Opinion ID: 214218
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: May Affect Listed Species or Habitat

Text: 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.