharge from both projects would occur simultaneously. Wild Swan has not shown any likelihood that the prescribed burns for each project would occur at exactly the same time. In fact, the project decisions state that because conditions must be ideal, the prescribed burns could take up to ten years to complete. In addition, according to the Forest Service declaration submitted in response to the motion for injunctive relief, at that time only limited thinning/prep work for some burns was proposed, with the possibility of prescribed burns in two of the fifteen Spotted Bear treatment units and four of the seven Soldier Addition treatment units later that fall, and then only if weather conditions cooperated. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining Wild Swan has not demonstrated an imminent injury in the absence of injunctive relief. See Caribbean Marine Servs. v. 18 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[P]laintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.”).