motorized trav el mana ge ment acti...

SUPPL EM E N TA L BIOL OGICAL ASSESSMENT/BIOLOGIC AL

EVALUATION

FOR

T H RE ATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED,

A ND SENSITIV E FISH SPECIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED

BY

MOTORIZ E D TR AV EL MANA GE MENT ACT I ONS

ON T H E

SHAST A~ TRIN ITY NATION AL FOREST

LOWER SACRAMENT O RrV E "R BASIN 4 T H FIELD WATE RSHED

Shasta~Trinity National Forest March 9,2010'

Prepared and finalized by: William A. Brock, Forest Fisheries Biologist

Reviewed!Approved by:

(fr/ 1. SHARON HEYWOOD, Forest Supervisor Date

Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Suggested citation: Brock, William A. 2010. Supplemental Biological Assessment/

Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive Fish Species that may be

affected by Motorized Travel Management Actions on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in the lower

Sacramento River Basin 4th field watershed. USDA Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest,

3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA.

Supplemental Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed,

and Sensitive Fish Species That May Be Affected by Motorized Travel Management Actions

Shasta-Trinity National Forest iii

PROJECT NAME: Motorized Travel Management Actions (Project) on the Shasta-Trinity

National Forest (Forest)

LOCATION: Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF)

ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT: STNF

FOURTH FIELD

WATERSHED:

FIFTH FIELD

WATERSHED:

Lower Sacramento River

Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek

SIXTH FIELD

WATERSHEDS: 6

th field watersheds on the STNF listed within this document

SEVENTH FIELD

WATERSHEDS:

7th field watersheds on the STNF listed within this document

WATERSHED ANALYSES: See the following link for a list of watershed assessments/analyses for the

STNF:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/publications/watershed-

analysis.shtml

NEPA DOCUMENTATION: The Project‘s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS, June, 2009) is

currently viewable at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/news/ohv/official-docs.shtml

ESA SPECIES

CONSIDERED: Central Valley (CV) Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily

Significant Unit (ESU)

California CV Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS)

ESA CRITICAL HABITAT

CONSIDERED: CV Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat.

California CV Steelhead Critical Habitat

ESA DETERMINATIONS: No effect to California CV steelhead and its critical habitat, and CV

Spring-run Chinook salmon and its Critical Habitat

SENSITIVE SPECIES

CONSIDERED: CV Fall- and Late Fall-Run Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha)

ESU

SENSITIVE SPECIES

DETERMINATIONS:

The Project is not likely to result in a trend toward listing or loss of

viability of Chinook salmon or steelhead in the short term and will have

beneficial effects to habitat conditions in the long term through decreased

basin-wide fine-grained sedimentation rates.

ESSENTIAL FISH

HABITAT:

The Project will not adversely affect Chinook salmon Essential Fish

Habitat (EFH)

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/news/ohv/official-docs.shtml



iv

Table of Contents

Section Page I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6

II. Consultation to Date .............................................................................................................. 9

III. Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. 10

IV. Description of Action Area, Affected Species, Critical Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat ... 16

V. Existing Environment and Effects on Anadromous Fish and Their Habitat Indicators ..... 19

VI. Cumulative Effects—Endangered Species Act ................................................................... 28

VII. Cumulative Effects—National Environmental Policy Act ................................................. 28

VIII. Viability…………………………………………………………………………………...28

IX. Species and Habitat—Summary .......................................................................................... 29

X. ESA Effects Determination ................................................................................................. 31

XI. Sensitive Species Effects Determination ............................................................................. 32

XII. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ...................................................................................... 32

XIII. References ........................................................................................................................... 32

Tables

1. Drainages/subdrainages affected by proposed road and trail segments……………...8

2. Road and trail routes proposed for addition to the NFTS….………………….....….15

3. Habitat Indicators by Category………….………………………………………......26

4. Summary of the Effect of the Project on Anadromous Fish……………..………….30

Appendices

Appendix A: GIS maps of Road and Trail Routes Proposed to be Added to NFTS.…...34

Appendix B: 1) List of Road and Trail Routes Proposed for Prohibited Use

2) Road and Trail Route Specifications for Proposed Addition to NFTS

Appendix C: Salmonid Life History Information, Lower Sacramento Basin



5

This page intentionally left blank



6

Supplemental Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation

for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Fish Species

That May be Affected by Motorized Travel Management Actions on the Shasta-Trinity

National Forest

March 9, 2010

I. Introduction

The purpose of this Supplemental Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) is

to 1) determine effects of the proposed Motorized Travel Management Actions (Project) on

the Shasta-Trinity National Forest‘s (Forest) anadromous fish species influenced by Forest

management listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the Lower Sacramento

River Basin 4th

field watershed, and on designated Critical Habitat (CH) for ESA listed

anadromous salmonids within that Basin; on 2) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Chinook

salmon influenced by Forest management within the Sacramento River Basin 4th

field

watershed, and on 3) fish species listed as ―Sensitive‖ by the Pacific Southwest Region of the

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service within that Basin. This

document will exclude consideration of the Southern Oregon Northern California Coasts

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (SONCC ESU) coho salmon, it‘s designated CH, and it‘s

designated EFH, along with Sensitive fish species residing within the Trinity River Basin 4th

field watershed. These species have been addressed in an original separate BA/BE dated

August 7, 2009, complete with corresponding Letter of Concurrence issued by the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on February 10, 2010. Note: some of the Project

description text below originates from the BA/BE concurred with by NMFS.

Another purpose of this Supplement is to ascertain whether reinitiation of ESA Consultation

with the NMFS may be required. According to Section 7 regulations of the ESA and as

provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal Consultation is required where

discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is

authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new

information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical

habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is



7

subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical

habitat not considered in the Opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat

designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of

incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.

Although the stipulations above apply to formal consultation, the Forest will use the same

criteria regarding the informal consultation already completed with the NMFS.

The Project Area featured in this document is the 6th

and 7th

watersheds listed in Table 1

managed by the STNF. The Action area includes reaches of stream down from the project

area that could be affected by the proposed action, including those that could potentially

affect the Lower Sacramento River Basin anadromous salmonids listed on page iii and on the

following pages.

This BA/BE has been prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section

7 of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 United States Code [USC] 1531 et. seq.; 50 Code of

Federal Regulations [CFR] 402), EFH consultation under 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-

Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and is consistent with standards

established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42; USDA Forest Service 1991)

as well as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). The purpose of the FWCA is to

ensure that wildlife conservation receives equal consideration, and is coordinated with other

aspects of water resources development (16 U.S.C. 661). The FWCA establishes a

consultation requirement for Federal departments and agencies that undertake any action that

proposes to modify any stream or other body of water for any purpose, including navigation

and drainage [16 U.S.C. 662(a)]. Consistent with this consultation requirement, NMFS may

provide recommendations and comments to Federal action agencies for the purpose of

conserving fish and wildlife resources.



8

Table 1. Drainages/subdrainages affected by proposed road segments (no riparian

reserve habitat is involved)

HUC 6 HUC 7 HUC Name

180201510201 18020151020101

Spring-Sacramento River

Shasta Dam-Motion Creek

180201530204

18020153020402

Harrison Gulch

Harrison Gulch

180201530202 18020153020201

Middle Fork Beegum

Upper Middle Fk Beegum

180201530201 18020153020101

South Fork Beegum

North Yolla Bolla Lake

The ESA fish species list in this Supplemental BA/BE was obtained online at

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/upload/snapshot0208.pdf, and the Sensitive

species list is from the USDA Pacific Southwest Region Sensitive Species List, October

2007. This Supplemental BA/BE analyzes effects on the following special status species and

their habitat:

Endangered: None

Threatened: CV Spring-Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

ESU and its designated critical habitat

California CV Steelhead (O. mykiss) DPS and its designated

critical habitat

Proposed: None

Sensitive: CV Fall- and Late Fall-Run Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha)

ESU



9

Essential Fish

Habitat

Chinook salmon ESUs for the species listed above

II. Consultation to Date

The Project is consistent with the March 19, 2004, Biological Opinion issued by NMFS for

the STNF‘s Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP; USDA STNF 1994). NMFS‘

March 19, 2004, Biological Opinion (BO) for the LRMP does not authorize any incidental

take of listed species, and an incidental take statement is not included. Individual land

management actions, groups of actions, and programmatic actions are to be consulted upon

subsequently using appropriate analytical methods, in accordance with the procedures

established in the Interagency Cooperation regulations for implementing section 7 of the ESA

(50 CFR 402), as well as interagency agreements and guidance on streamlining consultation

with the action agencies.

The March 19, 2004, BO further states that effects on salmonids at the site scale will be

analyzed in future project-level section 7 consultations. To fulfill obligations under section

7(a)(2) of the ESA for individual or groups of projects, and to be exempt from Section 9 take

prohibitions, the administrative units may use the interagency consultation streamlining

guidance (1999) or subsequent updated procedures, such as the December 2003 Counterpart

Regulations, to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of listed salmonids. Interagency

Level 1 teams evaluate the effects of proposed actions against the environmental baseline at

project and watershed scales.

A revised Analytical Process (USDA-USDOC-USDI 2004) was established on November 5,

2004, for timber sales that ―may affect‖ listed salmonid species within the Northwest Forest

Plan area to address lawsuits and rendered decisions. Though the Project does not include

commercial timber harvest, the STNF chose to follow this new Analytical Process to assess

effects of the Project in this Supplemental BA/BE. The Analytical Process replaces the 1996

Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (NMFS 1996) with a ―Tables of Population and Habitat

Indicators for Use in the Northwest Forest Plan Area.‖ The Table describes the Primary

Constituent Elements of Critical Habitat for coho salmon, as well as the important elements



10

necessary for analysis of habitat for steelhead trout, Chinook salmon, and EFH. The Table

provides values and ranges of conditions of indicators to determine whether baseline

conditions are ―Properly Functioning,‖ ―At Risk,‖ or ―Not Properly Functioning.‖ In project-

level analyses, these values and range of conditions describe the range of variability for

anadromous fish habitat. The range of criteria presented in the Analytical Process is not

absolute and may be adjusted for local watersheds given supportive documentation. In some

cases, a stream‘s morphology, aspect, or size may not support ―Properly Functioning‖ criteria

values for one or more habitat indicators.

Level 1 informal consultation between the Forest and NMFS for this Project began in 2009

with a BA/BE addressing SONCC ESU coho salmon sent to NMFS on August 12, 2009.

The corresponding Letter of Concurrence was received from NMFS on February 10, 2010.

III. Proposed Action

Type of Project: Motorized Vehicle Travel Management

Over the past few decades, the availability and capability of motor vehicles, particularly off-

highway vehicles (OHVs) and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), has increased tremendously.

Nationally, the number of OHV recreationists has climbed sevenfold in the past 30 years,

from approximately 5 million in 1972 to 36 million in 2000. California is experiencing the

highest level of OHV use of any state in the nation. There were 786,914 all terrain vehicles

(ATVs) and OHV motorcycles registered in 2004, up 330 percent since 1980. Annual sales

of ATVs and OHV motorcycles in California were the highest in the U.S. for the last 5 years,

and four-wheel drive vehicle sales in California also increased by 1500 percent to 3,046,866

from 1989 to 2002.

Unmanaged motor vehicle use, particularly OHV use, has resulted in thousands of miles of

unplanned roads and trails, erosion, watershed and habitat degradation, and impacts to

cultural resource sites. Compaction and erosion are the primary effects of motor vehicle use

on soils. Riparian areas and aquatic dependent species are particularly vulnerable to damage

from motor vehicle use. Unmanaged recreation, including impacts from OHVs, is one of



11

―Four Key Threats Facing the Nation‘s Forests and Grasslands‖ (USDA Forest Service, June

2004).

On August 11, 2003, the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service entered into a

memorandum of intent (MOI) with the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation

Commission and the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of the California

Department of Parks and Recreation. That MOI set in motion a five step region-wide effort to

―Inventory and Designate OHV roads, trails, and any specifically defined open areas for

motor vehicle travel on maps of the 18 National Forests in California by 2007.‖

On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final travel management regulations in

the Federal Register (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp 68264-68291). Subpart B (36

CFR 212) of the final Travel Management Rule requires designation of those roads, trails,

and areas that are open to motor vehicle use on National Forests. Only roads and trails that

are part of a National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) may be designated for motorized

use. Designations are made by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year. Part 261 –

Prohibitions, Subpart A (36CFR 261.13) of the final rule, prohibits the use of motor vehicles

off designated roads, trails and areas, as well as use of motor vehicles on roads and trails that

is not consistent with the designations.

On National Forest System (NFS) lands open to cross-country motor vehicle travel,

unrestricted repetitive motor vehicle travel has resulted in unplanned, unauthorized routes

and areas (roads, trails, and areas). These roads, trails and areas were developed without

agency authorization, environmental analysis, or public involvement and do not have the

same status as NFTS roads and NFTS trails. Nevertheless, some unauthorized routes may be

well-sited, provide excellent recreation opportunities for motorized and non-motorized

recreationists, and may enhance the NFTS. Other unauthorized routes are poorly-sited and

cause unacceptable environmental impacts. Only NFTS roads, NFTS trails and discrete,

specifically delineated open areas can be designated for motor vehicle use. In order for an

unauthorized route to be designated for motor vehicle travel, it must first be added to the

NFTS. In order for areas to be designated for motor vehicle travel, a discrete, specifically



12

delineated space that is smaller, and in most cases much smaller, than a ranger district must

be identified.

According to the LRMP, the STNF has 275,250 acres currently open to cross-country travel

by motor vehicles. Prior to this analysis, the STNF completed an extensive inventory of

unauthorized routes on NFS lands open to cross-country travel by motor vehicles.

Approximately 1,252 miles of unauthorized routes were identified. The STNF then used an

interdisciplinary process to review the inventory of unauthorized routes to identify proposals

for limited additions to the NFTS. This process included review of the STNF LRMP, internal

and external discussion, including public collaboration workshops and input, and internal and

external validation of the locations of unauthorized routes using the inventory maps. The

travel management regulations provide for the incorporation of previous decisions regarding

travel management. Roads, trails, and areas that are part of the existing STNF transportation

system and open to motor vehicle travel will remain designated for such use, with particular

additions and vehicle class changes proposed under the alternatives studied in this analysis.

The action alternatives in the Draft EIS propose to add a range of mileages of roads and

trails, allow motorized mixed use on a limited mileage of existing NFTS roads and in some

cases restrict cross-country travel, vehicle classes, and/or speed limits on existing areas

below the high-water mark on Shasta Lake, Trinity Lake, and Iron Canyon Reservoir. These

changes are in accordance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR Part 212,

Subpart B.

Also in accordance with Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR §212.56),

following a decision on this proposal, the STNF will publish a motor vehicle use map

(MVUM) identifying all NFTS roads, trails, and areas that are designated for motor vehicle

use. The MVUM shall specify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the time of year for

which motor vehicle use is designated. Upon publication of the MVUM, it is prohibited to

possess or operate a motor vehicle on NFS lands other than in accordance with those

designations. These maps will be made available to the public on the internet and at the

Shasta-Trinity National Forest headquarters and ranger station offices. The unauthorized

routes not included in this proposal are not precluded from future consideration for either

removal from the landscape and restoration to the natural condition, or addition to the NFTS



13

and inclusion on a future MVUM. Future decisions associated with changes to the NFTS and

MVUM are dependent on available staff and resources and may trigger the need for

additional environmental analysis, public involvement, and documentation.

Travel Management on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Management of the transportation system on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is a dynamic

process. This proposal is just one project, among many, in the STNF‘s long-term goal of

managing the transportation system. On-going evaluation of the Forest‘s transportation

system occurs with site-specific project analyses across the Forest. Proposals to add, close,

decommission, and/or restrict use on routes are studied and decided upon regularly. These

previous decisions contributed to the current condition of the transportation system, just as

on-going and future analyses will further affect the NFTS. Changes are accomplished

through forest planning, vegetation management projects, watershed restoration projects, fuel

treatment projects, trail management decisions, landscape analysis, watershed analysis, and

the roads analysis process (RAP). All of these efforts have helped to identify and manage the

current transportation system.

In addition to this proposal, ongoing efforts to manage motor vehicle travel on the Shasta-

Trinity National Forest include reducing adverse environmental impacts associated with

unauthorized motorized routes through various project-level planning efforts, and addressing

impacts associated with the current NFTS through the Forest‘s road and trail maintenance

program.

Implementation of this proposal and the subsequent designation of motor vehicle routes

through publication of the MVUM comprise just one component of the overall management

of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest‘s NFTS.

Primary Project Elements

The Project as it relates to this supplemental BA/BE includes three primary Project Elements:



14

Prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads,

motorized trails, and designated open areas by the public except as allowed by

permit or other authorization (excluding snowmobile use).

Addition of routes to the NFTS

Amend the Forest Plan to be consistent with the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR

Part 212, Subpart B), prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel off

designated NFTS roads and trails outside of designated areas, by removing reference

to OHV cross-country travel in the Forest Plan. Include as a Forest-wide standard

―Prohibit wheeled vehicle travel off designated roads and trails except for

administrative use or uses under permitted activities or within designated areas.‘‘

Location

The proposed Project considered in this Supplemental BA/BE will prohibit from further use

by the public just under 100 miles of existing roads and trails on Forest lands within this 4th

field Lower Sacramento River Basin area. The list proposed for closure can be found in

Table 2 below appendix B.

The Project considered in this Supplemental BA/BE also includes eight proposed road or trail

segments (routes) to be added to the NFTS that have adjacent draining watersheds within the

Lower Sacramento River Basin as indicated in Table 1. The Routes and associated HUC

locations are: UOHV01X, UOHV02J and UOHV18 (Shasta Dam-Motion Creek); RM1216

(Harrison Gulch); RM090, U29N28D (Upper Middle Fork Beegum); RM1036 (South Fork

Beegum); RM1226 (Middle Fork Beegum). Refer to specific site location maps in

Appendix A, spreadsheet in Appendix B, and table 2 below.



15

Table 2. Proposed route numbers, use designation, and lengths.

ROUTE NUMBER PROPOSED TYPE MILEAGE

RM090 TRAIL 0.07

RM1226 TRAIL 0.10

U20N28D ROAD 0.54

RM1216 TRAIL 0.39

UOHV01X TRAIL 0.36

UOHV18 TRAIL 0.15

UOHV02J TRAIL 0.53

RM1036 ROAD 2.16

Total: 4.3 miles

As indicated in Table 2 above, 4.3 miles of trail and/or road is proposed to be added to the

NFTS. The overall beneficial outcome resulting from implementing the proposed action is

evident when simply considering the length of new segments added to the NFTS (4.3 miles;

no riparian reserve habitat involved) versus the length of road and trail segments to be

prohibited from further use by the public (99.7 miles).



16

Project Timing

The Forest desires to publish the MVUM in 2010 after which motor vehicle travel on the

then-current Project road routes will be legal.

IV. Description of Action Area, Affected Species, Critical Habitat,

Essential Fish Habitat

Action Area—The Action Area is defined for ESA purposes as ―all areas to be affected

directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the

action‖ (50 CFR 402). The Action Area for this Supplemental BA/BE includes reaches of

stream adjacent to and down from the Project area that could be affected by the proposed

action, including those that could potentially affect the Lower Sacramento River Basin

anadromous salmonids listed on page iii, and below.

Affected Species and Presence of Critical Habitat— The following anadromous salmonids

and their habitat occur in the Lower Sacramento River Basin and have special status under

the ESA or are given special management consideration as Forest Service Sensitive species:

Endangered: None

Threatened: CV Spring-Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

ESU and its designated critical habitat

California CV Steelhead (O. mykiss) DPS and its designated

critical habitat

Proposed: None

Sensitive: CV Fall- and Late Fall-Run Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha)

ESU

Essential Fish

Habitat

Chinook salmon ESUs for the species listed above

Central Valley (CV) Spring-Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) was listed

under the ESA as a threatened species on September 16, 1999; threatened status was

reaffirmed on June 28, 2005. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-

run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its tributaries in California, including the



17

Feather River, as well as the Feather River Hatchery spring-run Chinook program. A final

critical habitat designation was published on September 2, 2005, with an effective date of

January 2, 2006. CV Spring-run Chinook salmon and its designated critical habitat occur in

the upper Sacramento River and accessible tributaries. Surveys by California Department of

Fish and Game (DFG) and NMFS have concluded that these Chinook salmon cannot gain

access up the Beegum Creek gorge to a point any closer than two stream miles downstream

from the Forest boundary. Upstream access also includes a segment one mile southeast of

Platina on the Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek (MFCC), coincidentally also stopping about

two miles below the Forest boundary. Hence, CH and EFH for this species does not occur

within the Forest boundary. It is possible, however, for Forest management activities to

adversely affect the CH or EFH downstream from the Forest boundary.

CV California Steelhead (O. mykiss) DPS was listed as a threatened species on March 19,

1998, and threatened status was reaffirmed on January 5, 2006. The DPS includes all

naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) populations below natural and

manmade impassable barriers in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries,

excluding steelhead from San Francisco and San Pablo Bays and their tributaries, as well as

two artificial propagation programs: the Coleman National Fish Hatchery, and Feather River

Hatchery steelhead programs. Critical Habitat was designated on September 2, 2005, with an

effective date of January 2, 2006. CV steelhead and its designated CH occur in the upper

portion of the Lower Sacramento River Basin and accessible tributaries. Similar to Spring-

run Chinook salmon above, stream access by this steelhead cannot be gained closer than two

miles from the Forest boundary.

Essential Fish Habitat. In addition to CH designations for the assessed Chinook salmon

ESUs, EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) require heightened

consideration of habitat for commercial species in resource management decisions, including

EFH for Chinook salmon ESUs. EFH is defined in section 3 of the MSA as ―those waters

and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.‖

NMFS interprets EFH to include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical and

biological properties used by fish that are necessary to support a sustainable fishery and the

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/FR-Notices/2006/upload/71fr834.pdf



18

contribution of the managed species to a healthy ecosystem. The MSA and its implementing

regulations at 50 CFR 600.92(j) require that before a federal agency may authorize, fund or

carry out any action that may adversely affect EFH, it must consult with NMFS. The

purpose of the consultation is to develop conservation recommendations that address

reasonably foreseeable adverse effects to EFH. Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmonids

includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or

historically, accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except areas

upstream of certain impassable man-made barriers, and long-standing impassable natural

barriers. This Supplemental BA/BE‘s analysis of effects to Pacific salmonid habitat includes,

by definition, an analysis of effects to Chinook salmon EFH.

CV fall and late fall-run Chinook salmon are physically the largest and most fecund salmon

in California. Adults enter the Sacramento River from October through April and typically

hold in the river system for one to three months before spawning in late winter and early

spring. They are adapted for spawning and rearing in reaches of mainstem rivers that remain

cold and deep enough in summer for adequately rearing juveniles. After emergence from

gravel, fry rear in their natal stream for 7-13 months prior to ‗out-migration‘ (Moyle 2002).

EFH for CV fall and late fall-run Chinook salmon is characterized in Beegum Creek as being

spawning and rearing habitat, extending upstream from the confluence of MFCC to a point in

the Beegum Gorge approximately eight miles. It also includes a segment one mile southeast

of Platina on the MFCC, coincidentally also stopping about two miles below the Forest

boundary.

Field surveys, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) information and

professional judgment of fisheries biologists was compiled into the STNF fish distribution

layer in the STNF Geographic Information Systems electronic library.

Biological requirements and life history information for anadromous salmonids potentially

affected by the proposed action are described in Appendix C. Conclusions regarding

occurrence of anadromous fish and their habitat (including CH and EFH) are based on habitat

accessibility and suitability, professional judgment, Forest Ranger District fish survey

records, and NMFS and California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) public information.



19

V. Existing Environment and Effects

on Anadromous Fish and Their Habitat Indicators

This section describes existing conditions and an analysis of the potential effects of the

project on listed and sensitive anadromous fish and their habitat (including designated

Critical Habitat and EFH) in the Sacramento River Basin at the site-scale, and at the 5th

, 6th

and 7th

field watershed scales. Habitat requirements (expressed by the key habitat Indicators)

are similar for all salmonids considered in this Supplemental BA/BE.

The Cottonwood Creek drainage lies within Shasta and Tehama counties on the northwest

side of Northern California‘s Central Valley. Cottonwood Creek is the largest undammed

perennial stream northwest of and draining into the Sacramento Valley in California.

Cottonwood Creek and its three main tributaries (South, Middle, and North Forks) drain

approximately 938 square miles prior to converging with the Sacramento River near the town

of Cottonwood, 16 miles north of Red Bluff near Interstate 5. Beegum Creek is the largest

tributary to the MFCC.

Habitat conditions for anadromous salmonids vary widely within the larger Cottonwood and

Beegum Creek watersheds. Generally, habitat quality (in the context of primary constituent

elements) is suitable for anadromous salmonids in the upper portions such as Beegum Creek

(two miles downstream from National Forest System lands) and diminishes greatly in the

lower reaches of Cottonwood Creek (on private property).

The MFCC 5th

-field watershed is 41,900 acres in size, of which 23,253 acres (55%) are

public lands and 18,647 acres (45%), are privately held. Public lands are located primarily in

the middle and upper portions of the watershed and are managed by the Forest Service

(18,013 acres) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (5,240 acres). Forest Service land

designations, as per the LRMP, within the MFCC 5th

-field watershed (acreage designations

can be counted more than once): 15,839 acres as Adaptive Management Area (AMA); 4,388

acres in Matrix; 2,861 acres of Late-Successional Reserve (LSR), and 6 acres in

Administratively Withdrawn Area.

The northern portion of the MFCC 5th

-field watershed (including some of the Project‘s action

area) lies within the ‗Trinity Mountain-Hayfork subsection‘ of the Klamath Mountains



20

Ecological Section of California (see Ecological Subregions of California, USDA 1997). The

watershed borders the Central Valley foothills, which experience a Mediterranean climate of

wet, cool winters and hot, dry summers. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 30 to 45

inches, with 90 percent falling between October and April. Snowfall is common above 3,000

feet, and rain-on-snow events occur down to 1,500 feet.

Base streamflow originates from groundwater. Peak flows originate from general rainfall,

spring season snowmelt, and large rain-on-snow storm events. The MFCC 5th

field

watershed has an irregular dendritic drainage pattern, an average drainage density of 4.1

mi/mi2, and an average relief ratio of 0.24. The average measured bankfull stream discharge

is 1,100 cfs. The largest measured peak flow event was 46,000 cfs on December 22, 1964.

Unchanneled and channeled colluvial valleys are common within the Project area. Upper

bank mass wasting and dry ravel are the most common natural erosion mechanisms within

these valleys. Fine and coarse sediments delivered to the stream network via dry ravel, inner

gorge mass failures, and debris slides are commonly stored instream because the headwater

channels are energy limited in terms of flow volume. During large flood events, pulses of

these materials are delivered to the MFCC.

Cottonwood Creek supports resident cold water salmonids, and warm water game and non-

game fish. Cottonwood Creek has been divided into three main zones of fish habitat (Moyle

1976, as cited in USDA 1997):

o Pikeminnow-sucker-hardhead zone

o California roach zone

o Rainbow trout zone

Portions of the MFCC 5th

-field watershed fall within the latter two zones – California roach

(Lavinia symmetricus) and rainbow trout zones. California roach are found in small warm

streams, and are tolerant of relatively high water temperatures (30-35 °C) and low oxygen

levels. They are frequently found in isolated pools in intermittent streams. California roach

are also capable of surviving in cold, clear, well-aerated trout streams, and main stems of



21

larger rivers (Moyle 2002). For purposes of characterizing the MFCC 5th

-field watershed,

the California roach zone is defined as a zone with warm tributary streams flowing through

open foothill woodlands of oaks and gray pine. Summer flows are often intermittent, and

winter flows are swift and subject to flooding. During winter and spring months, this zone

may have historically provided opportunistic/intermittent spawning, holding and rearing

habitat for spring Chinook salmon, winter-run steelhead and fall and late fall-run Chinook

salmon.

Numerous low flow barriers exist within lower Cottonwood Creek, the MFCC watershed and

the Beegum Creek gorge. The latter has numerous low flow barriers that can cause seasonal

variations in the available range for upwardly migrating anadromous fish (‗Several extant

dependent populations have intermittent (emphasis added) runs of spring Chinook

including…. Beegum Creek‘; FR 2004). Historical information on anadromous fish of these

Basins was never well established, nor is it presently. Most anadromous fish surveys

conducted in the Cottonwood Creek basin occurred in the lower basin. Because of priorities

for other Sacramento River tributaries, not much time was spent developing accurate

estimates of adult salmon runs in MFCC. While past surveys have characterized habitat

conditions as being good, migration obstacles may be the key limiting factor to anadromous

fish production (CDFG 1979). A lack of deep adult holding pools likely limits over-

summering opportunities for spring-run Chinook salmon upstream of the Beegum Creek

confluence. Beegum Creek gorge represents the upper-most distribution of spring-run

Chinook salmon in MFCC.

The analysis of potential effects to anadromous fish and their habitat is organized by direct

and indirect effects. Both are described as effects to key habitat Indicators for anadromous

salmonids. The Indicators originate from Appendix A of the Analytical Process (Table of

Population and Habitat Indicators) and are duplicated in Table 3 elsewhere in this document.

The final ESA determination for Motorized Vehicle Travel Management in this

Supplemental BA/BE was made after considering the intensity and magnitude of the

proposed activities, the proximity of anadromous fish to proposed activities, and the

distribution and life history of anadromous fish in the Action Area.



22

Efficiency Measures for Analysis

The geographic area is refined to reflect the location of proposed actions and potential

effects

The geographic area chosen for analysis is refined to reflect the location of proposed action

road and trail routes, potential effects on hydrologic processes, and effects on anadromous

salmonids and their habitats. See seventh and sixth field HUC watershed descriptions above

and below.

Project Elements That Will Have No Effect on Salmonids or Their Habitat in the

Action Area.

As mentioned above, the Project includes three primary Project Elements:

Prohibition of cross-country motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads,

motorized trails, and other areas by the public except as allowed by permit or

other authorization (excluding snowmobile use).

Addition of routes to the NFTS

Amend the Forest Plan

This BA determined that all of the Project Elements (PEs) will have no effect on the

salmonids and related habitat under consideration in this Supplemental BA/BE. Rationale

for the no effect determination for each of the PEs is given below.

1). Prohibition of Cross-Country Motor Vehicle Travel.

The prohibition from use of roughly 100 miles of existing cross country unauthorized road

and trail routes will immeasurably benefit fisheries and aquatic resources by reducing erosion

and, therefore, decreasing sediment delivery to watercourses. The creation of new

unauthorized routes would not happen. Previously established unauthorized routes near

watercourses and riparian areas of increased concern would no longer be open to the public,

reducing the risks to fish and other aquatic species. These routes are entirely user-created and



23

were never designed to effectively move water off of the route; therefore, they pose risks to

fish. They have potentially disrupted the hydrologic processes that function to provide high

water quality which aquatic species are dependent upon. In addition to negative impacts to

water quality, the effects of cross-country motor vehicle travel include opportunities for

motorists to cause direct mortality through the crushing of individuals as they drive through

streams and perennial wet areas. The discontinued use of routes as a result of the cross

country motor vehicle use prohibition amendment made to the Forest Plan will essentially

alleviate these risks to fish. The enforcement of the prohibition will be guided by the Code of

Federal (CFR) section 261.13 Motor Vehicle Use, and section 261.15 Use of vehicles off

roads. Enforcement actions will be taken by Federal Law Enforcement Officers and Forest

Protection Officers.

The prohibition of cross country motor vehicle travel would protect riparian areas across the

STNF. Riparian areas are of vital importance to aquatic species and are impacted through

modifications to vegetation and hydrology that occur with the creation and use of user-

created routes. Negative impacts to vegetation can result in decreased stream productivity

and shading. Stream productivity can be reduced when riparian vegetation is modified,

reduced, or eliminated. Once riparian vegetation is impacted it no longer provides leafy

debris or other organic materials to the stream channel. This organic material is consumed by

aquatic species including invertebrates, algae, and bacteria as a food source, thus providing a

productive and robust aquatic environment supplying food sources for fish. A decrease in

stream shading as a result of modifications/reductions to riparian vegetation contributes to

increases in water temperatures through solar temperature loading. Aquatic species are reliant

on natural temperature regimes, and when altered, temperature changes can result in the

decreased vigor and production of aquatic populations. Stream temperature is very important

to the aquatic communities‘ diversity and structure. Alterations in environmental conditions

like temperature may reduce habitat suitability for some species but increase it for others.

The prohibition of cross country motor vehicle travel off designated NFS roads, and

discontinued utilization of user-created routes, would leave currently disturbed areas able to

reestablish important vegetation and hydrologic function. Current ground disturbances would

essentially stop, benefiting the fisheries and other aquatic resources on the STNF.



24

These actions associated with this PE will have no adverse effects on salmonids and their

habitat in the Lower Sacramento River Basin.

2) Addition of routes to the NFTS

The eight routes to be added to the NFTS within the Lower Sacramento River Basin (Table

2; 4.3 miles in length) will have no effect to salmonids and their habitats for reasons

described in greater detail below at the site scale. In summary, the primary reason for their

addition having no effect is because 1) none of the existing road segments occur within

riparian reserves, and their use is therefore outside the ability to influence any adjacent

stream course; and/or 2) the proposed road addition exists upstream from either Shasta or

Keswick Dam where no Forest land management activities have a conduit to affect the

species or habitat in question.

3) Amend the Forest Plan.

Amend the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) to conform with the Travel

Management Rule, Subpart B, by removing reference to OHV cross-country travel in the

Forest Plan and include as a Forest-wide standard ‗‗Prohibit wheeled vehicle travel off

designated roads and trails except for administrative use or uses under permitted activities or

within designated areas.‘‘ The publication of the amendment could change current OHV use

patterns regarding the routes proposed for adding; however, the rationale for the no effect

determination described below has nothing to do with frequency of use.

This PE will have no adverse effects on anadromous salmonids and their habitat in the

Sacramento River Basin.

Habitat Indicators That Will Not Be Affected by Project Elements

The following effects analysis uses key indicators of habitat quality (habitat Indicators) as

identified through the Analytical Process (USDA-USDOC-USDI 2004). See Table 3 below.



25

1) Prohibition of Cross-Country Motor Vehicle Travel.

This project element will have no effect on any of the habitat or population indicators listed

in Table 3 due to the following factor analysis:

Proximity, Probability and Magnitude.

Direct Effects

Prohibition of approximately 100 miles of unauthorized motor vehicle road and trail use will

have no direct adverse affect to the anadromous salmonid species and habitats considered in

this document (probability). Direct beneficial effects will not clearly be realized either

because the extent of the range of the anadromous salmonids and their habitats do not extend

to the Forest boundary (proximity).

Indirect Effects

Prohibition of approximately 100 miles of unauthorized motor vehicle road and trail use will

have no indirect adverse affect to the anadromous salmonid species and habitats considered

in this document (probability). Indirect beneficial effects should be realized over time

through this prohibition because the following habitat indicator conditions will improve

immeasurably due to the prohibition: substrate character and embeddedness, suspended

sediment-intergravel dissolved oxygen/turbidity, change in peak/base flows, and road density

and location (proximity). These improvements will begin in streams and riparian habitats

adjacent to the roads scheduled for prohibition, and then should eventually transfer

downstream to some extent to the upper reaches of the salmonids and habitats considered in

this document.

2) Addition of Routes to the NFTS

This project element will also have no effect on any of the habitat or population indicators

listed in Table 3 due to the following factor analysis.



26

Table 3. Habitat Indicators by Category

Indicator

Population

characteristics

Habitat:

(non-watershed

condition

indicators)

Habitat:

(watershed

condition

indicators)

Species

and

habitat

Population size and distribution

Growth and survival

Life history diversity and isolation

Persistence and genetic integrity

Temperature

Suspended sediment-intergravel dissolved

oxygen/turbidity

Chemical contaminants/nutrients

Physical barriers

Substrate character and embeddedness

Large woody debris

Pool frequency and quality

Large pools

Off-channel habitat

Refugia

Average wetted width/maximum depth ratio in

scour pools in a reach

Streambank condition

Floodplain connectivity

Change in peak/base flows

Increase in drainage network

Road density and location

Disturbance history

Riparian Reserves

Disturbance regime

Summary/integration of all species and habitat

indicators

1 This table lists indicators by category and displays the distinction between Watershed Condition Indicators

(WCIs) and Non-WCIs.



27

Proximity, Probability and Magnitude.

Direct Effects

No direct effects will be realized because all Project-related actions associated with this

Element occur upstream from either major dams on the Sacramento River or any anadromous

salmonid fish or habitats (proximity) considered in this document.

Indirect Effects

There is no probability that any indirect adverse effects to anadromous fish or habitats will

occur upon formalizing the addition of 4.3 miles of existing roads and trails in the Lower

Sacramento River 4th

field Basin to the Forest‘s NFTS. Three of the eight road segments

occur upstream from either Shasta or Keswick Dams on the mainstem Sacramento River

system upstream from the city of Redding. No Forest land management actions upstream

from these major hydroelectric and flood control dams are capable of affecting any of the

salmonids and habitats considered in this document (magnitude, proximity).

The remaining five road or trail segment routes proposed to be added to the Forest‘s NFTS

will also have no effect to the salmonids or habitat considered in this document (probability,

magnitude). Refer to the site-specific maps in Appendix A for each segment. None of the

proposed routes occur in riparian reserve habitat. Damage to riparian reserve habitat or the

adjacent streams are the only means feasible by which vehicular use could conceivably

transfer any possible adverse affects to the habitat indicators listed in Table 3 downstream to

the fish or habitats under analysis in this Supplemental BA/BE (proximity). With only dry

land/terrestrial use of the five proposed road segments in play, there is no manner by which

any appreciable magnitude of harmful products could reach either the nearest adjacent

riparian reserve stream corridors nearest to the proposed road or trail segments or the

salmonids or habitats further downstream that are considered in this document.

The map of route 1036 (Appendix A) suggested that the road could clip the upper end of an

existing riparian reserve within the Harrison Creek stream network. Careful analysis of the

accompanying aerial photograph of the location confirms that no riparian vegetation exists

within this short length of road near the stream, and therefore no meaningful riparian reserve



28

designation can be confirmed by the photograph. The map does not accurately depict the

truly benign situation on the landscape at that site with regard to aquatic and fish resources;

therefore, no effect to anadromous fish or habitat is clearly conclusive.

VI. Cumulative Effects—Endangered Species Act

The ESA defines cumulative effects in 50 CFR 402.02 as ―those effects of future State or

private activities, not involving Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within

the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation.‖ The Project Elements will have

no effect on key Habitat Indicators or resident or anadromous salmonids and therefore would

not contribute incrementally to other ongoing effects.

VII. Cumulative Effects—National Environmental Policy Act

The STNF Schedule of Proposed Actions was reviewed to identify current and reasonably

foreseeable future projects in the subject watersheds that should be included in the

cumulative effects analysis for the Project. Ongoing projects include annual road

maintenance, recreation use, and appropriate responses for fire suppression. The CWE

modeling represents an analysis of aggregated effects on sedimentation. The risk ratios

reported represent existing conditions plus foreseeable future actions.

Effects of the Project on anadromous salmonids and their habitat, when combined with other

proposed projects, would be discountable.

VIII. Viability

Chinook salmon and steelhead trout are listed as Forest Service Sensitive species in Region

5. Implementation of the STNF LRMP Standards and Guidelines, which are designed to

reverse the trend of habitat degradation, as well as address long term persistence of late-

successional-dependent species, would primarily contribute towards species viability in the

action area. Overall, implementation of the Project would help restore the health of forested

ecosystems through prohibiting from future recreational use nearly 100 miles of currently

utilized roads and trails by the public.



29

IX. Species and Habitat—Summary

Direct Effects. The Project will have no direct effect on anadromous salmonid habitat in 7th

,

6th

, or larger field streams on the STNF and below because there are no activities proposed

within live stream channels or even riparian reserves. The Project will have no direct effect

on Chinook salmon or steelhead, or their habitat.

Indirect Effects. All habitat indicators would be maintained at the site scale, and at 7th

and

6th

field watershed scales. Project Elements would have no effect on anadromous salmonids

and their habitat resulting in a ―no effect‖ determination.

Project Element Summary:

Prohibition of Cross Country Motor Vehicle Travel. A total of slightly less than 100

miles of existing currently used roads and trails on the Shasta Trinity National Forest will be

banned from use by the public within the Forest‘s Lower Sacramento River 4th

field Basin

area. Such prohibition will have no effect to salmonids and habitat under consideration in

this document, and will be immeasurably beneficial over the long-term.

Existing road and trail routes totaling 4.3 miles will be added to the NFTS within the

Lower Sacramento River 4th

field Basin area. Such additions will have no effect to

salmonids and habitat under consideration in this document because none of the proposed

road or trail segments occur within riparian reserves, or else occur upstream of major

hydroelectric dams on the Sacramento River.

Amend the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan amendments are related to ensuring that the

Forest Plan is consistent with the Travel Management Rule in prohibiting cross country

travel, and will allow the addition of certain routes in or near Forest Plan Prescription XI

heritage resource sites.



30

TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ON ANADROMOUS FISH AND THEIR

HABITAT FOR EACH HABITAT INDICATOR.

Indicator

Prohibition

of Cross

Country

Travel

Addition

of Routes

to the

NFTS

Forest Plan

Amendments

Temperature 0/+ 0 0

Suspended

Sediment/Substrate/Turbidity

0/+ 0 0

Streambank Condition 0/+ 0 0

Chemical Contamination /

Nutrients

0/+ 0 0

Physical Barriers 0/+ 0 0

Large Woody Debris 0/+ 0 0

Pool Frequency and

Quality/Large Pools

0/+ 0 0

Off-channel Habitat 0/+ 0 0

Refugia 0/+ 0 0

Average Wetted Width /

Maximum Depth pools

0/+ 0 0

Streambank Condition 0/+ 0 0

Floodplain Connectivity 0/+ 0 0

Peak/Base Flows 0/+ 0 0

Disturbance Regime 0/+ 0 0

Riparian Reserves 0/+ 0 0

Notes 0: Neutral effect

0/+: Neutral effect short term, beneficial effect long term



31

The following conclusions lead to my final determination of effects of the proposed Project

on Chinook salmon and its habitat, and steelhead and its habitat.

X. ESA Effects Determination

The following ESA listed fish species and their habitat were considered in this BA/BE:

ESA SPECIES

CONSIDERED: CV Spring-Run Chinook Salmon ESU

California CV Steelhead DPS

ESA CRITICAL

HABITAT CONSIDERED: CV Spring-Run Chinook salmon Critical Habitat.

California CV Steelhead Critical Habitat

The final ESA determination for the Motorized Travel Management Project within the 4th

field lower Sacramento River Basin was made after considering the proximity of anadromous

salmonids and their habitat to proposed Project elements; the probability that the anadromous

fish species or habitats would be exposed to the abiotic or biotic effects from the Project

elements; and the magnitude of any possible project element effects. These factors are

weighed and considered in conjunction with the distribution, life history and biological

requirements of anadromous salmonids and their habitats that occur in and/or downstream

from the Action Area.

In summary, all the actions, when considered collectively and individually, would have no

effects on ESA listed anadromous salmonids and their critical habitat. Thus, it is my

determination that the STNF‘s Motorized Travel Management Project will have no effect on

CV Spring-Run Chinook salmon and California CV steelhead.

Based on the analysis in this BA/BE, it is my determination that the Motorized Travel

Management Project will have no effect on CV Spring-Run Chinook salmon Critical Habitat

and California CV steelhead Critical Habitat.

This project-level effects analysis evaluated the potential for extraordinary circumstances, as

defined in NEPA (see FSH 1909.15, Chapter 30). This analysis found that potential effects of

the proposed action on Aquatic Resources are minor or non-existent and the project does not



32

have any extraordinary circumstances relating to Aquatic Resources. This BA/BE and a

project-level Fisheries Report provide the details on project effects to Aquatic Resources.

XI. Sensitive Species Effects Determination

The following sensitive species were considered in this BA/BE:

SENSITIVE SPECIES

CONSIDERED: CV Fall- and Late Fall-Run Chinook Salmon ESU

The STNF‘s Motorized Travel Management Project will not affect nor will result in a

trend towards listing or loss of viability of steelhead or Chinook salmon. The Motorized

Travel Management Project will have immeasurable long term beneficial effects due to

prohibition of selected road and trail segments promoting accelerated recovery of forested

ecosystems.

XII. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

The effects analysis in this BA/BE considers effects on anadromous salmonid habitat

downstream from the Forest boundary in general. Because habitat requirements and effects

mechanisms for Chinook salmon are similar to other anadromous salmonids, then the effects

of the Project analyzed previously are identical for EFH. Therefore, it is my determination

that the Motorized Travel Management Project ―will not adversely affect‖ Chinook salmon

EFH.

XIII. References

BLM/FS/FWS/NOAA Fisheries. 1999. Streamlined Consultation Procedures.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (USDA-FS and USDI-BLM). 2005.

Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies – Evaluation of the Northwest

Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Associated Tools to Achieve and Maintain Stream

Temperature Water Quality Standards.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water Quality Management for Forest system Lands in California,

USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 1991a. Forest Service Manual.



33

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Soil erosion hazard rating. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Ch.

50, R-5 FSH 2509.22, R5 Amend. 2. PSW Region, Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service, US Department of Commerce, US Department of the Interior-USFWS and

BLM (USDA-USDC-USDI). 2004. Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for

Federal Actions Affecting Fish Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area.

USDA Forest Service, US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of

Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service, US Department of the Interior National Parks Service,

US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, and Environmental Protection Agency.

1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment (FEMAT).

Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.

USDA-Forest Service and USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 1994.

Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning

documents within the range of the northern spotted owl; standards and guidelines for management of

habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern

spotted owl. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), U.S. Department of

Interior (Bureau of Land Management).

USDA, Forest Service. 1995. Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan.

Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding CA.

USDC National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA-Fisheries). 2004a. Biological Opinion

pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the effects of implementing the

programmatic management direction in nine Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource

Management Plans (RMPs) and sixteen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans

(LRMPs) within the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Area (and NWFP ACS).

USDC National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA-Fisheries). 1996. Making Endangered

species Act Determinations of Effects for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale.

NMFS Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch. August.

(included as Attachment 3 in the 1997 Biological Opinion for the STNF LRMP).



34

APPENDIX A GIS maps of road and trail segments proposed to be added to the NFTS

NOTE: refer to hard copy and separate PDF attachment with same title

APPENDIX B

List of road and trail segments proposed for prohibition of further use by the public

NOTE: refer to hard copy and separate spreadsheet attachment with the same title

Modified alternative 2 routes within the Lower Sacramento Basin

ROUTE_NO Alt2 UNIT_NAME PROPOSED_T Miles Vehicle_Cl calc_seaso show Type

rm090 Yes sfmu TRAIL 0.06578403 50" and less in width YES Trail

rm1226 Yes sfmu TRAIL 0.09908839 50" and less in width YES Trail

U29N28D Yes sfmu Road 0.54381039 All Vehicle Classes YES Road

rm1216 sfmu TRAIL 0.38542375 Motorcycle May 1 - October 30 YES Trail

UOHV01X Yes nra TRAIL 0.3550419 50" and less in width YES Trail

UOHV18 Yes nra TRAIL 0.15344094 50" and less in width YES Trail

UOHV02J Yes nra TRAIL 0.53059828 50" and less in width YES Trail

rm1036 Yes sfmu Road 2.15780952 All Vehicle Classes YES Road

4.2909972

APPENDIX C

Sacramento River Basin Project-Related Pacific Salmonid Life History, Status and

Biological Requirements

Chinook Salmon

Chinook salmon mature between 2 and 6+ years of age (Myers et al. 1998). Fall-run Chinook

salmon enter freshwater at an advanced stage of maturity, move rapidly to their spawning

areas on the mainstem or lower tributaries of the rivers, and spawn within a few days or

weeks of freshwater entry (Healey 1991 in Myers et al. 1998). Post-emergent fry seek out

shallow, nearshore areas with slow current and good cover, and begin feeding on small

terrestrial and aquatic insects and aquatic crustaceans. The optimum temperature range for

rearing Chinook salmon fry is 50°F to 55°F (Rich 1997) and for fingerlings is 55°F to 60°F

(Rich 1997). In preparation for their entry into a saline environment, juvenile salmon

undergo physiological transformations known as smoltification that adapt them for their

transition to salt water. The optimal thermal range for Chinook during smoltification and

seaward migration is 50°F to 55°F (Rich 1997). Chinook salmon spend between one and four

years in the ocean before returning to their natal streams to spawn (Myers et al. 1998).

Chinook salmon addressed in this document exhibit an ocean-type life history, and smolts out

migrate predominantly as subyearlings, generally during April through July. Chinook salmon

spend between 2 and 5 years in the ocean (Bell 1991; Healey 1991), before returning to

freshwater to spawn. Some Chinook salmon return from the ocean to spawn one or more

years before full-sized adults return, and are referred to as jacks (males) and jills (females).

Genetic analysis indicated that this Evolutionary Significant Units form a unique group that

is quite distinctive compared to neighboring Evolutionary Significant Units. The majority of

spring- and fall-run fish emigrate to the marine environment primarily as subyearlings, but

have a significant proportion of yearling smolts. Recoveries of Coded Wire Tags indicate that

both runs have a coastal distribution off the California and Oregon coasts.

CV Spring-run Chinook salmon were listed as a threatened species on September 16, 1999;

threatened status reaffirmed on June 28, 2005. The ESU includes all naturally spawned

populations of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its tributaries in

California, including the Feather River, as well as the Feather River Hatchery spring-run

Chinook program. Critical Habitat was designated/ published on September 2, 2005, with an

effective date of January 2, 2006, and protective regulations were issued for this ESU on

June 28, 2005.

CV Fall and Late Fall-run Chinook salmon listing was not warranted on September 16, 1999,

but this ESU was classified as a Species of Concern on April 15, 2004, due to specific risk

factors. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of fall-run Chinook salmon in

the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and their tributaries, east of Carquinez Strait,

California. This ESU does not have critical habitat designated.

CV Spring-run Chinook salmon typically enter the Sacramento River as immature fish in the

spring and early summer, migrate far upriver, and then spawn in late summer or early fall

after achieving maturation. There may be considerable overlap in spawn timing between the

spring and fall runs in northern Sacramento River system tributaries (below Keswick Dam)

such as Cottonwood and Beegum Creeks due to natural and artificial hybridization (Moyle

2002). CV Spring-run Chinook salmon often hold in their preferential stream several months

before spawning. These Chinook salmon fry emerge from spawning gravel in late winter and

early spring and rear in the same stream for 3-15 months prior to ocean migration. Migration

timing may be most dependent on stream flow volume (Moyle 2002). Habitat for CV

Spring-run Chinook salmon in Beegum Creek is suitable for opportunistic spawning,

holding, and rearing. Habitat extends upstream from the confluence with Middle Fork

Cottonwood Creek (MFCC) to a point in the Beegum Gorge approximately eight miles in

length, and one mile south of the town of Platina in the MFCC.

CV Spring-run Chinook salmon were abundant historically in the Sacramento River system

and once constituted the dominant run in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. In

1939, an estimated 5,786 CV Spring-run Chinook salmon passed the Cottonwood-Anderson

Dam on the upper Sacrament River (Yoshiyama et. al 1996). In 1940, spawning escapement

was estimated at 38,792 fish in the Sacramento River based on fishery landings. In the mid-

1960‘s, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) estimated total spawning

escapement of CV Spring-run Chinook salmon to be 28,500 with the majority (15,000)

spawning in the mainstem Sacramento River (Yoshiyama et. al 1998). The remainder was

scattered among Battle, Cottonwood, Antelope, Mill, Deer, Big Chico, and Butte Creeks, and

the Feather River. In 1965, CDFG reported naturally occurring CV Spring-run Chinook

salmon to be extinct in the Yuba, American, Mokelumne, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, and

San Joaquin Rivers. Spawning adult survey data are available today for the mainstem

Sacramento and Feather Rivers, and Butte, Deer and Mill Creeks. Small ‗dependent‘

(explained below) populations are reported in Antelope, Battle, Cottonwood, and Big Chico

Creeks.

The CV Spring-run Chinook salmon in Beegum Creek are also considered to be a dependent

population. Lindley et al. (2004) hypothesized that the persistence of a CV Spring-run

Chinook salmon population in Beegum Creek is currently dependent on the input of migrants

from nearby streams, such as Mill, Deer, and Butte Creeks. Historically, CV Spring-run

Chinook salmon in Beegum Creek were dependent upon the now-extirpated population

formerly originating in the upper Sacramento River upstream of Shasta Dam. The small area

of locally available habitat in the Cottonwood Creek basin presumably nullifies the existence

of an independent self-sustaining population of CV Spring-run Chinook salmon in Beegum

Creek.

The sum of the 5-year geometric mean escapement for this ESU is 6,700 spawning adults, of

which 4,200 have returned to the Feather River (Lindley et. al 2004).

The Feather River fish hatchery releases several million CV Spring-run Chinook salmon

annually, with the bulk of their production released off-site into the Sacramento River delta.

Therefore, the origin of the adult fish returning to the Feather River is uncertain. The fish

from these releases may stray into other parts of the valley. Of the remaining 2,500

spawning adults, approximately 435 occur in the mainstem Sacramento River. Their

spawning overlaps temporally and spatially with the more abundant fall-run. Sacramento

River mainstem spawning adults have declined sharply since the mid-1980s, from initially

5,000–15,000 annual spawning adults to a few hundred fish now. The Feather River

population is likely hybridized with the fall-run in the Sacramento River and probably

includes many hatchery strays from the Feather River hatchery program (Moyle 2002). The

remaining three natural populations (Butte, Deer, and Mill Creeks) are small and have long-

term declining trends in abundance (US Dept. of Commerce 2003). There have been isolated

recent upward population spikes in Butte Creek and very recent reverses in long-term

declining trends among all three streams (Moyle 2002, US Dept. of Commerce 2003). Dam

removal and other habitat improvements, along with favorable marine and terrestrial climate

conditions have apparently been responsible (US Dept. of Commerce 2003).

The only previous assessment of fish stocks in this ESU is that of Nehlsen et al. (1991), who

identified several stocks as being at risk or of special concern. Four stocks (spring/summer-

run Chinook salmon in the American, McCloud, Pit, and San Joaquin Rivers) were identified

as being extinct and two stocks (spring-run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento and Yuba

Rivers) were identified as being at a moderate risk of extinction. The relationship of all of

these stocks to existing ESUs is uncertain due to the lack of historical information on the four

stocks that are presumed to be genetically extinct.

Surveys for CV Spring-run Chinook salmon have been done periodically in Beegum Creek

from 1973 to 1999. Fifteen annual surveys were completed; seven surveys successfully

observed adult CVSR Chinook salmon. Two surveys done in 1998 and 1999 compiled the

most fish observed from the entire period: 477 and 101 respectively (CH2M HILL 2002).

Most of the fish were observed from the confluence of the North and South Forks of Beegum

Creek downstream to the Highway 36 bridge. In the other five surveys of which fish were

observed, numbers seen ranged from one to eight fish.

Yoshiyama et al. (1998) stated Cottonwood Creek historically supported CVSR Chinook

salmon, which formerly migrated to the headwaters of the South and Middle Forks of

Cottonwood Creek (Reynolds et. al. 1993) and approximately eight miles into Beegum Creek

from the MFCC (CDFG unpublished data, 1991). The spring-run Chinook salmon annual

run size is believed to have averaged 500 fish historically (Reynolds et al. 1993).

CV fall and late fall-run Chinook salmon are physically the largest and most fecund salmon

in California. Adults enter the Sacramento River from October through April and typically

hold in the river system for one to three months before spawning in late winter and early

spring. They are adapted for spawning and rearing in reaches of mainstem rivers that remain

cold and deep enough in summer for adequately rearing juveniles. After emergence from

gravel, fry rear in their natal stream for 7-13 months prior to ‗out-migration‘ (Moyle 2002).

EFH for CV fall and late fall-run Chinook salmon is characterized in Beegum Creek as being

spawning and rearing habitat, extending upstream from the confluence of MFCC to a point in

the Beegum Gorge approximately eight miles. It also includes a segment one mile south of

Platina on the MFCC (same as for CVSR Chinook salmon above).

Historical abundance records of CV fall and late-fall run Chinook ESU salmon is poorly

documented. Recent population levels have been reported to be only a remnant of the

presumed historical abundance in the San Joaquin River. San Joaquin River fall and late fall-

run Chinook salmon production estimates historically approached 300,000 adults, and

probably averaged 150,000 adults. In the mid-1960s, escapement to the San Joaquin River

Basin totaled only about 2,400 fish spawning in the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced

Rivers. Abundance was estimated at 55,595 fish in the Sacramento River basin during the

1931 to 1939 period. In the early 1960s, adult escapement was estimated to be 327,000

predominantly occurring in the mainstem Sacramento River (187,000) but with substantial

populations in the Feather (50,000), American (36,000), and Yuba (22,000) Rivers and in

Battle Creek (21,000). Remaining escapement was scattered among numerous tributaries.

Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon total escapement was estimated to be around

331,700 adults in the mid-1960s.

The long-term trends in Feather and American Rivers spawning escapements are relatively

stable, while recent trends are mixed. These are rivers with major salmon hatchery programs.

State hatcheries on the American and Feather rivers transport their smolts to saltwater for

release to avoid mortality in the delta due to flow reversals, unscreened diversion dams, and

predators. Transportation of smolts increases the straying rate of adults when they return and

makes it more difficult to account for hatchery strays in the spawning escapement. In the

San Joaquin River Basin, homing fidelity may be more dependent on the presence of

sufficient instream flows.

The only previous assessment of risk to stocks in this ESU is that of Nehlsen et al. (1991),

who identified two stocks (San Joaquin and Consumnes Rivers) as of special concern. The

Consumnes River has had no documented spawning escapement of fall-run Chinook salmon

since 1989, and surveys in 1991 through 1994 failed to find spawning salmon.

No recent surveys for these fish have occurred on Beegum Creek. The most recent was in

the 1980s. Access to Cottonwood Creek, and therefore Beegum Creek, is flow dependent.

Steelhead

Biologically, steelhead can be divided into two basic run-types, based on the state of sexual

maturity at the time of river entry and duration of spawning migration (Burgner et al. 1992 in

Busby et al. 1996). The stream-maturing type, or summer steelhead, enters fresh water in a

sexually immature condition and requires several months in freshwater to mature and spawn.

The ocean-maturing type, or winter steelhead, enters fresh water with well-developed gonads

and spawns shortly after river entry (August 9, 1996, 61 FR 41542).

Winter steelhead enter fresh water between November and April in the Pacific Northwest

(Busby et al. 1996), migrate to spawning areas, and then spawn, generally in April and May

(Barnhart 1986). Some adults, however, do not enter some coastal streams until spring, just

before spawning. Steelhead require a minimum depth of 0.18 meters (7 inches) and a

maximum velocity of 2.44 meters/second (8 feet/second) for active upstream migration

(Smith 1973). Spawning and initial rearing of juvenile steelhead generally take place in

small, moderate-gradient (generally 3%–5%) tributary streams (Nickelson et al. 1992). A

minimum depth of 0.18 meters, water velocity of 0.30–0.91 meters/second (1–3 feet/second)

(Thompson 1972), and clean substrate 0.6–10.2 cm (0.25–4 inches) (Nickelson et al. 1992)

are required for spawning. Steelhead spawn in 3.9–9.4°C (39°F–49°F) water (Bell 1991).

Depending on water temperature, steelhead eggs may incubate for 1.5 to 4 months (August 9,

1996, 61 FR 41542) before hatching, generally between February and June (Bell 1991). After

two to three weeks, in late spring, and following yolk sac absorption, alevins emerge from

the gravel and begin actively feeding. After emerging from the gravel, fry usually inhabit

shallow water along banks of perennial streams. Fry occupy stream margins (Nickelson et al.

1992). Summer rearing takes place primarily in the faster parts of pools, although young-of-

the-year are abundant in glides and riffles. Winter rearing occurs more uniformly at lower

densities across a wide range of fast and slow habitat types. Productive steelhead habitat is

characterized by complexity, primarily in the form of large and small wood. Some older

juveniles move downstream to rear in larger tributaries and mainstem rivers (Nickelson et al.

1992). Steelhead prefer water temperatures ranging from 12–15°C (54°F–59°F) (Reeves et

al. 1987). Juveniles live in freshwater from one to four years (usually two years in the

California Evolutionary Significant Units), then smolt and migrate to the ocean in March and

April (Barnhart 1986). Winter steelhead populations generally smolt after two years in fresh

water (Busby et al. 1996).

Currently, all CV steelhead are considered ‗winter‘ steelhead by CDFG, although three

distinct runs, including summer steelhead, may have existed as recently as 1947 (McEwan

and Jackson 1996). Steelhead comprising this ESU have the longest freshwater

chronological migration span of any population of winter steelhead in the state, characterized

as essentially being a continuous run of steelhead occurring in the upper Sacramento River.

Adult river entry ranges from July through May, with peaks in September and February.

Spawning begins in late December and can extend into April (McEwan and Jackson 1996).

Steelhead typically spawn in cool, clear streams with suitable gravel size, depth, and current

velocity. Individuals return to the ocean after spawning, if they survive the journey. Fry

emerge from gravel in spring to early summer, then spend 1-3 years in their natal streams

before migrating as smolts to the ocean. Steelhead juveniles are typically found in higher

velocity habitats, where 1) riffles dominate over pools, 2) there is ample cover by riparian

vegetation or undercut banks, and 3) invertebrate life is diverse and abundant. The upper

reaches of the MFCC (including Beegum Creek up to the Beegum Gorge) provide spawning

and nursery areas for winter-run steelhead (CDFG 1979).

The CV steelhead ESU is presently in danger of extinction (NMFS Biological Review Team

draft report 2003). Steelhead have already been extirpated from most of their historical range

in this region. Habitat concerns in this ESU focus on the widespread degradation,

destruction, and blockage of freshwater habitats within the region, and the potential results of

continuing habitat destruction and water allocation problems. There are also strong concerns

about the pervasive opportunity for genetic introgression from hatchery stocks within the

ESU and about potential ecological interactions between introduced stocks and native stocks.

There is widespread production of hatchery steelhead within this ESU. The aforementioned

discussion is compounded by two areas of uncertainty: 1) the total lack of recent run-size

estimates for natural steelhead stocks in this ESU, and 2) a substantial question regarding the

genetic heritage of the remaining natural population. These two factors make it difficult to

determine which populations should be considered part of the ESU.

The CV steelhead DPS was listed as a threatened species on March 19, 1998; and threatened

status was reaffirmed on January 5, 2006. The DPS includes all naturally spawned

anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) populations below natural and manmade impassable

barriers in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries, excluding steelhead

from San Francisco and San Pablo Bays and their tributaries, as well as two artificial

propagation programs: the Coleman NFH, and Feather River Hatchery steelhead hatchery

programs. Critical habitat was designated/ published on September 2, 2005 with an effective

date of January 2, 2006.

Literature Cited

Barnhart, R.A. 1986. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and

invertebrates (Pacific Southwest)--steelhead. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.60). 21 pages.

Burgner, R.L., J.T. Light, L. Margolis, T. Okazaki, A. Tautz and S. Ito. 1992. ―Distribution and

origins of steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in offshore waters of the North Pacific

Ocean.‖ International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletin No. 51. In Busby et al. (1996).

Burns, J.W. 1972. ―Some effects of logging and associated road construction on Northern

California Streams.‖ Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 101:1-17.

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V.

Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California.

National Marine Fisheries Technical Memorandum NMFSNWFSC-27. Seattle WA. 261 pages.

California Department of Fish and Game 2001. ―Final report on anadromous salmonid

fish hatcheries in California.‖ California Department of Fish and Game and National Marine

Fisheries Service Southwest Region Joint Hatchery Review Committee. Review draft, June

27, 2001.

Healey, M.C. 1991. ―Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawythcha).‖ Pages 311-

394 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, eds. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British

Columbia Press. Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

McEwan, D. and T.A. Jackson. 1996. ―Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan for

California.‖ Department of Fish and Game.

Moyle. P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California, University of California Press, Berkeley CA.

Mundie, J.H. 1969. Ecological implications of the diet of juvenile coho in streams. Pages 135-152 in T.G.

Northcote (ed.). Symposium on salmon and trout in streams. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries, Univ.

British Columbia, Institute of Fisheries, Vancouver, B.C. 388 pages.

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/FR-Notices/2006/upload/71fr834.pdf

http://www.krisweb.com/krisweb_kt/biblio/general/usfws/shdlife.pdf

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm27/tm27.htm

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm27/tm27.htm

Rich, A.A. 1997. Testimony of Alice A. Rich, Ph.D., regarding water rights applications for the Delta

Wetlands Project, proposed by Delta Wetlands Properties for Water Storage on Webb Tract, Bacon Island,

motorized trav el mana ge ment acti...

Documents