Final Environmental Assessment
Final Environmental Assessment for the Designation and Authorization for Release ofNonessential Experimental Populations of Sacramento River Winter-run and Central Valley
Spring-run Chinook Salmon in the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam
under Endangered Species Act Section 10(j)NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WEST COAST REGIONCALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY OFFICE
650 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 5-100
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
July 18, 2023

Final Environmental Assessment
Designation and Authorization for Release of Nonessential Experimental Populationsof Sacramento River Winter-run and Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon in
the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam under
Endangered Species Act Section 10(j)Proposed Action:

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to:(1)

Designate and authorize release of nonessential experimental populations of
Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley spring-run
Chinook salmon pursuant to the Endangered Species Act section 10(j) in the
McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam; and(2)

Establish take prohibitions for the nonessential experimental populations
and exceptions for particular activities under ESA section 4(d)Type of Statement:

Environmental Assessment

For Further Information:

Steve Edmondson (steve.edmondson@noaa.gov)
National Marine Fisheries Service
West Coast Region, California Central Valley Office
National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region
California Central Valley Office Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 930-3600

Environmental Assessment
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKTable of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................... vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 1
1.1.

Federal Lead and Cooperating Agencies ..................................................................................... 5

1.2.

Overview of the ESA Section 10(j) Designation Regulatory Framework ................................... 5

1.2.1

The Endangered Species Act ................................................................................................ 5

1.2.2

Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESA Listing .............................................. 6

1.2.3

Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESA Listing .................................................... 8

1.2.4

Experimental Populations under ESA section 10(j)............................................................. 9

1.2.5

ESA section 4(d) Regulations ............................................................................................. 13

1.2.6

Relationship of the Proposed Experimental Populations to ESA Recovery Efforts ........... 14

1.2.7

Relationship to Other Plans and Policies ............................................................................ 14

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................... 21
2.1

Purpose of the Action................................................................................................................. 21

2.2

Need for the Action .................................................................................................................... 21

3.0 ACTION AREA .................................................................................................................................. 22
3.1

Description of the Action Area .................................................................................................. 22

4.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................... 23
4.1

Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Experimental Populations, No
Authorization for Release, and no Adoption of Protective Regulations .................................... 24

4.2

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations ................................................................................................................................ 25

4.2.1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 25

4.2.2

Regulatory Process .............................................................................................................. 26

4.3

Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for
Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations......................................................... 29

4.3.1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 29

4.3.2

Regulatory Process .............................................................................................................. 30

4.4
4.4.1

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ................................................................. 32
Designation as Essential Experimental Populations ........................................................... 32

5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 34
Sacramento River Winter Run and Central Valleyi
Spring Run Chinook Salmon Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

July 18, 2023

Table of Contents

5.1

Description of the Analysis Area ............................................................................................... 34

5.2

Overview and Approach ............................................................................................................ 34

5.3

Fisheries Resources .................................................................................................................... 35

5.3.1

ESA-listed Fish Species ...................................................................................................... 35

5.3.2

Non-ESA-listed Native Fish Species .................................................................................. 37

5.3.3

Non-native Fish Species...................................................................................................... 41

5.3.4

Fish Diseases ....................................................................................................................... 46

5.4

Aquatic Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 47

5.4.1

Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 47

5.4.2

Fish Passage ........................................................................................................................ 52

5.4.3

Habitat Availability and Quality ......................................................................................... 52

5.5

Wildlife Species ......................................................................................................................... 55

5.5.1

ESA-listed and Special Status Wildlife Species ................................................................. 58

5.5.2

Non-ESA-listed Wildlife Species ....................................................................................... 61

5.6

Land Use and Ownership ........................................................................................................... 65

5.7

Hatchery Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 67

5.8

Tourism and Recreation ............................................................................................................. 67

5.9

Socioeconomics ......................................................................................................................... 68

5.10

Cultural and Historical Resources.............................................................................................. 70

5.11

Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................ 73

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................................................................................... 76
6.1
6.1.1
6.2

Analysis Approach and Alternative Description Summaries ..................................................... 76
Determination of Whether Effects of an Alternative are Significant .................................. 78
Effects on Fisheries Resources .................................................................................................. 78

6.2.1

ESA-listed Fish Species ...................................................................................................... 78

6.2.2

Effects on Other Non-listed Native Fish Species ................................................................ 80

6.2.3

Effects on Non-native Fish Species .................................................................................... 83

6.3

Effects on Aquatic Habitat ......................................................................................................... 87

6.3.1

Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 87

6.3.2

Effects on Fish Passage ....................................................................................................... 91

6.3.3

Effects on Habitat Availability and Quality ........................................................................ 93

6.4
6.4.1

Effects on ESA-listed and non-ESA-listed Wildlife .................................................................. 94
Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental
Populations, No Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective
Regulations ...................................................................................................................... 94

Sacramento River Winter Run and Central Valleyii
Spring Run Chinook Salmon Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

July 18, 2023

Table of Contents

6.4.2

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation ofNonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, andAdoption of Limited Protective Regulations................................................................... 95

6.4.3

Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations,
Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations ................. 96

6.5

Effects on Land Use and Ownership.......................................................................................... 96

6.5.1

Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental
Populations, No Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective
Regulations ...................................................................................................................... 96

6.5.2

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation ofNonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, andAdoption of Limited Protective Regulations................................................................... 97

6.5.3

Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations,
Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations ................. 98

6.6

Effects on Tourism and Recreation ............................................................................................ 99

6.6.1

Alternative 1 (No-action) – No Designation of Nonessential Experimental
Populations, No Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective
Regulations ...................................................................................................................... 99

6.6.2

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation ofNonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, andAdoption of Limited Protective Regulations................................................................. 100

6.6.3

Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations,
Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations ............... 102

6.7

Effects on Socioeconomics ...................................................................................................... 104

6.7.1

Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental
Populations, No Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective
Regulations .................................................................................................................... 105

6.7.2

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation ofNonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, andAdoption of Limited Protective Regulations................................................................. 105

6.7.3

Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations,
Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations ............... 107

6.8

Effects on Cultural and Historical Resources .......................................................................... 108

6.8.1

Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental
Populations, No Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective
Regulations .................................................................................................................... 109

6.8.2

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation ofNonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, andAdoption of Limited Protective Regulations................................................................. 109

6.8.3

Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations,
Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations ............... 109

6.9

Environmental Justice .............................................................................................................. 110

Sacramento River Winter Run and Central Valleyiii
Spring Run Chinook Salmon Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

July 18, 2023

Table of Contents

6.9.1

Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental
Populations, No Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective
Regulations .................................................................................................................... 110

6.9.2

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation ofNonessential Experimental Populations Authorization for Release, and Adoptionof Limited Protective Regulations ................................................................................. 110

6.9.3

Alternative 3 – Designation of a Nonessential Experimental Population,
Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations ............... 112

7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................................................... 114
7.1

Affected Resources .................................................................................................................. 114

7.2

Geographic Boundaries ............................................................................................................ 115

7.3

Temporal Boundaries ............................................................................................................... 115

7.4

Effects of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Other than the
Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................... 115

7.4.1

McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project................................................................................... 116

7.4.2

Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation ..................................................................... 116

7.4.3

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans ........................................................................ 116

7.4.4

Federal, State, and Local Laws and Regulations .............................................................. 117

7.4.5

Climate Change ................................................................................................................. 118

7.5

Incremental Impacts When Added to Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable
Future Actions .......................................................................................................................... 121

7.5.1

Fisheries Resources ........................................................................................................... 122

7.5.2

Aquatic Habitat ................................................................................................................. 122

8.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................. 128
9.0 GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS .......................................................................................................... 150
10.0

LIST OF PREPARERS AND COOPERATING AGENCIES ................................................ 152

11.0

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) ........................................................... 153

APPENDIX A. Public Comments ............................................................................................................ A-1

Sacramento River Winter Run and Central Valleyiv
Spring Run Chinook Salmon Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

July 18, 2023

Figures and Tables

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Current and historical range of SR winter-run Chinook salmon.

. ............................................ 7

Figure 2. Current and historical range of CV spring-run Chinook salmon. . ............................................ 9
Figure 3. The NEP Area above Shasta Dam for SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon. ..... 23
Figure 4. (a) Land cover/use types and (b) land ownership within the action area.................................... 66

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Comparison of key components among alternatives. .................................................................. 33
Table 2. Native non-listed (non-ESA/non-CESA listed) fish species within the NEP Area and theirstatus under CDFW’s California Fish Species of Special Concern list. ........................................ 37
Table 3. Non-native fish species in the NEP Area. .................................................................................... 42
Table 4. Native wildlife species and their status in the NEP Area with a strong-consistent, or
recurrent, relationship with salmon as defined by Cederholm et al. (2000). ................................. 57
Table 5. Special-status species in the NEP Area with unknown relationships with salmon. ...................... 58
Table 6. Special-status species outside the NEP Area but with strong-consistent relationships withsalmon. ........................................................................................................................................... 58
Table 7. Critical habitat within the NEP Area. ........................................................................................... 58
Table 8. Population levels in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, communities, and the State ofCalifornia. U.S. Census Bureau 2016a. ......................................................................................... 70
Table 9. Average monthly employment, per capita income, land area, and population of Shasta andSiskiyou Counties, and the State of California. ............................................................................. 70
Table 10. Minority and Hispanic populations in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties from 2020 U.S.
Census. ........................................................................................................................................... 74
Table 11. Current Understanding of Historical and Expected Climate Impacts in California(modified from Sievanen et al. 2018). ......................................................................................... 119

Sacramento River Winter Run and Central Valleyv
Spring Run Chinook Salmon Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

July 18, 2023

List of Acronyms

LIST OF ACRONYMS
APE
BMP
BO
BOR
CCV
CDFW
CEQA
CESA
CFR
CV
CVP
CVRWQCB
CWA
DPS
DWR
EA
EIS
ESA
ESU
FERC
FMP
FONSI
GHG
HGMP
ITS
IUCN
MMWAT
NEPs
NGO NFH
NMFS
NTU
OHP
PG&E
RWQCB RM
RPA
SDFPE
SR
STNF SWP
TRT
UKTR
USFWS
USFS
USGS

Area of Potential Effects
Best Management Practice
Biological Opinion
Bureau of Reclamation
California Central Valley
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Environmental Quality Act
California Endangered Species Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Central Valley
Central Valley ProjectCentral Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
Clean Water Act
Distinct Population Segment
Department of Water Resources
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Statement
Endangered Species Act
Evolutionarily Significant Unit
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Fishery Management Plan
Finding of No Significant Impact
Green House Gas
Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan
Incidental Take Statement
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Monthly Maximum Weekly Average Temperature
Nonessential Experimental Populations
Non-governmental Organization - National Fish Hatchery
National Marine Fisheries Service
Nephelometric Turbidity Units
State of California Office of Historic Preservation
Pacific Gas & Electric
Regional Water Quality Control Board - River Mile
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
Shasta Dam Fish Passage Evaluation
Sacramento River
Shasta-Trinity National Forest - State Water ProjectTechnical Review Team
Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Forest Service
United States Geological Survey

Sacramento River Winter Run and Central Valleyvi
Spring Run Chinook Salmon Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

July 18, 2023

Executive Summary

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

Sacramento River (SR) winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) are listed as

3endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and California’s Central Valley (CV)4spring-run Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) are listed as threatened under the ESA. SR winter-run and5

CV spring-run Chinook salmon were extirpated from habitat above Shasta Dam following the6construction of the dam, which blocked access to historical holding, spawning and rearing habitat.

7

Reintroduction of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon to historical but currently

8

inaccessible high-quality habitats is a high priority in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS)

92014 recovery plan for CV salmon and steelhead.

10

Reintroductions above Shasta Dam have been in the developmental stages since 2009 through11

regulatory and voluntary actions with 2022 serving as a landmark year of progress. In July of 2022

12

NMFS, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), United States Fish and Wildlife Service

13(USFWS) and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe undertook a series of urgent drought actions that included14

egg incubation, rearing, and release of SR winter-run fry into the McCloud River for the first time in 80

15years since the construction of Shasta Dam. In September 2022, the Department of Water Resources

16(DWR) deployed their Juvenile Salmonid Collection System (JSCS) to test innovative collection

17

concepts to capture out-migrating juvenile salmon in future years. In order to maintain the18

reintroduction momentum of 2022 at the request of the U.S. Forest Service, other landowners, and19other user groups NMFS proposed a rule under ESA section 10(j) to provide regulatory assurances.

20

NMFS published a proposed rule and notice of availability for the draft Environmental Assessment

21(EA) in the Federal Register on May 12, 2023 (88 FR 30690) for the designation and authorization for

22

release of nonessential experimental populations (NEPs or experimental populations) of SR winter-run

23

and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam

24

under ESA section 10(j). The nonessential experimental population area (NEP Area) extends from25

Shasta Dam up to Pit 7 Dam on the Pit River, McCloud Dam on the McCloud River, and Box Canyon

26

Dam on the upper Sacramento River. All other tributaries flowing into Shasta Reservoir up to the ridge

27

line, including tributaries below Pit 7 Dam, McCloud Dam, and Box Canyon Dam, up to the ridge line

28

would be included in the NEP Area. The NEP Area was identified as a high priority for reintroduction

29

in the 2014 NMFS Recovery Plan.

30

This final EA addresses NMFS’ issuance of a final rule to designate SR winter-run Chinook salmon

31

and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam

32

as nonessential experimental populations.

Sacramento River Winter Run and Central Valleyvii
Spring Run Chinook Salmon Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

July 18, 2023

Executive Summary

1

Introduction

2This EA is being prepared using the 1978 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) National

3

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. NEPA reviews initiated prior to the effective date of4

the 2020 CEQ regulations may be conducted using the 1978 version of the regulations. The effective

5

date of the 2020 CEQ NEPA Regulations was September 14, 2020. This review began on February 27,

6

2017, and the agency has decided to proceed under the 1978 regulations. This final EA reflects changes

7

from the draft EA based on public comments and new information collected since the draft was

8

published.

9

Proposed Action

10

NMFS would use rulemaking to designate and authorize release of nonessential experimental

11

populations of Sacramento River (SR) winter-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley (CV) spring-run

12

Chinook salmon pursuant to the Endangered Species Act section 10(j) in the McCloud and Upper

13

Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam and establish a limited set of take exceptions for the14

experimental population under section 4(d) of the ESA.

15

Public Comment Period

16

NMFS published a proposed rule and notice of availability for the draft EA in the Federal Register on

17

May 12, 2023 (88 FR 30690) with the comment period closing on June 12, 2023. During the public

18

comment period NMFS received seven comment letters and emails germane to the proposed rule19

(Appendix A - Public Comments). After the public comment period closed, NMFS received an

20

additional letter from the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) via electronic mail (Appendix A- Public

21

Comments). NMFS considered BOR’s comments in finalizing the Rule and EA.

22Changes to the Draft Environmental Assessment

23

All commenters supported promulgation of a Final Rule. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)

24

was the only commenter who provided suggestions and proposed changes to be reflected in the Final

25

Rule and Final EA. Therefore, PG&E’s comments are addressed in Appendix A. This final EA includes

26

revisions based on public comments (Appendix A – Public Comments) and new information since the27

draft EA was published.

28

Sacramento River Winter Run and Central Valley
viii
Spring Run Chinook Salmon Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

1.0

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2On May 12, 2023, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine

3

Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (88 FR 30690) for the4

designation and authorization for release of nonessential experimental populations (NEPs) of

5

Sacramento River (SR) winter- run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Central Valley

6(CV) Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) upstream of Shasta Dam (the NEP Area) under ESA section

7

10(j) (16 U.S.C 1539(j). The proposed rule also announced the availability of a Draft Environmental

8

Assessment (DEA) for the proposed rule. The DEA was made available for a 30-day public comment

9

period. NMFS received comments on the proposed rule and DEA, which are listed in Appendix A.

10

Response to comments are summarized in Appendix A and as changes to this final EA as appropriate.

1112

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service

13(NMFS) proposes to establish rules pursuant to sections 10(j) and 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act

14(ESA) (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1531 et seq.) to designate and authorize the release of15

nonessential experimental populations (NEPs or experimental populations) of Sacramento River (SR)16winter- run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Central Valley (CV) Chinook salmon

17(O. tshawytscha) upstream of Shasta Dam (the NEP Area) under ESA section 10(j) (16 USC 1539(j))).

18
19

NMFS’ rulemaking establishes rules pursuant to sections 10(j) and 4(d) of the ESA (16 United States

20

Code [U.S.C.] 1531 et seq.) to designate and authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV

21

spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and establish “take” prohibitions for the NEPs and22

exceptions for particular activities. NMFS rulemaking generally prohibits take of members of the NEPs

23

when in the NEP Area, but provides exceptions to take prohibitions for particular activities, including

24

take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and is unintentional, not due to negligent conduct.

25
26

NMFS prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy27

Act (NEPA) (16 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations

28

implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and NOAA policies and procedures implementing

29

NEPA. This EA is prepared using the 1978 CEQ NEPA regulations. NEPA reviews initiated prior to30

the effective date of the 2020 CEQ regulations may be conducted using the 1978 version of the31

regulations. The effective date of the 2020 CEQ NEPA Regulations was September 14, 2020. This32

review began on February 27, 2017, and the agency has decided to proceed under the 1978 regulations.

33
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

1July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

ESA section 10(j) provides NMFS the authority to designate a population of listed species as an2“experimental population.” This designation allows NMFS to authorize the release of such a population

3

outside of the species’ current range when doing so will further the conservation of the listed species.

45

When designating a population as an experimental population, additional classification to the6

population is required under the ESA. NMFS must determine whether the population is “essential” to7

the continued existence of the listed species (i.e., loss of the experimental populations would

8

appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild). If not, the population

9

would be classified as “nonessential” (i.e., release of the population will further the conservation of the10

species, but loss of the population would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the11

species in the wild). Additionally, protective regulations often accompany an experimental population

12

designation under ESA section 10(j). Under ESA section 4(d), “take” restrictions can be established13

and limited when doing so would provide for the conservation of the species.

1415

SR winter-run Chinook salmon are listed as “endangered” under the ESA. CV spring-run Chinook

16

salmon are listed as a “threatened” species under the ESA. Rates of decline for salmon and steelhead17(O. mykiss) in the Central Valley increased following construction of major dams and water project18

facilities (NMFS 2014), which primarily occurred around the mid-1900s. These water development

19

projects in general, and dams in particular, block upstream migration of Chinook salmon and steelhead20

to spawning and rearing habitats, and alter flow, gravel\large wood supply, and water temperature21

regimes downstream.

22
23

In 2014, NMFS issued a recovery plan that prioritized reintroduction into historical habitats as essential

24

recovery action for SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon Evolutionarily\ Significant Units

25(ESUs). The NEP Area was identified as a high priority for reintroduction in the recovery plan (NMFS

26

2014).

27
28

NOAA Fisheries vulnerability assessments have determined that the future viability of anadromous

29

migratory salmon is at high risk due to impacts from climate change (Crozier et al. 2019). Thus,

30

reintroduction into cold water habitats upstream of large Central Valley reservoirs is a high priority for

31

long-term conservation and recovery of listed Central Valley salmon and steelhead, as outlined in

32

NOAA Fisheries’ Central Valley Recovery Plan, the State’s 2016 Water Action Plan (referenced by

33

the new 2020 Water Resilience Portfolio) and Sacramento Valley Salmon Resiliency Strategy, the34

California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) State
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

2July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

Wildlife Action Plan and associated California State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) and the Winnemem

2

Wintu Tribe’s Salmon Restoration Plan.

3
4

Until the construction of the Shasta Dam, large numbers of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook

5

salmon (winter-run Chinook salmon) spawned in the Upper Sacramento, Pit, and McCloud rivers. But

6with the construction of the dam, winter-run Chinook salmon have been prevented from accessing high7

quality, high elevation, cold water spawning and rearing habitats. Climate change and drought have8

added threats to winter-run Chinook salmon’s long-term survival, with warmer waters impacting

9historic current spawning and rearing sites. Now, winter-run survive by spawning in the heavily

10

managed and sometimes unnaturally warm Sacramento River below Shasta Dam, where their numbers

11

have since dwindled. For instance, only about 5% of winter-run Chinook salmon eggs incubating in the

12

river survived the 2014-2015 California drought due to warmer than usual water releases from Shasta

13

Dam.

14
15

Shasta Salmonid Juvenile Collection System – In February 2022, the California Department of Water

16

Resources (DWR) received $1.5 million in funding for the Juvenile Salmonid Collection System

17(JSCS) Pilot Project in the McCloud Arm of Shasta Lake —the first step of a program to return winter-18

run Chinook salmon to their historical habitats. The goal of the project is to test a system that would

19

improve fish passage around high-head dams through the efficient collection and downstream passage

20

for juvenile fish migrating out to the ocean. The success of this project is an integral step in the21

reintroduction of native salmonids back into historical spawning and rearing tributaries of the Upper

22

Sacramento River system.

23
24

In search of a fish passage solution, the JSCS Project will test an experimental, adaptive, and mobile

25

guidance and capture system designed to collect out-migrating salmon. The proposed experimental

26

evaluation approach will determine if the system creates the desired conditions to guide fish, control

27

water temperatures, and manage debris. No fish were used to test the collection efficiency of the system

28

during the initial year of testing. It’s anticipated that juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon could be used

29

in future testing. The JSCS design and evaluation team is led by DWR in partnership with NOAA

30

Fisheries, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, and others.

31
32

Sacramento winter-run Chinook salmon “Urgent Actions” - In response to entering a third33

consecutive year of drought, NOAA Fisheries, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),

34

and CDFW (fish agencies) initiated discussions in the late winter and early spring of 2022 to identify
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

3July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

urgent actions to protect winter Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River. Water temperature modeling2

results in February and March 2022 indicated that Shasta Reservoir coldwater storage was insufficient3

to protect this species. The modeled water temperature and resultant egg and fry survival projections

4

for summer and early fall showed very high mortality numbers for early life stages of winter-run

5

Chinook salmon. With estimated anticipated temperature dependent mortality greater than 90% for

6eggs and fry, the agencies considered the potential future condition to be catastrophic to the species

7following 88% mortality in 2020 and 97% mortality in 2021 at the egg to fry (ETF) stage. A third year

8of high ETF mortality– especially as high as projected – would have arguably decimated an endangered9

species that exhibits predominantly a three-year life cycle. To minimize the impacts of the continued

10

drought on spring-run and winter-run Chinook salmon, NMFS and other agencies identified a series of11

urgent actions to implement in 2022 including incubating a portion of winter-run Chinook salmon eggs

12

from Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH) along the McCloud River (the McCloud Action).

13

The purposes of the McCloud Action are to: (1) provide an additional winter- run Chinook salmon egg

14

incubation and rearing location to spread the risk of adverse impacts to early life stages caused by

15

extreme drought; (2) collect information on the Remote-Site Incubator (RSI) system and rotary screw

16

traps as a means to inform future winter-run Chinook salmon recovery actions on the McCloud River;17

and (3) study juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon growth, survival, and outmigration timing in their18

historical habitat to inform the long-term recovery planning.

19
20

As part of the McCloud Action, NMFS, CDFW, and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe housed winter- run

21chinook eggs in incubators on the banks of the McCloud River well upstream of Shasta Reservoir. This22

was intended to provide guaranteed cold water to the eggs and therefore increase their likelihood of23

survival. Approximately 40,000 eggs from the hatchery were incubated at a site on the McCloud River.

24

Once hatched a few weeks later, free swimming winter-run Chinook salmon were in the McCloud

25

River for the first time in over 80 years. Hundreds of juvenile fish from those incubators were captured

26

in the McCloud River downstream of the incubators and translocated around Shasta Reservoir to a27

release site in the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam to continue rearing and outmigrating. It’s

28

anticipated that NMFS, CDFW, and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe will continue moving winter-run

29

Chinook salmon upstream of Shasta Dam into the future.

30
31

By letter dated August 5, 2022, the U.S. Forest Service, Shasta Trinity National Forest requested

32

NMFS take actions necessary to designate winter-run Chinook salmon as an experimental population

33

under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act:

34
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

4July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1“As previously discussed, for any future actions to relocate winter-run Chinook salmon above

2

Shasta Dam, the Forest Service requests that National Marine Fisheries Service designate any

3

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon upstream of Shasta Dam as a nonessential

4experimental population under ESA section 10(j). This designation will safeguard continued

5

management of National Forest System lands while simultaneously conserving the endangered

6

winter-run Chinook salmon.”78

Currently, SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon spawning is limited to the mainstem

9

Sacramento River downstream of Shasta and Keswick Dams that block access to historical cold-water

10

summer spawning and rearing habitats. Shasta Dam and reservoir were constructed in 1945, are owned

11

and operated by Reclamation in conjunction with other facilities to provide flood damage reduction,

12

irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, manage instream flows and to generate hydropower.

13

NMFS proposed action is to:

14(1) Designate and authorize release of nonessential experimental populations of SR winter-run

15

and CV spring-run Chinook salmon pursuant to ESA section 10(j) in the McCloud and Upper

16

Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam (the NEP Area); and17(2) Establish take prohibitions for the NEPs in the NEP Area and exceptions for particular

18

activities under ESA section 4(d).

19

1.1.

Federal Lead and Cooperating Agencies

20

NMFS is the lead agency in this NEPA process. Cooperating agencies in this NEPA process include

21

the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) – Shasta Trinity National Forest (STNF) and California Department of

22

Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

23

1.2.

24

1.2.1 The Endangered Species Act

25

The ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and of Commerce

26(Secretaries) to list species as threatened and endangered and to provide for their conservation through27

critical habitat designation, protective regulations, recovery plans, Federal agency consultation, and28

permitting. As an agency within the Department of Commerce, NMFS has been delegated the authority

29

to implement the Secretary of Commerce’s responsibilities under the ESA for marine and anadromous

30

species. SR winter-run Chinook salmon and CV spring-run Chinook salmon are ESA-listed

31

anadromous species.

Overview of the ESA Section 10(j) Designation Regulatory Framework

32
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

5July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

The statutory criteria for designating an experimental population are in ESA section 10(j). ESA section

2

10(j)(1) provides “the term ‘experimental population’ means any population (including any offspring3

arising solely therefrom) authorized by the Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when,4

and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental

5

populations of the same species” (16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(1)). For the designations being considered in this6

EA, individuals of the proposed experimental populations are geographically separate when upstream

7of Shasta Dam in the NEP Area and not geographically separate when downstream of the Shasta and8

Keswick Dams in the lower Sacramento River, and all other downstream areas throughout their9lifecycle. Consequently, individual SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon from the10

proposed experimental populations, when downstream of Shasta and Keswick Dams, are afforded the11same take prohibitions and protections as the individuals throughout the designated SR winter-run and

12

CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESUs.

13

1.2.2 Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESA Listing

14

NMFS listed the SR winter-run Chinook salmon ESU as endangered under the ESA on January 4, 1994

15

(59 Fed. Reg. 440) and reaffirmed this status on June 28, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 37160), August 15, 201116

(76 Fed. Reg. 50448), April 14, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 20802), and May 26, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 33468).

17

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of the endangered SR winter-run Chinook salmon. The State of18

California listed SR winter-run Chinook salmon as endangered in 1989 under the California

19

Endangered Species Act (CESA). The listed ESU (Figure 1) is composed of a single population that20

includes all naturally spawned SR winter-run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its

21

tributaries (70 Fed. Reg. 37160, June 28, 2005), as well as SR winter-run Chinook salmon that are part22of the conservation hatchery program at the Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH) (R. Jones,

23

NMFS, letter to Chris Yates, NMFS, September 28, 2015, regarding inclusion of Livingston Stone24

NFH fish in the ESU; 81 Fed. Reg. 33468, May 26, 2016).

25
26

Designated critical habitat of SR winter-run Chinook salmon (58 Fed. Reg. 33212, June 16, 1993)27

includes: (1) the Sacramento River from Keswick Dam, Shasta County (River Mile (RM) 302) to28

Chipps Island (RM 0) at the westward margin of the Delta; (2) all waters from Chipps Island westward

29

to Carquinez Bridge, including Honker Bay, Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait; (3) all30

waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge; and (4) those waters north of San

31

Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

6July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

2
3

Figure 1. Current and historical range of SR winter-run Chinook salmon.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

7.

July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

1.2.3 Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESA Listing

2

NMFS listed the CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESU as threatened on September 16, 1999 (64 Fed.

3

Reg. 50394) and reaffirmed this status in a final rule on June 28, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 37160), and five-

4

year reviews announced on August 15, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 50447), and May 26, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg.

533468). On January 9, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 1116), NMFS issued protective regulations under ESA

6section 4(d) for the threatened CV spring-run Chinook salmon that apply the take prohibitions of

7

section 9(a)(1) of the ESA except for listed exceptions (50 CFR 223.203) (subsection 1.2.3). The State

8

of California listed CV spring-run Chinook salmon as threatened in 1999 under the California

9Endangered Species Act (CESA).

10
11

The listed ESU (Figure 1) includes all naturally spawned populations of CV spring-run Chinook

12

salmon originating from the Sacramento River and its tributaries, as well as the Feather River Hatchery

13(FRH) CV Spring-run Chinook Salmon Program (79 Fed. Reg. 20802, April 14, 2014). The ESU is

14currently limited to: (a) independent populations in Mill, Deer, and Butte Creeks, (b) persistent and

15

presumably dependent populations in the Feather and Yuba Rivers, (c) persistent and presumably

16

dependent populations in Big Chico, Antelope, and Battle Creeks, and (d) a few ephemeral or17dependent populations in the northwestern California region (e.g., Beegum, Clear, and Thomes

18

Creeks). Significant areas of historical habitat, mostly in the upper watersheds, are blocked by a series

19

of dams in the Sacramento and San Joaquin basins (Figure 1). The San Joaquin River watershed

20

downstream of tributary dams is accessible, but populations were largely extirpated until recent

21

reintroduction efforts in the mainstem of the San Joaquin River went into effect.

22
23

Designated critical habitat of CV spring-run Chinook salmon (70 Fed. Reg. 52488, September 2, 2005)

24

occupies 37 hydrologic subareas within the freshwater and estuarine range of the ESU, and includes

25

approximately 1,373 miles (2,197 kilometers (km)) of occupied stream habitat and approximately 427

26

square miles (1,102 square km) of estuarine habitat in San Francisco-San Pablo-Suisun Bay.

27

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

8July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

2
3

Figure 2. Current and historical range of CV spring-run Chinook salmon.

4

1.2.4

5

1.2.4.1

6

When Congress enacted the ESA, it intended that Federal agencies would cooperate with states and7other interested parties (through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives) to develop and8maintain conservation programs, and to resolve water resource issues in concert with the conservation.

Experimental Populations under ESA section 10(j)Congressional History and Intent

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

9July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1of listed species (16 U.S.C. 1531(5)(c)(2); 16 U.S.C. 1535). When Congress amended the ESA in 1982,2

it added section 10(j) to reduce opposition to the reintroduction of listed species outside of their current

3

range, and to give the Secretaries flexibility and discretion in ESA management for purposes of species

4

conservation. “Congress added section 10(j) to the Endangered Species Act in 1982 to address the Fish

5and Wildlife Service’s and other affected agencies’ frustration over political opposition to

6

reintroduction efforts perceived to conflict with human activity. Although the Secretary already had

7authority to conserve a species by introducing it in areas outside its current range, Congress hoped the8provisions of section 10(j) would mitigate landowner fears that experimental populations would halt

9development projects, and, with the clarification of the legal responsibilities incumbent with the10experimental populations, actually encourage private parties to host such populations on their lands.”

11

Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224, 1231-1232 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing 16

12

U.S.C. § 1539(j); H.R. Rep. No. 97–567, at 8 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2807, 2808,

132817); see also Forest Guardians v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 611 F.3d 692, 705 (10th Cir. 2010)14(quoting Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, 199 F.3d at 1231-1232). Congress designed ESA section

15

10(j) to provide Federal agencies with more flexibility and discretion in managing the reintroduction of

16

listed species. Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, 199 F.3d at 1233; see also Forest Guardians, 611

17

F.3d at 705. ESA section 10(j) was also designed to encourage the recovery of species through18

population re-establishment with the cooperation of state and local entities (Wolok 1996).

1920Congress viewed ESA section 10(j) as an opportunity “to encourage the recovery of species through21

population re-establishment with the cooperation of, not despite, state and local groups.” (Wolok

221996). As such, Congress intended that regulations promulgated by the Services to designate

23experimental populations “should be viewed as an agreement among the Federal agencies, the state fish

24

and wildlife agencies and any landowners involved” (Wolok 1996 quoting H.R. Rep. No. 567, 97th

25

Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1982)).

26

1.2.4.2

27

Before authorizing the release of any experimental population, NMFS must “by regulation identify the28

population and determine, on the basis of the best available information, whether or not such

29

population is essential to the continued existence of … [the listed] species” (ESA section 10(j)(2)(B)).

Statutory and Regulatory Framework

30
31

An experimental population is treated as a threatened species, except that non-essential populations do

32

not receive the benefit of certain protections normally applicable to threatened species (ESA section

33

10(j)(2)(C)). For endangered species, section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of those species. For a
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

10July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

threatened species, ESA section 9 does not specifically prohibit take of those species, but the ESA

2

instead authorizes NMFS to adopt regulations under section 4(d) to prohibit take or that it deems

3

necessary and advisable for species conservation. The proposed experimental populations of SR

4winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon must generally be treated as threatened species.

5

Therefore, we propose to issue tailored protective regulations under ESA section 4(d) for the proposed

6experimental populations of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon to identify take7

prohibitions to provide for the conservation of the species with exceptions for particular activities.

8

1.2.4.3

9

In 2016, NMFS promulgated regulations to guide implementation of ESA section 10(j) (81 Fed. Reg.

1033416, May 26, 2016; codified at 50 CFR 222.501-222.504). NMFS must apply these regulations to the11

Proposed Action considered in this EA. NMFS’ regulations define an essential experimental population

12

as one “whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in13

the wild.” All other experimental populations are classified as nonessential (50 CFR 222.501(b)). This14

definition was directly derived from the legislative history of the ESA amendments that created section

15

10(j). In addition, 50 CFR 222.502(b) provides, before authorizing the release of an experimental

16

population, “the Secretary must find by regulation that such release will further the conservation of the17

species.”18

1.2.4.4

19

Regulatory restrictions can be limited with a NEP designation. Under the ESA, species listed as

20

endangered or threatened are afforded protection primarily through prohibitions of section 9 and the21

requirements of section 7. ESA section 9 prohibits take of endangered species and prohibits violation of22

any protective regulation established for a threatened species under ESA section 4(d). ESA section

23

10(j)(2)(C) requires that each member of an experimental population shall generally be treated as

24

threatened. Therefore, and pursuant to NMFS’ ESA section 10(j) implementing regulations at 50 CFR

25

222.503, NMFS proposes to issue tailored protective regulations under ESA section 4(d) for the26

proposed experimental populations of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon to identify

27

take prohibitions to provide for the conservation of the species with exceptions for particular activities.

ESA Section 10(j) Regulations

Nonessential Experimental Population Designation and Regulatory Restrictions

28
29

ESA section 10(j)(2)(C) also provides certain exceptions from the requirement that each member of an

30

experimental population shall generally be treated as threatened, including, for purposes of ESA

31

section 7 (other than subsection (a)(1)), a NEP shall be treated as if it were a species “proposed to be32

listed,” rather than a species that is listed (unless it is located within a National Wildlife Refuge or
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

11July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

National Park, in which case it is treated as listed). This means the ESA section 7(a)(2) consultation2

requirement would not apply to Federal agency actions affecting the NEPs in the NEP Area upstream

3of Shasta Dam. The NEPs would generally be treated as a proposed species for purposes of ESA

4

section 7. In addition, no critical habitat can be designated for a NEP. Only two provisions of ESA

5section 7 would apply to the NEPs: (1) section 7(a)(1) (requiring Federal agencies to use their

6

authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out programs for the conservation of listed

7

species); and (2) section 7(a)(4) (requiring Federal agencies to confer with NMFS as applicable8

depending on the species before taking actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a9

species proposed to be listed).

10

1.2.4.5

11

ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) allows the Secretaries to grant exceptions to the prohibitions of ESA section 9

12

for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or survival of listed species. This includes acts

13

necessary for the establishment and maintenance of experimental populations as specifically noted in

14

ESA section 10(a)(1)(A). ESA section 10(d) requires the Secretaries to grant exemptions under ESA

15

section 10(a)(1)(A) only after publishing a finding in the Federal Register documenting that such

16

exceptions were: (1) applied for in good faith; (2) if granted would not operate to the disadvantage of17such endangered species; and (3) will be consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in ESA

18
19

section 2.

20

Individuals used to establish an experimental population may be collected from an existing donor

21

population if donor populations can sustain the removal of fish without adverse population level effects

22

and if appropriate permits are issued in accordance with ESA section 10(a)(1)(A), which would include

23

analysis under NEPA and ESA section 7 for issuance of such permits. Under section 10(a)(1)(A),

24

Federal and non-Federal entities may apply for permits from NMFS to take ESA-listed species under25

the jurisdiction of NMFS, if such taking is for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or26

survival of the affected species.

ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) and Experimental Populations

27
28

Donor sources for reintroduction into the NEP Area are preliminarily identified as Livingston Stone29

NFH for SR winter-run Chinook Salmon and FRH for CV spring-run Chinook salmon. Identification of30

the source population(s) would depend upon the genetic diversity needs of the broodstock, the specific31

conditions of the proposed donor population at the time of reintroduction, and whether the collection

32

would jeopardize the survival and recovery of the species. Any collection of Chinook salmon would

33

likely be subject to a Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) and would require approval of
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

12July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

a permit under ESA section 10(a)(l)(A), which includes associated analysis under NEPA and ESA

2

section 7. If NMFS considers using SR winter-run Chinook salmon from naturally spawning3

populations, only small numbers of fish would be removed from natural populations, and collection

4

would require approval of a permit under ESA section 10(a)(l)(A), which also includes associated5

analysis under NEPA and ESA section 7. Because authorization for the collection of SR winter-run

6

Chinook salmon and issuance of ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permits would be analyzed under the ESA

7

and NEPA when NMFS receives the 10(a)(1)(A) permit applications, collection actions are therefore

8

not analyzed in this EA.

910

In 2015, the USFWS submitted to NMFS two hatchery and genetic management plans (HGMPs) and11

one ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit application for two ongoing hatchery programs at the Livingston

12

Stone NFH (described below under subsection 1.2.6.6, Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery). In

13

2016, NMFS provided a letter advising the USFWS that the submitted HGMPs were determined to be

14

sufficient for consideration under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. On 24 September 29, 2017, section

15

10(a)(1)(A) permit 16477 was issued to the USFWS authorizing continued operation of the hatchery16

programs at Livingston Stone NFH (NMFS 2017). Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit 16477 is set to expire on

17

December 31, 2027. These propagation programs would continue regardless of the section 10(j)18designations described herein.

19
20

In authorizing the release of an experimental population of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

21

salmon above Shasta Dam under ESA section 10(j), NMFS would issue permits under ESA section

22

10(a)(1)(A). A section 10(a)(1)(A) permit is required because winter-run Chinook salmon are listed as

23part of the endangered SR winter-run Chinook salmon ESU and because spring-run Chinook salmon

24

are listed as part of the threatened CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESU Permits for SR winter-run and25

CV spring-run Chinook salmon would include: (1) all aspects involved in the capture, transport,

26

reintroduction, and marking of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon; (2) all aspects of the27

reintroduction of SR winter-run and CV spring- run Chinook salmon, including the capture, transport,

28

and outplanting of all life stages; and (3) all aspects of monitoring and evaluation associated with these29

activities.

30

1.2.5 ESA section 4(d) Regulations

31

In January of 2002, NMFS adopted a rule under ESA section 4(d) prohibiting the take of four groups of32

salmon and steelhead in California listed as threatened under the ESA, including CV spring-run

33

Chinook salmon (67 Fed. Reg. 1116, January 9, 2002; codified at 50 CFR 223.203). In addition to

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

13July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

applying the take prohibitions in ESA section 9(a)(1), the ESA section 4(d) rule sets forth specific2circumstances when the prohibitions would not apply, known as section 4(d) limits (i.e., “conservation

3

standards”).

4

1.2.6 Relationship of the Proposed Experimental Populations to ESA Recovery Efforts

5

On July 22, 2014, NMFS adopted a final recovery plan for SR winter-run, CV spring-run Chinook

6

salmon and CCV steelhead (79 Fed. Reg. 42504, July 22, 2014). The recovery plan (NMFS 2014) has

7

the overarching aim of recovering the ESUs to warrant removal from the Federal List of Endangered

8

and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11). The objectives and criteria to accomplish this goal build upon

9

technical input and guidance provided by the Technical Recovery Team (Lindley et al. 2004; 2006;102007) that provided the technical framework for the recovery planning process. The conceptual

11

recovery strategy for SR winter-run and CV Chinook salmon includes: (1) securing extant populations

12

by implementing key habitat restoration actions; and (2) establishment of additional viable independent

13

populations in the ESUs. Reintroduction would facilitate implementation of NMFS’ recovery plan

14

framework through expanding habitat and establishing additional populations of SR winter-run and CV

15

spring-run Chinook salmon. The recovery plan identifies reintroduction of SR winter-run and CV

16

spring-run Chinook salmon upstream of Shasta Dam as a priority recovery recommendation. Re-

17establishing populations above Central Valley rim dams, including above Shasta Dam, would aid in the18conservation and recovery of the SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESU by increasing

19

abundance and productivity, improving spatial structure and diversity, and reducing the risk of

20

extinction.

21
22

ESA section 4(c)(2) requires that NMFS conduct a review every five years for all listed species under23

its responsibility to determine whether any such species should be removed from the list or changed in24

status. This requirement would ensure that NMFS is tracking the status of the reintroduced SR winter-25

run Chinook salmon experimental population, would develop information to assess the effectiveness of

26

this rulemaking, and, if necessary, would trigger revision to the regulation through the rulemaking

27

process. This would ensure that the reintroduction of the SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

28

salmon proposed experimental populations above Shasta Dam is furthering the conservation of the29

species as expected and it would ensure that the nonessential classifications are reviewed.

30

1.2.7 Relationship to Other Plans and Policies

31

Federal, state, and local laws, regulations and policies affect SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

32

salmon in general. Some of these laws, regulations and policies also aid in meeting the goals of the33

Recovery Plan (NMFS 2014). Below is a summary of laws that provide additional context for the
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

14July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

proposed NEP designations. Ongoing or future implementation of these laws is anticipated to provide

2

protections to SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon and their habitats.

3

1.2.7.1

4

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the5

U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act, is authorized to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the6

construction and operation of non-Federal hydroelectric developments subject to its jurisdiction.

The Federal Power Act

7
8

The McCloud, upper Sacramento, and Pit Rivers are regulated rivers because of the presence of large

9barrier dams and hydroelectric projects that modify the natural flows in these rivers within the NEP

10Area. Water flow from smaller tributaries within the NEP Area is largely unregulated by dams and11

diversions before entering the McCloud, upper Sacramento, and Pit Rivers or Shasta Lake.

12

Descriptions of each major dam are found in the section 5.4.

13
14

The FPA authorizes NMFS to issue mandatory prescriptions for fish passage and recommend other15

measures to protect salmon, steelhead, and other anadromous fish. It is presently uncertain what license

16

terms and conditions FERC will require as part of the ongoing relicensing processes occurring in the17

NEP Area. If NMFS issues mandatory prescriptions for fish passage under the FPA for a new FERC

18

license, ESA section 10(j) designations and associated protective regulations under ESA section 4(d)19would allow NMFS to provide exceptions to take prohibitions appropriate to the circumstances,

20

including NMFS’ exception for take of the proposed experimental population in the NEP Area that is

21

incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and unintentional, not due to negligent conduct, which would

22

apply if passage is implemented pursuant to the FPA.

23
24

1.2.7.2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act)

25

The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is the principal law governing marine

26

fisheries conservation and management in the United States. Chinook salmon Essential Fish Habitat

27(EFH) is identified and described to include “all water bodies currently or historically occupied by…

28

Chinook salmon… in California,” and Chinook salmon EFH was identified within specified United

29

States Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic units. Freshwater EFH for Pacific Coast salmon in the30

CV includes waters currently accessible to salmon within the CV, as well as historically accessible

31

areas (Myers et al. 1998). Under the MSA, Federal agencies are required to determine whether a32

Federal action they authorize, fund, or undertake may adversely affect EFH (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)). EFH

33

is not currently designated in the NEP Area.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

15July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

1.2.7.3

Assembly Bill 1133 California Endangered Species Act - Experimental Populations

2

CESA prohibits the taking of an endangered or threatened species, unless authorized. CDFW may

3authorize take of listed species if the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and impacts are4minimized and fully mitigated.

5
6

On September 25, 2017, Governor Brown approved Assembly Bill No. 1133, which authorizes the7

incidental take of an endangered, threatened, or candidate species designated as an experimental

8

population under the Federal ESA, without the need for further authorization or approval under CESA,

9

if specified requirements are met. California Fish and Game Code sections 2080.5 and 2080.6 address

10

the authorization of take associated with experimental populations. In addition, California Fish and11Game Code section 2080.7 addresses public outreach efforts regarding the introduction of experimental

12

populations.

13

1.2.7.4

14

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344) requires a permit before dredged or fill

15

material may be discharged into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt. This permit

16

program provides avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the potential adverse effects of17

dredge and fill activities within the nation’s waterways. CWA section 401 (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires an

18application for a federal license or permit to provide a certification for the relevant state(s) that any

19discharges from the facility will comply with applicable state water quality standards. In addition,

20

CWA section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

21

permit program to regulate point source discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States.

22

1.2.7.5

23

California Fish and Game Code section 1600, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act

24(Pub. Resources Code sections 21000, et seq.) (CEQA) set forth criteria for the incorporation of25

avoidance, minimization, and feasible mitigation measures for on-going activities as well as for

26

individual projects. Section 1600, et seq. was enacted to provide conservation for the state’s fish and27

wildlife resources and includes requirements to protect riparian habitat resources on the bed, channel,

28
29

or bank of streams and other waterways.

30

Section 1600, et seq. prohibits an entity from: (1) substantially diverting or obstructing the natural

31

flow of any river, stream, or lake, (2) substantially changing or using any material from the bed,

32

channel, or bank of, and river, stream or lake, or (3) depositing or disposing of debris, was, or

The Clean Water Act

California Fish and Game Code and California Environmental Quality Act

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

16July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river,2

stream, or lake, without first notifying CDFW of the activity. CDFW then has the opportunity to3determine whether the activity may substantially adversely affect an existing fish or wildlife

4resource and, if the activity may have such an effect, to issue a final agreement that includes

5

reasonable measures necessary to protect the resources (California Fish and Game Code section

61602). Under CEQA, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project without identifying all7

feasible mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and shall8

incorporate such measures absent overriding considerations.

9

1.2.7.6

10

In 1997, Reclamation completed the Livingston Stone NFH on the Sacramento River at the base11of Shasta Dam as a substation of the Coleman NFH Complex for the purpose of establishing a

12conservation hatchery program for SR winter-run Chinook salmon. The Livingston Stone NFH

13

operates two programs—the Winter Chinook Integrated-Recovery Supplementation Program and14

the Winter Chinook Captive Broodstock Program. The initial source of reintroduced SR winter-15

run Chinook salmon would be from the captive broodstock program. NMFS and the USFWS

16

have coordinated on the Livingston Stone NFH programs since inception and are coordinating on

17

NMFS’ issuance of an ESA section 10 permit for the two hatchery programs described in the18
192015 Livingston Stone NFH Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (USFWS 2015a, 2015b).

20

The Livingston Stone NFH Monitoring and Evaluation Program is discussed in USFWS’ HGMP21

(USFWS 2015a, 2015b). Monitoring and evaluation is consistent with best management practices

22

for artificial production. Monitoring and evaluation are conducted to evaluate potential negative

23

effects resulting from the SR winter-run Chinook salmon propagation program at the Livingston

24

Stone NFH. Knowledge gained through experimentation and research is used to modify fish25

culture practices, when appropriate, to maximize program benefits and reduce negative effects.

26

1.2.7.6.1 Integrated-Recovery Supplementation Program

27

The Livingston Stone NFH Integrated-Recovery Supplementation Program consists of the28

following: (1) propagation of SR winter-run Chinook salmon from adults collected at a trap at

29

Keswick Dam, and (2) integrated management of the hatchery-origin fish with the natural-30

spawned population of SR winter-run Chinook salmon in the upper Sacramento River below

31

Shasta and Keswick Dams.

Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery32
33

Since 1997, the USFWS captured and retained, as broodstock, up to 120 SR winter-run Chinook
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

17July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

salmon each year from the adult trap at Keswick Dam for the Integrated-Recovery Supplementation2

Program. SR winter-run Chinook salmon propagated at Livingston Stone NFH are intended to provide

3

a demographic enhancement to aid in the rebuilding and recovery of the single extant population

4(subsection 1.2.2, Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESA Listing). Hatchery-origin SR

5

winter-run Chinook salmon return as adults to the upper Sacramento River below Shasta and Keswick

6Dams, spawn in the wild within the Sacramento River system below the dams, and become

7

reproductively and genetically assimilated into the natural spawning population. SR winter-run

8

Chinook salmon from the Integrated-Recovery Supplementation Program are part of the listed ESU.

9

1.2.7.6.2 Winter Chinook Captive Broodstock Program10

In 2015, the USFWS, NMFS, and the CDFW collectively decided to reinitiate the captive

11

broodstock program at Livingston Stone NFH using juvenile hatchery fish from the Integrated-

12

Recovery Supplementation Program (subsection 1.2.6.6, SR Winter-run Chinook Salmon HGMP)

13(USFWS 2015b). The goals of the captive broodstock program are to provide: (1) a genetic

14

reserve of SR winter-run Chinook salmon in a safe and secure environment to be available for use

15

as hatchery broodstock for the Integrated-Recovery Supplementation Program in the event of a16

catastrophic decline in abundance, (2) a future source of SR winter-run Chinook salmon to17

contribute to multi-agency efforts to reintroduce winter-run Chinook salmon upstream of Shasta

18

Dam and into restored habitats of Battle Creek, and (3) a future source of SR winter-run Chinook

19

salmon to fulfill the needs of research projects. SR winter-run Chinook salmon from the captive

20

broodstock program at the Livingston Stone NFH are a component of the Integrated-Recovery

21

Supplementation Program and are considered as part of the listed SR winter-run Chinook salmon

22

ESU (79 Fed. Reg. 20802, April 14, 2014; R. Jones, NMFS, letter to Chris Yates, NMFS, September

23

28, 2015, regarding inclusion of Livingston Stone NFH fish in the ESU; 81 Fed. Reg. 33468, May 26,242016). SR winter-run Chinook salmon from Livingston Stone NFH’s captive broodstock program

25

would be used for the initial reintroduction efforts above Shasta Dam.

26

1.2.6.7

27

Fish hatchery programs that may affect listed salmon and steelhead require authorization under28

the ESA. A Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) provides detailed descriptions of29hatchery programs that are submitted to NMFS for authorization under the ESA. HGMPs are the30basis for NMFS’ biological evaluations of hatchery programs under ESA sections 7 and 10, or

31

Limit 5 of the current section 4(d) rule (subsection 1.2.5, ESA Section 4(d) Regulations). HGMPs

32

describe each hatchery’s operations and the actions taken to support recovery and minimize

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

18July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

ecological or genetic impacts, such as straying and other forms of competition with naturally

2

produced fish.

3

1.2.6.7.1 SR Winter-run Chinook Salmon HGMP

4

In 2015, the USFWS issued two HGMPs for the two Livingston Stone NFH programs: Integrated-

5

Recovery Supplementation Program (USFWS 2015a), and the Winter Chinook Captive Broodstock

6

Program (USFWS 2015b). The programs described in the HGMPs would occur regardless of NMFS’7
8

10(j) designations described herein.

9

Captive broodstock are obtained by withholding a portion of the juveniles produced in the10

Integrated-Recovery Supplementation Program and rearing them to maturity in the hatchery.

11

Beginning in the year 2015 (brood year 2014), 1,035 winter Chinook salmon juveniles were12

withheld from Livingston Stone NFH’s Integrated-Recovery Supplementation Program release13

group for the Winter Chinook Captive Broodstock Program (USFWS 2015b). The USFWS

14

expects that approximately 1,000 fish would be withheld from future brood years; however, the15number of juveniles entered into the captive broodstock program would be reconsidered on an annual

16

basis by the USFWS, NMFS, and CDFW. Based on previous (1991-2007) performance of17

the Winter Chinook Captive Broodstock Program, USFWS anticipates that at least 50 percent of18

the fish retained as captive broodstock would survive to sexual maturity, thereby producing

19

approximately 500 mature winter-run Chinook salmon adults per brood year (USFWS 2015b).

20

According to the 2015 Winter Chinook Captive Broodstock Program HGMP, one of the program

21

purposes is to provide the source of SR winter-run Chinook salmon for the reintroduction of SR

22

winter-run Chinook salmon upstream of Shasta Dam and into restored habitats of Battle Creek.

23

The proportion of fish from Livingston Stone NFH used for the reintroduction program is

24

expected to decrease over time and eventually cease as the number of returning adults originating

25

from the NEP Area increases.

26

1.2.6.7.2 CV Spring-run Chinook Salmon HGMP Planning Process

27

FRH would likely be the donor stock source for the CV spring-run Chinook salmon reintroduction

28

above Shasta Dam. An HGMP would be developed as part of the permitting process. Identification of29

the source population(s) would depend upon the genetic diversity needs of the broodstock, the specific30

conditions of the proposed donor population at the time of reintroduction, and whether the collection

31
32

would jeopardize the survival and recovery of the species.

33

Future authorization for the collection of CV spring-run Chinook salmon for the conservation
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

19July 18, 2023

Section 1 – Introduction and Background1

hatchery and issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit would be analyzed under the ESA and2

NEPA when NMFS receives a permit application. Over time, broodstock would produce

3juveniles for release to the NEP Area in sufficient numbers to enable the return of sufficient4

numbers of adults to complete their life cycle. Ultimately, the fish would establish a natural

5

population of CV spring-run Chinook salmon and the hatchery contribution would be phased out.

6

All collections of donor stock would require the application for and approval of section

78

10(a)(1)(A) permit(s), and associated NEPA and ESA section 7 reviews.

9Collections of donor stock would occur, or eggs or young may be placed directly into the NEP

10Area. Conservation best management practices, as outlined in the HGMP, would be used to make11

the appropriate crosses of available individuals. The NEP designations of these fish and their

12

propagation would increase the understanding of handling, transport, and broodstock culture

13

methods for reintroductions and would have a beneficial impact on CV spring-run Chinook

14

salmon by restoring an additional population to the Basalt and Porous Lava Diversity Group that15

furthers the recovery plan objectives for the ESU. Operation of the hatchery in accordance with

16

an HGMP would ensure genetic diversity and would minimize domestication effects

17

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

20

July 18, 2023

Section 2 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

1

2.0

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

2

2.1

3

The purpose of the proposed action is to support future reintroduction efforts leading to the re-4

establishment of populations of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the5

McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers upstream of Shasta Dam. NMFS rulemaking under ESA

6sections 10(j) and 4(d) would contribute to the conservation of SR winter-run and CV spring-run

7

Chinook salmon and to the overall recovery goals provided in the recovery plan (NMFS 2014).

8

2.2

9

The need for the action is to further the conservation of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

10

salmon by increasing the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of these species as the1112

reintroduced populations becomes established and contributes to the recovery of the ESU.

13

Designation of the SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon NEPs under ESA section

14

10(j) and establishment of a rule pursuant to ESA section 4(d) will advance recovery objectives

15of re-establishing populations. The proposed designations and ESA section 4(d) rule will also

16

simultaneously protect individuals, private landowners, municipalities, tribes, and local, state,

17

and Federal governments who may incidentally and unintentionally take (including harm) the18
19fish while engaged in otherwise lawful activities.

20

NMFS is also interested in further developing a cooperative relationship with local entities and affected

21

local landowners regarding the management of listed species for conservation and recovery. NMFS

22

considers this action a means to facilitate partnerships in the NEP Area by reducing perceived

23

regulatory constraints associated with reintroduction of an ESA listed species.

Purpose of the Action

Need for the Action

24

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

21July 18, 2023

Section 3 – Action Area

1

3.0

ACTION AREA

2

Under the ESA, the Action Area is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by

3

the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (50 CFR 402.02).

4

No such term exists under NEPA. However, under NEPA, the Affected Environment “… should

5

include a description of the environment in which the proposed action and alternatives are to

6

take place... For project-specific analysis, the affected environment typically encompasses the7

proposed action’s site and immediate vicinity. However, the analysis of cumulative impacts may

8

broaden that range.” (NMFS 2009). The action area is described below, whereas the Affected

9

Environment is described for each of the resource topics evaluated in this EA in Section 5.

10

3.1

11

For this EA, the term “action area” is used synonymously with the NEP Area for the proposed

1213experimental population designations under ESA section 10(j).

14

The NEP Area (Figure 3) extends from Shasta Dam up to Pit 7 Dam on the Pit River, McCloud15

Dam on the McCloud River, and Box Canyon Dam on the upper Sacramento River. All other16

tributaries flowing into Shasta Reservoir up to the ridge line, including tributaries below Pit 7

17

Dam, McCloud Dam, and Box Canyon Dam, up to the ridge line would be included in the NEP

18

Area. All other areas above Pit 7 Dam on the Pit River, McCloud Dam on the McCloud River,19

and Box Canyon Dam on the upper Sacramento River would not be part of the NEP Area. The

20

NEP Area extends up to the ridgelines to account for watershed processes and ends at the21

aforementioned dams because these dams lack fish passage facilities.

Description of the Action Area

22

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

22July 18, 2023

Section 4 – Alternatives

1
2

Figure 3. The NEP Area above Shasta Dam for SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon.

3
4

4.0

5

This EA describes and evaluates three alternatives. NMFS considered but did not analyze two

6

additional alternatives because they did not meet the purpose of and need for the action. These are

ALTERNATIVES

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

23July 18, 2023

Section 4 – Alternatives

1

discussed in subsection 4.4 (Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail). Table 1 summarizes

2

key components of each alternative.

3
4

4.1

5

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would: (1) Not designate all SR winter-run and CV spring-6

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area as NEPs under ESA section 10(j) or authorize the release of

7

NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area; and (2) Not establish take8

prohibitions for the NEPs of SR winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and910

exceptions for particular activities under ESA section 4(d).

11Long-term reintroduction of SR winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon could occur above Shasta

12

Dam without a NEP designation. In 2022, as an ad-hoc, “urgent action” action addressing impacts to

13

SR winter-run Chinook salmon from multiple years of drought, NMFS, DFW, USFWS, and the14Winnemem Wintu Tribe transported winter-run Chinook salmon eggs from LSNFH to incubators at a15

location on the McCloud River over 25 miles upstream of Shasta Reservoir. Here, the eggs incubated

16

and fry reared until outmigration. This was intended to provide guaranteed cold water to the eggs and17

therefore increase their likelihood of survival. Approximately 40,000 eggs from the hatchery were18

incubated at the site on the McCloud River. Approximately 1600 juvenile fish from those incubators

19

were captured in the McCloud River downstream of the incubators and translocated around Shasta

20

Reservoir to a release site in the upper Sacramento River to continue rearing and migrating to the21

ocean. This action could continue until a long-term reintroduction program is in place. However, a22

program for full scale and permanent reintroduction will require separate authorization, under the23

ESA, for any take of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon associated with handling,24

transport, etc. However, a full-scale and permanent fish passage program without a NEP designation25

and associated protective regulations is anticipated to result in opposition from landowners and other26

concerned groups whose otherwise lawful activities could be impacted by the presence of listed27

species.

Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Experimental Populations, No
Authorization for Release, and no Adoption of Protective Regulations

28
29

Opposition would likely result in significant delays and/or permanently stall reintroduction efforts.

30

Without a reintroduction program, recovery of the SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon

31

ESU under the No-action Alternative would continue to depend on contributions from the below-dam

32

independent and dependent extant populations of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon

33

in the Sacramento River and tributaries.

34
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

24

July 18, 2023

Section 4 – Alternatives

1

Under the No-action Alternative, the endangered status of SR winter-run Chinook salmon and the2threatened status of CV spring-run Chinook salmon would remain in effect throughout the ESUs.

3

Existing ESA section 9 take prohibitions would remain in effect. The current take prohibitions and4

exceptions under ESA section 4(d) protective regulations that apply to the CV spring-run Chinook

5

salmon ESU (50 CFR 223.203) would remain in effect. ESA regulations would apply to any SR

6winter-run or CV spring-run reintroduced to the NEP Area. Existing section 7 requirements for7

Federal agencies to consult with NMFS to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the8continued existence of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon or result in destruction or9

adverse modification of their critical habitat throughout the ESUs would continue to apply.

10
11
12

4.2

13

4.2.1 Introduction

14

Alternative 2 is the NMFS’ preferred alternative because it would contribute to the conservation and15

recovery of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon by advancing NMFS’ recovery

16

objectives for re-establishing populations, while simultaneously protecting individuals, private

17

landowners, municipalities, tribes, and local, state, and Federal governments who may incidentally and18

unintentionally take (including harm) the fish while engaged in otherwise lawful activities. Under

19

Alternative 2, NMFS would:

20

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited
Protective Regulations(1) Designate all SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area as NEPs

21

under ESA section 10(j) and authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-22

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area; and23(2) Establish take prohibitions for the NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

24

salmon in the NEP Area and exceptions for particular activities under ESA section 4(d).

2526Under Alternative 2, NMFS would designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

27

salmon in the NEP Area, which would generally be treated as threatened species, and NMFS would28

be able to establish limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d) appropriate to the29

circumstances. Under Alternative 2, ESA section 4(d) protective regulations would provide exceptions

30

for take of NEP fish in the NEP Area appropriate to the circumstances, including take that31

is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and unintentional, not due to negligent conduct.

32

Downstream of the NEP Area (downstream of Shasta and Keswick Dams) the current ESA take33

prohibitions and exceptions that apply to SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon would
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

25

July 18, 2023

Section 4 – Alternatives

1remain in effect (see 50 CFR 223.203). Activities that could incidentally take NEPs in the NEP Area

2

include recreation, forestry, water management, agriculture, power production, mining, transportation

3

management, rural development, livestock grazing, and other similar activities that are carried out in4

accordance with Federal, state, and local laws and regulations. In addition, with the NEP designations,

5

ESA section 7 requirements for Federal agencies to consult with NMFS to ensure their actions are not

6likely to jeopardize the continued existence of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon

7

would not apply to any Federal actions that may affect the NEPs in the NEP Area (unless it occurs in

8a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park). The NEPs would generally be treated as proposed

9

species for purposes of ESA section 7, and Federal agencies would only need to confer with NMFS as

10

applicable depending on the species before taking actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued

11

existence of a species proposed to be listed. The designation of all SR winter-run and CV spring-run

12

Chinook salmon in the NEP Area as NEPs and limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d)13would remain in effect until recovery goals for the SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon

14

ESUs have been achieved and the species are removed from the list of endangered and threatened

15

species under the ESA, or if barriers geographically separating the proposed experimental populations

16

in the NEP Area from nonexperimental populations of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

17

salmon are removed (i.e., a barrier dam is removed or modified to allow fish passage).

18

4.2.2 Regulatory Process

19

Under Alternative 2, the ESA section 4(d) regulations would prohibit take of SR winter-run and CV

20

spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and provide exceptions for particular activities, which are21

described below.

22

4.2.2.1

23

ESA section 3(19) defines “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,24

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Under 50 CFR 222.102, “harm” “may25

include significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife

26

by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including, breeding, spawning, rearing,27

migrating, feeding or sheltering.” The ESA does not specifically prohibit the take of species listed as

28

threatened, but instead authorizes NMFS to adopt regulations under section 4(d) it deems necessary

29

and advisable for species conservation, including prohibiting take. Under ESA section 10(j)(2)(C),30

experimental populations are generally treated the same as species listed as threatened, and NMFS

31

may issue an ESA section 4(d) rule applying the take prohibitions broadly or more narrowly as

32

appropriate to the circumstances.

Take

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

26

July 18, 2023

Section 4 – Alternatives

1

4.2.2.2

2

Concurrent with the ESA section 10(j) experimental population designations, NMFS’ rulemaking

3

adopts limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d) for SR winter-run and CV spring-run

4

Chinook salmon in the NEP Area. These limited protective regulations prohibit take of the NEPs of

5

SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon located within the geographic range of the

6

proposed experimental population designations, except in the following circumstances:

7

ESA Section 4(d) Regulations(1) Any take by authorized governmental personnel acting in compliance with 50 CFR

8223.203(b)(3) 1 to aid a sick, injured or stranded fish; dispose of a dead fish; or salvage a9dead fish which may be useful for scientific study; or

10(2) Any take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and is unintentional, not due to11negligent conduct. Otherwise lawful activities include, but are not limited to, recreation,

12

forestry, water management, agriculture, power production, mining, transportation

13

management, rural development, or livestock grazing, when such activities are in full

14

compliance with all applicable laws and regulations; and

15(3) Any take that is pursuant to a permit issued by NMFS under section 10 of the ESA (1616

U.S.C. 1539) and regulations in 50 CFR part 222 applicable to such a permit.

17
18

Outside of the NEP Area (Figure 3), take of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon

19

originating from the NEP Area would be prohibited in the same manner as other SR winter-run

20

Chinook salmon under ESA section 9. Take of CV spring-run Chinook salmon would be prohibited in21

the same manner as under the current ESA section 4(d) regulations (67 Fed. Reg. 1116) for threatened

22

species.

23

4.2.2.3

ESA Section 7

According to 50 CFR 223.203(b)(3), the prohibitions relating to the threatened West Coast salmon ESUs andsteelhead DPSs do not apply to any employee or designee of NMFS, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
any Federal land management agency (e.g., USFS), CDFW, or any other governmental entity that has comanagement authority for the listed salmonids, when the employee or designee, acting in the course of his or her
official duties, takes a threatened salmonid without a permit if such action is necessary to: (1) aid sick, injured, or
stranded salmonids; (2) dispose of dead salmonids; or (3) salvage dead salmonids that may be useful for scientificstudy. Each agency acting under this limit on the take prohibitions is to report to NMFS the numbers of fishhandled and their status, on an annual basis. A designee of the listed entities is any individual the Federal or state
fishery agency or other co-manager has authorized in writing to perform the listed functions.

1

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

27

July 18, 2023

Section 4 – Alternatives

1

In accordance with ESA section 10(j)(2)(C), the ESA section 7(a)(2) consultation requirement would

2

not apply to Federal actions that may affect the proposed experimental populations in the NEP Area.

3

For purposes of ESA section 7, NEPs are treated as species proposed for ESA listing, and only two

4

provisions of ESA section 7 would apply: (1) section 7(a)(1) (requiring Federal agencies to use their

5

authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA by carrying out programs for the conservation of

6listed species); and (2) section 7(a)(4) (triggered by Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize the7continued existence of a species proposed to be listed). In addition, no critical habitat could be

8designated for the NEPs.

9

4.2.2.4

10

Collection and transport of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon as part of a future11

reintroduction effort would be subject to approval of a permit under ESA section 10(a)(l)(A), which

12

would be subject to an HGMP in relation to a hatchery source and additional analysis under NEPA

13

and ESA section 7. Individuals used to establish experimental populations could be collected from an

14existing donor population, if fish can be removed without adverse population effects and provided that

15

appropriate permits are issued in accordance with ESA section 10(a)(1)(A), and subject to additional

16
17

analysis under NEPA and ESA section 7.

18

Monitoring and evaluation specific to the proposed experimental populations would be approved as

19part of the permitting process under ESA section 10(a)(1)(A). Monitoring and evaluation activities

20

could also be authorized under a section 4(d) approval process. Specifically, biological and technical21

information would be collected as necessary to evaluate the reintroduced Chinook salmon colonization,

22

pre-spawn (adult) survival and movement, and adult spawning.

23

4.2.2.5

24

Under the provisions of the FPA, FERC must decide whether to issue licenses, and what conditions

25
26

should be placed on any license issued.

27

The FPA authorizes NMFS to issue mandatory prescriptions for fish passage and to recommend other28

measures to protect salmon, steelhead, and other fish under NMFS’ jurisdiction. During the29

relicensing process for the McCloud-Pitt Hydroelectric Project, NMFS reserved its authority to30

require the licensee to construct and operate fish passage facilities. Although it is presently uncertain

31

what terms and conditions FERC will place in the new license, if NMFS issues mandatory

32

prescriptions for fish passage under the FPA in the NEP Area, the ESA section 4(d) rule

ESA Section 10

Federal Power Act

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

28

July 18, 2023

Section 4 – Alternatives

1would provide exception for take of experimental population fish in the NEP Area that is2

incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and unintentional, not due to negligent conduct.

3
4

4.3

5

4.3.1 Introduction

6

Under Alternative 3, NMFS would:

7

Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for
Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations(1) Designate all SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area as NEPs

8

under ESA section 10(j) and authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-9

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area; and

10(2) Establish take prohibitions for the NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

11

salmon in the NEP Area and exceptions that are the same as the current ESA section 4(d)1213rule protective regulations (50 CFR 223.203).

14

In contrast to the No-action Alternative, but similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 proposes that

15

NMFS would designate and authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run

16

Chinook in the NEP Area under ESA section 10(j). However, unlike Alternative 2, NMFS would

17

apply the current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations (50 CFR 223.203) for the reintroduced

18

fish when they are in the NEP Area, rather than establishing a separate ESA section 4(d) rule for the19
20

NEP Area.

21

Under the current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations (50 CFR 223.203), the take prohibitions

22of ESA section 9(a)(1) that apply to endangered species apply to threatened species with limits or

23

exceptions for 10 categories of activities when they meet specified criteria. As an alternative to using24

the 10 limits on the take prohibitions, affected non-Federal entities may choose to seek an ESA section25

10 permit from NMFS.

26
27

Alternative 3 would contribute to the conservation and recovery of SR winter-run and CV spring-run

28

Chinook salmon by advancing NMFS’s recovery objectives for re-establishing populations, but would29

not provide an exception for take of NEP fish in the NEP Area that is incidental to an otherwise

30

lawful activity and unintentional, not due to negligent conduct. Under Alternative 3, an entity

31

proposing to undertake otherwise lawful activities (e.g., recreation, forestry, water management,

32

agriculture, power production, mining, transportation management, rural development, or livestock33

grazing) that could incidentally take SR winter-run or CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

29July 18, 2023

Section 4 – Alternatives

1

Area would be required to meet one of the limits or exceptions under the current ESA section 4(d)2rule protective regulations (50 CFR 223.203) or obtain a permit from NMFS under ESA section

3

10(a)(1)(B). The current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations would remain in effect until

4

recovery goals for the SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESU are achieved and the5

species is removed from the list of endangered and threatened species under the ESA.

6

4.3.2 Regulatory Process

7

Under Alternative 3, the ESA section 4(d) regulations under Alternative 3 would prohibit the take of

8

SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area unless: (1) one of the limits or

9

exceptions in the current ESA section 4(d) protective regulations applies; or (2) the project proponent

10

obtains an ESA section 10 permit from NMFS.

11

4.3.2.1

12

Similar to Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, NMFS would generally establish take prohibitions for13

the NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area. ESA section 3(19)14

defines “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to15

attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Under 50 CFR 222.102, “harm” “may include significant

16

habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly

17

impairing essential behavioral patterns, including, breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or

18

sheltering.”

19

4.3.2.2

20

In contrast to Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, the current ESA section 4(d) rule protective

21

regulations would apply to the take of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP

22

Area with limits or exceptions for 10 categories of activities when they meet specified criteria (5023

CFR 223.203). NMFS would not issue an ESA section 4(d) rule applying the take prohibitions more

24

narrowly as appropriate to the circumstances concurrent with the proposed ESA section 10(j)25experimental population designations, including the exception for take of NEP fish in the NEP Area

26

that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and unintentional, not due to negligent conduct.

27

NMFS’ experience under the current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations shows that NMFS

28

does authorize take associated with some otherwise lawful activities, but some activities may not meet29

one of the 10 categories of activities and some activities may be modified during the authorization

30

process to meet the applicable criteria under the current protective regulations. Outside of the NEP

31

Area, take of SR winter-run Chinook salmon originating from the proposed experimental populations

Take

ESA Section 4(d) Regulations

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

30

July 18, 2023

Section 4 – Alternatives

1would be prohibited in the same manner as other SR winter-run Chinook salmon under current ESA

2

section 9 prohibitions. Take of CV spring-run Chinook salmon originating from the NEP Area would

3

be prohibited in the same manner as other CV spring-run Chinook salmon under the current 4(d) rule4

protective regulations for threatened anadromous species (50 CFR 223.203).

54.3.2.3

6

Similar to Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, in accordance with ESA section 10(j)(2)(C), the ESA

7section 7(a)(2) consultation requirement would not apply to Federal actions that may affect the NEPs

8

in the NEP Area. For purposes of ESA section 7, the NEPs would be treated as a species proposed for9

ESA listing, and only two provisions of ESA section 7 would apply: (1) section 7(a)(1) (requiring

10

Federal agencies to use their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA by carrying out

11

programs for the conservation of listed species); and (2) section 7(a)(4) (triggered by Federal actions

12

that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to be listed). In addition, no

13

critical habitat could be designated for the NEPs.

14

4.3.2.4 ESA Section 10

15

Similar to Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, collection and transport of SR winter-run and CV

16

spring-run Chinook salmon as part of a future reintroduction effort would be subject to approval of a17

permit under ESA section 10(a)(l)(A), which would potentially be subject to an HGMP in relation to a18

hatchery source and would be subject to additional analysis under NEPA and ESA section 7.

19

Individuals used to establish experimental populations could be collected from an existing donor

20

population, provided that appropriate permits are issued in accordance with ESA section 10(a)(1)(A),21

and subject to additional analysis under NEPA and ESA section 7. It is anticipated that a monitoring

22

plan will be implemented specific to the proposed experimental populations upstream of Shasta Dam.

23

Specifically, biological and technical information would be collected as necessary to evaluate the24

reintroduced juvenile Chinook salmon colonization, pre-spawn (adult) survival and movement, and25

adult spawning. NMFS would need to issue an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit(s), subject to review

26

under NEPA, for monitoring and evaluation of the proposed experimental populations.

27

4.3.2.5

28

Under the provisions of the FPA, FERC must decide whether to issue licenses, and what conditions

29

should be placed on any license issued. The FPA authorizes NMFS to issue mandatory prescriptions for30

fish passage and to recommend other measures to protect salmon, steelhead, and other fish under

31

NMFS’ jurisdiction. Although it is presently uncertain what terms and conditions FERC will place in

ESA Section 7

Federal Power Act

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

31

July 18, 2023

Section 4 – Alternatives

1

the new license for the McCloud- Pitt Hydroelectric Project, if NMFS issues mandatory prescriptions

2

for fish passage under the FPA, the ESA section 4(d) rule in NMFS’ rulemaking would provide

3

exceptions to take prohibitions appropriate to the circumstances, including NMFS’ exception for take4of the proposed experimental population fish in the NEP Area that is incidental to an otherwise lawful

5

activity and unintentional, not due to negligent conduct. Under Alternative 3, NMFS expects

6

restrictions placed on water resource management in the NEP Area would be similar to those that are

7currently in place outside of the NEP Area downstream of Shasta and Keswick dams.

8

4.4

9

4.4.1 Designation as Essential Experimental Populations

10

Under this scenario, the proposed experimental populations of SR winter-run and CV spring-run

11

Chinook salmon would be designated as essential experimental populations rather than NEPs. Under

12

ESA section 10(j)(2)(B), the Secretary must determine, on the basis of the best available information,

13

whether or not an experimental population is essential to the continued existence of an endangered or

14

threatened species. NMFS regulations define an essential experimental population to be an

15

experimental population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the16

survival of the species in the wild (50 CFR 222.501(b)).

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail17
18

The NMFS (2014) recovery plan identifies that re-establishment of populations of SR winter-run and19

CV spring-run Chinook salmon would aid in recovery of the ESU by increasing abundance and20

productivity, by improving spatial structure and diversity, and by reducing the risk of extinction to the21

ESU as a whole. Although NMFS must ultimately make this determination through rulemaking, we

22

did not analyze this alternative in detail because of our preliminary determination that the proposed

23experimental populations, if lost, would not be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the24

survival of the species in the wild. We considered the geographic location of the proposed25experimental populations in relation to other populations of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

26

salmon, and the likelihood of the survival of these populations without the existence of the proposed27experimental populations.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

32

July 18, 2023

Section 4 – Alternatives

1

Table 1. Comparison of key components among alternatives.
SR Winter-run andCV spring-run
Chinook Salmon
ReleaseESA Take Prohibitions on SR Winter-run andCV spring-run Chinook Salmon

Alternative 1 –No-action alternative.

No authorization for releaseof NEPs of SR winter-run andCV spring-run Chinook
salmon in the NEP Area
under ESA section 10(j).

The current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations
that apply to the threatened Chinook salmon (50 CFR
223.203) outside of the NEP Area would apply to any
SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon
reintroduced to the NEP Area.

Alternative 2 –Designation
and authorization for releaseof NEPS in the NEP Area
under ESA section 10(j)with adoption of limited
protective regulations under
ESA section 4(d).

Authorization for release of
NEPs of SR winter-run andCV spring-run Chinook
salmon in the NEP Area
under ESA section 10(j).

Alternative 3 – Designation
and authorization for releaseof NEPs in the NEP Area
under ESA section 10(j) withadoption of the current ESA
section 4(d) rule protective
regulations for the NEP Area.

Authorization for release of
NEPs of SR winter-run andCV spring-run Chinook
salmon in the NEP Area
under ESA section 10(j).

Adoption of limited protective regulations under
ESA section 4(d) that would prohibit take of NEPsof SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon
in the NEP Area except in the following
circumstances:
Any take by authorized governmental personnel acting
in compliance with 50 CFR 223.203(b)(3) to aid a sick,injured or stranded fish; dispose of a dead fish; orsalvage a dead fish which may be useful for scientificstudy;
Any take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful
activity and is unintentional, not due to negligent
conduct; andAny take that is pursuant to a permit issued by NMFS
under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539) andregulations in 50 CFR part 222 applicable to such a permit.
Adoption of the current ESA section 4(d) rule
protective regulations that apply to the SR winter-run
and CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESUs (50 CFR
223.203) for the NEPs in the NEP Area.

Alternative

Experimental
Population
Designations for SR
Winter-run and CV
spring-run Chinook
Salmon
No NEP designations.

NEP designations in the
NEP Area.

Same as Alternative 2 –NEP designations in the
NEP Area.

2

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

33

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

5.0

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2

5.1

Description of the Analysis Area

3

The potentially affected environment is the same as the NEP Area for Aquatic Habitat, Fisheries

4Resources in the NEP Area, Cultural Resources, Wildlife Species (except for Southern Resident killer

56whale (Orcinus orca)), and Land Use and Ownership.

7

The analysis area for ESA-listed salmon is outside of the NEP Area because ESA-listed salmon are

8
9downstream of Shasta and Keswick Dams and straying and disease were identified as potential effects.

10

The analysis area for Socioeconomics, Tourism and Recreation, and Environmental Justice comprises

11

all of Shasta and Siskiyou Counties because local residents within these areas would most likely be

1213affected by the alternatives considered in this EA.

14

The analysis area for Southern Resident killer whale includes the Pacific Ocean off the California

15

coast where this species forages on Chinook salmon.

16

5.2

17

The NEP Area (Figure 3) includes portions of the upper Sacramento River above Shasta Dam

18

including the upper Sacramento River and McCloud River. This area intersects two counties in

19northern California and contains large areas of sparsely populated private and public lands that20

provide habitat for native and non-native fish and wildlife. The majority of public lands within the21
22

NEP Area are administered by the USFS – Shasta Trinity Nation Forest (STNF).

23

The alternatives considered in this EA have the potential to affect the physical, biological,

24

sociological, and economic resources within the affected environment. A description of the current

25

baseline condition of environmental resources that may be affected by these alternatives is provided

26

below. NMFS conducted an internal scoping process to identify resources within the affected27

environment that could potentially be affected by the alternatives. During the scoping process, NMFS

28

discussed possible effects to all resources from activities associated with issuing a proposed rule to29

designate and authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in

30
31

the NEP Area.

32

NMFS weighed a number of environmental parameters against the Proposed Action and concluded the33

following environmental resources did not warrant further analysis because they would not be

Overview and Approach

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

34

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment1

impacted: (1) Geology and Soils, (2) Wetlands, (3) ESA-listed Plants, (3) Noise, (4) Aesthetics, (5)2Light and Glare, (6) Transportation, (7) Public Services, and (8) Safety and Human Health.

3

5.3

4

5.3.1 ESA-listed Fish Species

5

Due to Shasta and Keswick Dams, there are no ESA-listed anadromous fish species currently in the

6

NEP Area. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 authorize the release of SR winter-run and CV spring-run

7
8

Chinook salmon to the NEP Area.

9

The analysis area for ESA-listed salmon extends outside of the NEP Area because ESA-listed salmon

10

are downstream of Shasta and Keswick Dams and straying and disease were identified as potential

11
12

effects.

13

Life history information for these species is included in this section to inform the analysis of effects in

14

Section x, Environmental Consequences, regarding disease and straying. Although listed under the15

ESA and present below Keswick Dam, effects to the Southern DPS of the North American green

16

sturgeon are not discussed because no impacts to this species from the Proposed Action were identified.

17

5.3.1.1

18Adult SR winter-run Chinook salmon migrate from a marine environment into their natal freshwater

19

streams and rivers to mate; they spawn once and then die. In the Sacramento River, SR winter-run

20

Chinook salmon spawning occurs from late April through mid-August. SR winter-run Chinook salmon

21

spawn during the summer months when air temperatures approach the yearly maximum and are thus

22

restricted to stream reaches with sufficient cold water to support their summer freshwater life stages.

23

Their life history is summarized in Yoshiyama et al. (1998), Poytress and Carillo (2010; 2011; 2012),

24

Moyle (2002), Snider and Titus (2000a, 2000b), Quinn (2005), Healey (1991), California Department

25

of Fish and Game (1998), Sommer et al. (2001), Montgomery et al. (1999), USFWS and Reclamation

26(1997), and NMFS (2014). Yoshiyama et al. (1998, 2001) reported that winter-run Chinook salmon

27

originally spawned in the upper Sacramento River system above the location of Shasta Dam (Little

28

Sacramento, Pit, McCloud, and Fall Rivers) and in Battle Creek. The range of SR winter-run Chinook

29

salmon has been greatly reduced by Keswick and Shasta Dams on the Sacramento River and by

30

hydroelectric development and operation on Battle Creek. Currently, SR winter-run Chinook salmon

31

spawning is limited to the mainstem Sacramento River downstream of Shasta and Keswick Dams that32

block access to historical cold-water summer spawning and rearing habitats. The naturally spawning

Fisheries Resources

Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

35

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

population persists primarily because water released from Shasta Reservoir during the summer has

2
3

been, for the most part, sufficiently cold.

4

In 2016, NMFS completed a periodic review as required by the ESA section 4(c)(2)(A) and on May 26,

52016 (81 Fed. Reg. 33468) announced the SR winter-run Chinook salmon ESU would remain listed as

6

endangered. In 2023, NMFS completed the 2022 review of SR winter-run Chinook salmon that

7

indicates the biological status of the SR winter-run Chinook salmon ESU has declined since the 20168viability assessment (Williams et al. 2016), with the single spawning population on the mainstem

9

Sacramento River now at a high risk of extinction (SWFSC 2022). Updated information indicates an

10increased extinction risk due to the larger influence of the hatchery broodstock and low numbers of

11

natural-origin returns in two consecutive years (SWFSC 2022). Analysis identified that the viability of

12

the ESU would be improved by re- establishing this species in their historical spawning and rearing

13

habitats through reintroduction efforts in Battle Creek and upstream from Shasta Reservoir.

14

5.3.1.2

15Adult CV spring-run Chinook salmon migrate from a marine environment into their natal freshwater16

streams and rivers to mate; they spawn once and then die. In the Sacramento River, CV spring-run

17

Chinook salmon spawning occurs between late August and early October (Fisher 1994) depending on

18

water temperatures (NMFS 2002). Their basic life history is summarized in Yoshiyama et al. (1998),

19

Fisher (1994), Healey (1991), Moyle (2002), USFWS (1995), California Department of Fish and Game

20

(CDFG) (1998; 2000a; 2004), Department of Water Resources (DWR) (2009), Myers et al. (1998),

21

Quinn (2005), and NMFS (2014). Information on straying can be found in Lindley et al. (2007) and22

Johnson and Lindley (2016).

23
24

Listed CV spring-run Chinook salmon from this ESU spawn in accessible reaches of the Sacramento

25River below Keswick Dam, Antelope Creek, Battle Creek, Beegum Creek, Big Chico Creek, Butte

26

Creek, Clear Creek, Deer Creek, Feather River, Mill Creek, and the lower Yuba River (CDFG 1998).

27

Fifteen of the independent 18 to 19 historical populations of the CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESU

28

are extirpated as a result of the construction of dams throughout the Central Valley (Yoshiyama et al.

29

2001; Lindley et al. 2004; Schick and Lindley 2007) (Figure 2). These dams, including Shasta and30

Keswick Dams, prevent CV spring-run Chinook salmon from accessing historical spawning and31

rearing habitats in higher elevation stream reaches, leading to their extirpation and/or hybridization

32

with CV fall-run Chinook salmon (Lindley et al. 2004; Lindley et al. 2006). In 2016, NMFS completed

33

a periodic review as required by ESA section 4(c)(2)(A) and on May 26, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 33468)

34recommended the CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESU remain listed as threatened. As part of theCentral Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

36

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

periodic review, NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries Science Center conducted an analysis (Johnson and2

Lindley 2016) that indicated the extant independent populations of the CV spring- run Chinook salmon

3

ESU remained at a moderate to low extinction risk. NMFS' Southwest Fisheries Science Center (2022)

4

recent viability analysis noted some improvements in the viability of the ESU, particularly with the5increased spatial diversity of the dependent Battle Creek and Clear Creek populations. However, the6analysis also identified recent catastrophic declines of many of the extant populations, high pre-spawn

7mortality during the 2012- 2015 drought in California, uncertain juvenile survival as a result of drought

8

and ocean conditions, as well as straying of CV spring-run Chinook salmon from the Feather River

9

Fish Hatchery as key threats.

10

5.3.2 Non-ESA-listed Native Fish Species

11

Various natural-origin and introduced fish species occur within the NEP Area (Table 2). Natural-origin

12

fish include salmonids and non-salmonid fish species. Native non-ESA/non-CESA-listed fish species

13

are listed in Table 2 and include McCloud River redband and resident rainbow trout. The analysis area

14

for non-ESA-listed native fish species is the same as the NEP Area

15

.

16
17

Table 2. Native non-listed (non-ESA/non-CESA listed) fish species within the NEP Area and their status under
CDFW’s California Fish Species of Special Concern list.
Shasta Lake Upper
McCloud
California Fish
Common Name
Scientific Name
Sacramento
and other
River andSpecies oftributaries 2 River andtributarie
Specialtributaries 3sConcern
Rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
X
X
X
McCloud redband

Oncorhynchus
mykiss stonei

White sturgeon

Acipenser transmontanus

California roach

Lavinia symmetricus

Riffle sculpin

Cottus gulosus

X

Pit sculpin

Cottus pitensis

X

Sacramento sucker

Catostomus occidentalis

Hardhead

Mylopharodon
conocephalus
Ptychocheilus grandis

Sacramento
pikeminnow
Tule perch

Hysterocarpus traski
traski

X
X

X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

2

From Box Canyon Dam down to Shasta Dam via Shasta Lake.

3

From Box Canyon Dam down to Shasta Lake.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

X

37July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

Common Name
Tui chub

Scientific Name
Siphateles bicolor

Shasta Lake Upper
Sacramento
and othertributaries 2 River andtributaries 3

McCloud
River andtributaries

California Fish
Species ofSpecialConcernX

1
2

Source: FERC 2011; Reclamation 2017; Moyle 2002; Moyle et al. 2015; California Fish Website 2017a.

3

The McCloud River historically had the southernmost and only bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

4

population in the State of California until it was extirpated circa 1975 (FERC 2011). Attempts to5

reintroduce bull trout have failed and the success of future reintroductions will likely be problematic as

6long as the conditions that caused their extirpation persist (Moyle 2002). As a result of their extirpation

7

from the NEP Area and State of California, bull trout will not be discussed further.

8
9

Resident rainbow trout were originally present in nearly all permanent coastal streams from San Diego10

in southern California north to the Smith River and were also found in most rivers in the Central

11Valley, from the Kern River north to the Pit River. The McCloud River is known as a premier trout

12

stream with an abundance of large resident rainbow trout. Resident rainbow trout are not a threatened13

or endangered species. CDFW currently stocks Shasta Lake and the upper Sacramento River with

14

fertile rainbow trout. Resident rainbow trout prefer clear, clean, and cold waters with habitat difficulty

15(Moyle 2002; USDA 2000). Adult resident rainbow trout feed on aquatic and terrestrial insects as well16

as frogs and small fish. In lakes and reservoirs, they frequently feed on open-water fish, such as

17

threadfin shad (Moyle et al. 2008). The California Fish and Game Commission has designated Wild18

Trout Waters in California that are managed exclusively for wild trout (including resident rainbow

19

trout) in the NEP Area. Wild Trout Waters within the NEP Area include the McCloud River from

20

McCloud Dam downstream to the southern boundary of Section 36, T38N, R3W, M.D.B. & M. (Shasta

21

County), the upper Sacramento River and its tributaries from Box Canyon Dam downstream to Scarlett

22

Way in Dunsmuir (Siskiyou County), and from the county bridge at Sweetbriar downstream to Shasta

23

Lake (Shasta County) (CDFW 2016a). McCloud River redband trout (McCloud redband, henceforth)24

are a form of rainbow trout that were isolated from coastal rainbow trout populations over many

25

centuries. McCloud redband inhabit lake and riverine systems and are known for the brilliant

26

red/crimson stripe along their sides. McCloud redband occur in the upper McCloud River above

27

Middle Falls, which is believed to be the historical natural barrier to anadromous fishes (USFS 1998a).

28

Total permanent habitat for the McCloud redband is estimated at 15 to 16 stream miles, or less in dry

29

years (Moyle et al. 2008). Based on survey work from 1978 through 1995, Trout, Swamp, Edson,

30

Sheepheaven, Blue Heron, Tate, Bull, Moosehead, Dry, and Raccoon Creeks and the mainstem

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

38July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

McCloud River above Middle Falls (USFS 1998a) are believed to still support populations of McCloud2

redband. Much of the mainstem McCloud River and southern tributaries have populations of brook and3

brown trout, which appear to have displaced McCloud redband. Edson, Moosehead, Sheepheaven, and4

Swamp Creeks represent the Core Conservation Area for focused restoration and protection activities

5

within a broader McCloud Redband Refugium (Redband Core Group 2016). Past stocking of

6

nonindigenous coastal rainbow trout, brown trout, and brook trout in the upper McCloud River has

7

altered species composition throughout much of the drainage and may have contributed to the decline

8of McCloud redband as a result of hybridization, predation, competition, and possible introduction of

9diseases. Stocking over the last century has possibly altered species composition from exclusively

10

McCloud redband (above Middle Falls) to a system mostly dominated with introgressed (when a11

species’ gene pool contains a gene from the gene pool of another species) and non-native fishes. These

12

non-native trout compete for food and space with McCloud redband. Historically, McCloud redband

13

likely were the only salmonid species that occupied the upper portions of the McCloud River

14

Watershed (above Middle Falls) (M. Dege, CDFW, email to Jon Ambrose, NMFS, regarding

15

conservation issues pertaining to McCloud redband, November 29, 2016). Although the CDFW has

16stocked the McCloud River system with non-native trout for the past 100 years, this practice stopped in17

the upper McCloud Watershed, first with rainbow trout (last stocking 1994) and then with other trout

18

species (last stocking 2013). Introgressed McCloud redband x rainbow trout are not present in some of19

the isolated headwater streams (Edson, Moosehead, Sheepheaven, Swamp, and possibly a few others).

20

However, downstream from these headwaters the level of introgression increases (Simmons et al. 2010;21

M. Dege, CDFW, email to Jon Ambrose, NMFS, regarding conservation issues pertaining to McCloud

22

redband, November 29, 2016).

23
24

White sturgeon are a long-lived anadromous fish and only spawn in large river systems from the25

Sacramento-San Joaquin system northward (Moyle 2002). White sturgeon spend most of their lives in

26

estuaries of large rivers and migrate into fresh water to spawn. White sturgeon were blocked from

27

access to the upper Sacramento River following the completion of Shasta Dam, but a small resident

28

population still persists in Shasta Lake (Reclamation 2017). These sturgeon were likely trapped in the29

reservoir following completion of Shasta Dam, but they have been unable to spawn since the 1960s

30

when powerhouses on the Pit River obstructed access to their spawning grounds. California roach are31

widely distributed throughout California and are found in a wide variety of habitats (Moyle 2002).

32

California roach are generally found in small, warm, mid-elevation streams and were observed in the

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

39July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

upper Sacramento River (Reclamation 2017). Roach are tolerant of relatively high temperatures (86° F

2

to 95° F [30° C to 35° C]) and low oxygen levels (1 to 2 parts per million) (Moyle 2002).

3
4

Riffle sculpin are found in the upper Sacramento River and typically live in headwater streams with

5cold water and rocky or gravelly substrate. They prefer permanent streams where the water does not

6

exceed 77° F to 79° F (25° C to 26° C), and where ample flow keeps the dissolved oxygen level near

7

saturation. Riffle sculpins may occupy riffles or pools, though they tend to favor areas that have8

adequate cover in the form of rocks, logs, or overhanging banks.

9
10

Pit sculpin are a recently described species that are closely related to the riffle sculpin (Moyle 2002).

11

Pit sculpin are widely distributed through the Pit River Watershed and are most abundant in rocky

12

riffles in smaller, well shaded streams (Moyle 2002 citing Robins and Miller 1957 and Bond 1973). Pit

13

sculpin were detected in the lower Pit River in 2007 (FERC 2011). Sacramento sucker are likely rare in

14

the McCloud River, but are capable of thriving in diverse conditions within streams, lakes, and mild

15

estuarine environments. Most suckers are found in clear, cool streams and in lakes at moderate

16

elevations. Sacramento suckers often share waters with Sacramento pikeminnow, roach, and hardhead.

17

Their diet consists mostly of diatoms and detritus, with invertebrates playing a smaller role. At age 4 to

18

6, Sacramento suckers become sexually mature and begin a spawning ritual that may involve a

19

migration to a warmer and smaller stream. Spawning is triggered by the onset of warmer water20

temperatures and usually occurs between February and June (California Fish Website 2016a).

21
22

Hardhead are a large, native minnow generally found in undisturbed areas of larger low- to middle-

23

elevation streams (elevation between 30 and 4,760 feet in the Sacramento and San Joaquin

24

Watersheds). Its range extends from the Kern River in the south to the Pit River in the north. Hardhead

25

inhabit areas that have clear, deep pools with sandy, gravel/boulder substrates and slow water velocities

26(less than 0.05 feet per second). Hardhead co-occur with Sacramento pikeminnow and usually with

27

Sacramento suckers, and tend to be absent from streams where introduced species, especially28

centrarchids, predominate. Hardhead were detected in the lower Pit River in 2007 (FERC 2011).

29
30

Sacramento pikeminnow are widely distributed in California but are rare in the McCloud River (USFS31

1998b). Sacramento pikeminnow are typically found in clear, low- to mid-elevation streams and rivers.

32

Sacramento pikeminnow favor streams with deep pools and slow runs that have cover in the form of

33

undercut banks or aquatic vegetation. Fish in larger, warmer waters tend to grow faster and bigger than
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

40

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

fish found in smaller, cooler waters. In addition to fish, prey items may include frogs, lamprey

2

ammocoetes (larvae), large stoneflies, and even small rodents. At age 3 to 4, Sacramento pikeminnow

3

become sexually mature and begin spawning in April through May. Ideal spawning grounds are riffles

4

and pool tails with gravel substrate (California Fish Website 2016b).

5
6

Sacramento tule perch are found in low-elevation waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River

7

drainage, and are apparently extirpated from the Pajaro, Salinas, and San Joaquin Rivers in California

8(Moyle 2002). Tule perch give birth to fully formed young and occur in a wide variety of habitats,9including lakes, estuarine sloughs, and clear streams and rivers, but rarely enter brackish water (Moyle102002). Tule perch school when foraging and feed on small invertebrates associated with aquatic

11

vegetation (Moyle 2002). Their diet may include shrimp, crabs, clams, chironomid midges, and aquatic12

insects, depending on the type of water body (California Fish Website 2016b).

13
14

Tui chub occur in the Columbia River drainage of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; in the Klamath and15

upper Pit Rivers (Sacramento River drainage); and interior drainages of Nevada and California down to

16

the Mohave River in southern California (USGS 2017; Page and Burr 1991). Tui chub occur in many

17

habitats, such as isolated springs, large desert lakes, sloughs, slow flowing rivers, and backwaters, and18

are considered opportunistic omnivores (Moyle 2002). Tui chub habitat is characterized by slow water

19

and abundant aquatic vegetation. Tui chub in one location may focus on detritus and supplement with20

invertebrates or plants, whereas in a different water body they might focus on benthic

21

macroinvertebrates and supplement with fish and fish eggs (California Fish Website 2016b).

22

5.3.3 Non-native Fish Species

23

Species discussed in this subsection are organized first by background information, followed by general24

descriptions of each species. The analysis area for non-native fish species is the same as the NEP Area.

25

There are approximately 16 introduced fish species in the NEP Area. These species are listed in Table 326that also shows where they are found within the NEP Area (California Fish Website 2016a;

27

Reclamation 2015a; Reclamation 2017). Limiting factors and threats are similar to those for native fish28

species: populations of non-native species are affected by inter- and intra-specific competition, water29

and habitat quality and quantity, and climatic conditions. Brief descriptions of non-native species are

30

given below.

31

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

41

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

Table 3. Non-native fish species in the NEP Area.

Shasta Lakeand othertributaries

Upper
Sacramento
River andtributaries 4

McCloud
River andtributaries

Salvelinus fontinalis

X

X

X

Brown trout

Salmo trutta

X

X

X

Upper Klamath- Trinity Rivers
Chinook salmon
ESU

O. tshawytscha

X

Bluegill sunfish

Lepomis macrochirus

X

Brown bullhead

Ameiurus nebulosus

X

Black bullhead

A. melasX

Largemouth bass

Micropterus salmoides

X

X

X

Smallmouth bass

M. dolomieui

X

X

X

Spotted bass

M. punctulatus

X

White crappie

Pomoxis annulauris

X

Golden shiner

Notemigonus crysoleucas

X

Carp

Cyprinus carpio

X

Channel catfish

Ictalurus punctatus

X

White catfish

A. catus

X

Green sunfish

L. cyanellusX

Threadfin shad

Dorosoma petenense

X

Common Name

Scientific Name

Brook trout

2
3

Brook trout were planted in waters throughout the United States beginning in 1871 and are now a4

popular sportfishing species in California. Brook trout are found in cold, clear lakes and streams, and in5

California, they have become well established in small, spring-fed, headwater streams and isolated

6

mountain lakes. Brook trout growth is reduced in waters warmer than 66° F (19° C) (California Fish

7

Website 2016b). Brook trout primarily eat terrestrial insects, aquatic insect larvae, and zooplankton as

8

they drift at or near the surface, but are also known to feed on benthic organisms and will occasionally9

feed on fish (CDFW 2017).

10
11

4

From Box Canyon Dam down to Shasta Lake.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

42July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

Brown trout were introduced and widely planted in waters of California in 1893 and are a popular2

sportfishing species (CDFW 2016b). Shasta Lake is stocked with brown trout and although a majority

3of recent fish plants were triploid, not all fish were sterile (M. Currier, CDFW, email to Jon Ambrose4

regarding CDFW stocking practices, November 28, 2016). Water temperature is an important factor

5

limiting brown trout distribution (preferred temperatures are 54° F to 68° F [12° C to 20º C]) (CDFW

6

2016b). Smaller brown trout will feed on drift organisms, in particular terrestrial insects, and shift to7

more bottom dwelling invertebrates as they get larger. Large adult brown trout feed almost exclusively

8

on other fish, but will eat terrestrial insects during late summer when there are massive hatching events

9(California Fish Website 2017b).

10
11Chinook salmon from the Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers (UKTR) ESU have been planted in Shasta

12

Lake for recreational fishery purposes as part of CDFW’s Inland Chinook Program. CDFW temporarily

13

suspended stocking of UKTR Chinook salmon for the recreational fishery in Shasta Lake in 201014

during a state-wide evaluation of fish stocking programs. Following the evaluation, CDFW resumed

15

stocking sterile (triploid) UKTR Chinook salmon in Shasta Lake in the fall of 2014 using fish from16

Iron Gate Hatchery. Triploid fish are reproductively sterile, thereby eliminating the potential for17

hybridization with other Chinook salmon. For many salmonids, sterility also means that fish will live

18

longer, resulting in some trophy individuals (Lincoln and Scott 1984; Donaldson et al. 1993). Bluegill

19

sunfish are most common in warm, shallow lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams, and sloughs at low

20

elevations. They can also be found in streams if there are deep, well covered and vegetated pools, and21

warm summer temperatures. Bluegill prefer aquatic insect larvae, but will also eat planktonic

22

crustaceans, flying insects, and snails as well as small fish, fish eggs, and crayfish when available. This23

variety of feeding options leads to a diversity in diets between populations that can vary dramatically24

depending on location (California Fish Website 2016b).

25
26

Brown bullhead are an adaptable species and find niche habitats within warm turbid sloughs to clear

27

mountain lakes. In California, they are found mostly in larger bodies of water where they stay toward28

the deep end of the nearshore (littoral) zone, near aquatic plant beds and muddy substrate. When found29

in rivers, bullhead prefer slow moving, low gradient, turbid streams with deep pools, aquatic plant30

beds, and soft bottoms. Young bullhead feed mostly on midge larvae and small crustaceans, but their31

diet will expand to larger prey such as insect larvae and small fish as they get older. Bullhead are

32

opportunistic and will eat nearly anything that can fit in their mouths (California Fish Website 2016b).

33

Black bullhead are very hardy, but are not well studied in California. In their native ranges their
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

43July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

preferred habitats include ponds, small lakes, river backwaters, sloughs, and pools in slow, low

2gradient streams with muddy bottoms and warm turbid water. The areas similar to this in California are3

mostly farm ponds, sloughs, reservoirs, and highly altered, lower reaches of rivers. Black bullhead are4

an omnivorous species that will eat nearly anything they can find, including aquatic insects,

5

crustaceans, and mollusks (California Fish Website 2016b). Largemouth bass are most common in

6

warm shallow waters with moderate clarity and beds of aquatic plants (e.g., farm ponds, lakes,

7

reservoirs, sloughs, and river backwaters). Largemouth bass may change prey preference numerous

8times throughout their lifetime. In general, fry feed on crustaceans and rotifers, change to insects and9fish fry at 2 to 2.4 inches (50 to 60 mm) in length, and become primarily fish eating at 3.9 to 4.9 inches

10(10 to 12.5 cm) in length. Crayfish, tadpoles, or frogs may also be preferred once a largemouth bass has

11grown large enough to digest them (California Fish Website 2016b).

12
13

Smallmouth bass are most common in large, clear lakes and cool, clear streams with large amounts of

14

cover. In streams, complex habitat with a variety of pools, riffles, runs, rocky bottoms, and15

overhanging trees is preferred, while lake populations prefer narrow bays along shore with underwater

16

rocky shelves.

17
18

Small-sized smallmouth bass commonly feed on crustaceans and aquatic insects, while larger fish will

19

feed on crayfish and fish. By the time an individual reaches 3.9 to 5.9 inches (10 to 15 cm), larger food20

items will dominate their diet, which may include insects, amphibians, and small mammals because of21

the opportunistic nature of their feeding habits (California Fish Website 2016b).

22
23

Spotted bass are most common in moderately sized, clear, low gradient rivers and reservoirs. In streams

24

they spend most of their time hiding in pools, avoiding riffles, or backwaters with heavy plant growth.

25

Reservoir populations are found along steep rocky banks toward the upstream end of the reservoir. Fry

26

feed mostly on zooplankton and small insects, while juveniles feed on crustaceans and larger aquatic27

insects. Individuals between 3 to 6 inches (7.5 to 15 cm) feed on aquatic insects, fish, crayfish, and28
29

terrestrial insects (California Fish Website 2016b).

30

White crappie are most common in warm, turbid lakes, reservoirs, and river backwaters, and in streams

31

with areas where high flows can be avoided. Their feeding strategy mostly involves floating in

32

midwater, using their flat shape as camouflage, and quickly grabbing everything they can using their33

protruding jaw and short gill rakers. This feeding adaptation allows a diversity of prey items, most34

commonly planktonic crustaceans and small fish, but also aquatic insects when available.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

44July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1Golden shiners are commonly found around aquatic vegetation in warm, shallow ponds and lakes and2

are especially common in low-elevation reservoirs and sloughs. Golden shiners are adapted to both3

feeding on large zooplankton individually and filter feeding for smaller zooplankton species. While this4

allows for a variety in food choices, Daphnia and small flying insects plucked from the surface make5

up the bulk of an individual’s diet. Larger golden shiners may also eat small fish, mollusks, aquatic

67

insect larvae, and even algae when food is scarce (California Fish Website 2016b).

8

Carp are most often found in the warm, turbid waters of eutrophic lakes, reservoirs, and sloughs with9

silty bottoms and high vegetation growth or in turbid, alkaline streams with deep permanent pools and10

soft bottoms. However, carp can be found in a wide range of habitats with harsh conditions. Carp stay11

in shallow areas where they forage for most of the year, but will overwinter in the deeper areas of their

12

range. In spring, carp leave these deeper areas to root through the soil for aquatic insect larvae, small

13mollusks, crustaceans, and annelid worms. Newly hatched larvae feed only on algae and zooplankton,

14

but can eat most available invertebrates by the time they are a year old. Adults will also feed on plants

15

and algae (California Fish Website 2016b).

16
17Channel catfish are found mostly in the main channels of large, warm-water streams with sand, gravel18

and rubble bottoms, but can also be found in farm ponds, reservoirs, and turbid, muddy bottomed

19

rivers. Channel catfish juveniles feed on crustaceans and insect larvae and will begin hunting fish and20

crayfish as they grow older. Individuals larger than 12 to 15 inches (30 to 38 cm) mainly feed on fish,

21

but will eat anything from insects to small mammals if it fits in their mouths (California Fish Website

22

2016b).

23
24

White catfish can be found in deep lakes and reservoirs and the sluggish sections of rivers and streams.

25

They can be found in salinities up to 14.5 parts per thousand and prefer temperatures over 68° F (20°26C), surviving in water up to 88° F (31° C). White catfish are mostly carnivorous bottom feeders, and27

the focus of a population’s diet depends mainly on prey availability. Juveniles feed on amphipods,

28

shrimp, and insect larvae and shift their diet toward fish and large invertebrates as they get larger. It is29

also not uncommon for catfish to scavenge carrion or swim to the surface to feed on planktivorous fish30
31

(California Fish Website 2016b).

32

Green sunfish are most common in small, warm streams with turbid, mud-bottom pools and aquatic

33

vegetation, and are especially prevalent in streams that are intermittent in summer. They can also be

34

found in ponds and large lakes in shallow weedy areas that are ill-suited to larger predators. Green
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

45July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

sunfish are opportunistic predators, feeding primarily on invertebrates and small fish. Young-of-the-2year feed mainly on zooplankton, small benthic invertebrates, and the larvae of other fish, but the focus

3of their diet switches to large aquatic and terrestrial insects, crayfish, and other fish as they grow

4
5

(California Fish Website 2016b).

6

Threadfin shad are found in the open waters of sluggish backwaters, large ponds, and reservoirs where

7

they stay close to the inlets of small streams or along the surfaces of dams. They are dependent on light8

for foraging and generally stay high in the water column. They are warm-water fish that are very

9

tolerant of salinity, and prefer summer temperatures between 72° F and 75° F (22° C and 24° C) and10

will die if the water drops below 43° F (6° C). Shad feed exclusively on plankton and use two methods

11

to catch it. Small zooplankton, phytoplankton, and detritus are filtered through their gill rakers, while

12

large zooplankton, especially copepods, are chased down and caught as individual prey (California Fish

13

Website 2016b).

14

5.3.4 Fish Diseases

15

The analysis area for fish diseases includes the NEP Area and downstream of Shasta and Keswick

16

Dams to the Livingston Stone NFH located near the base of Shasta Dam. Past fish stocking practices in17

the NEP Area may have introduced diseases and parasites to the analysis area. Pathology studies by

18

CDFW conducted in 2012 and 2013 in the upper McCloud River basin found sporadic and minor

19

external parasites, including Gyrodactylus, Trichodina, and Apiosoma-like ectocommensal ciliates

20(Redband Core Group 2016). Low to moderate levels of external parasite detection is considered21

normal. Because information on the pathogen distribution aids risk management decisions, CDFW and22

the CA-NV Fish Health Center coordinated a survey in the upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers

23(USFWS 2015c). The survey focused on native resident rainbow trout and brown trout during the24

period of warmest water temperatures. No viral pathogens or Renibacterium salmoninarum (bacterial

25

kidney disease agent) were detected in either sample group. Similarly, there were no detections of the26

following myxosporeans: Myxobolus cerebralis, Ceratonova shasta, or Parvicapsula minibicornis. One

27

rainbow trout from the upper Sacramento River had an asymptomatic Yersinia ruckeri bacterial

28

infection (causative agent of enteric (intestinal) redmouth disease). Several parasites were observed in29

histological sections of gill, intestine, and kidney; however, no significant tissue lesion was associated30with the infections. The Livingston Stone NFH is located below Shasta Dam and currently lacks water

31

treatment facilities capable of treating pathogens that may be introduced by wild Chinook salmon

32

reintroduced into the NEP Area.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

46

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

5.4

Aquatic Habitat2

For this subsection the analysis area is the same as the NEP Area and describes the current quality and3

quantity of salmonid aquatic habitat in the NEP Area (subsection 3.1, Description of the Action Area).

4

Discussions in this subsection address the aquatic habitat conditions important for viability of SR

5winter- run Chinook salmon and CV spring-run Chinook salmon, including water quality, water

6

quantity and fish passage, and habitat availability.

7

5.4.1 Water Resources

8

The upper Sacramento River, McCloud River, and Pit River Watersheds are subject to compliance with9

the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin (Basin Plan) (Central

10Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [CVRWQCB] 2016). The Basin Plan applies to the11

entire geographic extent of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Watersheds, covers 27,210 square

12

miles, and includes the entire area drained by the Sacramento River. The Basin Plan identifies both

13

numeric and narrative water quality objectives applicable to the waters of the upper Sacramento River,

14

McCloud River, Pit River, and Shasta Lake. State law defines beneficial uses of California’s waters

15

that may be protected against quality degradation (California Water Code Section 13050(f)). The upper

16

Sacramento River, McCloud River, Pit River, and Shasta Lake share a number of designated beneficial

17

uses, including Agricultural Supply, Recreation, Non-contact Water Recreation, Freshwater Habitat,18

and Wildlife Habitat (see CVRWQCB 2016 for a full list of shared and unique beneficial uses). Two

19

subcategories, warm and cold, are included to further describe spawning habitat type, but cold-water20

spawning habitat use is designated only for the upper Sacramento River, McCloud River, and Pit River,21

while Shasta Lake is also designated for warm-water spawning habitat use.

22
23

The McCloud, upper Sacramento, and Pit Rivers are regulated rivers because of the presence of large

24barrier dams and hydroelectric projects that modify the natural flows in these rivers within the NEP

25

Area. Water flow from smaller tributaries within the NEP Area is largely unregulated by dams and26

diversions before entering the McCloud, upper Sacramento, and Pit Rivers or Shasta Lake.

27

Descriptions of each major dam are found in the subsections below that correspond to the rivers on

28

which they are located.

29

5.4.1.1

30

Water quality in Shasta Lake generally meets the standards for beneficial uses identified in the Basin

31

Plan (CVRWQCB 2016). A favorable inflow-outflow relationship of 1.4 to 1 results in good water

Shasta Lake

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

47

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1quality throughout the reservoir (USFS 1996 as cited by Reclamation 2013). Seasonal and annual

2variations in water surface elevation are functions of reservoir releases for water demand and water3

quality requirements, tributary inflow, and carryover storage from year to year. Shasta Lake is

4classified as a cool-water, mesotrophic, monomictic reservoir (Reclamation 2017).

5
6

Shasta Lake is listed as impaired by mercury throughout the lake under the Clean Water Act (CWA)

7section 303(d) (CVRWQCB 2016). Within Shasta Lake, some areas exist where the water quality does8

not meet Basin Plan objectives during periods of storm runoff because of past management activities or9

as a result of drainage from historical mining and mine processing operations.

10

5.4.1.2

11

This subsection focuses on the segment of the upper Sacramento River from Box Canyon Dam to

12

Shasta Lake. The water quality of the upper Sacramento River and its major tributaries supports nearly13

all beneficial uses, most of the time (Domagalski et al. 2000). Most of the water in the upper

14

Sacramento River and its tributaries is derived from snowmelt and runoff from typically abundant

15

winter rainfall at lower elevations; as a result, the water in the system is relatively pure and low in

16

dissolved minerals (Domagalski et al. 2000). Box Canyon Dam on the upper Sacramento River,17

completed in 1970, is owned and operated by Siskiyou County’s Flood Control and Water

18

Conservation District and Siskiyou Power Authority.

Upper Sacramento River

19
20

The upper Sacramento River above Shasta Lake has no listed water quality impairments of beneficial

21

uses as defined under section 303(d) of the CWA (CVRWQCB 2016). Surface water of the upper

22

Sacramento River upstream from Shasta Lake does not exceed any of the Basin Plan thresholds for

23

important metal pollutants, including dissolved cadmium, copper, or zinc (NSR 2010). The turbidity

24

data available for the upper Sacramento River at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage at

25

Delta (above Shasta Lake) and for Hazel Creek, a tributary midway between Box Canyon Dam and26

Shasta Lake, suggest that since 1998, during low-flow conditions, water clarity has met the Basin Plan

27

objective for turbidity (Reclamation 2017).

28
29

Water temperature in the upper Sacramento River fluctuates seasonally and spatially between Box

30

Canyon Dam and Shasta Lake. Beginning in 2011, Reclamation installed and operated thermographs at

31

nine locations along the Sacramento River between Box Canyon Dam (RM 36) and Gibson (RM 9).

32

These thermographs indicate that maximum water temperature objectives in Water Year 2012 were met
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

48

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

in each season upstream from Gibson Road, where water temperatures approached, but did not exceed,270° F (21° C) during the May through October time period (Reclamation 2014b). The thermal regime

3along much of the upper Sacramento River (upstream from Shasta Lake), except in the immediate4

vicinity of the Delta gage and the head of Shasta Lake, appears to be highly suitable for cold-water

5

fishes and generally meets Basin Plan objectives for cold-water fishery beneficial uses (Reclamation6

2014b). The available thermographic record (Reclamation 2014b) indicates thermal conditions remain

7

within the suitable range for juvenile Chinook salmon growth and survival throughout the summer, not8exceeding a Monthly Maximum Weekly Average Temperature (MMWAT) of 66.0° F (19.0° C), 5 for

9

28 miles of the upper Sacramento River from Box Canyon Dam downstream to Gibson Road (RM 9).

10
11

Mount Shasta’s sizable snowpack and glacial meltwater percolate through its porous volcanic geologic

12

structure, eventually emerging as hundreds of springs that input cold, clear water into the upper

13

Sacramento River. These inflows occur mostly as springs and provide an abundance of high quality

14(clean, cool) water into the upper Sacramento River. These springs are located mostly upstream from

15

Soda Creek along the upper Sacramento River. The USGS has monitored surface flow in the upper

16

Sacramento River at a station near Lake Shasta since 1945. Average daily flow is approximately 1,000

17

cubic feet per second (cfs), with a peak daily flow of 70,000 cfs (1974) and extreme low of 117 cfs

18(1977) (Sacramento River Watershed Program 2016a).

19

5.4.1.3

20

This subsection focuses on the segment of the McCloud River from McCloud Dam to Shasta Lake. The

21

water quality of the McCloud River supports all of its designated beneficial uses most of the time. In

22general, water quality is exceptional in the watershed. The McCloud River has no listed water quality

23

impairments to its designated beneficial uses under CWA section 303(d).

McCloud River

24
25

Under base-flow conditions, suspended sediment values typically range from less than 2.0 to 4.0

26

milligrams per liter of total suspended solids (0.5 to 3.6 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU)) in the 527

The basis and rationale for this temperature criterion is described in the habitat assessment

28

accompanying the Shasta Dam Fish Passage Evaluation Program (Reclamation 2014b). McCloud River

29(Reclamation 2017). Continuous monitoring of turbidity over five events in August-October 2007, andThe basis and rationale for this temperature criterion is described in the habitat assessment accompanying the
Shasta Dam Fish Passage Evaluation Program (Reclamation 2014b).

5

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

49

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

August-September 2008, showed downstream turbidity levels in the McCloud River ranging from 65 to2

300 NTU below McCloud Dam, 12 to 155 NTU above Claiborne Creek, and 5 to 72 NTU above Shasta

3

Lake (FERC 2011). Water quality contaminants (e.g., metals, bacterial, biostimulatory, chemical) have4

not been reported to occur in the McCloud River. McCloud Dam on the McCloud River, completed in

5

1965, is owned and operated by PG&E as part of the McCloud-Pit Hydropower Project. The dam is6

235 feet high, 630 feet long at its crest, and impounds a maximum capacity of 35,200 acre-feet (FERC

72011). PG&E’s McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2106) diverts water at McCloud

8

Reservoir through a tunnel complex into the Pit River drainage at Iron Canyon Reservoir. Required

9

minimum base flows from McCloud Dam are 50 to 60 cfs. Required minimum flows 6 downstream (as10measured by USGS gage 11367800/MC-1 located at the Ah-Di-Na site on the McCloud River) range

11

from 160 cfs to 210 cfs depending on water- year-type and time of year (FERC 2011). A synthesis of

12mean estimated unimpaired flows from 1974 through 2006 (as measured at the Ah-Di-Na gage) ranged

13

between a high of 1,614 cfs and a low of 589 cfs (FERC 2011). Under regulated flow conditions, mean

14

estimated flows during the same period at the Ah-Di-Na gage ranged between a high of 484 cfs and a15

low of 204 cfs. These data indicate current flow conditions are substantially less than unimpaired

16

conditions. Temperatures in McCloud Reservoir and the McCloud River downstream from McCloud17

Dam reflect the large volume of cold water entering the reservoir from the spring-fed upper McCloud

18

River and the relatively short residence time of water in the reservoir. Groundwater springs provide a19large and relatively stable source of cold water to the upper McCloud River. Flow in the McCloud

20

River is regulated by releases from McCloud Dam, but the river receives significant inflow in the form

21

of groundwater discharge from springs and runoff from tributaries; both contribute to a water22

temperature regime that supports year-round cold-water fish habitat throughout much of the length of23

the lower river (Reclamation 2014b). This cold water supports a viable trout fishery throughout the24

entire 24- mile-long reach of the McCloud River (FERC 2011).

25
26

Temperatures vary seasonally in the McCloud River, increasing from June to mid-July, remaining

27

warmest in mid-summer, and declining from mid- to late-August through September. Typically, daily

28

average water temperature in the McCloud River remains below 68° F (20° C) 7. Seasonally, water29

temperature in the lower reaches of the McCloud River can rise to around 68° F (20° C), especially in

When FERC issues a new hydropower license for the McCloud–Pit Hydroelectric Project, minimum baseflow
releases from McCloud Dam are anticipated to increase above current minimum base flows.
7
A 68° F (20° C) criterion for cold-water fishes is based on the thermal requirements and tolerances of rainbow
trout and is considered a conservative threshold for water temperatures, above which adverse effects to trout
growth and survival may occur.
6

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

50

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1hot, critically dry water years, under both the previous and new hydropower operating licenses (FERC

2

2011).

3
4

Similar to the upper Sacramento River, the thermal regime along much of the McCloud River5(upstream from Shasta Lake), except in the immediate vicinity of the head of Shasta Lake, appears to

6

be highly suitable for cold-water fishes and generally meets Basin Plan objectives for cold-water

7

fishery beneficial uses (Reclamation 2017). Based on a limited set of long-term thermographic records

8

and PG&E’s (2009) temperature modeling for the McCloud River below McCloud Dam, optimal

9

temperatures for Chinook salmon egg incubation through the summer months is limited to10

approximately 11.6 miles of the upper reaches of the river below McCloud Dam under both the11previous and proposed hydropower licenses (FERC 2011; Reclamation 2014b). Thermal conditions

12

remain within the suitable range for juvenile Chinook salmon growth and survival throughout the13summer, not exceeding an MMWAT of 66° F (19° C), for the entire distance of the McCloud River

14

from McCloud Dam to Shasta Lake (Reclamation 2014b). Upstream from McCloud Reservoir,

15

considerable cold-water spring inflows maintain relatively cold and consistent water temperatures.

16

The USGS has monitored surface flows on the lower McCloud River since 1945 (USGS gage

17

11368000), and the average daily flow in the McCloud River ranges from less than 1,000 cfs to 20,000

18

cfs, with a peak daily flow recorded in 1996 of 45,000 cfs (Reclamation 2014b).

19

5.4.1.4

20

The Pit River, from the confluence of the North and South Forks to Shasta Lake, is designated under21

CWA section 303(d) as impaired by excess nutrients, organic enrichment/low-dissolved oxygen, and22high water temperatures (Cal EPA 2010). No Chinook salmon would be released into the Pit River23

portion of the NEP Area (below Pit 7 Dam). The Pit River is discussed because SR winter-run and/or

24

CV spring-run Chinook salmon may stray into the lower Pit River below Pit 7 Dam. Agriculture and25

livestock grazing are cited as the probable sources for water quality impairment (CVRWQCB 2016)26

and originate upstream of the NEP Area. Water quality concerns that do exist are influenced largely by

27

the quality of water entering from the upper watershed.

Pit River28
29

Pit 7 Dam on the Pit River, completed in 1965, is owned and operated by PG&E as part of the30

McCloud- Pit Hydropower Project. The dam is 228 feet high, 770 feet long at its crest, and impounds a

31

maximum capacity of 34,142 acre-feet (FERC 2011). Required minimum base flows from Pit 7 Dam

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

51

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1during all water year types is 150 cfs. An estimate of mean unimpaired flows from 1974 through 20062

(as measured at USGS gage 11365000/PH-47) ranged between a high of 6,844 cfs to a low of 2,415 cfs

3(FERC 2011). Under regulated flow conditions, mean estimated flows during the same period at the4same gage ranged between a high of 7,765 cfs and a low of 3,024 cfs (FERC 2011). These data indicate

5current flow conditions are greater than unimpaired conditions, in large part due to the additional water

6

diverted from the McCloud River. Below Pit 7 Dam (in the NEP Area), the river water temperature

7

reaches a maximum of 64° F to 68° F (18° C to 20º C) during the middle to late summer with a 24-hour

8variation. There is a steady decline in water temperatures in the fall and winter, with minimum water9

temperatures at all sites near 39° F (4º C) (FERC 2011).

10
11

The USGS has monitored surface flows in the Pit River and the daily historical mean and median daily

12discharges are 4,231 and 3,760 cfs, respectively (USGS gage 11364800/PH-64) (FERC 2011). Summer

13

flows rarely fall below 2,000 cfs (Sacramento River Watershed Program 2016b). The lower reach of

14

the Pit River supports warm-water species (e.g., bass, catfish, crappie, and bullhead) (subsection 5.3.3,

15

Non- native Fish Species) as well as resident rainbow trout.

16

5.4.2 Fish Passage

17

Dams and water diversion projects are located on the upper Sacramento River, McCloud River, and Pit

18

River and their associated tributaries, most of which fall on the outer limits or outside of the NEP Area.

19

The boundaries of the NEP Area are partly determined by the upstream location of a dam on all three

20of the main tributaries in the NEP Area: Box Canyon Dam on the Sacramento River, McCloud Dam on

21

the McCloud River, and Pit 7 Dam on the Pit River. The only significant impediment to salmonid

22

upstream migration in the areas targeted for salmonid reintroduction occurs between Shasta Lake and23

the Box Canyon Dam on the upper Mears Falls (located immediately upstream of the Mears Creek

24

confluence with the Sacramento River). Mears Falls forms an incomplete, seasonally temporary25

impediment to upstream migration during late-summer and fall flows, but would be passable during the26higher river flows of the winter through early summer months (Reclamation 2014b). The only potential

27

fish passage impediment on the McCloud River between Shasta Lake and McCloud Dam is a simple

28

cascade known as Tuna Falls, located immediately upstream of the Tuna Creek confluence upstream of29

Shasta Lake. This boulder cascade does not pose a significant passage barrier or impediment to30

salmonid fish migration (Reclamation 2014b).

31

5.4.3 Habitat Availability and Quality

32

5.4.3.1

Upper Sacramento River Habitat Availability and Quality

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

52

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

The upper Sacramento River is a highly productive, cold-water, mountain stream for most of its length.

2This quality is due in part to the cold, nutrient-rich, and well-oxygenated water emanating from Lake

3

Siskiyou and numerous tributary streams and springs downstream from Box Canyon Dam (CDFG

42000).

5
6

Riverine habitat types are variable and representative for a stream of this type, and include pools, runs,

7

riffles, cascades, and pocket water. The relative abundance of habitat types, habitat dimensions, and8environmental conditions vary along the length of the river (Thomas R. Payne and Associates 2005;

9

NSR 2010; Reclamation 2014b). The upper river is generally swifter and of steeper gradient, with

10

longer riffles and shorter, shallower pools than the lower river. These differences in river characteristics

11

result in variation in relative species abundance, productivity, and biomass along the length of the river

12(CDFG 2000). The flow regime of the upper Sacramento River is lowest and relatively stable during

13

the summer and fall, and exhibits more flow variability and peak flows in response to precipitation

14

events and snowmelt runoff from the winter through the spring (Reclamation 2014b).

15
16

According to Reclamation’s habitat assessment study (2014c), spawning habitat conditions in all study

17

reaches throughout the upper Sacramento River ranges from fair to good (Reclamation 2014b).

18

Substrate attribute scores were the highest of the three evaluated spawning habitat attributes. The

19

lowest spawning habitat component scores were for structural habitat metrics (e.g., proportion of pool

20

habitat, maximum pool depth, and spawning substrate area), suggesting that two of the limiting factors

21of overall salmon spawning habitat condition in the Sacramento River may be the frequency of large,

22

deep pools and the amount of suitable-sized spawning gravel, especially in the reach upstream of

23

Dunsmuir. However, pool depths and spawning gravel areas may be more limiting under low baseflow

24

conditions of late summer and fall when CV spring-run Chinook salmon spawn, but not so limiting

25

during the higher flows of spring and early summer when SR winter-run Chinook salmon spawning26

peaks. The later-spawning fraction of the SR winter-run Chinook salmon would be affected however,27

because they have been observed to spawn into the month of August (Vogel and Marine 1991;

28

Yoshiyama et al. 1998).

29
30

The quality of physical spawning and rearing habitat attributes generally improves downstream of

31

Dunsmuir to Shasta Lake (Reclamation 2014b). Overall, suitable physical spawning habitat for

32

anadromous salmonids occurs throughout the upper Sacramento River under suitable water temperature33

conditions. However, Reclamation’s study (Reclamation 2014b) found optimal water temperature
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

53

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

conditions for SR winter-run Chinook salmon egg incubation (less than or equal to 53.5° F (12.0° C)

2daily average) are exceeded in most years from June through August, which coincides with most of the3

SR winter-run Chinook salmon egg incubation season. Furthermore, the study found that, based on the4

only available longitudinal thermograph record (Water Year 2012, a below normal water year), this5

optimal thermal threshold appears limiting for SR winter-run Chinook salmon that spawn downstream

6

from about Dunsmuir to Shasta Lake. With regard to rearing habitat, the study indicated that overall the7

upper Sacramento River provides fair rearing habitat conditions for Chinook salmon from at least8

Dunsmuir downstream to Shasta Lake, including suitable thermal conditions (Reclamation 2014b). 17

9

Because anadromous salmonids do not return to the NEP Area under existing conditions, there is no10

delivery of marine-derived nutrients to the NEP Area. The NEP Area is lacking a primary source of

11marine-derived nutrients that were available to help drive stream productivity historically, such as

12

nitrogen, phosphorous, calcium, and potassium.

13

5.4.3.2

14

The McCloud River is a mixed bedrock-alluvial channel, with high transport capacity relative to15

sediment supply and generally low volumes of active sediment storage. Channel reach morphology in

16

the McCloud River broadly transitions from one that is predominantly step-pool upstream from Ah-Di-

17

Na Campground to an alternating plane-bed and pool-riffle channel downstream from Ah-Di-Na,

18

reflecting an overall decrease in channel slope and confinement and an increase in mobile sediment19

supply (FERC 2011).

McCloud River Habitat Availability and Quality

20
21

Reclamation’s habitat assessment study (2014b) indicated that habitat composition in the McCloud

22

River is dominated by pools and flatwater habitats (consisting of runs, glides, and pocket water) in all

23

three study reaches, with the frequency of pool habitats tending to increase downstream from McCloud24

Dam and becoming the dominant habitat in the lower study reach. Higher gradient, fast water habitats

25(i.e., riffles and cascades) made up a greater proportion of the available habitat in the upper study

26

reach. The flow regime of the McCloud River is lowest and relatively stable during the summer and fall27

and exhibits more flow variability and peak flows in response to precipitation events and snowmelt

28

runoff from the winter through the spring (Reclamation 2014b).

29
30

According to Reclamation’s study data, rearing conditions were fair to good, with little spatial variation

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

54July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1in the upper and middle study reaches (no scores were given for the lower reach because no field2

surveys had been conducted) (Reclamation 2014b). Cover attribute scores were the lowest rated

3

component, which influenced the overall rearing habitat condition scores for each study reach.

4

Substrate and habitat attribute scores were fair to good. Rearing habitat conditions improved with5

distance downstream from McCloud Dam, a function of increasing frequencies of flatwater habitats

6

preferred by juvenile Chinook salmon. Physical rearing habitat conditions, including water7

temperatures through the summer months, are fair to good for Chinook salmon in the McCloud River

8from McCloud Dam downstream to at least Squaw Valley Creek. Thermal conditions throughout the9summer remain within the suitable range for juvenile Chinook salmon growth and survival all the way

10

downstream to Shasta Lake (Reclamation 2014b).

11
12

Because anadromous salmonids do not return to the NEP Area under existing conditions, there is no13

delivery of marine-derived nutrients to the NEP Area. The NEP Area is lacking a primary source of

14

marine-derived nutrients that were available to help drive stream productivity historically, such as

15

nitrogen, phosphorous, calcium, and potassium.

16

5.5

17

The analysis area for wildlife is the same as the NEP Area except for killer whale (Orcinus orca). The

18

NEP Area represents the area of potential effects; for example, where wildlife species could reasonably

19

be expected to modify their behavior in response to changes in the availability of food resources in the20

NEP Area under the alternatives.

Wildlife Species

21
22

The NEP Area (Figure 3) is home to a variety of wildlife species, many of which rely to varying

23

extents on fish, including salmonids. Of the approximately 311 wildlife species (amphibians, reptiles,

24

birds, and mammals) that may occur in the NEP Area (CDFW 2016c), 33 (11 percent) have a strong-25

consistent or recurrent relationship with salmon as a food resource (Cederholm et al. 2000) and26

therefore, these are the species most likely affected under the range of alternatives. Salmonids provide

27

direct or indirect foraging opportunities for these species, in some cases to the extent of influencing the28

distribution or population status of a particular species (Cederholm et al. 2000; Hilderbrand et al. 2004;

29

Ward et al. 2013). For example, common mergansers (Mergus merganser) may congregate to feed on

30

salmon fry when they are available (Cederholm et al. 2000). Turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), in

31

contrast, opportunistically feed on salmon carcasses as well as many other items, and are unlikely to

32

respond to changes in the availability of salmonids as a food source (Cederholm et al. 2000). Black33

bear (Ursus americanus) are found in the NEP Area, are generalists in terms of their diet, and would
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

55

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

include salmon carcasses when available (Jameson and Peeters 1988). An example of a species with an2

indirect link to salmonids is the American dipper, which feeds on aquatic insects that are beneficially3affected by nutrients derived from salmon carcasses (Cederholm et al. 2000).

4

A number of native species prey on salmon or their carcasses directly (Table 4) (Cederholm et al. 2000;

5

Hilderbrand et al. 2004). These species vary in their response to changes in the availability of

6

salmonids as a food source. Because the availability of salmon varies seasonally, most species that7

directly consume salmon likely have flexible foraging strategies, eating salmon when they are available

8

and alternate food sources at other times (Cederholm et al. 2000). The life history of these species is

9

described briefly below.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

56

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1
2
3

Table 4. Native wildlife species and their status in the NEP Area with a strong-consistent, or recurrent,
relationship with salmon as defined by Cederholm et al. (2000). All birds in this table are on the list ofprotected species pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended.

Classification / Species / Scientific Name

Federal Status

Amphibians
Pacific giant salamander (Dicamptodon tenebrosus)
ReptilesAquatic garter snake (Thamnophis atratus)
Birds
Common loon (Gavia immer)
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Caspian tern (Hydroprogne caspia)
Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
Pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps)
Western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis)
Clark’s grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii)
Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus)
Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax)
American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus)
Common merganser (Mergus merganser)
Hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus)
Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator)
Great blue heron (Ardea herodias)
Snowy egret (Egretta thula)
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
Herring gull (Larus argentatus)
Ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis)
California gull (Larus californicus)
Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon)
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)Common raven (Corvus corax)
Mammals
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana)
Water shrew (Sorex palustris)
Coyote (Canis latrans)
Gray wolf (Canis lupus)
Black bear (Ursus americanus)
Raccoon (Procyon lotor)
American mink (Mustela vison)
Northern river otter (Lutra canadensis)
4
5

California
StatusSpecies ofSpecial Concern

Delisted, USFS –Sensitive

Endangered, Fully
Protected
Fully Protected

Endangered

Endangered

Species of Special
Concern

Bobcat (Lynx rufus)

Sources: CDFW 2016e; Cederholm et al. 2000; Benjamin Nelson, Reclamation, forwarded email of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Species Lists to Alice Berg, NMFS, March 3, 2016.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

57

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

The association of aquatic mollusks (Table 5) to salmon, including those with a special listing status

2

and known to occur in the NEP Area, is not well documented. While portions of their habitat3

requirements are often similar (cold and clean water), whether these species have a strong and4consistent, or recurrent relationship in unknown.

5
6

Table 5. Special-status species in the NEP Area with unknown relationships with salmon.

Classification / Species

Federal Status

California Status

Aquatic Mollusks
Nugget pebblesnail (Fluminicola seminalis)

USFS – Sensitive

7
8

Sources: Furnish 2007; PG&E 2008; Bill Brock, USFS, November 7, 2016, email communication to Jon Ambrose, NMFS,
providing an attached list of U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Animal Species dated June 30, 2013.

9

5.5.1 ESA-listed and Special Status Wildlife Species

10

Wildlife species that may feed on salmonids are designated under state or Federal law as being at risk11

are listed in Table 6 and Table 7. Except for killer whales, the analysis area is the same as the NEP

12

Area.

13
14

Killer whales are discussed below under Mammals. Northern spotted owl critical habitat is located15

within the NEP Area (Table 7). However, this species does not feed on salmon and would not be

16

expected to be affected by the Proposed Action; therefore, this species and its designated critical habitat

17

will not be analyzed in this EA.

18
19

20
21

22
23

Table 6. Special-status species outside the NEP Area but with strong-consistent relationships with salmon.

Mammals

Federal Status

Killer whale (Orcinus orca)

Endangered (Southern Resident DPS)

Table 7. Critical habitat within the NEP Area.

Birds and Amphibians

Critical Habitat TypeNorthern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

Final designatedSource: Benjamin Nelson, Reclamation, March 3, 2016, email to Alice Berg, NMFS, of USFWS Species Lists.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

58

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

Birds

2

The common loon is only present in the NEP Area during their migration periods and does not use the3

area for nesting or breeding (CDFW 2016d). Common loons are found in wooded lakes, tundra ponds,

4

and coastal waters of the United States and Canada (National Audubon Society 2016a). The diet of the5common loon mainly consists of small fish up to about 10 inches long (e.g., minnows, suckers, perch,

6

gizzard shad, etc.). Common loons will also eat crustaceans, mollusks, aquatic insects, leeches, and7

frogs (National Audubon Society 2016a).

8
9

Bald eagles are found throughout the United States, and their abundance varies depending on their

10

habitat usage patterns through the seasons and whether they are resident or migratory. In the NEP Area,

11

bald eagles are found year-round, and in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest often remain in their

12

nesting territory year-round and year after year return to and maintain the same nesting site (USFS

13

2012; National Audubon Society 2016b). One of the state’s most important bald eagle populations is

14

located in the Lower Pit River Watershed (Sacramento River Watershed Program 2016b). The diet of

15bald eagles is varied and they will hunt for prey, mainly fish, waterfowl, and small mammals, as well as

16

feed on carrion. In the Shasta, Trinity, and Lewiston Lakes area, the bald eagle diet consists primarily

17of fish, either live or carrion (USFS 2012).

18
19

Golden eagles are found mainly in the western half of the United States in all seasons (Johnsgard

201990). In the NEP Area, golden eagles are seen in all seasons. The diet of the golden eagle consists

21

mainly of small mammals, ranging in size from ground squirrels to marmots and jackrabbits. They are22

also known to take larger prey (such as foxes or young deer) or smaller prey (such as voles and mice),23

and also eat carrion, including fish (National Audubon Society 2016c).

24

Mammals

25

The gray wolf is found in many states within the lower contiguous United States, including Minnesota,

26

Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and recently in California. The California population

27

may be located in the NEP Area and is currently listed as endangered under the ESA. CDFW also listed28

the gray wolf as endangered under the CESA. In 2015, photographs of two adults and their pups,

29

named the Shasta pack, confirmed the presence of the gray wolf in northern California (CDFW 2016e).

30

The gray wolf can thrive in a diversity of habitats ranging from the tundra to forests to deserts. Habitat

31

in the NEP Area is mountainous and forested. The diet of the gray wolf consists mainly of large hoofed

32

animals, such as deer and elk, but they will also hunt and eat smaller mammals such as rodents andSacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

59

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

hares (National Wildlife Federation 2016). The gray wolf would likely consume salmon carcasses

2

opportunistically.

3
4

The northern river otter is an uncommon, year-long resident of a variety of aquatic habitats in the5northern portions of California and patchily distributed through the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The

6northern river otter is present in the NEP Area where they feed primarily on fish, crayfish, carrion,

7

mammals, birds, and occasionally fruits (Toweill 1974 as cited in Verts and Carraway 1998).

8

According to the CDFW (2016f), northern river otters generally do not affect population numbers of

9

game fish and may improve sport fishing because they eat mostly slower, nongame fish (CDFW

10

2016f).

11
12

The killer whale is found in all parts of the oceans and are most abundant in colder waters, including

13

Antarctica and the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Killer whales off the coast of California include

14

a number of pods that range along the eastern Pacific Ocean and are present in offshore and coastal

15

waters depending on the season (NOAA Fisheries 2017). Resident killer whale populations (Table 6) in16

the eastern North Pacific mainly feed on salmonids, showing a strong preference for Chinook salmon

17(Olesiuk et al. 1990 as cited on NOAA Fisheries 2017). While killer whales are located in the ocean

18

outside of the NEP Area, they are discussed in this EA because a main component of their diet is adult19

salmonids, which could be indirectly affected by the successful introduction of additional Chinook

20

salmon runs considered in the Proposed Action.

21

Aquatic Mollusks

22

The nugget pebblesnail was detected in the lower McCloud River during an aquatic mollusk survey as

23part of the FERC relicensing process for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project (FERC 2011). Nugget

24

pebblesnail prefers gravel-cobble substrate with clear and cold flowing water in large streams and25

rivers (Taylor 1981). This species has declined precipitously from its historical distribution (Furnish

262007) when it was formerly found from the mouth of the mainstem Sacramento River to the Pit River

27(Taylor, 1981), and is now likely limited to the Pit and McCloud Rivers (Hershler and Frest 1996;

28

Furnish 2007). The nugget pebblesnail population that occurred in the upper Sacramento River may

29

have been extirpated following the Cantara spill in 1991 (C. Jordan, USFS, email sent to J. Ambrose,

30

NMFS, regarding status of USFS surveys for nugget pebblesnail, November 8, 2016). The nugget

31

pebblesnail is believed to be declining, but there is insufficient information regarding the distribution

32

and population trends to accurately assess the current status of this species (IUCN 2016).

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

60

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment1

5.5.2 Non-ESA-listed Wildlife Species

2

Several non-listed wildlife species that may be a food source for salmonids or that may feed on

3salmonids are found in the analysis area (Table 2). The analysis area for non-ESA-listed wildlife is the4same as the NEP Area. The following paragraphs briefly summarize these species’ diets and general

5life history.

6

Amphibians

7

Pacific giant salamander adults are found in cool, damp, dense coniferous forests, usually in the8vicinity of streams, seepages, or lakes. As larvae they are found in small to medium sized creeks and9streams in habitat similar to adult habitat. They prey on insects, slugs, snails, and worms, as well as

10other amphibians, snakes, shrews, and mice (Leonard et al. 1993).

11

Reptiles12

The aquatic garter snake is found spring through fall in creeks, streams, rivers, small lakes, and ponds,

13

and in woodland, brush, and forest, preferring shallow rocky creeks and streams. This species of garter

14

snake is highly aquatic (but also found away from water) and is able to remain underwater. The aquatic

15

garter snake feeds mainly on amphibians and their larvae, including frogs, tadpoles, and aquatic16

salamander larvae, but small fish are also eaten (Lind and Welsh 1994).

17

Birds

18

Osprey are found near fresh or salt water (rivers, lakes, coastal areas). They feed almost entirely on fish

19

and catch them by first hovering over their prey and plunging to the water surface and grasping the fish

20

with their talons. Their population was once severely reduced because of pesticide use; however, the21osprey has made a comeback in many parts of North America (National Audubon Society 2016d).

22

The Caspian tern is found on both fresh and salt water, including large lakes, coastal waters, beaches,23

and bays, and favors protected waters such as bays, lagoons, rivers, and lakes, favoring large lakes

24rather than small ponds in inland areas. Caspian terns feed primarily on fish and concentrate on locally25

abundant species (National Audubon Society 2016e).

26
27

The turkey vulture is widespread and found over open country, woods, deserts, and foothills, and are28

most common over open or semi-open country that is within a few miles of rocky or wooded areas that29

provide secure nesting sites. Turkey vultures eat carrion located by soaring high and watching the30

ground and the actions of other scavengers; they also may locate carrion using their well-developed

31

sense of smell (National Audubon Society 2016f).

32

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

61

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

The pied-billed grebe is found in ponds, lakes, and marshes, and in winter may also be found in salt

2bays. Pied-billed grebes forage by diving beneath the water surface and swimming in search of prey.

3

Their diet is highly variable depending on location and season. Pied-billed grebes feed primarily on

4aquatic insects, crustaceans, small fish, and leeches; they may also eat mollusks, frogs, tadpoles,

5

salamanders, spiders, and small amounts of aquatic plants (National Audubon Society 2016g).

6
7

The western grebe summers mainly on freshwater lakes with large areas of both open water and marsh

8vegetation (rushes), and winters mainly on sheltered bays or estuaries on the coast, but also on large

9freshwater lakes. The western grebe mainly eats small fish at all seasons and in all habitats. Western

10

grebes are also known to eat crustaceans, insects, polychaete worms, and salamanders (National

11

Audubon Society 2016h).

12
13

Clark’s grebe is considered identical to the western grebe in almost all aspects of behavior that have14

been studied, including foraging and prey selection (see western grebe, above). Clark’s grebes may

15

tend to feed farther from shore and in deeper water (National Audubon Society 2016i).

16
17

The double-crested cormorant is very adaptable and may be found in almost any aquatic habitat,

18

including coasts, bays, lakes, and rivers. The double-crested cormorant diet varies with season and19

location, feeding mainly on a very wide variety of fish, but also crabs, shrimp, crayfish, frogs,

20

salamanders, and eels, and sometimes snakes, mollusks, and plant material (National Audubon Society

21

2016j).

22
23

The black-crowned night heron is found in a wide variety of aquatic habitats, both fresh and salt water,24

including marshes, rivers, ponds, mangrove swamps, tidal flats, canals, and rice fields. The black-25

crowned-night heron diet is variable, feeding mainly on fish, but also crustaceans, aquatic insects,

26

frogs, snakes, clams, mussels, rodents, and carrion (National Audubon Society 2016k).

27
28

The American dipper is mainly found in fast-flowing streams in mountainous areas, but sometimes

29

may be found along streams through level country, even near sea level. The American dipper mainly

30

catches prey under water, but will also swim on the surface to pick up floating insects and occasionally31

takes insects from streamside rocks (National Audubon Society 2016l).

32
33

The common merganser is found mainly around fresh water in all seasons. In summer they are found34

on shallow but clear rivers and lakes in forested areas, and in winter are found on lakes and large rivers,
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

62

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

and occasionally on bays along the coast. The common merganser feeds mainly on a wide variety of2fish, but will also eat mussels, shrimp, salamanders, and rarely plant material (National Audubon

3

Society 2016m).

4
5

The hooded merganser is found in forested areas along creeks, narrow rivers, and edges of ponds in

6summer, and in winter is found on woodland ponds, wooded swamps, and fresh and brackish coastal

7

estuaries. The hooded merganser feeds mainly on small fish, crayfish and other crustaceans, aquatic8

insects, and also will eat tadpoles, mollusks, and small amounts of plant material (National Audubon

9Society 2016n).

10
11

The red-breasted merganser is found during nesting season around lakes and rivers within the northern

12

forest and northward into tundra regions, and in winter is found mostly on coastal waters, including

13

bays, estuaries, and open ocean. The red-breasted merganser feeds mainly on small fish, but also

14

crustaceans, aquatic insects, and sometimes frogs, tadpoles, or worms (National Audubon Society

15

2016o).

16
17

The great blue heron is found in marshes, swamps, shores, and tide flats. They typically forage in calm

18

fresh waters, slow-moving rivers, and in shallow coastal bays. They eat mostly fish, but will also eat

19

frogs, salamanders, turtles, snakes, insects, rodents, and birds (National Audubon Society 2016p).

20
21

The snowy egret is found in many types of fresh- or salt-water habitats (inland and coastal), including

22

marshes, swamps, ponds, and shores. The snowy egret diet is varied and includes fish, crabs, crayfish,23

frogs, snakes, insects, snails, worms, lizards, and rodents (National Audubon Society 2016q).

24
25

The herring gull is found in a wide variety of habitats typically associated with water. They are most26

numerous along coasts and major rivers, and around large lakes. They forage at sea, on beaches,27

mudflats, plowed fields, marshes, or where human activity provides food (garbage dumps, picnic

28

grounds, docks, fishing operations). Their diet varies with season and location, and includes fish,29

crustaceans, mollusks, sea urchins, marine worms, birds, eggs, and insects, and they also scavenge

30

refuse and carrion (National Audubon Society 2016r).

31
32

The ring-billed gull is found around lakes, bays, coasts, piers, dumps, and plowed fields. They are33

associated with both fresh and salt water in all seasons, but are common along coasts, especially at

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

63July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

harbors and estuaries. Ring-billed gulls are common around cities, docks, farm fields, landfills, and2other human-altered habitats. They are opportunistic feeders and their diet varies with season and3location, but major food items include insects, fish, earthworms, grain, rodents, and refuse (National

4

Audubon Society 2016s).

5
6

The California gull is found along seacoasts, lakes, farms, and urban centers. During the breeding

7

season they are found at interior lakes and marshes, often foraging for insects around farms and plowed

8

fields. In winter, California gulls are found mainly on the coasts (frequenting beaches, docks, garbage

9

dumps, and fields), and some are found inland around major lakes and rivers. Their diet is varied and10

includes insects, fish, eggs, and refuse (National Audubon Society 2016t).

11
12

The belted kingfisher is found along streams, lakes, bays, and coasts. During winter and migration, they13

may be found in almost any waterside habitat, including the edges of small streams and ponds, large

14

rivers and lakes, marshes, estuaries, and rocky coastlines. Their diet consists mainly of small fish less15

than 4 to 5 inches long (National Audubon Society 2016u).

16
17

The American crow is found in a wide variety of semi-open habitats, including woodlands, farms,

18

fields, river groves, and shores, and is adapting to towns and cities. They are opportunistic and quickly

19

take advantage of new food sources. They will feed on practically anything, including insects, spiders,20snails, earthworms, frogs, small snakes, shellfish, carrion, garbage, eggs and young of other birds,

21

seeds, grain, berries, and fruit (National Audubon Society 2016v).

22
23

The common raven can be found in a wide variety of habitats, including boreal and mountain forests,

24

coastal cliffs, tundra, and desert. They are opportunistic and eat practically anything. The majority of

25

their diet is animal matter, feeding on a wide variety of insects (including beetles, caterpillars, etc.),

26

rodents, lizards, frogs, eggs and young of other birds, and carrion (National Audubon Society 2016w).

27

Mammals28

The Virginia opossum obtains much of its food and shelter from agricultural areas, where it has readily

29

adapted. This species will eat most anything edible, either plant or animal, but mainly feeds on soil-

30

dwelling insects, and will also eat small mice, birds’ eggs, nuts, and berries (Jameson and Peeters

311988).

32

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

64July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

The water shrew is common to abundant in montane riparian habitats of the Cascades and Sierra

2

Nevada. It is primarily restricted to cold mountain streams and adjacent riparian areas. Water shrews

3

feed mainly on invertebrates as well as small salmonids, amphibians, and sculpins (Maser 1998). 32

4

The coyote is considered one of the most adaptable of North American mammals and occupy almost

5

every conceivable habitat including urban areas (Maser 1998). Their diet is highly variable and6

includes small mammals, domestic livestock, birds, carrion, insects, and even fruit (Maser 1998).

7
8

The black bear is a wide-spread species found in forested areas in both coastal and mountain regions.

9

The black bear diet is varied and includes berries, nuts, other vegetable foods, insects, mice, ground10

squirrels, and occasionally ground-nesting birds (Jameson and Peeters 1988).

11
12

The raccoon is widely distributed, highly adaptable, and found almost everywhere in California.

13

Raccoons commonly forage along watercourses to catch crayfish and frogs. They will also eat fruits,14nuts, berries, mice, small birds, and contents of birds’ nests (Jameson and Peeters 1988).

15
16

American mink are found in streamside habitats (e.g., watercourses, marshes, tidal margins, mud flats)

17

to elevations of 2,187 yards (2,000 meters) or higher. Mink feed on invertebrates such as crayfish;18

vertebrates such as frogs, mice, and muskrats; carrion; and sometimes ducks and coots (Jameson and

19

Peeters 1988).

20
21

The bobcat is found in a wide range of habitats, including brushland, foothill chaparral, sagebrush, and22

forests. Bobcats are opportunistic and feed by availability rather than preference, with a diet that23

consists of rabbits, small squirrels, small reptiles, and birds (Jameson and Peeters 1988).

24

5.6

25

The analysis area for land use and ownership is the same as the NEP Area and encompasses the upper

26

Sacramento River Watershed, the McCloud River Watershed, the lowermost portion of the Pit River27

below Pit 7 Dam, and numerous other smaller tributaries to Shasta Lake (Figure 3). The potential for28

lands outside these areas to be affected by the alternatives is negligible because restrictions on land use

29

in response to ESA take prohibitions are typically applied within the basins that support ESA-listed fish30

species.

Land Use and Ownership

31
32

The NEP Area encompasses portions of Shasta County (513,118 acres) and Siskiyou County (88,875

33

acres), for a total of 601,993 acres, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. The land use patterns within the NEP
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

65July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

Area are similar to the counties’ land use patterns overall in that a large proportion is under Federal or2state management. A significant proportion is also in timber production by private owners. The NEP

3Area includes 383,144 acres of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (59 percent of the NEP Area). Castle

4

Crags Wilderness Area is also within the NEP Area boundaries and encompasses 3,811 acres split

5

between Shasta and Siskiyou Counties (3,797 and 14 acres, respectively, or approximately 0.7 percent

6of the NEP Area). In the portion of the NEP Area that falls within Shasta County, private entities own

7

35 percent of the land area, with the remainder divided between Federal (64 percent) and state (28percent) ownership (Figure 4). In the portion of the NEP Area that falls within Siskiyou County, private

9

entities own percent of the land area, with the remainder divided between Federal (33 percent) and10

state (less than 1 percent) ownership (Figure 4). Subsection 5.8, Tourism and Recreation, describes

11

some of these land uses in more detail.

12

13
14

Figure 4. (a) Land cover/use types and (b) land ownership within the action area.

15

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

66

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

5.7

Hatchery Facilities

2

The analysis area for hatchery facilities extends outside the NEP Area and includes the Sacramento

3River watershed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Livingston Stone NFH is located at the base of4

Shasta Dam and would be the source of SR winter-run Chinook salmon reintroduced to the NEP Area.

5

In 1997, USFWS and Reclamation published a final EA (USFWS and Reclamation 1997) analyzing the6construction, operation, and maintenance of the Livingston Stone NFH. Subsection 1.2.6.6, SR Winter-7

run Chinook Salmon HGMP, describes the propagation programs at Livingston Stone NFH, the8associated HGMPs, and use of this facility as a source of SR winter-run Chinook salmon. The SR

9winter-run conservation hatchery consists of two programs, the Winter Chinook Integrated-Recovery

10

Supplementation Program and the Winter Chinook Captive Broodstock Program. Hatchery programs

11

that may affect listed salmon and steelhead require authorization under the ESA. NMFS and USFWS

12

have coordinated on the Livingston Stone NFH programs since inception and are coordinating on

13

NMFS’ issuance of an ESA section 10 permit for the two hatchery programs described in the 2015

14

Livingston Stone NFH Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (subsection 1.2.6.6, SR Winter-run

15

Chinook Salmon HGMP):

16
17

Future authorization for the collection of CV spring-run Chinook salmon and issuance of a section

18

10(a)(1)(A) permit for the broodstock program would be analyzed under the ESA and NEPA when

19

NMFS receives a permit application.

20

5.8

21

The analysis area for tourism and recreation extends beyond the NEP Area and includes Shasta and22

Siskiyou Counties. Local residents within these two counties would most likely be affected by the23

alternatives because they live close to Shasta Lake and the upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers.

Tourism and Recreation

24
25

Tourism and recreation are important components of Shasta and Siskiyou Counties’ economies

26(Sacramento River Watershed Program 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). A large proportion of Shasta County and27

Siskiyou County lands are managed by Federal and state natural resource agencies, as described in28

subsection 5.6, Land Use and Ownership.

29
30

Recreational fishing is an important component of the recreational opportunities in these two counties.

31

The upper Sacramento River Watershed and the McCloud River Watershed both support high quality

32

recreational trout fisheries, with the McCloud River considered a premier trout stream that supports

33

rainbow and brown trout. The Lower McCloud River is a CDFW-designated Wild Trout Stream from
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

67

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

McCloud Reservoir Dam downstream to Lake Shasta (Sacramento River Watershed Program 2016a,

2

2016c).

3
4

Shasta Lake is a highly visited recreation destination (USFS 2014a) and is located fully within the NEP

5Area. Shasta Lake (within the Shasta Unit) is part of the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National

6

Recreation Area that was established by Congress in 1965 because of the “unique and varied recreation

7

potential” of these areas. Shasta Lake has 370 miles of shoreline, 30,000 acres of surface area, and a8maximum depth of 517 feet. Outdoor recreation opportunities in the Shasta Unit include boating,9

wildlife viewing, water-skiing, swimming, fishing, camping, picnicking, hiking, hunting, and mountain10biking (USFS 2014a). CDFW operates a popular recreational salmon fishery in Shasta Lake as part of11

their Inland Fishing Program where up to 90,000 juvenile non-listed Chinook salmon (typically UKTR

12Chinook salmon) are planted annually. Only a small number of these fish are marked and monitoring

13

occurs opportunistically (e.g., during fishing tournaments).

14
15

Redding (population 91,110), Shasta Lake (population 10,164), and Anderson (population 9,932) are16

three of the largest cities in Shasta County (City of Redding California 2016; SuburbanStats 2016a,

17

2016b). In the County of Siskiyou, Yreka (population 7,775), Mount Shasta (population 3,402), and18

Weed (population 2,983) are the largest communities in the county (County of Siskiyou 2016a).

19

Redding has more than 300 sunny days a year and provides amenities and accommodations for visitors

20

to the area, as do the other cities and towns in or near the NEP Area (Visit Redding California 2016;

21

City of Redding 2016; City of Mount Shasta 2016; City of Shasta Lake 2016; City of Weed 2016; City

22

of Yreka 2016).

23
24

Other tourism and recreation opportunities in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties include sightseeing,

25

camping, hiking, climbing, hunting, back country skiing, and horseback riding in the many Federal-26

and state-managed public lands within these counties (Shasta County 2016a; County of Siskiyou

27

2016b).

28

5.9

29

The analysis area for socioeconomics extends outside of the NEP Area and comprises Shasta and30

Siskiyou Counties, because local residents within these areas would most likely be affected by the31

alternatives. The northern portion of the NEP Area is within Siskiyou County and the southern portion32

is within Shasta County (Figure 3 and subsection3.1, Description of the Action Area). The current

Socioeconomics

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

68July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

conditions described in this subsection are combined with current conditions described in subsection

2

5.8, Tourism and Recreation, to create a comprehensive framework for the socioeconomic effects

3

analyzed in subsection 6.7, Effects on Socioeconomics.

4
5

Shasta and Siskiyou Counties are relatively sparsely populated (Table 8) compared to other areas in the6state. The unincorporated portion of Shasta County contains approximately 37 percent of the county’s

7

population (Shasta County 2020). The unincorporated portion of Siskiyou County contains

8

approximately 62 percent of the county’s population (U.S. Census Bureau 2020a; County of Siskiyou

92020a). The alternatives would have no direct or indirect effect on human population trends, and10

population trends will not be discussed further.

11
12

A substantial portion of both Shasta and Siskiyou Counties are under the management of Federal or

13

state resource management agencies. The economy of Shasta County is based on agriculture, tourism,

14

timber, medical services, and retail businesses (Shasta County 2021b), while important employment

15

sectors in Siskiyou County are agriculture, wood products, retail, tourism, manufacturing, education16

and health services, local government, and professional and business services (Siskiyou County 2021).

17

Average monthly employment in 2020 was 51,288 in Shasta County and 8,310 in Siskiyou County

18(Table 9). In Shasta County, the unemployment rate as of October 2022 was 3.9 percent and in

19

Siskiyou County was 4.4 percent (State of California 2021). Per capita personal income percent change

20

for 2019 and 2020 in Shasta County was 4.1 and 10.1 percent, and Siskiyou County was 2.9 to 11.0

21

percent (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2020). The employment sectors with the highest average

22monthly number of employees for Shasta and Siskiyou Counties are healthcare and social assistance,

23

retail trade, and accommodation and food services. Trends in economic bases, wages, employment, and24

unemployment in the two counties would be expected to continue as under existing conditions under all

25

alternatives and will not be discussed further.

26
27

Commercial fishing of salmon occurs off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California in

28

accordance with the Salmon Fishery Management Plans developed under the jurisdiction of the Pacific29

Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). The PFMC’s plans have two central parts: (1) conservation

30

objectives, which are annual goals for the number of spawners of the major salmon stocks, and (2)31allocation provisions of the harvest among different groups of fishers (commercial, recreational, tribal,

32

various ports, ocean, and inland). These Plans must comply with the ESA. The contribution of33

additional fish from the alternatives is considered speculative at this point and would be addressed in

34

future Plans and ESA consultations.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

69

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1
2

3
4
5

Table 8. Population levels in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, communities, and the State of California. U.S.
Census Bureau 2016a.

County/Community

2000

2010

2020

Shasta County

163,256

177,223

182,155

Shasta Lake

9,008

10,164

10,378

Redding

80,86589,861

93,559Anderson

9,022

9,932

11.327

Siskiyou County

44,30144,90044,076

Mount Shasta

3,621

3,394

3,215

Weed

2,978

2,967

2,858

Yreka

7,290

7,765

7,809

State of California

33,871,648

37,253,956

39,538.223

Table 9. Average monthly employment, per capita income, land area, and population of Shasta and Siskiyou
Counties, and the State of California.

Parameter

ShastaCountySiskiyouCountyState of
California

1
Average Monthly Employment (2020)

51,2888,310

1625,067,233

2Household Income ($)

61,93749,85784,097

3
Land Area (square miles)

3,775.40

6,277.89

155,779.22

48.2

7.0

253.7

3
Persons per Square Mile (2020)
6
7
8

1Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016

9

5.10

10

Cultural resources include prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, historic structures, and11

traditional cultural properties (places that may or may not have human alterations but are important to12

the cultural identity of a community or Native American tribe). The analysis area for cultural resources

13

is the same as the NEP Area (subsection 3.1, Description of the Action Area). However, many federally

14

recognized tribes were also contacted below Shasta Dam to the confluence with the San Joaquin River

15

because they may have historically benefited from the presence of SR winter-run Chinook salmon and16

CV spring-run Chinook salmon along the mainstem of the Sacramento River and some tributaries

17

during the upstream migration of these species.

2Bureau of Economic Analysis 2017 (2016 data for counties and California)

3U.S. Census Bureau 2016a, Quick Facts for California and Siskiyou and Shasta Counties 2010 11

Cultural and Historical Resources

18
19

The lands along the McCloud River were occupied by Native Americans for at least 6,000 years, and a

20

number of prehistoric sites are located on the terraces along the river and along the major ridges

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

70July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1(Sacramento River Watershed Program 2016c; Winnemum Wintu 2016c). For several thousand years,

2native tribes lived near the Upper Falls of the McCloud River in the late spring, summer, and fall.

3
4

Tribes came from their valley homes to hunt and fish. Present day Winnemem Wintu people are still5

deeply connected to the river and the salmon that once populated this river in abundance (Sacramento

6River Watershed Program 2016c).

7
8

The Winnemem Wintu are an indigenous people whose historical lands are located within the analysis

9area. The Winnemem Wintu are formally recognized by the California Native American Heritage

10

Commission (Winnemem Wintu 2016c), but are not federally recognized to receive services from the11

Bureau of Indian Affairs (83 Fed. Reg. 4235, January 30, 2018). The Winnemem Wintu people were12

displaced from their historical lands on the McCloud River by the construction of the Shasta Dam and13

impoundment of waters in the reservoir (Winnemem Wintu 2016c). Once the dam was closed, the14rivers filled Shasta Lake and inundated village areas and many sacred sites on the lower McCloud

15

River. Currently, there are approximately 150 people who identify as Winnemem Wintu, some of16

whom live at the base of Bear Mountain, north of Redding (Winnemem Wintu 2016d). The Winnemem

17

Wintu have identified 33 sacred sites on the McCloud River, and the McCloud River Watershed was18

listed on the Sacred Sites International Foundation’s website in 2008 (Sacred Sites International

19

Foundation 2016).

20
21

Chinook salmon play an important role in the lives of the Winnemem Wintu, who are advocates for the22

restoration of Chinook salmon runs to their historical habitat (Winnemem Wintu 2016c), including

23

Chinook salmon translocated from California to New Zealand more than 100 years ago.

24
25

The federally recognized Native American tribes outside and downstream of the NEP Area include:

26• Redding Rancheria

27• Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians28• Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria

29• Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians

30• Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California

31• Enterprise Rancheria, Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe32• Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria

33• Cortina Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California

34• United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

71

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

As stated above, these federally recognized tribes occur outside of the NEP Area and were contacted2

because they may have historically benefited from the presence of SR winter-run Chinook salmon and3

CV spring-run Chinook salmon along the mainstem of the Sacramento River and some tributaries

4

during the upstream migration of these species.

5
6

In early 2018, the federally recognized Pit River Tribe was contacted as part of the planning effort for7

the Shasta Fish Passage Program to include evaluation of the Pit River as a program component.

8

Similar to the Winnemem Wintu, salmon were an important dietary and cultural component to the Pit

9River Tribe prior to the construction of Shasta Dam and a series of hydroelectric dams on the lower Pit

10

River.

11
12

The presence of historical Native American artifacts along the upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers

13

is documented (Du Bois 1935) and archeological evidence confirms the presence of Native Americans

14

in portions of Shasta County for over 12,500 years. These groups typically built their villages near or

15

next to streams and rivers. Prior to the arrival of white settlers, these groups were hunter-gatherers, and16

one of their main foods was salmon caught with hooks, seine nets, traps, or spears and dried or smoked17

for later consumption (Smith 2016).

18
19

In addition to Native American cultural resources, the NEP Area, in particular Shasta Lake and20

tributaries, also contains artifacts from the settlement of California. These include remnants of the21

Oregon Trail and the Central Pacific Railroad, as well as the copper mining town of Kennett, founded22

during the gold rush, all of which are submerged beneath Shasta Lake. On the Pit River Arm of Shasta

23

Lake are the remains of the Sacramento Valley and Eastern Railroad that linked the Bully Hill Mines

24(the remains of which are located north of the confluence) to the Southern Pacific railroad lines on the25

Sacramento River (USFS 2014b).

26
27

On November 2, 2017, the State of California’s Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) received a letter

28

from NMFS initiating consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 196629

(as amended) (Maria Rea, NMFS, letter sent to Julianne Polanco, OHP, October 31, 2017). The

30

consultation was in regard to NMFS’ Proposed Action for the authorization of the release, designation

31

of ESA section 10(j) populations, and promulgation of regulations pursuant to ESA section 4(d) for SR

32

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon above Shasta Dam. NMFS determined that the NEP

33

Area was coterminous to the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Pursuant to 26 CFR 800.5(a)(1), NMFS

34

determined that its Proposed Action would not, directly or indirectly, alter any of the features or
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

72

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1

characteristics that convey significance to Traditional Cultural Properties within the APE. On 1

2

December 1, 2017, NMFS received a letter from California OHP (Julianne Polanco, OHP, letter sent to3

Maria Rea, NMFS, December 1, 2017) and provided the following comments:

4•

OHP did not object to the APE as defined.

5
6•

NMFS documented a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties
within the APE.

78•The OHP did not object to NMFS’ determination that the Proposed Action would not
result in adverse effects to historic properties.

9

5.11

Environmental Justice10

The analysis area for Environmental Justice extends beyond the NEP Area and includes Shasta and11

Siskiyou Counties. This subsection was prepared in compliance with Presidential Executive Order

12

12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income

13

Populations (EO 12898), dated February 11, 1994, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both14

EO 12898 and Title VI address persons belonging to the following target populations:

15
16

•

Minority – all people of the following origins: Black, Asian, American Indian andAlaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Hispanic.

17
18

•

Low income – persons whose household income is at or below the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.

19

Through the NEPA process, NMFS will ensure that the requirements of Executive Order 12898

20

regarding environmental justice are implemented, including all appropriate tribal consultation

21

activities.

22
23

Environmental justice impacts refer to disproportionately high and adverse human health or24

environmental effects of a proposed action on low-income populations, minority populations, or Indian25

tribes (Table 10). The current Health and Human Services poverty guidelines set the poverty line for a26

family of four at $27,750 for 2022 ($26,500 for 2021, and $26,200 for 2020). In 2020, the estimated27

poverty level in Shasta County was down from the 2010 census at 14 percent, in Siskiyou County at 17

28

percent, and the State of California at 12 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2020).

29
30

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

73

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1
2

Table 10. Minority and Hispanic populations in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties from 2020 U.S. Census.
U.S. Census Bureau 2010

Description

Shasta County

Siskiyou County

California

Total

182,155

44,07639,538,223

White

158,292

37,592

28,111,677

Black or African American

2,368

661

2,569,985

American Indian or Alaska native 5,829

2,292

672,150

Asian

6,011

749

6,286,577

Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander

364

176

197,691

Two or more races

9,107

2,556

1,660,605

Hispanic or Latino (or any race)

20,766

6,127

15,894,366

Percent Hispanic (%)

11.4

13.9

40.2

Percent minority (%)

13.1

14.7

18.9

3
4

As listed above in subsection 5.10, Cultural Resources, there are nine federally recognized tribes

5located along or near the Sacramento River to the confluence of the San Joaquin River. These federally

6

recognized tribes occur outside of the NEP Area and were contacted via letters in July and August of7

2017 because they may have historically benefited from the presence of SR winter-run Chinook salmon

8

and CV spring-run Chinook salmon along the mainstem of the Sacramento River and some tributaries

9

during the upstream migration of these species. NMFS’ letters to the tribes described the Proposed

10

Action and invited the tribes to request a meeting to provide their input. No tribal responses were11

received.

12
13

General directive in Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency identify and address, as

14

appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its

15

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations….” There are

16

also several provisions of the Executive Order and a number of supporting documents agencies should17refer to when identifying and addressing environmental justice concerns in the NEPA process (CEQ181997). Executive Order 12898 provides for agencies to collect, maintain, and analyze information on

19

patterns of subsistence consumption of fish, vegetation, or wildlife. Where an agency action may affect20

fish, vegetation, or wildlife, that agency action may also affect subsistence patterns of consumption and21

indicate the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on

22

low-income populations, minority populations, and Indian tribes (CEQ 1997).

23

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

74

July 18, 2023

Section 5 – Affected Environment

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

The following two issues related to consumption patterns were considered.
•

Subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife - Dependence by a minority population, lowincome population, Indian tribe or subgroup of such populations on indigenous fish, vegetation
and/or wildlife, as the principal portion of their diet.

•

Differential patterns of subsistence consumption - Differences in rates and/or patterns ofsubsistence consumption by minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian tribes
as compared to rates and patterns of consumption of the general population.

9

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

75

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1

6.0

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

2

6.1

3

This section evaluates the potential effects of the alternatives on the biological, physical, and human4environments described in Section 5, Affected Environment. The affected environment resource

5

information establishes baseline conditions used in the analysis under each alternative in Section 4,

6

Environmental Consequences. For this analysis, baseline conditions reflect expected conditions under7

the No-action Alternative (subsection 4.1, Alternative 1 (No-action)). Subsequently, each resource

8

under each action alternative is compared to the No-action Alternative to assess changes in conditions

9

relative to the affected environment. A summary of resource effects under each alternative is provided

10

at the end of this section.

Analysis Approach and Alternative Description Summaries

11
12

The NEP Area includes all tributaries draining into Shasta Lake up to the ridge line including the lower

13

Pit River and tributaries (below Pit 7 Dam), the McCloud River and tributaries below McCloud Dam,

14

and the upper Sacramento River and tributaries below Box Canyon Dam (subsection 3.1). The

15

potentially affected environment is broader in scope than the NEP Area for some of the resources

16

analyzed. Therefore, the analysis area encompasses the geographic area in which the effects of the17

action alternatives would be experienced and areas outside of the NEP Area.

18
19

Under the No-action Alternative (subsection 4.1), NMFS would (1) not designate SR winter-run and20

CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area as NEPs under ESA section 10(j); (2) not authorize

21

the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area; and (3) not22

establish take new prohibitions for the NEPs in the NEP Area and exceptions for particular activities

23

under ESA section 4(d). SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon could be released upstream

24of Shasta Dam with or without a NEP designation under ESA 10(j). If SR winter-run and CV spring-25

run Chinook salmon were released in the NEP Area without a NEP designation under ESA section

26

10(j), the current take prohibitions to nonexperimental populations of the SR winter-run and CV

27

spring-run Chinook salmon ESUs would apply to any SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

28

salmon reintroduced to the NEP Area. A fish passage program without a NEP designation and29

associated protective regulations described under Alternative 2 is anticipated to result in opposition30

from landowners and others whose otherwise lawful activities could be impacted by the presence of31

listed SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon. Opposition would likely result in significant

32

delays and/or permanently stall reintroduction efforts. Therefore, under Alternative 1, we assume that33

there would be no changes from present circumstances regarding the range of the SR winter-run and
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

76

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1

CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESUs being limited to areas downstream of Shasta and Keswick Dams,

2

and recovery of the SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESUs would largely depend

3

upon the extant populations and recovery actions downstream of dams in the CV.

45

Under Alternative 2 (subsection 4.2), NMFS would: (1) designate all SR winter-run and CV spring-run

6

Chinook salmon in the NEP Area as a NEPs under ESA section 10(j); (2) authorize the release of NEPs

7

of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area; and (3) establish take8

prohibitions for the NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and9exceptions for particular activities under ESA section 4(d). Under Alternative 2, ESA section 4(d)10protective regulations would provide exceptions for take of NEP fish in the NEP Area appropriate to11

the circumstances, including take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and unintentional,12

not due to negligent conduct. Downstream of the NEP Area (downstream of Shasta and Keswick

13Dams), the current take prohibitions and exceptions that apply to the extant ESUs of SR winter-run and14

CV spring- run Chinook salmon would remain in effect (see 50 CFR 223.203) and apply to Chinook

15

salmon originating from the NEP Area. Under Alternative 2, if the reintroduced populations became

16

established, the proposed experimental populations would contribute to the recovery of the ESUs.

17
18

Under Alternative 3 (subsection 4.3), NMFS would (1) designate all SR winter-run and CV spring-run

19

Chinook salmon in the NEP Area as NEPs under ESA section 10(j); (2) authorize the release of NEPs

20

of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area; and (3) establish take21

prohibitions for the NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and22

exceptions that are the same as the current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations (50 CFR

23223.203). NMFS would apply the current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations (50 CFR

24

223.203) for the reintroduced fish when they are in the NEP Area, rather than establishing a separate

25

ESA section 4(d) rule for the NEP Area. Within the NEP Area (Figure 3), take would be prohibited

26

unless authorized under section 10 of the ESA or a take limit (exception) specified in 50 CFR 223.203

27

applies. Under Alternative 3, if the reintroduced populations became established, the proposed28experimental populations would contribute to recovery of the ESUs.

29
30

Comparing the level of protection afforded to the NEPs under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 to the31

No- action Alternative is not possible because designation and authorization for release of NEPs in the32

NEP Area would not occur under the No-action Alternative.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

77

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

6.1.1 Determination of Whether Effects of an Alternative are Significant

2

NEPA requires Federal agencies to examine the impacts of major federal actions significantly affecting

3

the quality of the human environment (NMFS 2009). According to the CEQ regulations (40 CFR

41508.27), the determination of a significant impact is a function of both context 8 and intensity 9. The

5following factors should be considered in evaluating intensity (40 CFR 1508.27):

6
7● Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse – a significant effect may exist even if the Federal

8● Degree to which public health or safety is affected.

9● Unique characteristics of the geographic area.

10● Degree to which effects on the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.

1112● Degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or

13
14● Degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects

15
16● Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively

17
18
19

● Degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or

20
21● Degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its

22
23● Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements

agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

involve unique or unknown risks.

or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

significant impacts.

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or may cause
loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources.
critical habitat as defined under the ESA.
imposed for environmental protection.

24
25

Significance is a function of the short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts, both positive and26

negative, of the action on that environment. To determine significance, impact severity must be

27

examined in terms of: (1) the type, quality, and sensitivity of the resource involved; (2) the location of28

the proposed project; (3) the duration of the effect (short- or long-term); and (4) other considerations of29

context (NMFS 2009).

30

6.2

31

6.2.1 ESA-listed Fish Species

Effects on Fisheries Resources

The significance of an action is analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole, the affected region, theaffected interests, and the locality.
9
Refers to the severity of an impact.
8

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

78

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1

For ESA-listed fish species, the analysis area is the same as the NEP Area. Alternatives analyses

2presented in this subsection evaluate potential effects of the varying degree and extent the Proposed

3

Action and alternatives would affect ESA-listed fish species.

4
5
6
7

Redband trout, a former USFWS candidate species, occur in the NEP Area and are discussed below.
Effects on ESA-listed fish below Shasta and Dams are discussed here relative to the primary8

mechanisms of effect: (1) disease transmission to Livingston Stone NFH from adult Chinook salmon

9

reintroduced to the NEP Area, and (2) straying of adult Chinook salmon originating from the NEP Area

10

into tributaries of the Sacramento River.

11
12

6.2.1.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations,
No Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective Regulations

13

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-14

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-15

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, or adopt protective regulations. Because these actions would not

16

occur, there would be no effect on ESA-listed fish species or their habitat. Under the No-action

17

Alternative, there would be no changes from existing conditions and, therefore, no effects on ESA-

18

listed fish species.

19
20
21

6.2.1.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations

22

In contrast to the No-action Alternative, under Alternative 2, NMFS would designate NEPs of SR

23

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and authorize the release of NEPs of

24

SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area under ESA section 10(j), and adopt

25

limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d). The proposed action associated with Alternative

26

2 would have no direct or indirect effect on other ESA-listed fish species in the NEP Area. Alternative27

2 does have the potential to indirectly, beneficially affect SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

28

salmon in the future because it would increase the amount of habitat available to the ESUs. Under

29

Alternative 2, the quantity of habitat available for SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon

30

would increase over current conditions (see subsection 5.4.3. for information on habitat availability and31

suitability).

32

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

79

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

As part of a future reintroduction program, 10 it is anticipated juvenile SR winter-run and CV spring-2

run Chinook salmon would be collected and transported downstream of Keswick Dam. The juvenile

3
4

fish would migrate downstream to the Pacific Ocean.

5Under Alternative 2, the status and associated regulatory protections provided to those juvenile SR

6winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon outside of the NEP Area would change from being

7

considered part of the non-essential experimental populations of SR winter-run and CV spring-run

8

Chinook salmon in the NEP Area to being considered part of the extant SR winter-run and CV spring-9

run Chinook salmon ESUs. Outside of the NEP Area, juvenile and adult winter-run Chinook salmon

10

would be afforded the same ESA regulatory protections as the existing extant populations of SR

11

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESUs.

12
13

Consequently, Alternative 2 would not result in adverse effects to ESA-listed species.

1415

6.2.1.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization
for Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations

16

Regulatory protections for non-essential experimental populations in the NEP Area would be more

17

stringent under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2. However, the anticipated physical and18

biological effects of Alternative 3 on ESA-listed fish species would be the same as Alternative 2.

19

Alternative 3 would have no direct or indirect effect on other ESA-listed fish species in the NEP Area.

20

As discussed under Alternative 2, the quantity of habitat available for SR winter-run and CV spring-run

21

Chinook salmon under Alternative 3 would increase over current conditions.

22

6.2.2 Effects on Other Non-listed Native Fish Species

23

For other non-listed native species, the analysis area is the same as the NEP Area. Alternative analyses

24presented in this subsection depend on how the alternatives vary in their potential effects to native fish25

species in the NEP Area (subsection 5.3.2).

10

Subject to separate NEPA and ESA compliance requirements.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

80

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1

Limiting factors and threats for native fish species include inter- and intra-specific competition, water2

quality and quantity, and climatic conditions. 11

3
4

6.2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations,
No Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective Regulations

5

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-6

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-7

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, or adopt protective regulations. Because these actions would not

8

occur, there would be no effect on other non-listed native fish species. Because there would be no9

designation and authorization for release of NEPs in the NEP Area, there would be no potential for

10interaction between native fish and the proposed experimental populations in that area as a result of the

11

No-Action Alternative. Baseline conditions generally would reflect the expected conditions under the12

No-action Alternative. Limiting factors and threats for native fish species would not change (e.g., inter-13

and intra-specific competition) or would be expected to improve (e.g., water quality and quantity 12),14

relative to existing conditions.

15
16
17

6.2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations

18
19

In contrast to the No-action Alternative, under Alternative 2, NMFS would designate NEPs of SR

20

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and authorize release of NEPs of SR

21

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area under ESA section 10(j), and adopt

22

limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d). Competition among or between species

23(interspecific competition) occurs when resources are limited (such as food availability and/or when the24

area needed to accommodate spawning or rearing life stages exceed supply). In general, interspecific25

interactions with pre-existing native fauna in reintroduction areas are unlikely to suppress the26establishment of a population (NMFS 2018). Species that naturally occur in sympatry are more likely

27

to have evolved niche separation in resource usage (Fausch 1988). This sympatry tends to minimize

28

ecological interactions such as competition and predation. Additional information on inter- and intra-

11

Climate change considerations are addressed in Section 7 (Cumulative Effects).

12

See previous discussions about water quality and quantity in subsection 5.4.1 of this EA.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

81July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

specific competition can be found in Young (2001), Reeves et al. (1993), Fausch and White (1986),

2

Allee (1982), NMFS (2018), Beamesderfer and Rieman (1991), Rieman et al. (1991), Harvey and3Nakamoto (1996) and Ostberg et al. (2004).

4
5

Anadromous salmonids supply marine nutrients to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Cederholm et al.

61999). Marine-derived nutrients are released to freshwater systems by anadromous fish through7

excretion, gametes, and after dying. Although differences can occur from locality to locality, the8pathways for use of nutrients by stream biota occur through uptake by: (1) primary producers; (2)9transfer of nutrients up the food chain; (3) uptake of dissolved organic matter from decomposing

10

carcasses by microfauna in the streambed substrate; and (4) direct consumption of salmon eggs, fry,11

and carcasses. Collins et al. (2016) found the addition of salmon carcasses in nine tributaries of the

12

North Fork Boise River, Idaho, increased annual trout production (growth) by 2 to 3-fold. Alternative 2

13

would benefit the ecosystem with the return of marine-derived nutrients, long absent from the NEP

14Area. Over the long term, this would improve ecosystem function and diversity by increasing primary

15

productivity, increased aquatic insect production and thereby increasing prey availability for fish16

species in the NEP Area. As a result of Alternative 2, release of SR winter-run and CV spring-run

17

Chinook salmon also may lead to an increase in annual trout production over time. Adverse effects to

18

productivity are not expected from inputs of marine derived nutrients.

19
20

Reintroduction of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon could result in introduction of21

pathogens and diseases into the NEP Area. However, native fish species co-evolved with Chinook

22

salmon and the diseases and pathogens carried by SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon

23

were likely endemic to the NEP Area prior to the construction of Shasta Dam. Transmission of a novel

24

disease is more likely to carry risk than transmission of an endemic disease (Ewen et al. 2012).

25
26

Changes to the status, trends, and life history strategies of native fish species in the NEP Area are not27

expected under Alternative 2 and, therefore, no adverse effects are expected to occur. Additional

28

information on disease transmission can be found in Walker et al. (2008), Naish et al. (2008),

29

McMichael and Pearsons (1998), and NMFS (2008).

30
31

The presence of generally healthy resident rainbow trout populations in the NEP Area and the complex

32

life history strategies of these fish would not change (subsection 5.3.2, Non-ESA-listed Native Fish

33

Species). Fluvial rainbow trout would continue to spend their lives in cool headwater tributaries, and34

adfluvial rainbow trout would continue to spend most of their lives in reservoirs in the NEP Area.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

82

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1

McMichael and Pearsons (1998) investigated some of the ecological interactions between rainbow trout2

and introduced spring-run Chinook salmon in the upper Yakima River basin in Washington and3reported that rainbow trout and spring-run Chinook salmon partitioned available resources and impacts

4

were not detected. Large populations of Chinook salmon and rainbow trout in the Umpqua River in

5

Oregon (Ratti 1979) suggest abundance of either species is not affected during periods of co-

6

occurrence. Prior to construction of Shasta Dam, Chinook salmon and rainbow trout shared habitat in7

the NEP Area. Because these species coexisted in the NEP Area prior to dam construction and because

8of the short residence time and relatively rapid migration of Chinook salmon through the freshwater

9

environment, competitive interactions between Chinook salmon and resident rainbow trout would be

10

limited in magnitude and duration and adverse impacts are not expected. Alternative 2 would not

11change the current status and trends of resident rainbow trout (subsection 5.3.2, Non-ESA-listed Native

12

Fish Species) and therefore no significant adverse impacts are expected.

13
14

Under Alternative 2, in contrast to the No-action Alternative, evaluations would be conducted of15

juvenile Chinook salmon survival and potential impacts from native fish, including (a) investigations of

16

timing and size distribution of juvenile/smolt migrants, (b) growth rates and conditions, (c) survival

17

rates from planted fry to juvenile emigration, (d) juvenile distribution over the rearing and emigration18

seasons, (e) differences in the number or quality of juveniles leaving the upper Sacramento and19

McCloud Rivers, (f) juvenile behavior in response to hydrologic conditions, and (g) potential level of20

competition and predation between juvenile Chinook salmon and resident fish. This information would

21

be used to inform the adaptive management approach for reintroduction and infer potential interactions

22and impacts with non-native trout in the NEP Area.

23
24
25

6.2.2.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization
for Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations

26

Although the protections for non-essential experimental populations in the NEP Area would be more27

stringent under Alternative 3, the anticipated potential physical and biological effects of this alternative28

to native fish species are the same as Alternative 2.

29

6.2.3 Effects on Non-native Fish Species

30

For non-native fish species, the analysis area is the same as the NEP Area. Limiting factors and threats

31

for non-native fish species include inter- and intra-specific competition, predation, water quality andSacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

83

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

quantity, and climatic conditions. 13 There are approximately 17 introduced fish species in the NEP

2Area (Table 3); however, many of these species do not occur in the upper Sacramento or McCloud

3

Rivers but are present in Shasta Reservoir where conditions are more favorable for warm water non-4

native species.

56

6.2.3.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations,
No Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective Regulations

7

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-8

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-9

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, or adopt protective regulations. Because there would be no10

authorization for release of Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and the No-Action Alternative there

11

would be no potential for interaction between non-native fish species and experimental populations in

12that area as a result of the No-action Alternative. Under the No-action Alternative, there would be no13change to limiting factors and threats currently affecting non-native fish species in the NEP Area.

14
15
16
17

6.2.3.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations

18

Non-native species can be a significant threat to the viability of salmon populations, both through19

predation and competition (Sanderson et al. 2009). According to NMFS (2018), it is conceivable, and20

in some cases even likely, predation by non-native fish could reduce the likelihood of population

21

establishment. Depensatory processes could magnify predation effects at the low densities typical of

22recolonization (Liermann and Hilborn 2001). Similar to native species, effects of non-native species

23

will be most significant in highly modified habitats (NMFS 2018). Non-native fish (e.g., channel

24

catfish and smallmouth bass) have thrived in the warm, clear, lentic reservoirs created by dams

25

(Sanderson et al. 2009). Collect-and-transport reintroduction programs may offset high rates of juvenile

26

mortality that would likely occur during migration through a reservoir (such as Shasta Reservoir) with

27
28

abundant non- native populations.

29

Under Alternative 2, as under the No-action Alternative, potential effects to non-native fish species

30

would likely remain the same as current conditions. Alternative 2 would have no direct effect on non-13

Climate change considerations are addressed in Section 7 (Cumulative Effects).

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

84

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

native fish species. Alternative 2 may potentially, indirectly affect non-native fish through positive and2negative ecological effects on non-native fish species and their habitats. For example, there could be an

34increase in competition between non-native trout and juvenile Chinook salmon.

5

The potential for interspecific competition between Chinook salmon and brown and brook trout (Glova

6

and Field-Dodgson (1995); Krueger et al. (2011)) exist in the NEP Area. Compared to the No-action

7

Alternative, release of proposed experimental populations of SR winter-run and CV spring-run

8

Chinook salmon into the NEP Area, and the resultant production of juvenile salmon would likely result

9in beneficial effects through increased food resources available to non-native fish species. Brook trout

10

could potentially prey on young Chinook salmon, as larger brook trout would tend to occupy similar

11

habitats. However, brook trout abundance is likely low in the NEP Area; thus, neither competition nor

12predation is likely to be a factor in juvenile Chinook salmon survival. Therefore, brook trout are not

13
14

likely to measurably benefit from reintroduction of Chinook salmon as an increased prey base.

15

Various bass species occur in Shasta Reservoir (subsection 5.3.3). Increased foraging opportunities for16

bass would depend, in part, on the outmigration timing of juvenile SR winter-run and CV spring-run

17

Chinook salmon from the NEP Area, and location of juvenile collection facilities. NMFS expects the18

location and design of juvenile collector facilities would account for predation to minimize interactions

19

between bass and juvenile Chinook salmon. Alternative 2, despite measures to minimize potential

20

effects from predation, would likely have a beneficial effect on bass by providing increased foraging

21

opportunities compared to the No-action Alternative. Pilot studies and other monitoring and evaluation

22
23

efforts are expected to provide more information on these interactions.

24

Under Alternative 2, release of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon could result in the25

introduction of pathogens and diseases into the NEP Area. The resistance of non-native fish species in26

the NEP Area is unknown, and potential effects to the status, trends, and life history strategies of non-27

native fish species is unknown. However, downstream of Shasta Dam, anadromous salmonids

28(including SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon), co-occur with most if not all of the non-29

native species present in the NEP Area, and it is expected that conditions allowing co-occurrence below

30

the dam will also occur in the NEP Area. Changes to the status, trends, and life history strategies of31

brown and brook trout and other non-native fish species in the NEP Area are not expected to occur

32
33

under Alternative 2 and, therefore, no adverse effects are expected to occur.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

85July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1

The potential for behavioral interactions between Chinook salmon and brown and brook trout exist in

2

the NEP Area. Simulated stream studies (Glova and Field-Dodgson 1995) indicate juvenile Chinook3

salmon and brown trout are highly territorial and actively defend preferred drift-feeding sites and4

resting areas in pools. Species dominance differed with season and prior residence. Interspecific5competition between brown trout and Chinook salmon would likely occur in the NEP Area. After

6

reintroduction, it is likely brown trout would be the dominant species in preferred habitats (feeding

7sites and pools) because of prior residence. It is also likely adult brown trout would feed on Chinook8

salmon juveniles where distribution overlaps. In the near term, NMFS expects large brown trout would

9

benefit energetically from the increased prey base. Krueger et al. (2011) reported that predation10

mortality among Chinook salmon juveniles can act at small spatiotemporal scales and cause variability

11

in juvenile survival and potential recruitment. Brown trout were a major predator of Chinook salmon

12juveniles, consuming from 15 to 34 percent of the total number available. Vulnerability of Chinook

13

salmon juveniles to predation appeared to be controlled by parr growth rates, brown trout stocking

14

dates, and the number of brown trout stocked. Stocking of non-native trout was discontinued in the15

McCloud River in 2013 and any remaining brown trout have been naturalized in the NEP Area.

16
17

Compared to the No-action Alternative, release of the proposed experimental populations would likely

18

result in beneficial effects through increased food resources available to non-native fish species (e.g.,

19brown trout).

20
21

Under Alternative 2, in contrast to the No-action Alternative, evaluations of juvenile Chinook salmon

22

survival and potential impacts from non-native trout, including (a) investigations of timing and size

23

distribution of juvenile/smolt migrants, (b) growth rates and conditions, (c) survival rates from planted

24

fry to juvenile emigration, (d) juvenile distribution over the rearing and emigration seasons, (e)25differences in the number or quality of juveniles leaving the upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers, (f)26juvenile behavior in response to hydrologic conditions, and (g) potential level of competition and27

predation between juvenile Chinook salmon and resident fish. This information would be used to28

inform the adaptive management approach for reintroduction and infer potential interactions and29

impacts with non-native trout in the NEP Area.

30
31
32

6.2.2.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of a Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization
for Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations

33
34

Similar to Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, NMFS would designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

86July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and authorize release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV

2

spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area under ESA section 10(j), and adopt protective regulations

3

under ESA section 4(d). Unlike Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, NMFS would adopt the more

4

restrictive current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations that apply downstream of Shasta and5

Keswick Dams for the NEP Area. The anticipated potential physical and biological effects to non-6

native fish species under Alternative 3 could result in slightly less suitable conditions for some of these7

species. Application of the current ESA section 4(d) rule could create additional opportunities to ensure

8

the protection of water quality. Enhanced protection of water quality could result in marginally cooler

9water temperatures which are less suitable for some non-natives fish species, particularly those that10

prefer warmer water temperatures.

11

6.3

12

For aquatic habitat, the analysis area is the same as the NEP Area described in subsection 3.1. The

13

following discussion focuses on different effects to aquatic habitat in the NEP Area, including water

14
15

resources, fish passage, and habitat availability and quality.

16

The alternatives vary in extent to which authorization for release of SR winter-run and CV spring-run

17

Chinook salmon would have potential to impact aquatic habitat in the NEP Area. Under all alternatives,18

the NEP Area would continue to have variable flows and water temperatures as described in

19

subsections 5.4.1 and 5.4.3. Under all alternatives, environmental laws would continue to regulate, and20

habitat restoration actions would continue to mitigate human impacts from agriculture, timber

21

harvesting, mining, and commercial and residential development. These human induced impacts can22

directly influence water quality parameters limiting salmon productivity, such as sediment levels (fine23

and coarse), chemical contamination (e.g., pesticide and herbicide use in agriculture), and municipal

24

waste (e.g., high nitrogen levels).

25

6.3.1 Water Resources

26
27

6.3.1.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) – No Designation of a Nonessential Experimental Population,
No Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective Regulations

28

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-29

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-30

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, or adopt related protective regulations. Under the No-action

31

Alternative, there would be no efforts to reintroduce SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

Effects on Aquatic Habitat

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

87July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

salmon. There would be no changes from the current conditions and no significant adverse impacts

2would occur.

3
4

Shasta Lake would remain listed as impaired by mercury and poor water quality. Additionally, water5

temperatures would continue to exceed lethal tolerance levels for salmonids in the mid- to late summer

6months in some areas of Shasta Lake. These conditions would continue under the No-action

7

Alternative (subsection 5.4, Aquatic Habitat). Under the No-action Alternative, the upper Sacramento

8

and McCloud Rivers would continue to have no listed water quality impairments of beneficial uses as

9defined under section 303(d) of the CWA (CVRWQCB 2016).

1011Under the No-action Alternative, existing dams and water diversion projects located on the upper

12

Sacramento River, McCloud River, and lower Pit River tributaries (most of which fall outside the NEP

13Area for the Pit River), would continue to affect streamflow in the NEP Area (subsection 3.1,

14

Description of the Action Area; subsection 5.4.1, Water Resources). Existing dams would continue to15

modify and regulate downstream flows in the NEP Area, including Shasta Lake. Existing stream flow

16

conditions in the NEP Area above Shasta Dam are anticipated to continue or somewhat improve17

following FERC’s issuance of a new license for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project18

No. 2016, California). Flow regimes in the upper Sacramento, Pit, and McCloud Rivers would continue

19

to be lowest and relatively stable during the summer and fall, and exhibit more flow variability and20

peak flows in response to precipitation events and snowmelt runoff from the winter through the spring21(subsection 5.4.1, Water Resources) (Reclamation 2014b). There would be no changes from the current

22

conditions and therefore no additional adverse effects are anticipated.

23
24
25

6.3.1.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations

26

In contrast to the No-action Alternative, under Alternative 2, NMFS would designate NEPs of SR

27

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and authorize release of NEPs of SR

28

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area under ESA section 10(j), and adopt

29

limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d).

3031Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative)) would affect water quality primarily through a32

minor increase in marine-derived nutrients from the input of salmon carcasses to the NEP Area.

33

However, as under the No-action Alternative, authorization for reintroduction and designation of34

experimental populations in the NEP Area would have no effect on the 2008 CWA 303(d) listing of
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

88July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1

Shasta Lake or associated tributaries (i.e., West Squaw Creek below the Balakala Mine, lower Little

2

Backbone Creek, lower Horse Creek, and Town Creek) listed by the EPA as impaired for heavy metal

3

accumulations and low pH. Additionally, authorization for reintroduction and designation of4

experimental populations would not cause any effects on other baseline aquatic habitat water quality

5components such as sedimentation levels because, for example, there would be no streambed

6

disturbance other than spawning under Alternative 2. Increased disturbance of streambeds by spawning7

salmon under Alternative 2 would be expected to result in local improvements in spawning gravel

8quality because the spawning process loosens the gravel and decreases the amount of fine sediments

9(Kondolf and Wolman 1993).

10
11

As under the No-action Alternative, water temperatures under Alternative 2 would be expected to12remain the same as under existing conditions (subsection 5.4, Aquatic Habitat). However, unlike the13

No-action Alternative, Alternative 2 would have a small effect on water quality through input of adult

14

Chinook salmon carcasses to the NEP Area. Although a high input of decomposing salmon carcasses

15

could lead to an increase in biological oxygen demand and reduce dissolved oxygen levels that16

negatively affect water quality (subsection 5.4, Aquatic Habitat), it is unlikely that a large enough17

concentration of carcasses would be present in any given location within the NEP Area to cause18

measurable changes or adverse effects on water quality.

19
20

Unlike the No-action Alternative, an increase in adult salmon carcasses under Alternative 2 would

21

likely have a beneficial effect on availability of food for rearing fishes, growth of riparian forests, and22

salmonid productivity through the addition of marine-derived nutrients from salmon carcasses. The

23

increased transport of marine-derived nutrients and trace elements from returning wild Chinook salmon

24

adults associated with reintroduction is expected to enhance stream productivity (Scheuerell et al.

252005).

26
27

Bilby et al. (2002) found a positive linear relationship between the biomass of juvenile anadromous

28

salmonids and the abundance of carcass material at sites in the Salmon (Idaho) and John Day Rivers

29(Oregon), suggesting that spawning salmon may influence and benefit aquatic productivity and the30

availability of food for rearing fishes.

31
32

Salmon carcasses also appear to promote the growth of riparian forests, a source of large woody debris

33

and stream shading (Bilby et al. 1998; Cederholm et al. 2000; Gresh et al. 2000). Helfield and Naiman
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

89July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1(2001) hypothesized several pathways for the transfer of marine-derived nutrients from streams to2

riparian vegetation, including transfer of dissolved nutrients and trace elements from decomposing

3

carcasses into shallow subsurface flow paths, and the dissemination in feces, urine, and partially eaten

4carcasses by bears and other salmon-eating fauna (Gende et al. 2002). Studies suggest that the biomass

5of carcasses beneficially affects the productivity of salmonids and their rearing habitat, but functional6

and quantitative relationships are poorly understood and difficult to generalize from the specific7

conditions studied (Bilby et al. 1998; Cederholm et al. 2000; Gresh et al. 2000).

89For purposes of ESA section 7, the NEPs would be treated as a species proposed for ESA listing, and10

only two provisions of ESA section 7 would apply: (1) section 7(a)(1) (requiring Federal agencies to11

use their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA by carrying out programs for the

12conservation of listed species); and (2) section 7(a)(4) (triggered by Federal actions that are likely to

13jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to be listed). Under Alternative 2, there would

14

be no ESA section 7(a)(2) consultation requirement for Federal actions that may affect the NEPs in the15

NEP Area.

16
17

As under the No-action Alternative, under Alternative 2, existing stream flow conditions in the NEP

18

Area above Shasta Dam are anticipated to continue. Streamflow conditions may improve following

19

FERC’s upcoming relicensing of the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2016,20

California) (subsection 5.4.1.3 McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project).

21
22

Alternative 2, similar to the No-action alternative, would not have a significant adverse impact on

23water quantity in the NEP Area and may result in beneficial effects to the aquatic ecosystem.

24
25

6.3.1.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization
for Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations

26

Similar to Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, NMFS would designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV

27

spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and authorize release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV

28

spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area under ESA section 10(j), and adopt current protective

29

regulations under ESA section 4(d). Unlike Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, NMFS would adopt the30

more restrictive current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations for the NEP Area. Adoption of31

more restrictive regulations would likely result in increased resistance from landowners and other user

32

groups to a SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon reintroduction.

33
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

90July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

In contrast to the No-action Alternative and Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, NMFS would apply the2current January 9, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 1116) section 4(d) rule (subsection 1.2.4, ESA Section 4(d)3Regulations). Application of these restrictions on take of Chinook salmon could result in additional

4

restrictions on existing lawful activities. NMFS expects that any restrictions placed on water resource5

management in the NEP Area would be similar to those that are in place outside the NEP Area below

6

Keswick Dam. Alternative 3, in contrast to Alternative 2 and the No-action alternative, could have a7

beneficial impact to water quantity and quality in the NEP Area as a result of increased regulatory

8

oversight that may result in beneficial effects to water resources.

910

Similar to Alternative 2, and in contrast to the No-action Alternative, Alternative 3 would have a small

11

effect on water quality resulting from an input of adult Chinook salmon carcasses to the NEP Area.

12

6.3.2 Effects on Fish Passage

13
14

6.3.2.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) – No Designation of a Nonessential Experimental Population,
No Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective Regulations

15

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-16

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-17

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, or adopt new protective regulations. Under the No-action

18

Alternative, there would be no efforts to reintroduce SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon

19

and there would be no resistance from landowners and other user groups in the NEP Area.

20
21

Under the No-action Alternative, absence of authorization for reintroduction and designation of

22

experimental populations would preclude any effects on fish access to habitat in the NEP Area.

23

Baseline conditions discussed in subsection 5.4, Aquatic Habitat, reflect expected conditions under the24

No-action Alternative. Ongoing programs described in subsection 5.4.3, Habitat Availability and25

Quality, would continue to be implemented under the No-action Alternative, providing potentially26

improved aquatic habitat benefits in the NEP Area.

27
28

Under the No-action Alternative, no increased transport of marine-derived nutrients and trace elements

29

from returning Chinook salmon adults associated with reintroduction and concomitant enhancement of30

stream productivity in the NEP Area (subsection 5.4, Aquatic Habitat) would occur. In addition,

31

decomposing Chinook salmon carcasses would not be available under the No-action Alternative to32

increase the biological oxygen demand and reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen in the NEP Area

33

(Subsection 5.4, Aquatic Habitat). Under the No-action Alternative, the lower portions of the upper
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

91

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1

Sacramento River and Shasta Lake would continue to have impaired water temperatures for salmonids

2in the mid- to late summer months. There would be no changes from the current conditions and3

therefore no additional adverse effects are anticipated.

4
5
6

6.3.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations

7

In contrast to the No-action Alternative, under Alternative 2, NMFS would authorize the release of SR

8winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, designate the reintroduced SR winter-9

run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon as experimental populations under ESA section 10(j), and10

adopt limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d). Critical habitat could not be designated in

11

the NEP Area. Alternative 2, efforts to reintroduce SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon

12

may meet some resistance from landowners and other user groups in the NEP Area but would be

13

reduced with adoption of a new ESA section 4(d) rule.

1415

As under the No-action Alternative, under Alternative 2, conditions for fish passage in the NEP Area

16

above Shasta Dam would be expected to continue as under existing conditions (subsection 5.4, Aquatic

17

Habitat). A number of dams and water diversion projects are located on the upper Sacramento River,

18

McCloud River, and Pit River and their associated tributaries, most of which fall on the outer limits or19

outside of the NEP Area. These dams and barriers would continue to be in place. Even with the existing

20

fish passage barriers in place, there would be approximately 23 miles of habitat accessible to21

reintroduced Chinook salmon on the McCloud River and 37 miles on the upper Sacramento River.

22

Alternative 2, similar to the No-action Alternative, would not have a significant adverse effect on fish23

passage in the NEP Area.

24
25

6.3.2.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization
for Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations

26

Similar to Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, NMFS would designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV

27

spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and authorize release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV

28

spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area under ESA section 10(j), and adopt current protective

29

regulations under ESA section 4(d). Unlike Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, NMFS would adopt the30

more restrictive current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations for the NEP Area. Adoption of31

more restrictive regulations would likely result in increased resistance from landowners and other user

32

groups to a SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon reintroduction.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

92

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

6.3.3 Effects on Habitat Availability and Quality

23

6.3.3.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations,
No Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective Regulations

4

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-5

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run Chinook salmon

6in the NEP Area, or adopt protective regulations. Baseline conditions discussed in subsection 5.4,

7

Aquatic Habitat, generally reflect expected conditions under the No-action Alternative.

89
10

6.3.3.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations

11

Alternative 2 would have no direct effect on anadromous salmonid habitat availability. Any effect of

12

Alternative 2 on habitat availability would be indirect, namely, an increased incentive to create

13

additional habitat or to improve existing habitat in the NEP Area by providing regulatory relief for

14

habitat improvement within the NEP Area. As under the No-action Alternative, suitable habitat for SR

15

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon spawning and rearing in the NEP Area would continue

16

to exist, and no substantial adverse effects are anticipated.

17
18

6.3.3.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization
for Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations

19

In contrast to the No-action Alternative and Alternative 2, some long-term benefits to habitat would

20

likely accrue over time under Alternative 3. Increased regulatory requirements as a result of Alternative

21

3 could lead to additional efforts by non-federal land and water managers to minimize the adverse

22

effects of their actions through avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures focused on

23

improving habitat availability and quality for listed SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon.

24

Non-federal entities pursuing land and water-related actions that may result in incidental take of SR

25

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon within the NEP Area would be required to complete an

26

HCP and apply for an incidental take permit, unless one of the limits or exceptions under the current

27

ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations apply (50 CFR 223.203), which may involve restoration of28

degraded habitat, creation of new habitat, or habitat enhancement. The extent of these benefits is29

unknown, but no adverse effects to anadromous salmonid habitat availability and quality are

30

anticipated.

31
32

Under Alternative 3, existing barriers to adult and juvenile passage, including dams, poorly designed or33

poorly functioning fishways, and road crossings, could eventually be required to meet modern
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

93July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1

standards for fish passage as a consequence of increased regulatory oversight under the January 9, 2002

2

(67 Fed. Reg. 1116) section 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead that would be applied to Chinook3

salmon in the NEP Area (subsection 1.2.4, ESA Section 4(d) Regulations). Except for Box Canyon, Pit,

4

and McCloud Dams, few man-made fish passage barriers are known to exist in the upper Sacramento

5and McCloud Rivers; however, some unknown barriers may be present in the smaller tributaries of6these three rivers. Improved access to currently inaccessible instream fish habitat could result in

7

improved survival and increased carrying capacity for listed Chinook salmon as well as other native

8

fish species in the NEP Area. The extent of this benefit is unknown and no adverse effects to fish

9

passage are anticipated.

10

6.4

11

The analysis area for wildlife resources, except for Southern Resident killer whale, is the same as the

12

NEP Area described in subsection 3.1. Alternative analyses address potential effects of the varying

13

degree and extent the Proposed Action and alternatives would affect wildlife as a food resource in the

14

NEP Area. Species addressed in this subsection are those for which salmon provide direct or indirect15

foraging opportunities, including wildlife species with federal and/or state listing status, indicating a16heightened level of concern (Table5, Table 6, and Table 7). This area represents an area where wildlife

17

species could reasonably be expected to modify their behavior in response to changes in the availability

18

of food resources in the NEP Area under the alternatives. The analysis area for Southern Resident killer

19

whales extends to the Pacific Ocean due to the dependence of Southern Resident killer whales on

20

Chinook salmon as a food resource.

21
22

6.4.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, No
Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective Regulations

23

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-24

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-25

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, or adopt protective regulations. There would be no changes from26

current conditions and, therefore, no effects to ESA-listed and non-ESA-listed wildlife would occur.

27

Under the No-action Alternative, species (including the special-status species identified in Table 5 and28

Table 6) for which salmonids provide direct or indirect foraging opportunities, would continue to29

forage on fish and other food resources in the NEP Area. This includes the species occurring in the30

NEP Area with a strong-consistent, or recurrent relationship with salmon as a food resource (as31

identified based on parameters described in Cederholm et al. 2000), and the five highly aquatic species

32with an unknown relationship with salmon (see Table 5). The No-action Alternative would not alter

Effects on ESA-listed and non-ESA-listed Wildlife

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

94July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

feeding patterns of native or special status species such as bald eagles, golden eagles, raccoons, or2

black bears (Table 4). For Southern Resident killer whales, which occur outside the NEP Area, there

3

would not be small increases in SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the Pacific Ocean

4

off the California coast where Southern Resident killer whales forage on Chinook salmon. Finally, the5No-action Alternative would not affect the presence or absence of any wildlife species in the NEP

6

Area.

7
8
9

6.4.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations

10

Compared to the No-action Alternative, Alternative 2 would designate and authorize the release of

11

NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area. Reintroduction is12

anticipated to result in re-establishment of this species into historical habitats above Shasta Dam that13

have been inaccessible since 1942-1943 when upstream fish passage was blocked during construction

14of Shasta Dam. Unlike the No-action Alternative, Alternative 2 would have a beneficial effect on

15

wildlife species that consume salmon and salmon carcasses, and species that feed on aquatic insects16

and other taxa beneficially affected by nutrients derived from salmon carcasses.

17
18

Unlike the No-action Alternative, authorization of reintroduction of SR winter-run and CV spring-run

19

Chinook salmon into the NEP Area would likely increase the total number of adult salmon in the20

Pacific Ocean to a small extent. An increase in the number of adult salmon would likely have a small

21

but beneficial effect on ESA-listed Southern Resident killer whales that feed on salmon adults off the

22

California coast.

23
24

Initially, the number of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon reintroduced into the NEP

25

Area under Alternative 2 would be low, and beneficial effects to wildlife with a strong-consistent or

26

recurrent relationship with salmon would likely be negligible. Over time however, the number of27

returning adults originating from the NEP Area is anticipated to increase, which could provide more

28

foraging opportunities for wildlife in the NEP Area and the Pacific Ocean. Under Alternative 2, more

29

salmon would be available to these species as a food source, which may result in greater abundance of30some of these wildlife species over time. Finally, as under the No-action Alternative, Alternative 2

31

would not likely affect the presence or absence of any wildlife species in the NEP Area even with the32availability of salmon as a food source, although the overall abundance of some species could increase33

temporarily. No significant adverse effects to wildlife species are anticipated.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

95July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

12

6.4.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for
Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations

3

In contrast to the No-action Alternative, under Alternative 3, as under Alternative 2, NMFS would

4

authorize release of SR winter-run Chinook salmon and CV spring-run Chinook salmon and designate

5

these fish as experimental populations under ESA section 10(j). However, unlike Alternative 2, NMFS

6

would apply the current January 9, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 1116) section 4(d) rule for these fish when in

7

the NEP Area rather than designate a separate section 4(d) rule for the NEP Area. Similar to8

Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, the reintroduction of salmon and the addition of salmon carcasses to

9

the NEP Area would benefit wildlife species that consume live salmon or salmon carcasses as well as

10wildlife species that feed on aquatic insects and other taxa that could benefit from marine-derived

11

nutrients. No significant adverse effects to wildlife species are anticipated.

12

6.5

13

The analysis area for land use and ownership is the NEP Area. None of the alternatives would entail

14

any changes in land ownership or land use designations in the NEP Area or elsewhere as described in

15

subsection 5.6, Land Use and Ownership. The alternatives would not result in different proportions of

16

public, private, and tribal land ownership in the NEP Area. A large proportion of lands within the NEP

17

Area would continue to be under Federal or state management or in private timber production.

18

Analyses in this subsection address the potential for the varying degrees of regulations such as take19

prohibitions under the alternatives to affect otherwise lawful land use activities.

20
21

6.5.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, No
Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective Regulations

22

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-23

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-24

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, or adopt protective regulations. There would be no changes from25

current conditions and, therefore, no adverse effects to land use and ownership would occur under the26

No-action Alternative if SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon are not released into the27

NEP Area. More specifically, there would be no effects to land ownership categories, including private

28

entities, nongovernmental organizations, Federal, tribal, and state or local government ownerships

29(subsection 5.6). Existing trends in land use would continue to be addressed by Federal, state, county,

30

and municipal planning efforts if SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon are not released in

31

the NEP Area. Similarly, land uses would not change under the No-action Alternative if SR winter-run

Effects on Land Use and Ownership

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

96

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1

and CV spring-run Chinook salmon are not released in the NEP Area. Resource-based industries such2

as forest management would be expected to continue to occur within the analysis area under the No-

3

action Alternative, along with other current land uses (subsection 5.6, Land Use and Ownerships).

456

6.5.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations

7

In contrast to the No-action Alternative, under Alternative 2, NMFS would authorize the release of SR

8winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, designate the reintroduced SR winter-9

run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon as experimental populations under ESA section 10(j), and10

adopt limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d).

1112The current take prohibitions and salmon ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations that prohibit take13

of CV spring-run Chinook salmon with specific limits or exceptions would apply outside of the NEP

14(subsection 3.14). Under Alternative 2, a separate ESA section 4(d) rule would be adopted to apply to

15

the experimental populations in the NEP Area. Within the NEP Area, NMFS’s ESA section 4(d) rule16

would provide exceptions to the take prohibitions as appropriate to the circumstances, including an

17

exception for take that occurs incidental to otherwise lawful activities and is unintentional, not due to18

negligent conduct. Because of this take exception, as well as the limited applicability of ESA section 7

19

to a NEP of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, reintroduction of SR

20

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon would have little to no adverse effect on land uses such21

as agriculture, forestry, extractive/industrial activities, commercial/research and development, parks,

22

public lands, military installations or urban/local communities. Because of the substantial regulatory

23

relief provided by the NEP designations and the exception to the ESA section 4(d) rule protective

24

regulations, NMFS also does not expect Alternative 2 to have any substantial adverse effect on

25

recreational, agricultural, or development activities within the NEP Area.

26
27

The proposed ESA section 4(d) rule under Alternative 2 is anticipated to: (1) minimize regulatory28

requirements on landowners in the NEP Area; and (2) minimize increased ESA liability for land use

29

activities. Additionally, there would be no new or additional actions required on the landowner/local

30

stakeholder’s behalf prior to conducting normal land use activities. Therefore, as under the No-action

31

Alternative, Alternative 2 is not expected to result in any changes in the uses or ownership of land in32

the NEP Area described in subsection 5.6. As under the No-action Alternative, existing trends in land

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

97July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

use would continue under Alternative 2. Existing trends in land use would continue to be addressed by

2

Federal, state, county, and municipal planning efforts.

3
4

Under Alternative 2, agencies that fund, carry out, or permit actions that may affect the NEP of SR

5winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area would not face substantially increased

6

regulatory requirements compared to the No-action Alternative. Alternative 2 would be protective of7

Federal, state, local and private land use and land ownership interests in the NEP Area. Alternative 2

8would minimize the potential for new permitting and regulatory compliance responsibilities associated9with future Federal, state, county, municipal and private actions in the watershed, while facilitating the10ability to reintroduce SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon into the NEP Area.

11
12

6.5.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for
Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations

13

Similar to Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, NMFS would designate and authorize the release of NEPs

14

of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area. However, adoption of the15

current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations for the NEP Area would result in more restrictive

16

ESA take prohibitions in the NEP Area compared to Alternative 2.

17
18

Unlike Alternative 2, the current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations for threatened species of

19

salmon and steelhead would be adopted and apply to the SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook

20

salmon in the NEP Area under Alternative 3 (subsection 1.2.4). Thus, the release of ESA-listed fish to21

the NEP Area could result in increased restrictions on otherwise lawful land use activities as a result of

22

Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would not change the proportion of public, private, and tribal land

23

ownership in the NEP Area. However, for agencies with management authority for public lands and24

private landowners, Alternative 3 may restrict the types or extent of actions that those management25

agencies and private landowners would implement on their lands due to increased regulatory

26

obligations necessary to comply with the more restrictive ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations

27

under Alternative 3.

28
29

Unlike the No-action Alternative and Alternative 2, Alternative 3 could affect existing land use and30

recreational activities in the action area because of increased regulatory constraints and potential ESA

31

liability. Changes in land use could include additional restrictions on timber harvest on private lands to

32

avoid or minimize the potential for take of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the33

NEP Area. Changes in private ownership and land use are speculative but are more likely under
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

98July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1

Alternative 3 because of new regulatory requirements for non-federal landowners engaged in activities

2

that may result in take, including harm, of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the

3

NEP Area.

4
5

Based on the more stringent protective regulations that would apply under Alternative 3, unlike the No-

6

action Alternative and Alternative 2, non-federal land management agencies and private landowners

7

throughout the NEP Area would likely be required to modify their operations to avoid or minimize the8potential for take of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area. Examples of

9

modification to operations include: (1) implementing erosion control structures near rivers and tributary10

streams, and (2) implementing road drainage system improvements to minimize or avoid sediment11

inputs into local waterways, among others. Under Alternative 3, federal, non-federal public, private

12

landowners, and local entities would have various regulatory options under the ESA to seek limits on

13

their potential liabilities from otherwise lawful activities, subject to applicable conditions. These

14

options could include an ESA section 4(d) limit or an ESA section 10(a) permit as applicable, but any

15

applicable options would be limited to certain types of activities and subject to conditions.

16

6.6

17

The analysis area for Tourism and Recreation is broader than the NEP Area and includes all of Shasta

18

and Siskiyou Counties. Tourism and recreation make a substantial contribution to the quality of life for

19

local residents and small businesses in terms of employment and income (subsection 5.9), as well as the20

outdoor recreational activities available to them. The three alternatives vary in their potential to result

21

in restrictions on otherwise lawful activities in the action area, including recreational fishing. Under all

22

three alternatives, outdoor recreation, including fishing, would continue to attract visitors to Shasta and23

Siskiyou Counties. NMFS anticipates current restrictions in California’s Freshwater Sport Fishing24

Regulations would remain in effect. Analyses in this subsection address the potential effects of the25

alternatives on the availability of recreation opportunities in the analysis area.

26
27

6.6.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) – No Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, No
Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective Regulations

28

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-29

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-30

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, or adopt protective regulations. Recreational opportunities (e.g.,

31sightseeing, gold panning, mountain biking, camping, waterfowl and upland hunting, hiking,32

swimming, horseback riding, use of off-road vehicle trails, backcountry skiing, climbing, and rafting)

Effects on Tourism and Recreation

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

99

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1in the three counties would continue to occur. There would be no changes that directly or indirectly2

affect visitor facilities, viewpoints, scenic overlooks, walking trails, picnic shelters, or other designated3

recreation amenities (subsection 5.8). Consequently, because there would be no changes from the4current conditions, the No-action Alternative would have no effects on recreational opportunities in the5

NEP Area.

678

6.6.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations

9

In contrast to the No-action Alternative, under Alternative 2, NMFS would designate NEPs of SR

10

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and authorize the release of NEPs of

11

SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area under ESA section 10(j), and adopt

12

limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d). Within the NEP Area, NMFS’ 4(d) rule

13

protective regulations would provide an exception for take that occurs incidental to otherwise lawful

14

activities and is unintentional, not due to negligent conduct. Because of the substantial regulatory relief

15

provided by the NEP designations and this take exception, Alternative 2 would have little to no adverse

1617

effect on tourism and recreational activities within the NEP Area.

18

Alternative 2 could result in an increase in the number of fish available for recreational viewing in the19

upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers, compared to the No-action Alternative. Increased viewing

20

opportunities could expand recreational opportunities in the analysis area with an opportunity to view

21
22

SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in areas where they have been long extirpated.

23

Alternative 2 is expected to result in opportunities to view adult Chinook salmon returning to historical24

holding and spawning areas. The likelihood of recreational viewing is facilitated by the proximity of25

access roads and USFS campgrounds to these rivers. A potential does exist for harassment of SR

26

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area depending on presence of suitable27
28

viewing locations.

29

Although the number of fish available for recreational viewing is difficult to predict, the unique

30

opportunity to see SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon is anticipated to generate some

31

interest among members of the public. In response to the increased public interest, a concomitant

32

increase in tourism may occur as people are drawn to the NEP Area, thereby benefiting small

33

businesses. People visiting would be anticipated to support local community businesses by partaking in

34

food and beverage services, accommodations, retail sales, arts, entertainment and recreation, etc.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

100

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1
2

Opportunities to engage in recreational fishing would not be reduced under Alternative 2. As under the3
4

No-action Alternative, locations of fishing opportunities would not change under Alternative 2.

5Under Alternative 2, a separate ESA section 4(d) rule would be adopted for the experimental

6

population in the NEP Area. This proposed rule would generally prohibit take of SR winter-run and CV

7

spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, but would provide an exception for take that is incidental

8

to an otherwise lawful activity and is unintentional, not due to negligent conduct. This exception would

9

include recreational fishing for non-listed salmonids, and other game and non-game fish. Opportunities

10

to engage in recreational fishing for non-listed salmonid and other fish species would not be reduced

1112with implementation of Alternative 2.

13

Existing restrictions in California’s Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations under Alternative 2

14(subsection 5.8, Tourism and Recreation) are expected to remain in effect. Daily bag and possession

15

limits are closed to the take of salmon and these limits would continue to apply to SR winter-run and16

CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the McCloud and upper Sacramento Rivers and associated17

tributaries. As under the No-action Alternative, recreational fishing opportunities would not change

18

under Alternative 2 (subsection 5.8, Tourism and Recreation). Under Alternative 2, a new section 4(d)19rule would apply to the proposed experimental populations above Shasta Dam. This new rule would

20

exempt take of Chinook from the proposed experimental populations if such take results from an

21otherwise lawful activity, including recreational fishing for non-listed Chinook salmon that are planted

22in Shasta Lake as part of CDFW’s Inland Fishing Program.

23
24

Some of the nonessential experimental Chinook salmon reintroduced into the upper Sacramento and25

McCloud Rivers may bypass juvenile collection facilities and enter Shasta Lake. Eventually, some of26

these fish could be incidentally caught by recreational fishers; however, the number of fish that bypass

27

the collection facilities and residualize in Shasta Lake is anticipated to compose only a small proportion

28of the overall number of fish in the NEPs. Because these numbers are anticipated to be low, their loss is29

expected to have a de minimus effect to the overall success of the reintroduction program.

30
31

As under the No-action Alternative, no changes to recreational opportunities in the analysis area would

32

occur under Alternative 2 because there would be no changes directly or indirectly affecting visitor

33

facilities, viewpoints, scenic overlooks, walking trails, picnic shelters, or other designated recreation

34

amenities in the analysis area. Additionally, no changes to other recreational opportunities (i.e.,
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

101

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1boating, water-skiing, swimming, wildlife viewing, hunting, camping, picnicking, hiking, mountain2biking, sightseeing, climbing, back country skiing, and horseback riding) within the analysis area

3

would be expected under Alternative 2 (subsection 5.8, Tourism and Recreation).

45Under Alternative 2, Federal, state, and local agencies that fund, carry out, or permit actions that may

6affect the proposed experimental populations of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in

7

the NEP Area would not face substantially increased regulatory requirements compared to the No-

8

action Alternative. Overall, Alternative 2 would be protective of Federal, state, local and private land

9

use and land ownership interests, while facilitating the reintroduction of salmon into the NEP Area and10
11

concurrently protecting tourism and recreational activities.

12

Under Alternative 2, there would be no section 7(a)(2) consultation requirement for Federal actions in

13

the NEP Area. The NEPs would be treated as species proposed for ESA listing and only two provisions

14of ESA section 7 would apply: section 7(a)(1) (requiring Federal agencies to use their authorities to15

further conservation of listed species) and section 7(a)(4) (triggered by Federal actions that may

16

jeopardize the continued existence of the species). Section 7(a)(2) consultations may be required for17

actions in the geographic range of the proposed experimental population designations that affect other18

ESA-listed species, and may be required when they affect members of the NEPs outside the NEP Area

19

where SR winter-run Chinook salmon are listed as endangered and CV spring-run Chinook salmon are20

listed as threatened.

21
22

6.6.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for
Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations

23

Alternative 3 is expected to result in opportunities to view adult Chinook salmon returning to historical24

holding and spawning areas. As under Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would designate and authorize the25

release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and would

26

likely increase the number of fish available for recreational viewing in the NEP Area, compared to the27

No-action Alternative. As such, Alternative 3 would add incrementally to recreational viewing

28

opportunities in the NEP Area (subsection 5.8) due to the unique opportunity to view these species.

29
30

In response to the increased public interest, an increase in tourism also may occur as people are drawn

31

to the NEP Area. Visitors would be anticipated to support the local economy by partaking in food and32

beverage services, accommodations, retail sales, arts, entertainment and recreation, etc. As with

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

102

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1

Alternative 2, a potential does exist for harassment of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook2

salmon in accessible areas in the NEP Area.

3
4

Unlike Alternative 2, the current ESA section 4(d) protective regulations that apply to the CV spring-5

run Chinook salmon ESU downstream of Shasta Dam would also be adopted to apply to reintroduced

6

SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area. NMFS’ experience under the7

current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations (50 CFR 223.203) shows that NMFS does

8

authorize take associated with some otherwise lawful activities, but some activities may not meet one

9of the 10 categories of activities and some activities may be modified during the authorization process10

to meet the applicable criteria under the current protective regulations. NMFS expects any such

11

modifications or restrictions placed on tourism or recreational activities in the NEP Area under

12

Alternative 3 would be similar to those that are in place outside the NEP Area downstream of Shasta

13

Dam. Application of these restrictions could result in additional restrictions on existing lawful tourist-

14

oriented and recreational activities, including recreational fishing and some upland activities. Upland15

activities, particularly those that cause erosion, such as mountain biking and motorized off-road vehicle16

activities, could be subject to seasonal restrictions to minimize sediment input into fish-bearing

17

streams.

18
19

NMFS expects that any restrictions placed on tourism or recreational activities in the NEP Area would

20

be similar to those that are in place outside the NEP Area below Keswick Dam within the range of the21

extant ESUs. Application of these restrictions could result in additional restrictions on existing lawful

22

tourist-oriented and recreational activities, primarily recreational fishing that includes fishing for

23

Chinook salmon in Shasta Lake, that are part of CDFW’s Inland Fishing Program. Fishing restrictions

24

could include (1) periodic closures, as has occurred recently below Keswick Dam to protect spawning25

SR winter-run Chinook salmon, (2) cessation of the Inland Fishing Program, or (3) requirements to

26

individually mark most or all Chinook salmon planted in Shasta Lake.

27
28

Federal agencies that fund, carry out, or permit actions that may affect SR winter-run and CV spring-29

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area would not face substantially increased regulatory requirements

30

associated with tourism and recreation compared to the No-action Alternative due to the limited ESA

31

section 7 obligations with an ESA section 10(j) designation (see subsection 4.2.2.3). State regulated

32

recreational fishing would be subject to the more restrictive ESA section 4(d) rule protective

33

regulations under Alternative 3.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

103

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1
2

Under Alternative 3, Federal, non-Federal public, and private entities would have various regulatory3

options under the ESA in which to seek limits on their potential liabilities from otherwise lawful

4

activities, subject to applicable conditions. These could include an ESA section 4(d) limit or a section

5

10(a) permit as applicable, but any available options would be limited to certain types of activities and6

subject to conditions. Overall, because of the potential for additional restrictions on the recreational

7

fishery and some upland activities, there is the potential for some minor adverse effects to tourism,

8

small businesses and recreation under Alternative 3.

9

6.7

10

The analysis area for socioeconomics is broader than the NEP Area, and comprises Shasta and Siskiyou

11

Counties because local residents within these areas would have the greatest potential to be affected by

12

the alternatives.

Effects on Socioeconomics

13
14

Commercial fishing of salmon occurs off the United States West Coast in accordance with fishery

15

management plans that identify annual goals for the number of spawners of the major salmon stocks

16(i.e., “spawner escapement goals”), and allocation provisions of the harvest among different groups

17(e.g., commercial, tribal, etc.) (PFMC 2019). SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon are not

18

actively managed in the commercial fishery and the alternatives would have no adverse effect on

19commercial fisheries, because none of the alternatives would change the status of SR winter-run and20
21

CV spring-run Chinook salmon or applicable restrictions outside the NEP Area.

22

The three alternatives vary in their potential to result in restrictions on otherwise lawful activities in the23

analysis area. Under all three alternatives, the population trends in the largest cities, as well as local

24
25

communities, in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties would likely continue as described in subsection 5.9.

26

NMFS’s Proposed Action and the alternatives would have no direct or indirect effect on population

27

trends in the analysis area. Similarly, the economic bases in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties would

28

continue to be influenced by local, state, and national trends unrelated to the designations and29

authorization for release of NEPs in the NEP Area. Trends in wages, employment, and unemployment

30

would be expected to continue as described in subsection 5.9. Analyses in this subsection address the31potential socioeconomic effects of the alternatives related to the availability of opportunities for32

recreational fishing, tourism, small business and other recreational opportunities in the analysis area, as

33

well as the potential for substantial changes in regulatory costs.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

104

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences12

6.7.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, No
Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective Regulations

3

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-4

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-5

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, or adopt protective regulations. There would be no changes from6

current conditions and, therefore, no adverse effects to recreational opportunities in the NEP Area

7

would occur. Because these actions would not take place, there would be no potential for8socioeconomic effects. Tourism would be expected to continue as described in subsection 5.8, and9would also continue to contribute to small business or employment and wages in the analysis area as

10

under current conditions. The No-action Alternative would not result in any new regulatory costs for11

county residents, persons visiting the affected Counties for recreational fishing opportunities, and12

persons or organizations engaged in water management, timber harvest, grazing, or other similar

13

activities.

14
15
16

6.7.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations

17

In contrast to the No-action Alternative, under Alternative 2, NMFS would designate and authorize the18

release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon under ESA section 10(j), and19

adopt limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d). Within the NEP Area, the 4(d) rule20

protective regulations would provide an exception for take that occurs incidental to otherwise lawful

21

activities and is unintentional, not due to negligent conduct. Because of the substantial regulatory relief

22

provided by the NEP designations and this take exception, Alternative 2 would have no substantial

23

adverse effect on tourism and recreational activities within the NEP Area.

24
25

Alternative 2 would be expected to increase the recreational viewing opportunities of salmon in the26

NEP Area, with a possible concomitant increase in tourism and associated socioeconomic benefits

27

compared to the No-action Alternative. As described in the analysis of effects on tourism and28

recreation (subsection 5.8), opportunities to engage in recreational fishing would not be reduced, nor

29

would locations of fishing opportunities change by implementation of Alternative 2. NMFS anticipates30

a reintroduction would provide increased opportunities for employment related to construction,

31

installation and testing of the requisite facilities (e.g., juvenile salmonid collection facilities and32

acclimation ponds). Increased economic benefits for local communities within the NEP Area could be

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

105

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

realized by hiring local workers, providing housing and other accommodations for temporary workers

2with specialized expertise, as well as the day-to-day contribution of workers to the local economy from

3

purchasing necessities (e.g., automobile fuel and food). In the long-term, a reintroduction is anticipated4

to contribute to the local economy by increasing employment opportunities over the duration of the

5

program (employees would be needed to operate and maintain facilities and oversee day-to-day

6

operations). Although Alternative 2 would have no direct effect on environmental justice, Alternative 2

7does have the potential to provide both near-term and long-term positive economic benefits to Shasta

89and Siskiyou Counties.

10

Similar to existing conditions under the No-action Alternative, Agencies such as USFS and CalFire, as

11well as local agencies that fund, carry out, or permit actions that may affect the proposed experimental

12

populations in the NEP Area would not face substantially increased regulatory requirements under

13

Alternative 2. Similarly, Alternative 2 would not result in new regulatory costs for residents of Shasta

14

and Siskiyou Counties, recreational fishers, and persons or organizations engaged in water

15

management, timber harvest, grazing, or other similar types of activities. The ESA section 4(d) rule16

protective regulations under Alternative 2 would generally prohibit take of SR winter-run and CV

17

spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, but would provide an exception for take that is incidental

18

to an otherwise lawful activity and is unintentional, not due to negligent conduct. As described in the19

analysis of potential effects on Tourism and Recreation, opportunities to engage in recreational fishing

20
21

would not be reduced by implementation of Alternative 2.

22

Under Alternative 2, it is anticipated that new and replacement septic systems and leach fields in Shasta

23

and Siskiyou Counties would continue to be required to adhere to health department requirements,

24

setback requirements, building permits, inspections, and state and county approvals. Water quality

25

compliance regulations for on-site sewage disposal (i.e., septic systems) in proximity to streams and26
27

riparian areas in the NEP Area would not be expected to change, relative to the No-action Alternative.

28

Overall, Alternative 2 would be protective of Federal, state, local and private land use and land29

ownership interests in the NEP Area. Alternative 2 would minimize the potential for new or30

exacerbated expenses from increased regulatory compliance responsibilities associated with future

31

Federal, state, county, municipal, and private actions in the watershed, while facilitating reintroduction

32

of SR winter- run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon to the NEP Area. Although the actions

33

associated with Alternative 2 would not be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

106

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

socioeconomics, Alternative 2 does have the potential to result in both near-term and long-term

2

positive economic benefits to the NEP Area.

3
4

6.7.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for
Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations

5

As under Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, NMFS would designate and authorize the release of NEPs

6

of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in NEP Area and would likely increase the7number of adult fish available for recreational viewing in the NEP Area compared to the No-action

8
9

Alternative with a possible concomitant increase in tourism and associated socioeconomic benefits.

10

Alternative 3, similar to Alternative 2, would provide: (1) increased opportunities for employment

11

related to construction of the requisite facilities; and (2) increased economic benefits for local

12

communities and small businesses from hiring local workers, providing housing and other13

accommodations for temporary workers with specialized expertise, and the day-to-day contribution of14

workers to the local economy as a result of purchasing necessities such as automobile fuel, food, etc.

15Over the long-term, it is also anticipated that the NEPs would contribute to the local economy by16

increasing employment opportunities because new employees would be required in order to operate

1718

and maintain the physical facilities, and to oversee the day-to-day operation of the program.

19

Unlike Alternative 2, the current ESA section 4(d) protective regulations that apply to the CV spring-20

run Chinook salmon ESU downstream of21

reintroduced SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area. NMFS’ experience22

under the current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations (50 CFR 223.203) shows that NMFS

23

does authorize take associated with some otherwise lawful activities, but some activities may not meet24

one of the 10 categories of activities and some activities may be modified during the authorization

25

process to meet the applicable criteria under the current protective regulations. NMFS expects any such

26

modifications or restrictions placed on lawful land use, water use, and recreational activities in the NEP

27

Area under Alternative 3 would be similar to those that are in place outside the NEP Area downstream

28

of Shasta and Keswick Dams. Application of these restrictions could result in additional restrictions on

29
30

existing lawful land use, water use, and recreational activities in the NEP Area.

31

Additional restrictions on lawful land use, water use, and recreational activities as a result of

32

Alternative 3 would likely result in negative socioeconomic effects compared to the No-action

33

Alternative or Alternative 2. These negative socioeconomic effects could affect persons visiting the34

NEP Area for recreational fishing opportunities (and ancillary businesses associated with recreational
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

Shasta Dam would also be adopted to apply to

107

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

fishing), residents of Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, and persons or organizations engaged in water2
3

management, timber harvest, grazing, or other similar types of activities.

4

As previously discussed, fish passage conditions in the NEP Area upstream of Shasta Dam could

5

improve as a result of Alternative 3 if existing barriers to adult and juvenile passage (e.g., dams, poorly

6

designed or poorly functioning fishways, and road crossings) are required to come up to modern

78standards as a consequence of the new regulatory requirements and increased regulatory oversight.

9

Although improved fish passage conditions as a result of Alternative 3 would provide benefits to10

fisheries resources, regulatory restrictions would likely impose additional operational constraints,

11

construction-related/permitting responsibilities and financial obligations on local stakeholders in the

12

NEP Area. Consequently, although the extent of benefit associated with improved fish passage in the13

NEP Area as a result of Alternative 3 is unknown, this alternative would have the potential to result in

14

negative financial and socioeconomic effects to Federal, state, county and local management agencies,

15

private stakeholders, and local communities in the NEP Area, relative to the No-action Alternative and16

Alternative 2. For agricultural properties adjacent to streams in the NEP Area, water storage and17

withdrawals for irrigation may be reduced to help preserve water in streams. Timber harvest near18

streams may also be limited to ensure appropriate streamside shading, Large wood recruitment, and19
20

storm water retention, particularly in watersheds with degraded aquatic habitat.

21

Under Alternative 3, it is anticipated that existing health department requirements, setback

22
23

requirements, building permits, inspections, and state and county approvals would remain in place.

24

Under Alternative 3, Federal, non-Federal public, and private entities would have various regulatory

25

options under the ESA in which to seek limits on their potential liabilities from otherwise lawful

26

activities, subject to applicable conditions. These could include an ESA section 4(d) limit or a section

27

10(a) permit as applicable, but any available options would be limited to certain types of activities and28
29

subject to conditions.

30

Overall, Alternative 3 has the potential to result in both near-term and long-term positive economic

31

benefits to the NEP Area and the potential for adverse socioeconomic effects due to the additional

32

regulatory requirements.

33

6.8

34

Cultural resources include prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, historic structures, andEffects on Cultural and Historical Resources

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

108

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

traditional cultural properties (places that may or may not have human alterations, but are important to2

the cultural identity of a community or Native American tribe). The analysis area for cultural resources3

is the same as the NEP Area.

4
5

6.8.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, No
Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective Regulations

6

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-7

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-8

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, or adopt protective regulations. There would be no changes from9current conditions and, therefore, no effects to cultural and historical resources would occur. The

10

presence of salmon runs, which are of significant cultural importance to Native American tribes, would

11

remain absent from the NEP Area as they have been for more than 75 years.

12
13
14

6.8.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations

15

In contrast to the No-action Alternative, under Alternative 2, NMFS would designate NEPs of SR

16

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and authorize the release of NEPs of

17

SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area under ESA section 10(j), and adopt

18
19

limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d).

20Compared to the No-action Alternative, Alternative 2 would return salmon to the NEP Area, which

21

represents the return of a significant cultural resource to the upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers.

22

No prehistoric or historical archaeological sites, historical structures, or traditional cultural properties in23

the analysis area would be affected by the designations and authorization for release of an experimental

24

population and associated protective regulations.

25
26

6.8.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for
Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations

27

Under Alternative 3, NMFS would designate and authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and28

CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and apply the current 4(d) rule protective regulations

29

to the NEP Area. Under Alternative 3, a significant cultural resource (salmon runs) would be returned30

to the NEP Area. No prehistoric or historical archaeological sites, historical structures, or traditional

31

cultural properties in the analysis area would be affected by designation and authorization for release of32

experimental populations and associated protective regulations in the NEP Area.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

109

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

6.9

Environmental Justice2

NEPA requires Federal agencies to determine whether minority populations, low-income populations,

3or Indian tribes are present in the area affected by a Proposed Action, and if present, whether there may

4

be disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations,5low- income populations, or Indian tribes (CEQ 1997). The analysis area for environmental justice6
7

encompasses Shasta and Siskiyou Counties.

8

This subsection focuses on whether any potential additional restrictions on otherwise lawful activities

9(e.g., subsistence fishing), and any expected disproportionately high and adverse human health or10

environmental effects to low income and minority communities would occur in the action area.

1112

6.9.1 Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, No
Authorization for Release, and No Adoption of Protective Regulations

13

Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-14

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-15

run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, or adopt protective regulations. The extent to which dietary

16

habits of low-income or minority families and their economic condition dictate subsistence living (e.g.,

17

subsistence fishing, hunting, gathering or farming) in the NEP Area is unknown. Under the No-action

18

Alternative, there would be no changes from current conditions in terms of locations and opportunities

19

to engage in legal fishing and, therefore, no adverse effects to subsistence living in the NEP Area

20

would occur. Under the No-action Alternative, agencies that fund, carry out, or permit actions that may

21

affect the NEP Area would not face increased regulatory requirements, and there would be no change

22

to regulatory requirements affecting minority or low-income populations.

23
24
25

6.9.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations

26

In contrast to the No-action Alternative, under Alternative 2, NMFS would designate NEPs of SR

27

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, authorize the release of NEPs of SR

28

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area, and adopt limited protective

29

regulations under ESA section 4(d). The current salmon and steelhead ESA section 4(d) rule protective

30

regulations prohibit take of CV spring-run Chinook salmon downstream of Shasta and Keswick Dams

31

(subsection 1.2.4), subject to specific limits or exceptions, which do not specifically include an

32

exception for take that occurs incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Under Alternative 2, a separate

33

ESA section 4(d) rule would be adopted for the experimental populations in the NEP Area. This rule
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

110

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences1

would generally prohibit take of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area,2

but would provide an exception for take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and is3

unintentional, not due to negligent conduct. The ESA section 4(d) rule will minimize regulatory4

requirements in the NEP Area associated with reintroduction of SR winter-run and CV spring-run

5

Chinook salmon. As previously discussed in subsection 5.8, locations and opportunities to engage in

6legal fishing would not be reduced under Alternative 2. NMFS anticipates current restrictions in

7
8

California’s Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations would remain in effect.

9

Although the extent to which subsistence living (e.g., subsistence fishing, hunting, gathering or

10

farming) occurs within the NEP Area is unknown, Alternative 2 would not diminish the amount of fish,

11

vegetation and/or wildlife available in the watershed that are consumed by minority populations, low-

12

income populations, or Indian tribes in the area. It is also unlikely that Alternative 2 would change the13

rate and/or pattern of subsistence consumption by minority populations, low-income populations, and14
15

Indian tribes as compared to rates and patterns of consumption of the general population.

16

NMFS anticipates a reintroduction would provide increased opportunities for employment related to17

construction, installation and testing of the requisite facilities (e.g., juvenile salmonid collection

18

facilities and acclimation ponds). Increased economic benefits for local communities within the NEP

19

Area could be realized by hiring local workers, providing housing and other accommodations for20

temporary workers with specialized expertise, as well as the day-to-day contribution of workers to the21

local economy from purchasing necessities (e.g., automobile fuel and food). In the long-term, a22

reintroduction is anticipated to contribute to the local economy by increasing employment opportunities

23

over the duration of the program (employees would be needed to operate and maintain facilities and24

oversee day-to-day operations). Although Alternative 2 would have no direct effect on environmental

25

justice, Alternative 2 does have the potential to provide both near-term and long-term positive

26
27

economic benefits to Shasta and Siskiyou Counties.

28

Under Alternative 2, agencies that fund, carry out, or permit actions in the NEP Area would not face29

substantially increased regulatory requirements compared to the No-action Alternative. Therefore, there

30

would not be increased regulatory requirements disproportionately affecting minority or low-income

31

populations. Overall, Alternative 2 would be protective of Federal, state, local and private land use and32

land ownership interests in the NEP Area, and would minimize the potential for disproportionate

33

effects to minority or low-income populations.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

111

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

12

6.9.3 Alternative 3 – Designation of a Nonessential Experimental Population, Authorization for
Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations

3

Under Alternative 3, NMFS would designate and authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run and4

CV spring-run Chinook salmon in NEP Area. Unlike Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, NMFS would

5

adopt the current ESA section 4(d) protective regulations that apply to the CV spring-run Chinook

6

salmon ESU downstream of Shasta and Keswick Dams to apply to reintroduced SR winter-run and CV

7

spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area. NMFS’ experience under the current ESA section 4(d)8rule protective regulations (50 CFR 223.203) shows that NMFS does authorize take associated with9

some otherwise lawful activities, but some activities may not meet one of the 10 categories of activities

10

and some activities may be modified during the authorization process to meet the applicable criteria

11

under the current protective regulations. NMFS expects any such modifications or restrictions placed

12

on lawful land use, water use, and recreational activities in the NEP Area under Alternative 3 would be

13
14

similar to those that are in place outside the NEP Area downstream of Shasta and Keswick Dams.

15

Application of these restrictions could result in additional restrictions on existing lawful land use, water

16
17

use, and recreational activities in the NEP Area.

18

Potential effects for Alternative 3 associated with locations and opportunities to engage in legal fishing,19

as well as daily bag limits, would be the same as those described above for Alternative 2. Although the20extent to which subsistence living (e.g., subsistence fishing, hunting, gathering or farming) occurs

21

within the NEP Area is unknown, Alternative 3 would not diminish the amount of fish, vegetation

22

and/or wildlife available in the watershed that are depended upon and consumed by minority

23

populations, low- income populations, or Indian tribes that may be present in the area. It is also

24

unlikely that Alternative 3 would change the rate and/or pattern of subsistence consumption by25

minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian tribes as compared to rates and patterns of

26
27

consumption of the general population.

28

Anticipated positive local economic benefits associated with near-term construction activities and long-29

term operation and maintenance of a future reintroduction program under Alternative 3 would be the30same as those previously described for Alternative 2. Compared to the No-action Alternative and31

Alternative 2, Alternative 3 has the potential for an increase in restrictions on lawful land use, water32

use, and recreational activities in the NEP Area. These additional restrictions could affect persons

33

visiting the NEP Area, residents of Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, and persons or organizations

34

engaged in water management, timber harvest, grazing, or other similar activities.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

112

July 18, 2023

Section 6 – Environmental Consequences

1
2

Under Alternative 3, Federal, non-Federal public, and private entities would have various regulatory3

options under the ESA in which to seek limits on their potential liabilities from otherwise lawful

4

activities. These could include an ESA section 4(d) limit or an ESA section 10(a) permit as applicable,

5

but any available options would be limited to certain types of activities and subject to conditions.

6

Additional restrictions under Alternative 3 could disproportionately affect minority or low-income

7

populations relative to others. The disproportionate effects would be due to the relative effect on these8
9
10

populations of additional financial costs necessary to comply with additional regulatory requirements.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

113

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects

1

7.0

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

2

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR

31508.7), a cumulative impact or effect is the impact on the environment that results from the4

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future5

actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions.

6

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place

7

over a period of time.

8
9This section considers the cumulative effects of the two action alternatives when added to the aggregate

10

effects of past actions, existing conditions, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions.

11

Only resources potentially affected by the action alternatives are analyzed for cumulative effects. Past,

12

ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future actions likely contribute to adverse effects on aquatic

13

habitat and other environmental conditions for fish and wildlife species in the analysis area. Some of14

these reasonably foreseeable future actions/occurrences include, but are not limited to, dam operations,15

water diversions, recreation, forestry, livestock grazing, and climate change. Adverse cumulative16

effects of NMFS’s Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative would be minor, if even measurable, on all

17

resources.

18

7.1

19

In Section 6, Environmental Consequences, the resources affected by the Proposed Action are

20

identified and are carried forward for the cumulative effects analysis. Those resources are as follows:21

Affected Resources•

Fisheries Resources22oESA-listed fish species

23oNon-ESA-listed fish species

24oNon-native fish species

25oFish diseases

26•

Aquatic Habitat

27

oFish passage

28

oHabitat availability and quality

29•

Wildlife Species

30oESA-listed and special status wildlife species

31oNon-ESA-listed wildlife species

32•

Land Use and Ownership

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

114

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects

1•

Tourism and Recreation2•

Socioeconomics

3•

Cultural and Historical Resources

4
5•

Environmental Justice6

7.2

Geographic Boundaries

7

The analysis areas for cumulative effects vary by resource, depending on the geographic area of the8

direct and indirect effects analyzed. For physical and biological resources (except for Southern

9

Resident killer whales), as well as for land use and ownership, the cumulative effects analysis area

10

consists of the NEP Area. For cultural resources, the cumulative effects analysis area consists of the11

NEP Area and the Sacramento River Watershed below Keswick Dam within the range of Chinook

12

salmon. For social resources (i.e., tourism and recreation, socioeconomics and environmental justice),13

the cumulative effects analysis area consists of Siskiyou and Shasta Counties.

14
15

7.3

Temporal Boundaries

16

Designation and authorization for release of the proposed NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run

17

Chinook salmon in the NEP Area and applicability of protective regulations under ESA section 4(d) in18

the NEP Area (Alternatives 2 and 3) are anticipated to remain in effect until the listed ESUs are

19

delisted.

20
21

The anticipated time period for recovery and delisting are unknown, but will likely take at least 25

22

years or longer.

23
24

7.4

25

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that might contribute to cumulative effects in26

the analysis area are discussed below. Historical and ongoing factors in the NEP Area include blockage

27

of upstream anadromous fish passage at Keswick and Shasta Dams and upstream water diversions and28

storage, which reduce upstream habitat due to decreased flow, warmer water temperatures, capture and29

retention of sediment and large wood. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include FERC’s issuance30of new licenses to upstream hydroelectric projects and increased consumptive water diversions.

Effects of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Other than the
Proposed Action

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

115

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects1

7.4.1 McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project2

The FERC is currently in the relicensing process for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project (P-2106).

3

FERC’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (2011) evaluated increased minimum instream

4

flows in the McCloud River and concurred with NMFS that reintroduction was reasonably foreseeable

5in the McCloud River basin. Once FERC issues a new license to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), it is6

anticipated that existing baseflow releases from McCloud Dam would likely increase and an aquatic

7

biological monitoring plan would be implemented as a condition of the new license. While minimum

8

streamflows are less than the historical flows that existed in the McCloud River before construction of

9

McCloud Dam, the anticipated increase in baseflow releases from the dam would benefit reintroduced

10

SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon throughout the lower mainstem of the McCloud

11

River once the license is issued.

12

7.4.2 Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation

13

In 2015, Reclamation conducted a feasibility study that included preparation of a decision document

14and EIS for the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation (Reclamation 2015a, 2015b). Studies to

15

date have focused on identifying water resources problems and needs, developing a set of planning16

objectives, and formulating alternatives. The alternative plans include enlarging Shasta Dam to increase17

anadromous fish survival and water supply reliability in the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam.

18

On July 29, 2015, Reclamation transmitted to Congress the EIS and Final Feasibility Report

19(Reclamation 2015a, 2015b).

20
21

If Shasta Dam is raised, then the upper limit of the reservoir inundation zone would change on both the22upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers and could affect the design of any future fish collection

23

facilities associated with the reintroduction as a result of changes in lake elevations. Less than 1 mile of24

the lower reach of each river would be inundated at full pool with the maximum raise analyzed (an2518.5-foot dam raise). This area is not suitable Chinook salmon spawning habitat (Reclamation 2014b)

26

and therefore spawning habitat availability would not be affected; however, the quantity of rearing

27

habitat in lower reaches would be slightly less than under existing lake levels.

28

7.4.3 Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans

29

The NEP designations would potentially initiate increased production of SR winter-run Chinook30

salmon from the Livingston Stone NFH and FRH for CV spring-run Chinook salmon. In the31

foreseeable future, additional conservation hatchery production would require authorization under the32

ESA and completion of HGMPs. An HGMP provides detailed descriptions of hatchery programs that
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

116

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects

1

are submitted to NMFS for authorization under the ESA and are the basis for NMFS’ biological2evaluations under ESA sections 7 and 10, or Limit 5 of the current January 9, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 1116)

3

section 4(d) rule (subsection 1.2.4, ESA Section 4(d) Regulations).

4
5

Production of SR winter-run Chinook salmon for the reintroduction program is included in the

6

Livingston Stone NFH HGMP (subsection 1.2.6.6, SR Winter-run Chinook Salmon HGMP). Because

7of the best management practices identified in the HGMP for the Livingston Stone NFH, which include

8

methods and monitoring protocols to protect the genetic integrity of the SR winter-run Chinook salmon

9

ESU, there would be no cumulative adverse impacts from the NEP designations or the reintroduction.

10

NMFS anticipates that there would be a need for future authorization for the collection of CV spring-11

run Chinook salmon, and subsequent issuance of a 10(a)(1)(A) permit, and a future analysis under the12

ESA and NEPA when NMFS receives a permit application. The NEPs, and other activities, including

13

future section 10(a)(1)(A) permits, would work in concert with other ongoing recovery and14

reintroduction efforts for SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon and would enhance

15

NMFS’ flexibility and discretion in managing listed SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon

16

within the Central Valley.

17

7.4.4 Federal, State, and Local Laws and Regulations

18

Many of the potential adverse effects from other actions in the analysis area (some identified above)

19

would be avoided or offset through the implementation of federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

20

Projects in or near water with the greatest potential to affect fish and fish-dependent resources are21

subject to oversight through several regulatory processes. Examples of reviews that would limit the22potential for adverse effects on physical and biological resources include the following:

23
24

•

NEPA and CEQA reviews of agency actions with the potential to significantly affect thequality of the environment.

25
26

•

CWA section 404 permits for excavating, clearing land, or discharging dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States, including wetlands.

27•

Implementation of HGMPs for hatcheries determined to be necessary for reintroduction efforts.

28•

FERC relicensing every 30-50 years.

29
30

•

Approvals for projects that use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of waters of
the State.

31
32
33
34

•

Local land use permits for activities in or near locally designated critical areas (e.g., wetlands,
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and frequently flooded areas) or in protective
buffer zones.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

117

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects

1

7.4.5 Climate Change

2

Climate is a major driver of geographic distribution and abundance of salmon and steelhead (NMFS

3

2016a). Over 60 percent of California’s anadromous salmonids are vulnerable to climate change, and4

future climate change will affect NMFS’s ability to influence their recovery in most or all of their5watersheds (Moyle et al. 2008; Moyle et al. 2013). California’s anadromous salmonids are particularly

6vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change (Crozier et al. 2019).

7

7.4.5.1

8Impacts from a changing climate are evident in California (Barnett et al. 2008; Bonfils et al. 2008), and9these impacts have the potential to significantly alter aquatic habitats over the upcoming decades. For

10example, the San Francisco Bay Area’s average annual maximum temperature has increased by 1.7° F

11from 1950-2005, and sea level in the Bay Area has risen about 8 inches in the last 100 years (Ackerly

12

et al. 2019). Temperatures over the Sierra Nevada have increased during the last 100 years, resulting in

13

less snowfall (and more rainfall) and an earlier snowmelt (Moser et al. 2009). Nighttime temperatures

14

are rising across California and at a higher rate than daytime temperatures (DWR and Reclamation

152016).

16

7.4.5.2

17

Since 2006, the State of California has undertaken four comprehensive assessments designed to assess18

the impacts and risks from climate change. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment (Sievanen

19

et al. 2018) included over 44 technical peer-reviewed reports examining specific aspects of climate

20

change in California, including projections of impacts, analysis of vulnerabilities and adaptation for21

various sectors (Table 11). Trends in California will likely include increases in average air

22

temperatures, rising sea levels, changes in precipitation patterns (including storm intensity and timing

23of runoff), changes in freshwater supply and management of those supplies, and changes in the24frequency and severity of extreme events such as heat waves, droughts, and catastrophic fires (Hanak et

25

al. 2011; Mastrandrea and Luers 2012).

Recent Trends

Projections to 2100

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

118

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects

1
2

Table 11. Current Understanding of Historical and Expected Climate Impacts in California (modified from
Sievanen et al. 2018).

Temperature

Warming (last 100+ years)

FutureDirection of
ChangeWarming

Sea Levels

Rising (last 100+ years)

RisingVery HighSnowpack

Declining (last 60+ years)

Declining

Very HighAnnual Precipitation
Intensity of Heavy
Precipitation Events

No significant trends (last 100+ years)

UnknownLow

No significant trends (last 100 years)

Increasing

Medium-High

Frequency of Drought

No significant trends (last 100 years)

Increasing

Medium-High

Climate Impact

3

Historical Trends

Confidence
for Future
ChangeVery High

4

Anadromous Salmonid Considerations

5

Because salmon and steelhead depend upon freshwater streams, estuaries and oceans during different

6stages of their life history, NMFS (2014) recovery plan reports that these species are likely to be7

adversely affected by the climate related-impacts listed below.

8•More frequent intense winter storms, high stream flow events, and floods.

9
10

•

Earlier snowmelt, with higher peak flows in winter, less spring runoff, and much lower
summer flows.

11•

Considerably warmer stream, river and ocean water temperatures during the summer.

12
13

•

Greater inter-annual precipitation variability, more frequent wet and drought years, andextended droughts.

14•

Years with weaker fall storms, and delays in the onset of high stream flows.

15
16
17

•

More frequent wildfires leading to increased erosion and sedimentation into stream and rivers.

NMFS anticipates the above changes will affect freshwater streams and estuaries in California used by

18

Chinook salmon. These climate-related effects occur across different life history stages, and are

19

typically cumulative, which could result in reduced populations (Williams et al. 2016). Information

20

provided below is intended to characterize the potential extent of future climate-related conditions that21

may be experienced by anadromous salmonids in the NEP Area and downstream.

22

Freshwater Streams

23

Freshwater streams may experience increased frequencies of floods, droughts, lower summer flows and24higher water temperatures (Luers et al. 2006; Lindley et al. 2007; Schneider 2007; Osgood 2008), as

25

described below.

26

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

119

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects

1

Precipitation

2

In the future, at higher elevations in California, precipitation is likely to fall as rain rather than snow

3

(Safeeq et al. 2015), reducing overall snowpack and the critical snowmelt that provides cold water

4

year- round to California’s salmonid species (Moyle et al. 2017). As precipitation patterns change and5

warmer stream temperatures become more common, it will be more difficult to maintain cold-water6

releases from dams during the summer and fall months to sustain Central Valley Chinook salmon and7steelhead populations on the valley floor. Central Valley watersheds are fed predominantly by

8snowmelt runoff from the southern Cascade and Sierra Nevada Mountains, which has been historically9highest during the late spring and early summer. High flows allow CV spring-run Chinook salmon to10reach their summer, high elevation, holding areas, while the lower flow extending from the summer

11

into early fall is cool enough for spawning (NMFS 2014). However, recent trends toward an earlier

12

seasonal runoff and lower flow in spring and summer have reduced the potential for survival in these13

watersheds, and will make the migration of adults to their spawning streams more difficult.

14

Atmospheric rivers influence flooding events, and studies (Guan et al. 2016; Crozier 2016) suggest that15

intense atmospheric rivers will occur more frequently as mean temperatures rise, with maximum

16

change affecting northern California (Gao et al. 2015; Payne and Magnusdottir 2015; Radic et al. 2015;17

Warner et al. 2015). Finally, increases in rainfall during the winter have the potential to increase the18loss of salmonid redds via streambed scour from more frequent, high instream flows.

19

Droughts

20

Natural climate variations such as droughts can dramatically affect salmon habitat. Based on future21

climate projections, an increased occurrence of drought may dramatically reduce total quantity and22

quality of freshwater habitat. Prolonged drought due to lower precipitation shifts in snowmelt runoff,23

and greater climate extremes could render most existing CV spring-run Chinook salmon habitat

24

unusable, either through temperature increases or lack of adequate flows (NMFS 2014), which could

25

further stress phenotypic diversity of CV spring-run Chinook salmon (Cordoleani et al. 2021).

26

Climate-related Effects in the Cumulative Effects

27

Climate change is likely to reduce the quantity, and impair the quality and accessibility, of suitable

28

habitat for many species, exacerbating the adverse effects of other reasonably foreseeable future29

actions. As described above, anticipated impacts of climate change include increased water30

temperatures, changes in hydrological processes, and accelerated loss of forest habitat because of forest

31

fires and insect outbreaks, all with concomitant changes in habitat-forming processes (Mantua et al.

32

2009; Littell et al. 2016). With reductions in snowmelt runoff and increased contributions by rainfall,
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

120

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects

1

peak flows may come earlier, which could affect species such as CV spring‐run Chinook salmon that2

have evolved their life history based on predictable runoff patterns (Williams 2006).

3
4

Reduction in snowpack owing to climate change will increase water temperatures. Increased water5

temperatures will reduce reproductive success, particularly at elevations lower than those found in the

6

NEP Area. A recent analysis, modeling changes to average water temperatures in August under two

7

climate change scenarios, predicts an increase of approximately 1° C by 2080 (USFS 2017) in the

8

NYR. This change could reduce the overall quantity of habitat for CV spring-run Chinook salmon by

9

approximately four mainstem miles in the NYR. YSF (2013) evaluated available habitat in the NYR

10and determined that, depending on water year, between 7.6 and 33.7 miles of the NYR could maintain11

suitable holding and summer rearing habitat. If reintroduction occurs in the NYR, a loss of 4 miles,

12

while significant, would still allow, depending on water year, between 3.6 and 29.7 additional miles of

13

habitat than is currently available downstream of

14

spatially distributed across a greater area making the ESU more resilient to stochastic events.

Shasta Dam. Furthermore, the fish would be

15
16

NMFS expects the action alternatives’ potential for greenhouse gas emission would be minimal.

17

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions associated with implementation of the reintroduction are

18

anticipated to occur if the reintroduction program uses trap and haul methods. Trap and haul methods

19

would be limited to vehicle trips for transporting fish and installing collector equipment. Impacts would

20

be extremely small in the local or global context.

21
22

7.5

23

For this analysis, the focus is on the contribution of the No-action Alternative or an action alternative to24

cumulative effects considering other past, present, and future actions that occurred, are occurring, or

25

are expected to occur in the analysis area. Section 5, Affected Environment, describes existing26

conditions and reflects environmental effects from past and existing conditions for eight resource areas.

27

Section 6, Environmental Consequences, evaluates the direct and indirect effects of the No-action

28

Alternative, the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative (i.e., Alternative 2) and Alternative 3 on these29

resources. This section considers the cumulative effects of the alternatives in the context of past30

actions, present conditions, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions.

Incremental Impacts When Added to Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable
Future Actions

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

121

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects1

7.5.1 Fisheries Resources2

In contrast to the No-action Alternative, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are anticipated to improve the3overall viability of the SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESUs. Alternative 2 and4

Alternative 3 would be consistent with NMFS’s (2014) final recovery plan for SR winter-run and CV

5

spring-run Chinook salmon. Reintroduction would aid in recovery of the ESUs by increasing

6

abundance and productivity, improving spatial structure and diversity, and reducing the risk of7

extinction to the ESUs as a whole. Designation and authorization for release of NEPs in the NEP Area

8

under ESA section 10(j) as part of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would enhance NMFS’s flexibility

9and discretion in conserving SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon.

1011

The potentially adverse cumulative effects to SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon and12other fisheries resources from ongoing actions in the area, such as some water and land management

13

practices, are anticipated to continue under Alternative 2. Additionally, climate change projections

14

indicate continued pressures on fish habitat from warming trends would exist into the future. Under run

15

Alternative 2, overall habitat conditions for SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon and16other fisheries resources in the NEP Area are anticipated to remain suitable, even in consideration of all

17

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Overall, adverse cumulative effects to fishery18

resources are expected to be negligible under Alternative 2 in consideration of all past, present and19

reasonably foreseeable future actions.

20
21

Under Alternative 3, reintroduction of ESA-listed species to an area where they do not currently occur

22

would add to regulatory requirements compared to Alternative 2. Increased regulatory oversight for23

ongoing actions in the area, such as dam operations and some land management practices, could lead to24

improvements to instream conditions for successful holding, spawning, and rearing over time. Climate

25

change projections under Alternative 3 would be similar to those under Alternative 2, and indicate

26

continued pressures on fish habitat from warming trends would exist into the future. Overall, no27

adverse cumulative effects to fisheries resources are expected under the action alternatives in28

consideration of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

29

7.5.2 Aquatic Habitat30

7.5.2.1

31

As discussed in subsection 5.4.3, current conditions in the NEP Area are suitable for SR winter-run and32

CV spring-run Chinook salmon, due in large part to the lack of water impoundments and water

Habitat Availability and Quality

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

122

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects

1

diversions. Under the No-action Alternative, NMFS would not designate and authorize the release of2experimental populations in the NEP Area. Therefore, the No-action Alternative would not affect3

habitat availability in the NEP Area. Alternative 2 would have no direct effect on anadromous salmonid4

habitat availability but would have indirect effects. Increased regulatory requirements under Alternative

5

3 could lead to additional efforts by land and water managers to minimize the adverse effects of their

6

actions through avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures focused on improving habitat

7

availability and quality for listed Sr winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon. The extent of these8benefits is unknown, but no adverse cumulative effects to anadromous salmonid habitat availability and9quality are anticipated under Alternative 3. Therefore, in consideration of all past, present and10reasonably foreseeable future actions, no adverse cumulative effects to anadromous salmonid habitat

11

availability and quality are expected to occur under the action alternatives.

12

7.5.2.2

13

As a result of ongoing and future FERC relicensing efforts and implementation of future CWA 303(d)14

TMDL action plans for water temperature, NMFS anticipates future effects to water quality and15

availability will either remain substantially the same as current conditions or would improve as a result

16

of implementing new flow regimes as a result of FERC relicensing and implementation of TMDL

17

action plans. Improved flow regimes and cooler water temperatures are expected to improve overall

18

conditions for reintroduced SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area.

Water Resources

19
20

Instream flow conditions in the NEP Area under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would not change, and21

would have no effect on CWA 303(d) listings of tributaries and reservoirs for water quality

22

impairments. Compared to the No-action Alternative, Alternative 2 would not result in adverse effects

23

to water quantity in the NEP Area and may result in beneficial effects to the aquatic ecosystem due to24

the addition of marine derived nutrients. The increased regulatory requirements associated with

25

Alternative 3 could beneficially affect water quality and water resource management in the future.

26

Adverse cumulative effects to water quality are expected to be negligible under the action alternatives

27

in consideration of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

28

7.5.2.3

29

Potentially adverse cumulative effects on wildlife species or their habitat within the analysis area30

resulting from implementation of Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 are unlikely for any of the wildlife

31

species addressed in subsection 6.4. Under both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, climate change

Wildlife Resources

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

123

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects

1

projections indicate continued pressures on terrestrial and aquatic habitats from warming trends that2

would likely exist into the future, which could increase stressors to certain wildlife species in the3analysis area. Overall, no adverse cumulative effects to wildlife resources are expected under the action

4

alternatives, in consideration of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

57.5.2.4

6

Substantial adverse effects on land use and ownership (subsection 6.5) are not anticipated under

7

Alternative 2. Within the NEP Area, NMFS’ ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations would

8

include an exception to take prohibitions for take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities and9unintentional, not due to negligent conduct. This take exception, as well as the limited applicability of10

ESA section 7 to NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEP Area would

11

have little to no effect on land uses such as agriculture, forestry, extractive/industrial activities,

12commercial/research and development, parks, public lands, military installations or urban/local

13

communities. Because of the regulatory relief provided by NEP designations and the exception to the

14

proposed ESA section 4(d) protective regulations, NMFS also does not expect Alternative 2 to have15

any substantial adverse cumulative effect on recreational, agricultural, or development activities within16

the NEP Area in consideration of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Land Use and Ownership17
18

Under Alternative 3, potentially adverse cumulative effects may occur to land use and ownership

19(subsection 6.5) in consideration of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions as a20

result of adoption of the more restrictive current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations for the21

NEP Area under Alternative 3. For agencies with management authority for public lands and private

22

landowners, Alternative 3 may restrict the types or extent of actions those management agencies and23

private landowners would implement on their lands because of increased regulatory obligations

24

necessary to comply with the more restrictive ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations under

25

Alternative 3.

26

7.5.2.5

27

No substantial adverse effects on tourism and recreation (subsection 6.6) are anticipated under

28

Alternative 2. Within the NEP Area, NMFS’s ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations would

29

provide an exception to take prohibitions for take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities and30

unintentional, not due to negligent conduct. Because of the regulatory relief provided by the NEP

31

designations and this take exception, Alternative 2 would have little to no effect on tourism andTourism and Recreation

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

124

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects

1

recreational activities within the NEP Area or outside the NEP Area portions of Shasta and Siskiyou

2Counties. Alternative 2 is expected to result in opportunities for future recreational viewing of salmon.

3

Under Alternative 2, people visiting Shasta and Siskiyou Counties would be anticipated to support

4

local community businesses by partaking in food and beverage services, accommodations, retail sales,

5

arts, entertainment and recreation, et cetera. Opportunities to engage in recreational fishing would not

6

be reduced under Alternative 2. Overall, no adverse cumulative effects to tourism and recreation

7

resources are expected under Alternative 2 in consideration of all past, present and reasonably

8

foreseeable future actions.

910

Alternative 3, as with Alternative 2, would be expected to result in opportunities to view adult Chinook

11

salmon returning to historical holding and spawning areas over the long-term. However, possible

12

adverse effects on tourism and recreation (subsection 6.6) may occur. Potential incidental take of SR

13

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon would be subject to greater regulatory restrictions than

14

under Alternative 2. NMFS’ experience under the current ESA section 4(d) rule protective regulations

15(50 CFR 223.203) shows that NMFS does authorize take associated with some otherwise lawful

16

activities, but some activities may not meet one of the 10 categories of activities and some activities

17

may be modified during the authorization process to meet the applicable criteria under the current

18

protective regulations.

19
20

NMFS expects that any such modifications or restrictions placed on tourism or recreational activities in21

the NEP Area under Alternative 3 would be similar to those that are in place outside the NEP Area

22

downstream of Shasta and Keswick Dams. One possible exception is the potential to “harass” adult SR

23

winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon by excessive proximity of tourist viewing of holding

24

adults. Overall, minor adverse cumulative effects to tourism and recreational activities are expected25

under Alternative 3 in consideration of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

26

7.5.2.6

27

Alternative 2 has the potential to bring positive socioeconomic benefits to the NEP Area, and adverse

28

cumulative effects to socioeconomics are not expected to occur under Alternative 2 in consideration of29

all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Alternative 2 would provide increased

30

opportunities for employment related to construction of any requisite facilities (e.g. juvenile collectors)

31

for several years. Increased economic benefits for local communities within the NEP Area could be

32

realized by hiring local workers, providing housing and other accommodations for temporary workers

33with specialized expertise, as well as the day-to-day contribution of workers to the local economy. In

Socioeconomics

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

125

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects

1

the long-term, when a reintroduction program is implemented, it is anticipated the program would

2

contribute to the local economy by increasing employment opportunities. Overall, Alternative 2 would

3

be protective of Federal, state, local and private land use and land ownership interests in the NEP Area.

4

Alternative 2 would minimize potential for new or higher expenses from increased regulatory

5compliance responsibilities associated with future Federal, state, county, and municipal actions in the6watershed.

7
8

When a future reintroduction program is implemented, Alternative 3 has the potential to bring similar

9

economic benefits to the NEP Area as those that are described in the paragraph above for Alternative 2.

10

By contrast, however, potentially adverse socioeconomic effects also may occur under Alternative 3.

11

Relative to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 has the potential for an increase in restrictions to lawful land

12

use, water use, and recreational activities in the analysis area. Overall, compliance with new regulatory

13

requirements associated with Alternative 3 would likely result in negative cumulative effects to

14socioeconomics compared to effects that would occur with the No-action Alternative or Alternative 2

15

in consideration of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Negative socioeconomic

16

effects would result from regulatory requirements that could affect persons visiting the action area for17

recreational fishing opportunities (and ancillary businesses associated with recreational fishing),

18

residents of Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, and persons or organizations engaged in water management,

19timber harvest, grazing, or other similar types of activities.

20

7.5.2.7

21

No prehistoric or historical archaeological sites, historical structures, or traditional cultural properties in22

the analysis area would be affected by designation and authorization for release of experimental

23

populations and associated protective regulations in the NEP Area under the action alternatives.

24

Overall, no adverse cumulative effects on cultural and historical resources are expected under

25

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 in consideration of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future26

actions.

27

7.5.2.8

28

Potentially adverse effects on environmental justice (subsection 6.9) are not anticipated under

29

Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would be protective of Federal, state, local and private land use and land30

ownership interests in the NEP Area, and would minimize the potential for disproportionate effects to

31

minority or low-income populations, while at the same time facilitating the ability to reintroduce SR

Cultural and Historical Resources

Environmental Justice

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

126

July 18, 2023

Section 7 – Cumulative Effects

1

and CV spring- run Chinook salmon into the NEP Area. Under Alternative 3, additional restrictions

2

could disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations relative to others. The

3

disproportionate effects would be due to the relative effect on these populations of additional financial

4

costs necessary to comply with additional regulatory requirements. Overall, potentially adverse

5

cumulative effects to environmental justice are not expected to occur under Alternative 2 but could

6

occur under Alternative 3 in consideration of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

127

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

8.0

REFERENCES

Ackerly, D., A. Jones, M. Stacey, B. Riordan. 2018. San Francisco Bay Area Summary Report.
California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. University of California, Berkeley. Publication
number: CCCA4-SUM-2018-005.
Allee, B. A. 1981. The role of interspecific competition in the distribution of salmonids in streams.
Pages 111–122 in E. L. Brannon and E. O. Salo, editors. Proceedings of the salmon and trout migratory
behavior symposium. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, H.G. Hidalgo, C. Bonfils, B.D. Santer, T. Das; G. Bala, A.W. Wood, T.
Nozawa, A.A. Mirin, D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2008. Human-Induced Changes in the
Hydrology of the Western United States. United States Geological Survey. Published Research. 211.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/211
Beals, R.L. 1933. Ethnology of the Nisenan. University of California Press.
Beamesderfer, R.C. and B.E. Rieman. 1991. Abundance and distribution of northern squawfish,
walleyes, and smallmouth bass in John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 4:439447.
Bilby, R. E., B. R. Fransen, P. A. Bison, and J. K. Walter. 1998. Response of juvenile coho salmon(Onchorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss) to the addition of salmon carcasses totwo streams in southwestern Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. Volume
55, pages 1909 to 1918.
Bilby, R. E., T. Bennett, and P. Roni. 2002. Utilization of nitrogen from spawning salmon by juvenile
Chinook salmon and steelhead from two tributaries of the Columbia River. Report to Bonneville Power
Administration by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle,
Washington.
Bonfils C, B.D., Santer., D.W. Pierce., H.G. Hidalgo, G. Bala, T. Das, T.P. Barnett, D.R. Cayan , C.
Doutriaux, A.W. Wood, A. Mirin., and T. Nozawa. (2008). Detection and attribution of temperaturechanges in the mountainous western United States. J Clim. 21:6404–6424.
Brock, Bill, USFS, email communication to Jon Ambrose, November 7, 2016, with attachment of listof U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Animal Species of the Shasta Trinity National Forest dated June 30,
2013.
Brown, M. R. and J. M. Newton. 2002. Monitoring Adult Chinook Salmon, Rainbow Trout, andSteelhead in Battle Creek, California, from March through October 2001. (USFWS Report.) U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office, Red Bluff, California.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2020. Personal Income, located athttps://www.bea.gov/system/files/2017-12/lapi1117.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2022.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2020. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages,
http://www.bls.gov/cew/datatoc.htm#NAICS_BASED. Accessed online December 20, 2022.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

128

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1998. A Status Review of the spring-run Chinook
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Sacramento River Drainage. Candidate Species Status
Report 98-01, in California Department of Fish and Game, editor, Sacramento, CA.
CDFG. 2000. Fishery Management Plan for the Upper Sacramento River (Box Canyon Dam to Lake
Shasta) 2000-2005, Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, California. California Department of Fish andGame, Northern California, North Coast Region. 52 pages.
CDFG. 2004. Sacramento River Spring-run Chinook Salmon 2002-2003 Biennial Report. Habitat
Conservation Division, and Native Anadromous Fish and Watershed Branch. California Department ofFish and Game, editor. Sacramento, CA. 35 pages.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. Species Explorer Details for Kokanee
Salmon.https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/taxaquery/SpeciesDetail.aspx?taxonid=23644&S. Accessed online
February 3, 2020.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016a. California Fish and Game Commission
Designated Wild Trout Waters, located athttps://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=14563&inline. Accessed 4/5/2016.
CDFW. 2016b. Fishing for Brown Trout (non-native), located athttps://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Inland/Brown-Trout#35703374-distribution/. Accessed 6/15/2016.
CDFW. 2016c. Species Summary Report. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Database
Version: 9.0. June 20, 2016.
CDFW. 2016d. CWHR Life History Accounts and Range Maps, common loon, located athttps://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx. Accessed June 20, 2016.
CDFW. 2016e. Gray wolf, located at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/mammals/gray-wolf.
Accessed May 22, 2016.
CDFW. 2016f. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, northern river otter, Lutra
canadensis. Located at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2603&inline=1.
Accessed June 20, 2016.
CDFW. 2016g. Battle Creek Winter-run Chinook Salmon Reintroduction Plan. Report prepared by ICF
International, 615 SW Alder, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon. August. 98 pages.
CDFW. 2017. Fishing for Brook Trout (non-native), located athttps://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Inland/Brook-Trout#35600374-distribution. Accessed 12/7/2017.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2017. Species Summary Report. California
Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Database Version: 9.0. Accessed online June 14, 2017.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. California Freshwater Sport Fishing
Regulations. 2020 – 2021. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Regulations. Accessed online November 24,
2020.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

129

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). State Water Resources Control Board. Located at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml. Accessed July 12,2016.
California Environment Protection Agency (CEPA). 2017. Final 2014 and 2016 Integrated Report(CWA Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). October 3.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/category5_report.shtml. Accessed online November 27, 2020.
California Fish Website. 2016a. Fish Species by Location, located at
http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/location/?ds=697&reportnumber=1294&catcol=4703&categorysearch=Shasta. Accessed 6/15/2016.
California Fish Website. 2016b. California Fish Species, located at http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/species/.
Accessed 6/15/2016.
California Fish Website. 2017a. Fish Species by Location, located at
http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/location/?ds=697&reportnumber=1294&catcol=4703&categorysearch=Shasta. Accessed 12/7/2017.
California Fish Website. 2017b. California Fish Species, located at
http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/species/?uid=17&ds=698. Accessed 12/7/2017.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (CRWQCB). 2018. The
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region. Fifth Edition. Revised May, 2018 (with Approved Amendments). The
Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin. 201 pages
California Water Resources Control Boards (SWRCB). 2020. Onsite Wastewater Information (Septic
Systems). Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/septics/.
Accessed online November 27, 2020
Cederholm, C. J., M. D. Kunze, T. Murota, and A. Sibatani. 1999. Pacific salmon carcasses: Essential
contributions of nutrients and energy for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Fisheries. Volume 24(10),pages 6 to 15.
Cederholm, C. J., D. H. Johnson, R. E. Bilby, L. G. Dominguez, A. M. Garret, W. H. Graeber, E. L.
Greda, M. D. Kunze, B. G. Marcot, J. F. Palmisano, R. W. Plotnikoff, W. G. Pearcy, C. A. Simenstad,and P. C. Trotter. 2000. Pacific Salmon and Wildlife - Ecological Contexts, Relationships, andImplications for Management. Special Edition Technical Report, prepared for D.H. Johnson and T.A.
O’Neil (Managing directors). Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 139 pages.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). 2016. Water quality control plan(basin plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. Fourth
Edition. The Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin. Revised April 2016 (with approved
amendments). 161 pages.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

130July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

City of Mount Shasta. 2016. Welcome to Mount Shasta, located at http://mtshastaca.gov/. Accessed
December 20, 2022.
City of Redding California. 2016. Area Information and Demographics, located at
http://www.cityofredding.org/visit-redding/area-information-and-demographics. Accessed December
20, 2022.
City of Shasta Lake. 2021. Visitors, located at http://www.cityofshastalake.org/index.aspx?NID=64.
Accessed June 19, 2016.
City of Weed. 2021. About us, located at http://weedca.govoffice3.com/. Accessed June 19, 2016.
City of Yreka. 2021. Visitors, located at http://ci.yreka.ca.us/visitors/visitor-information/. Accessed
June 19, 2016.
Collins, S. F., C. V. Baxter, A. M. Marcarelli, and M. S. Wipfli. 2016. Effects of experimentally added
salmon subsidies on resident fishes via direct and indirect pathways. Ecosphere 7(3):e01248.
10.1002/ecs2.1248.
Cordoleani, F., C.C. Phillis, A.M. Sturrock, A.M. FitzGerald, A. Malaysian, G.E. Whitman and R.C.
Johnson. 2021. Threatened salmon rely on a rare life history strategy in a warming landscape. Nature
Climate Change. 11:982-988. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01186-4.
County of Siskiyou. 2021a. Siskiyou County Demographics, located athttps://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/content/siskiyou-county-demographics. Accessed June 19, 2016.
County of Siskiyou. 2021b. Recreation, Travel & Tourism, located athttps://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/content/recreation-travel-tourism. Accessed June 19, 2016.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National
Environmental Policy Act. December 10, 1997.
Crozier, L. 2016. Impacts of Climate Change on Salmon of the Pacific Northwest - A review of thescientific literature published in 2015. October, 2016.
Crozier, L.G., M.M. McClure, T. Beechie, S.J. Bograd, D.A. Boughton, M. Carr, T.D. Cooney, J.B.
Dunham, C.M. Greene, M.A. Haltuch, E.L. Hazen, D.M. Holzer, D.D. Huff, R.C. Johnson, C.E.
Jordan, I.C. Kaplan, S.T. Lindley, N.J. Mantua, P.B. Moyle, J.M. Myers, M.W. Nelson, B.C. Spence,
L.A. Weitkamp, T.H. Williams, and E. Willis-Norton. 2019. Climate vulnerability assessment for
Pacific salmon and steelhead in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. PLoS ONE 14(7):e0217711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217711.
Currier, Monte., CDFW, email to Jon Ambrose, NMFS, November 28, 2016.
Data USA. 2018. https://datausa.io Accessed June 11, 2018.
Dege, Michael., CDFW, email to Jon Ambrose, NMFS, November 29, 2016.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

131July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2009. Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon andSteelhead in the Sacramento River Basin Background Report in California Department of Water
Resources, editor.
Domagalski, J. L., D. L. Knifong, P. D. Dileanis, L. R. Brown, J. T. May, V. Connor, and C. N. Alpers.
2000. Water Quality in the Sacramento River Basin, California, 1994–1998. U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1215.
Donaldson, E. M., R. H. Devlin, I. I. Solar, and F. Piferrer. 1993. The reproductive containment ofgenetically altered salmonids. Pages 113 to 129 in J. G. Cloud and G. H. Thorgaard, editors. Genetic
Conservation of Salmonid Fishes. Plenum, New York.
DuBois, C. 1935. Wintu Ethnography. University of California Publications in American Archaeology
and Ethnology. Volume 36, No. 1. 148 pages.
Elasser, A.B. 1978. Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures in R.F. Heizer (Ed.), Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Pages 37-57. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian.
Institution.
Ewen, J. G., K Acevedo-Whitehouse, M. R. Alley, C. Carraro, A. W. Sainsbury, K. Swinnerton, and R.
Woodroffe. 2012. Empirical Consideration of Parasites and Health in Reintroduction. Pages 290-335
In J. G. Ewen, D. P. Armstrong, K. A. Parker, and P. J. Seddon. 2012. Reintroduction Biology:
Integrating Science and Management. 1st Ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Fausch, K. D. 1988. Tests of competition between native and introduced salmonids in streams—what
have we learned? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 45:2238–2246.
Fausch, K. D. and R. J. White 1986. Competition among juveniles of coho salmon, brook trout, andbrown trout in a laboratory stream, and implications for Great Lakes tributaries. Transactions of theAmerican Fisheries Society. Volume 115, pages 363 to 381.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2011. Final Environmental Impact Statement for
Hydropower License (FERC-F0237); McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2106,
California. 706 pages.
Federal Register, Volume 35, pages 16047-16048. October 13, 1970. USFWS. United States List ofEndangered Native Fish and Wildlife.
Federal Register, Volume 40, pages 29863 to 29864. July 16, 1975. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.
Federal Register, Volume 56, pages 58612 to 58618. November 20, 1991. NMFS. Policy on Applying
the Definition of Species under the Endangered Species Act to Pacific Salmon.
Federal Register, Volume 58, pages 33212 to 33219. June 16, 1993. NMFS. Designated Critical
Habitat; Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon.
Federal Register, Volume 59, pages 440 to 450. January 4, 1994. NMFS. Endangered and Threatened
Species; Status of Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon Final Rule.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

132

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Federal Register, Volume 61, pages 4722 to 4725. February 7, 1996. NOAA Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species Act.
Federal Register, Volume 64, pages 50394 to 50415. September 16, 1999. NMFS. Endangered andThreatened Species: Threatened Status for Two Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units(ESUs) in California; Final Rule.
Federal Register, Volume 67, pages 1116 to 1133. January 9, 2002. NMFS. Endangered andThreatened Species; Final Rule Governing Take of Four Threatened Evolutionarily Significant Units(ESUs) of West Coast Salmonids.
Federal Register, Volume 70, pages 37160 to 37204. June 28, 2005. NMFS. Endangered andThreatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for 16 ESUs of West Coast Salmon, and Final 4(d)Protective Regulations for Threatened Salmonid ESUs. Final Rule.
Federal Register, Volume 70, pages 52488 to 52627. September 2, 2005. Endangered and Threatened
Species Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon
and Steelhead in California.
Federal Register, Volume 76, pages 50448 to 50449, August 15, 2011. Endangered and Threatened
Species 5-Year Reviews for 17 Evolutionarily Significant Units and Distinct Population Segments ofPacific Salmon and Steelhead.
Federal Register, Volume 79, pages 20802 to 20817, April 14, 2014. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife Final Rule To Revise the Code of Federal Regulations for Species Under the Jurisdiction of
the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Federal Register, Volume 79, pages 42504 to 42505, July 22, 2014. Endangered and Threatened
Species Recovery Plans.
Federal Register, Volume 81, pages 33416 to 33423, May 26, 2016. Endangered and Threatened
Species Designation of Experimental Populations Under the Endangered Species Act.
Federal Register, Volume 81, pages 33468 to 33469, May 26, 2016. Endangered and Threatened
Species 5-Year Reviews for 28 Listed Species of Pacific Salmon, Steelhead, and Eulachon.
Federal Register, Volume 83, pages 4235 to 4241. January 30, 2018. Notice. Bureau of Indian Affairs,Indian Tribal Entities Within the Contiguous 48 States Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services
From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Federal Register, Volume 87, pages 79808-79818. December 28, 2022. Endangered and Threatened
Species: Designation of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Central Valley Spring-Run
Chinook Salmon in the Upper Yuba River Upstream of Englebright Dam, Authorization for Release,and Adoption of Limited Protective Regulations Under the Endangered Species Act.
Federal Register, Volume 88, pages 30690 to 30699, May 12, 2023. Endangered and Threatened
Species: Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations of Chinook Salmon Upstream of
Shasta Dam, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective Regulations Under theEndangered Species Act Sections 10(j) and 4(s).
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

133

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Fisher, F. W. 1994. Past and present status of Central Valley Chinook salmon. Conservation Biology.
Volume 8(3), pages 870 to 873.
Fredrickson, D.A. 1973. Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ms. On file, Departmentof Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Fuller, D.D. and A.J. Lind. 1992. Implications of fish habitat improvement structures for other stream
vertebrates, in R. Harris and D. Erman (editors): Proceedings of the Symposium on Biodiversity ofNorthwestern California, Santa Rosa. Pages 96-104.
Furnish, J. 2007. Guide to Sensitive Aquatic Mollusks of the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest
Region. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. PCWA-L-568. 23 pages.
Gao, Y., J. Jian Lu, R. Leung, Q. Yang, S. Hagos, and Y. Qian (2015). Dynamical andthermodynamical modulations on future changes of landfalling atmospheric rivers over western North
America, Geophys. Res. Lett. 42:7179–7186, doi:10.1002/2015GL065435.
Garza, J. C., S. M. Blankenship, C. Lemaire and G. Charrier. 2008. Genetic population structure of
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in California’s Central Valley. Final report for CalFed
Project “Comprehensive evaluation of population structure and diversity for Central Valley Chinook
salmon”. Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, California and NOAASouthwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, California.
Gende, S. M., R. T. Edwards, M. F. Willson, and M. S. Wipfli. 2002. Pacific salmon in aquatic andterrestrial ecosystems. Bioscience. Volume 52(10), pages 917 to 928.
Glova, G. J. and Field-Dodgson, M. S. 1995. Behavioral interaction between Chinook salmon andbrown
trout juveniles in a simulated stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 124(2),pages 194 to 206, DOI: 10.1577/1548-8659(1995)1242.3.CO;2.
Gresh, T., J. Lichatowich, and P. Schoonmaker. 2000. An estimation of historic and current levels of
salmon production in the Northeast Pacific ecosystem: Evidence of a nutrient deficit in the freshwater
systems of the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries. Volume 25, pages 15 to 21.
Grossman, G. D., P. B. Moyle, and J. O. Whitaker Jr. 1982. Stochasticity in structural and functional
characteristics of an Indiana stream fish assemblage: A test of community theory. The American
Naturalist. Volume 120(4), pages 423 to 454.
Guan, B., Waliser, D.E., Ralph, F.M., Fetzer, E.J. & Neiman, P.J. 2016. Hydrometeorologicalcharacteristics of rain-on-snow events associated with atmospheric rivers. Geophys. Res. Lett.
43:2964–2973.
Hanak E., J. Lund, A. Dinar, B. Gray, R. Howitt, J. Mount, P.B. Moyle, and B. Thompson. 2011.
Managing California’s water: from conflict to reconciliation. Public Policy Institute of California,
San Francisco.
Hanson, B., R.W. Baird, and G. Schorr. 2005. Focal behavioral observations and fish-eating killer
whales: improving our understanding of foraging behavior and prey selection. Abstract at the 16th
Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, San Diego, California.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

134

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

https://www.cascadiaresearch.org/files/Projects/KillerWhales/Hanson%20et%20al%202005%20hand
out.pdf. Accessed online February 3, 2020.
Hanson, J., M. Helvey, and R. Strach (Editors). 2004. Non-fishing Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat
and Recommended Conservation Measures. National Marine Fisheries Service, Version 1. Southwest
Region, Long Beach, California.
Harvey, B.C. and R.J. Nakamoto. 1996. Effects of steelhead density on growth of coho salmon in asmall coastal California stream. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 125:237-243.
Hannon, John, Fisheries Biologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, April 11, 2017. Personalcommunication, email to Jonathan Ambrose, NMFS, regarding LSNFH water treatment systeminstallation.
Healey, M. C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311 to 394 in
C.Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Helfield, J. M. and R. J. Naiman. 2001. Effects of salmon-derived nitrogen on riparian forest growthand implications for stream productivity. Ecology. Volume 82, pages 2,403 to 2,409.
Hershler, R. and T. J. Frest. 1996. A Review of the North American freshwater snail genus Fluminicola(Hydrobiidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, Number 583. 41 pages.
Hilborn, R., S.P. Cox, F.M.D. Gulland, D.G. Hankin, N.T. Hobbs, D.E. Schindler, and A.W. Trites.
2012. The effects of salmon fisheries on southern resident killer whales: Final Report on the
Independent Science Panel. Prepared with the assistance of D.R. Marmorek and A.W. Hall, ESSATechnologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. for National Marine Fisheries Service (Seattle, WA) and
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Vancouver, B.C.). xv + 61 pages + appendices.
Hilderbrand, G.V., S. D. Farley, C.C. Schwartz, and C.T. Robbins. 2004. Importance of salmon towildlife: Implications for integrated management. Ursus. Volume 15(1), pages 1 to 9.
House of Representatives Committee of Conference. 1982. Joint Explanatory Statement of theCommittee of Conference, H.R. Conf. Rep No. 97-835, at 15.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2016. IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species, Fluminicola seminalis. Located at http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/189592/0, accessed
NEED DATE.
Isaak, D.J.; S.J. Wenger; E.E. Peterson; J.M. Ver Hoef; D.E. Nagal; C.H. Luce; S.W. Hostetler; J.B.
Dunham; B.B. Roper; S.P. Wollrab; G.L. Chandler; D.L. Horan; S Parkes-Payne. 2007. The
NorWeST summer stream temperature model and scenarios for western U.S.: A crowd-sourced
database and new geospatial tolls foster a user community and predict broad climate warming ofrivers and streams. Water Resources Research, 53, 9181-9205.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020969
Jameson, Jr., E. W. and H. J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. California Natural History Guides:
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

135

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Johnsgard, P. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America. Biology and Natural History.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 402 pages.
Johnson and Lindley, S. T. 2016. Central Valley Recovery Domain. Pages 48 to 63 in T. H. Williams,
B.C. Spence, D. A. Boughton, R. C. Johnson, L. Crozier, N. Mantua, M. O’Farrell, and S. T. Lindley.
Viability assessment for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act:Southwest. February 2, 2016 Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region fromSouthwest Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Ecology Division, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz,
California 95060.
Jones, Robert. Branch Chief, Anadromous Production and Inland Fisheries, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, OR. September 28, 2015. Letter to Chris
Yates, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, National Marine FisheriesService.
Jordan, Christine. USFS, email sent to J. Ambrose, NMFS, regarding status of USFS surveys fornugget pebblesnail, November 8, 2016.
Kondolf, G. M. and M. G. Wolman. 1993. The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Water Resource
Research. Volume 29, pages 2,275 to 2,285.
Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. SI-BAE-B 78. Washington, D.C.
Krueger D.M., E.S. Rutherford, and D.M. Mason. 2011. Influence of predation mortality on survival of
Chinook salmon parr in a Lake Michigan tributary. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 140:147-163.
Liermann, M., and R. Hilborn. 2001. Depensation: Evidence, models and implications. Fish andFisheries. 2:33–58.
D. M., E. S. Rutherford, and D. M. Mason. 2011. Influence of predation mortality on survival of
Chinook salmon parr in a Lake Michigan tributary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
Volume 140, pages 147 to 163.
Leonard, W. P., H. A. Brown, L. L. C. Jones, K. R. McAllister, and R. M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians or
Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society: The Trail Series. Seattle Audubon Society,
Seattle, Washington.
Lincoln, R. F. and A. P. Scott. 1984. Sexual maturation in triploid rainbow trout (Salmo gairneri
richardson). Journal of Fish Biology. Volume 25, pages 385 to 392.
Lind, A. J. and H. H. Welsh Jr. 1994. Ontogenetic changes in foraging behaviour and habitat use by the
Oregon garter snake, Thamnophis atratus hydrophilus. Animal Behaviour. Volume 48(6), pages
1,261 to 1,273.
Lindley, S. T., R. S. Schick, B. P. May, J. J. Anderson, S. Greene, C. Hanson, A. Low, D. McEwan, R.
B.MacFarlane, C. Swanson, and J. G. Williams. 2004. Population Structure of Threatened andEndangered Chinook Salmon ESUs in California's Central Valley Basin. U.S. Department ofCommerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-360.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

136

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Lindley, S. T., R. S. Schick, A. Agrawal, M. Goslin, T. E. Pearson, E. Mora, J. J. Anderson, B. May, S.
Greene, C. Hanson, A. Low, D. McEwan, R. B. MacFarlane, C. Swanson, and J. G. Williams. 2006.
Historical Population Structure of Central Valley Steelhead and Its Alteration by Dams. San
Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 4(1):19.
Lindley, S. T., R. S. Schick, E. Mora, P. B. Adams, J. J. Anderson, S. Green, C. Hanson, B. P. May, D.
McEwan, R. B. MacFarlane, C. Swanson, J. G. Williams. 2007. Framework for Assessing Viabilityof Threatened and Endangered Chinook Salmon and Steelhead in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Basin.
San Francisco Estuary & Watershed Science Volume 5, Issue 1. Article 4: California Bay-Delta
Authority Science Program and the John Muir Institute of the Environment.
Littell, J. S., D. L. Peterson, K. L. Riley, Y. Liu, and C. H. Luce. 2016. A review of the relationships
between drought and forest fire in the United States. Global Change Biology, doi:
10.1111/gcb.13275. 17 pages.
Luers, A. L., D. R. Cayan, G. Franco, M. Hanemann, and B. Croes. 2006. Our changing climate,assessing the risks to California; a summary report from the California Climate Change Center.
California Climate Change Center.
Mastrandrea, M.D., and Luers, A.L. 2012. Climate change in California: scenarios and approaches foradaptation. Climatic Change. 111:5-16.
Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A. Hamlet. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on Key Aspects of Freshwater
Salmon Habitat in Washington State. Chapter 6 in Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment:
Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate. Climate Impacts Group, University ofWashington, Seattle, Washington.
Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest, From the Coast to the High Cascades. Oregon
State University Press. 406 pages.
McDowall, R. M. 1994. The origins of New Zealand’s Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.
Marine Fisheries Review. Volume 52(1), pages 1 to 7.
McMichael, G. A. and T. N. Pearsons. 1998. Effects of wild juvenile spring Chinook salmon on growth
and abundance of wild rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume127(2), pages 261 to 274.
Montgomery, D. R., E. M Beamer, G. R. Pess, and T. P. Quinn. 1999. Channel type and salmonid
spawning distribution and abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. Volume
56(3), pages 377 to 387.
Moratto, M.J. California Archaeology. San Diego: Academic Press.Moser, S. Franco, G. Pittiglio, S.
Chou, W. Cayan, D. 2009. The future is now: an update on climate change science impacts andresponse options for California. California Climate Change Center Report CEC-500-2008-071.
Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. 91 pages.
Mount, J.F. 1995. California Rivers and Streams: The Conflict Between Fluvial Process and Land Use.
University California Press, Berkeley, California. Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California.
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 502 Pages.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

137

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Moyle, P. B., J. A. Israel, and S. E. Purdy. 2008. SOS: California’s Native Fish Crisis: Status of andsolutions for restoring our vital salmon, steelhead and trout populations. Commissioned by California
Trout. 50 pages. Accessed online 4/4/2016.
Moyle, P.B., J.D. Kiernan, P.K. Crain, R.M. Quinones. 2013. Climate Change Vulnerability of Nativeand Alien Freshwater Fishes of California: A Systematic Assessment Approach. PLoS ONE 8(5):e63883. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063883.
Moyle, P. B., R. M. Quiñones, J. V. Katz, and J. Weaver. 2015. Fish Species of Special Concern in
California, Third Edition. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 25 pages.
Muehlberg, Craig D. Acting Area Manager, Reclamation. October 15, 2015. Letter to Maria Rea,
Assistant Regional Administrator, California Central Valley Area Office, NMFS.
Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W.
Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pages.
MWH Global (Montgomery, Watson, and Harza). 2016. Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery,
Shasta Reservoir Water Supply Treatment Study. Report Prepared for the United States Fish andWildlife Service. January. 140 pages.
Naish, K. A., J. E. Taylor III, P. S. Levin, T. P. Quinn, J. R. Winton, D. Huppert, and R. Hilborn. 2008.
An evaluation of the effects of conservation and fishery enhancement hatcheries on wild populationsof salmon. Advances in Marine Biology. 53:61–194.
National Audubon Society. 2016a. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Common Loon (Gavia
immer), located at https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/common-loon. Accessed May 17, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016b. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), located at https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/bald-eagle.
Accessed May 17, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016c. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Golden Eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos), located at https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/golden-eagle.
Accessed May 17, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016d. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Osprey (Pandion
haliaetus), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/osprey#. Accessed August 11, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016e. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Caspian Tern
(Hydroprogne caspia), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/caspian-tern. Accessed
August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016f. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Turkey Vulture(Cathartesaura), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/turkey-vulture.
Accessed August 12, 2016.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

138

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

National Audubon Society. 2016g. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Pied-billed Grebe
(Podilymbus podiceps), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/pied-billed-grebe.
Accessed August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016h. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Western Grebe(Aechmophorus occidentalis), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/western-grebe.
Accessed August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016i. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Clark’s Grebe(Aechmophorus clarkii), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/clarks-grebe.
Accessed August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016j. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Double-crested
Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/doublecrested-cormorant. Accessed August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016k. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Black-crowned Night
Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/black-crownednight-heron. Accessed August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016l. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, American Dipper(Cinclusmexicanus), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/american-dipper. Accessed
August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016m. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Common Merganser(Mergus merganser), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/common-merganser.
Accessed August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016n. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Hooded Merganser(Lophodytes cucullatus), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/hooded-merganser.
Accessed August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Red-breasted Merganser(Mergus serrator), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/red-breasted-merganser.
Accessed August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016p. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Great Blue Heron (Ardea
herodias), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/great-blue-heron.
Accessed August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016q. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Snowy Egret (Egretta
thula), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/snowy-egret. Accessed August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016r. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Herring Gull (Larus
argentatus), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/herring-gull.
Accessed August 12, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016s. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Ring-billed Gull (Larus
delawarensis), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/ring-billed-gull.
Accessed August 13, 2016.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

139

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

National Audubon Society. 2016t. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, California Gull (Larus
californicus), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/california-gull.
Accessed August 13, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016u. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Belted Kingfisher,(Megaceryle alcyon), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/belted-kingfisher.
Accessed August 13, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016v. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, American Crow
(Corvusbrachyrhynchos), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/american-crow.
Accessed August 13, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2016w. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Common Raven(Corvuscorax), located at http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/common-raven.
Accessed August 13, 2016.
National Audubon Society. 2020. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, American white pelican(Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), located at https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/american-whitepelican. Accessed online February 10, 2020.
National Audubon Society. 2020. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, harlequin duck
(Histrionicus histrionicus), located at https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/harlequin-duck.
Accessed online February 10, 2020.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. Biological Opinion on interim operations of theCentral Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) between April 1, 2002, and March 31,
2004 on federally listed threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon and threatened Central
Valley steelhead in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Page 116 in S. R. National Marine Fisheries Service, editor.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. Version 2.3. May.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on theLong-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. U.S. Department ofCommerce.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Recovery Plan for the Evolutionarily Significant
Units of Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon and Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook
Salmon and the Distinct Population Segment of California Central Valley Steelhead. California Central
Valley Area Office.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of Central
Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit.
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/17018
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016. Species in the Spotlight. Priority Actions: 20162020. Southern Resident Killer Whale DPS Orcinus orca. 15 pages.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

140

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016a. Appendix B (Climate Change) to the Coastal
Multispecies Recovery Plan. Volume V of V.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2017. Biological Opinion for the Issuance of an ESA
Section 10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement Permit to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for
Implementation of two Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans at Livingston Stone National Fish
Hatchery. U.S Department of Commerce.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2018. Anadromous Salmonid Reintroductions: General
Planning Principles for Long-Term Viability and Recovery. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC141. April.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2018. Southern Resident Killer Whale Priority Chinook Stocks Report. June 22. 8 pages.
https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/marine_mammals/killer_whales/recovery/srkw_priority_chinook_stocks_conceptual_model_report list_22june2018.pdf.
Accessed online February 3, 2020.
National Wildlife Federation. 2016. Wildlife Library: Gray wolf, located athttps://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Wildlife-Library/Mammals/Gray-Wolf.aspx. Accessed May 22, 2016.
Nelson, Benjamin. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, March 3, 2016. Email to Alice Berg, NMFS, regarding
Shasta Dam Fish Passage Evaluation Pilot Program, USFWS Yreka office and Sacramento officespecies lists.
North State Resources, Inc. (NSR). 2010. Upper Sacramento River watershed assessment andmanagement strategy. Redding, California. June 2010. 421 pages.
Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie Jr. and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the PacificNorthwest. University Press of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Osgood, K.E. 2008. Climate Impacts on U.S. Living Marine Resources: National Marine FisheriesService Concerns, Activities and Needs. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-89.
Ostberg, C.O., S.L. Slatton and R.J. Rodriguez. 2004. Spatial partitioning and symmetric hybridization
among sympatric coastal steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), coastal cutthroat trout (O.
clarkii clarkii) and interspecific hybrids. Mol. Ecol. 13:2773-2788.
Olesiuk, P. F., M. A. Bigg and G. M. Ellis. 1990. Life history and population dynamics of resident
killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the coastal waters of British Columbia and Washington States. Reportof the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 12, pages 209 to 243.
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2014. Appendix A to the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery
Management Plan, As Modified by Amendment 18 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. September,2014. https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2019/08/salmon-efh-appendix-a.pdf/. Accessed online
July 25, 2022.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

141

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2019. Salmon: background. January 31.
https://www.pcouncil.org/annual-salmon-management-process/ /. Accessed online August 19, 2020.
Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes: North America North of
Mexico,Peterson Field Guide Series. 2nd edition. Houghton Mifflin. 432 pages.
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2008. Survey for special-status aquatic molluscs and invasive
crayfish with project reservoirs and project-affected stream. December 2008. Technical Memorandum(TM-69), McCloud-Pit Project, FERC No. 2106. Pacific Gas and Electric, San Francisco, California.
249 pages.
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2009. Water Temperature Monitoring Program report for 2008
McCloud-Pit Project. Originally issued February 10, 2009, updated July 10, 2009. Technical
Memorandum (TM-66), McCloud-Pit Project, FERC No. 2106. Pacific Gas and Electric, San
Francisco, California. 337 pages.
Payne, A.E., and G. Magnusdottir. 2015. An evaluation of atmospheric rivers over the North Pacific in
CMIP5 and their response to warming under RCP 8.5. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.
120(21):11173-11190.
Pess, G.R., D.R. Montgomery, E.A. Steel, R.E. Bilby, B.E. Feist, and H.M. Greenberg. 2002.
Landscape Characteristics, Land Use, and Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Abundance,
Snohomish River, Wash., U.S.A. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 59:613-623.
Polade S.D., A. Gershunov, D.R. Cayan, M.D. Dettinger, and D.W. Pierce. 2017. Precipitation in a
warming world: assessing projected hydro-climate of California and other Mediterranean climate
regions. NatSci Rep. 7:10783. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11285-yPolanco, Julianne, State Historic Preservation Officer, State of California Office of HistoricPreservation, December 1, 2017. Letter to Maria Rea, Assistant Regional Administrator, California
Central Valley Area Office, NMFS.
Poytress, W. R. and F. D. Carrillo. 2010. Brood-year 2007 winter Chinook juvenile production indiceswith comparisons to juvenile production estimates derived from adult escapement. Report to U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to GCAP Services Inc. and California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, CA.
Poytress, W. R. and F. D. Carrillo. 2011. Brood-year 2008 and 2009 winter Chinook juvenile
production indices with comparisons to juvenile production estimates derived from adult escapement.
Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to GCAP Services Inc. and California Department of Fish andGame, Sacramento, CA.
Poytress, W. R. and F. D. Carrillo. 2012. Brood-year 2010 winter Chinook juvenile production indiceswith comparisons to juvenile production estimates derived from adult escapement. Report to U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to GCAP Services Inc. and California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, CA.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

142

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Quinn, T. P., Nielsen, J. L., Gan, C., Unwin, M. J., Wilmot, R., Guthrie, C. and Utter, F. M. 1996.
Origin and genetic structure of Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, transplanted from
California to New Zealand: allozyme and mtDNA evidence. Fishery Bulletin. Volume 94,
pages 506 to 521.
Quinn, T.P., and D.J. Adams. 1996. Environmental changes affecting the migratory timing ofAmerican shad and sockeye salmon. Ecology. 77(4):1151-1162.
Quinn, T. P. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. American Fisheries Society
in association with University of Washington Press, Bethesda, Maryland. 388 pages.
Radic, V., A.J. Cannon, B. Menounos, and N. Gi. 2015. Future changes in autumn atmospheric river
events in British Columbia, Canada, as projected by CMIP5 global climate models. J. GeophysicalRes. Atmospheres. 120(18):9279-9302.
Ratti, F. 1979. Natural Resources of Rogue Estuary. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Estuary
Inventory Report. Volume 2, No. 8. 33 pages.
Rea, Maria, Assistant Regional Administrator, California Central Valley Area Office, NMFS,
June 15, 2015. Letter to Mr. Don Alley (D.W. Alley and Associates).
Rea, Maria, Assistant Regional Administrator, California Central Valley Area Office, NMFS,
October 31, 2017. Letter to Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer, California State
Parks, Office of Historic Preservation.
Redband Core Group. 2016. Conservation Agreement for upper McCloud River Redband Trout.
Reeves, G.H., F.H. Everest, and J.R. Sedell. 1993. Diversity of juvenile anadromous salmonid
assemblages in coastal Oregon basins with different levels of timber harvest. Trans Am Fish. Soc.
122:309–317.
Reynolds, F.L., Mills, T.J., Benthin, R., and Low, A. 1993. Restoring Central Valley Streams: A Plan
for Action. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Sacramento,
California.
Rieman, B.E., R.C. Beamesderfer, S. Vigg, and T.P. Poe. 1991. Estimated loss of juvenile salmonids topredation by northern squawfish, walleyes, and smallmouth bass in John Day Reservoir, ColumbiaRiver. Trans Am Fish. Soc. 120:448-458.
Sacramento River Watershed Program. 2016a. Upper Sacramento River Watershed, located at
http://www.sacriver.org/aboutwatershed/roadmap/watersheds/northeast/upper-sacramento-river.
Accessed April 10, 2016.
Sacramento River Watershed Program. 2016b. Lower Pit River Watershed, located at
http://www.sacriver.org/aboutwatershed/roadmap/watersheds/northeast/pit/lower-pit-river-watershed.
Accessed June 18, 2016.
Sacramento River Watershed Program. 2016c. McCloud River Watershed, located at
http://www.sacriver.org/aboutwatershed/roadmap/watersheds/northeast/mccloud-river-watershed.
Accessed June 18, 2016.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

143

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Sacred Sites International Foundation. 2016. The McCloud River Watershed, located at
http://www.sacred-sites.org/threatened-sacred-sites/the-mccloud-river-watershed. Accessed June 19,
2016.
Safeeq, M., G.E. Grant, S.L. Lewis, and B. Staab. 2015. Predicting landscape sensitivity to present andfuture floods in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Hydrological Processes. 29(26):5337-5353.
Sanderson, B.L., K.A. Barnas, and A.M. Wargo Rub. 2009. Nonindigenous Species of the PacificNorthwest: An Overlooked Risk to Endangered Salmon? Bioscience. 59(3). 245-256.
10.1525/bio.2009.59.3.9.
Scheuerell M. D., P. S. Levin, R. W. Zabel, J. G. Williams, and B. L. Sanderson. 2005. A new
perspective on the importance of marine-derived nutrients to threatened stocks of Pacific salmon(Oncorhynchus spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 62, pages 961 to
964.
Schick, R. S. and S. T. Lindley 2007. Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine
network. Journal of Applied Ecology. Volume 44, pages 1116 to 1126. doi: 10.1111/j.13652664.2007.01383.x
Shasta County. 2020. Shasta County 2009-2014 Housing Element. Prepared by Shasta County
Department of Resource Management, March 22, 2011.
Shasta County. 2021a. Shasta County Sports and Recreation, located at
http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/community_index/sports_rec.aspx. Accessed June 19, 2016.
Shasta County. 2021b. Government, located at http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/gov_index.aspx.
Accessed June 20, 2016.
Sievanen, L., J. Phillips, C. Colgan, G. Griggs, J. Fins Hart, E. Hartge, T. Hill, R. Kudela, N.
Mantua, K. Nielsen, L. Whiteman. 2018. California’s Coast and Ocean Summary Report.
California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: SUMCCC4A2018-011.
Simmons, R. E., P. Lavretsky and B. May. 2010. Introgressive hybridization of redband trout in theUpper McCloud River watershed. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 139,
pages 201-213.
Siskiyou County. 2021. Industry Sectors, located at https://www.siskiyoucounty.org/industry-sectors
Smith, D. 2016. The history of the Indians in Shasta County, located at
http://shastacountyhistory.com/indian_history. Accessed June 22, 2016.
Snider, B. and R. G. Titus. 2000a. Timing, Composition, and Abundance of Juvenile Anadromous
Salmonid Emigration in the Sacramento River near Knights Landing October 1997-September 1998.
California Department of Fish and Game. Stream Evaluation Program Technical Report No. 00-5.
Snider, B. and R. G. Titus. 2000b. Timing, Composition, and Abundance of Juvenile Anadromous
Salmonid Emigration in the Sacramento River near Knights Landing October 1999-September 1999.
California Department of Fish and Game. Stream Evaluation Program Technical Report No. 00-6.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

144

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Sommer, T. R., M. L. Nobriga, W. C. Harrell, W. Batham, and W. J. Kimmerer. 2001. Floodplain
rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 58(2), pages 325 to 333.
Southwest Fisheries Science Center. 2022. Viability assessment for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed
under the Endangered Species Act: Southwest. 11 July 2022 Report to National Marine FisheriesService – West Coast Region from Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Ecology Division
110 McAllister Way, Santa Cruz, California 95060.
Stafford, L. A. and J. M. Newton. 2010. Monitoring Adult Chinook Salmon, Rainbow Trout, andSteelhead in Battle Creek, California, from March through November 2008. (USFWS Report.) U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office, Red Bluff, California.
State of California. 2020. Unemployment rate and labor force, Employment Development Department,
located at http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/unemployment-and-labor-force.html. Accessed
December 20, 2022.
Stewart, I., D. Cayan, and M. Dettinger. 2004. Changes in Snowmelt Runoff Timing in WesternNorth
America under a “Business as Usual” Climate Change Scenario. Climatic Change. 62: 217–232. 10
Suburban Stats. 2020. Population Demographics for Shasta Lake, California in 2016 and 2015, locatedat https://suburbanstats.org/population/california/how-many-people-live-in-shasta-lake.
Accessed Dec 20, 2022.
Suburban Stats. 2016b. Population Demographics for Anderson, California in 2016 and 2015, locatedat https://suburbanstats.org/population/california/how-many-people-live-in-anderson. Accessed June
19, 2016.
Taylor, D. W. 1981. Freshwater mollusks of California. California Fish and Game. Volume 67(3),pages 140 to 163.
Thomas R. Payne and Associates. 2005. Recovery of Fish Populations in the Upper Sacramento River
Following the 1991 Cantara Spill. Final Report. Prepared by M. Allen and T. Gast for the California
Department of Fish & Game Cantara Program. 260 pages.
Torgersen, C.E., D.M. Price, H.W. Li, and B.A. McIntosh. 1999. Multiscale Thermal Refugia andStream Habitat Associations of Chinook Salmon in Northeastern Oregon. Ecol. Applications. 9(1):301-319.
True, K. 2004. United States Fish and Wildlife Service California-Nevada Fish Health Center Draft
Report Fish Health Monitoring of Fall Chinook and Steelhead in the Yuba and Feather Rivers (20022003). Oroville Facilities Relicensing Environmental Work Group. Project No. 2100. SP-F2.
Evaluation of Project Effects on Fish Diseases. April.
United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2013. Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, June 2013.
222 pages.
Reclamation. 2014a. Letter from Susan M. Fry to Maria Rea requesting “rule-making designation of
non-essential experimental population of winter-run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River above
Shasta Dam pursuant to section 10(j) of the ESA.” May 27, 2014.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

145

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Reclamation. 2014. Habitat Assessment Final Report for the Shasta Dam Fish Passage Evaluation.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Sacramento,
California. August 2014.
Reclamation. 2015a. Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation Environmental Impact Statement.
https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_project_details.php?Project_ID=1915. Accessed December 7,
2017.
Reclamation. 2015b. Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation Final Feasibility Report.
https://www.usbr.gov/mp/ncao/slwri/docs/index.html. Accessed December 7, 2017.
Reclamation. 2017. Shasta Dam Fish Passage Evaluation Preliminary Draft. Draft Environmental
Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior. 99 pages.
United States Census Bureau. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, andHispanic Origin for the United States, States, and Counties, located at
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html. Accessed June 19, 2016.
United States Census Bureau. 2020a. Quick Facts for Siskiyou County, Shasta County, and State ofCalifornia, located at www.census.gov/quickfacts.
United States Census Bureau. 2020b. American Factfinder, Poverty in the United States, 1960-2010,
located at https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml, Accessed July 2016.
United States Census Bureau. 2020c. American Fact Finder, Individuals below poverty level for
Siskiyou County, Shasta County, and State of California, located at
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml, accessed March 31, 2017.
United States Census Bureau. 2019. American Community Survey, 2013-2017 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/news/datareleases/2017/release.html.
United States Census Bureau. 2020.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/nevadacountycalifornia,sierracountycalifornia,yubacoun
tycalifornia/PST045219. Accessed online November 27, 2020.
United States Department of Labor. 2018. https://data.bls.gov/map/MapToolServlet. Accessed online
November, 2018.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000. Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Fish
and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 13, located online athttps://www.fws.gov/northeast/wssnfh/pdfs/rainbow1.pdf. Accessed 6/15/2016.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Working Paper on Restoration Needs: Habitat
Restoration Actions to Double Natural Production of Anadromous Fish in the Central Valley of
California. 544 pages.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015a. Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan
Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery Integrated-Recovery Supplementation Program WinterChinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). July 23, 2015 Agency Draft.
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

146

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015b. Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan
Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery Winter Chinook Captive Broodstock Program(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). July 23, 2015 Agency Draft.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015c. Above Shasta Dam Passage Investigation,
Final Report: October 8, 2015. Foott, S., K. Nichols, and R. Stone. USFWS, CA-NV Fish HealthCenter. 5 pages.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
2016. Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook. December 21.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Reclamation. 1997. Final Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Establishment of a Winter-run Chinook
Salmon Supplementation Spawning and Rearing Facility Using Sacramento River Water. Prepared by
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Coleman National Fish Hatchery Anderson,
California and Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Northern California Area Office Shasta
Lake, California 96019-8400. November 21, 1997.
United States Forest Service (USFS). 1996. Management Guide: Shasta and Trinity Units –Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area. Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Redding,California in United States Bureau of Reclamation. 2013. Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, June 2013.
222 pages.
United States Forest Service (USFS). 1998a. Redband Trout Conservation Agreement, Shasta Trinity
National Forest, Conservation Agreement, Upper McCloud River Redband Trout Oncorhynchus
mykiss spp. 72 pages.
United States Forest Service (USFS). 1998b. McCloud Arm Watershed Analysis May 1998, ShastaTrinity National Forest.
United States Forest Service (USFS). 2012. Bald eagles of Shasta, Trinity, & Lewiston Lakes. Locatedat http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_008181.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2016.
United States Forest Service (USFS). 2014a. Shasta Unit—Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National
Recreation Area pamphlet located at
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5130542.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2016.
United States Forest Service (USFS). 2014b. Sightseeing on Shasta Lake and a Little Underwater
History, pamphlet located at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_008585.pdf.
Accessed June 19, 2016.
United States Geological Survey. 2017. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species, Siphateles bicolor (Girard,1856). Located at https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=532.
Accessed April 27, 2017.
Verts, B. J. and L. N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press,
Berkeley. 673 pages.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

147

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Visit Redding California. 2016. Redding for an Adventure, located at http://visitredding.com/.
Accessed June 19, 2016.
Vogel, D. A. and K. R. Marine. 1991. Guide to Upper Sacramento River Chinook Salmon Life History.
Report prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project. July 1991. 55 pages.
Walker, S.F., J. Bosch, T.Y. James, A.P. Litvintseva, J.A. O. Valls, S. Pina, G. Garcia, G.A. Rosa, A.A.
Cunningham, S. Hole, R. Griffiths, and M.C. Fisher. 2008. Invasive Pathogens Threaten Species
Recovery Programs. Current Biology 18: R853–R854.
Wallace, 1978. W.J. Post Pleistocene Archaeology 9000-2000 B.C. in R. Heizer (Ed.), California.
Pages 25-36. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. W. Sturtevant, General Editor.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Ward, E. J., M. J. Ford, R. G. Kope, J. K. B. Ford, L. A. Velez-Espino, C. K. Parken, L.W. LaVoy, M.
B. Hanson, and K. C. Balcomb. 2013. Estimating the impacts of Chinook salmon abundance and preyremoval by ocean fishing on Southern Resident killer whale population dynamics. U.S. Departmentof Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-123, 85 pages.
Warner, M., C.F. Mass, and E.P. Salathé. 2015. Changes in winter atmospheric rivers along the North
American west coast in CMIP5 climate models. J. Hydrometeorology. 16:118-128.
Washington Department of Health (WDOH). 2014. How Nitrogen from Septic Systems Can Harm
Water Quality. https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/4450/337-142-Nitrogen-Removal-fromOSS-FactSheet.pdf
Williams, J. G. 2006. Central Valley salmon: A perspective on Chinook and steelhead in the Central
Valley of California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. Volume 4(3), Article 2, 416
pages.
Williams, T.H., B.C. Spence, D.A. Boughton, R.C. Johnson, L.G. Crozier, N.J. Mantua, M.R.
O'Farrell, and S.T. Lindley. 2016. Viability assessment for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under
the Endangered Species Act: Southwest. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSSWFSC-564.
Wilson, N.L. and A.H. Towne. 1978. Nisenan, in R.F. Heizer (Ed.), California. Pages 387-397.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Wolok, M. 1996. Experimenting with Experimental Populations. 26 Envtl. L. Rep. 10018.
Wintu. 2016a. Letter from Chief Sisk to Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer,
California Office of Historic Preservation. February 23, 2016.
Winnemem Wintu. 2016b. Winnemem Wintu Salmon Restoration Plan, McCloud River. Winnemem
Wintu Tribe, Redding, California. 110 pages.
Winnemem Wintu. 2016c. Who We Are, located at http://www.winnememwintu.us/who-we-are/.
Accessed June 19, 2016.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

148

July 18, 2023

Section 8 – References

Winnemem Wintu. 2016d. Journey to Justice, located at http://www.winnememwintu.us/journey-tojustice/. Accessed June 19, 2016.
Yoshiyama, R. M., E. R. Gerstung, F. W. Fisher, and P. B. Moyle. 1996. Historical and Present
Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California. Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress Volume III. Davis, California: University of California,
Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
Yoshiyama, R. M., F. W. Fisher, and P. B. Moyle. 1998. Historical Abundance and Decline of Chinook
Salmon in the Central Valley Region of California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management.
Volume 18, pages 485 to 521.
Yoshiyama, R. M. and F. W. Fisher. 2001. Long Time Past: Baird Station and the McCloud Wintu.
Fisheries, Volume 26, pages 6 to 22.
Yoshiyama, R. M., E. R. Gerstung, F. W. Fisher, and P. B. Moyle. 2001. Historical and present
distribution of Chinook salmon in the Central Valley. Pages 71-176 in R. Brown, editor. Contributions
to the biology of Central Valley salmonids. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin
179, Sacramento.
Young, K.A. 2001. Habitat diversity and species diversity: testing the completion hypothesis withjuvenile salmonids. Oikos. 95:87-93.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

149

July 18, 2023

Section 9 – Glossary of Key Terms

9.0 GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
Action area: Geographic area where the Proposed Action would take place.
Adfluvial: Fish migrating between rivers or streams and lakes.
Alevins: Newly hatched fish.
Anadromy: A life-history pattern for fish that features early juvenile development in fresh water,
migration to seawater, and a return to fresh water for spawning.
Biological Opinion: The written documentation of an Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation.
Centrarchid: A member of the sunfish family (Centrarchidae) of freshwater ray-finned fish, including
largemouth bass, bluegill, pumpkinseed, and crappies.
Distinct Population Segment: Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the term species includes
any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any “distinct population segment” (DPS) of
any species or vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature. The ESA thus considers
a distinct population segment of vertebrates to be a “species.” The ESA does not, however,establish how distinctness should be determined. Under NMFS policy of Pacific salmon, a
population or group of populations will be considered a distinct population segment if it
represents an evolutionarily significant unit of the biological species. In contrast to salmon, theNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed steelhead runs under the joint NMFS-UnitedStates Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Policy for recognizing distinct population segments(Distinct Population Segment Policy: 61 Fed. Reg. 4722, February 7, 1996).
This policy adopts criteria similar to those in the ESU policy, but applies to a broader range of animals
to include all vertebrates.
Ectocommensal ciliate: A single-celled organism that possess cilia (hair-like organelles) living in acommensal relationship (where one organism obtains food or other benefits without harm to
the other) on the exterior of another organism.
Endangered Species Act (ESA): A United States law that provides for the conservation of endangered
and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants.
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU): The ESA defines ‘species’ to include subspecies and ‘distinct
population segments’ of vertebrates (16 USC §1532(16); 50 CFR 424.02 (k)). For Pacificsalmon, NMFS determined that an ESU constitutes a distinct population segment (56 Fed. Reg.
58612, November 20, 1991). A group of Pacific salmon is an ESU if it is (1) substantially
reproductively isolated from other salmon of the same species and (2) represents an importantcomponent of the evolutionary legacy of the species.
Fluvial: Fish migrating between rivers and/or streams.
Hatchery-origin: A fish that originated from a hatchery facility. Also known as a hatchery fish.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

150

July 18, 2023

Section 9 – Glossary of Key Terms

Hatchery program: A program that artificially propagates fish. Most hatchery programs for salmon
and steelhead spawn adults in captivity, raise the resulting progeny for a few months or longer,
and then release the fish into the natural environment where they will mature.
Hypolimnion: The lower layer of water in a stratified lake.
Incidental take: “Take” is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or collectindividuals from a species listed on the ESA. Incidental take is the non-deliberate take of ESA
listed species during the course of a Federal action (e.g., fishing under an FMP).
Introgression: The movement of a gene from one species into the gene pool of another species.
Mesotrophic: Having an intermediate level of productivity.
Metalimnion: The zone of rapid temperature change between the epilimnion and hypolimnion.
Monomictic: Lakes that mix from top to bottom during one mixing period each year.
Natural-origin: Natural-origin fish are the offspring of parents that spawned in the naturalenvironment rather than the hatchery environment. Synonymous with native or wild fish.
Parr: Salmon over one year old.
PIT tag: A passive integrated transponder used for marking and later detecting individual fish.
Redd: A shallow depression created by a spawning female where she will lay her eggs. More than one
redd can be made by a female when spawning.
Resident fish: Fish that reside in fresh water throughout their life cycle.
Salmonid: Of, belonging to, or characteristic of the family Salmonidae, which includes salmon, trout,char, grayling, and freshwater whitefish.
Smolt: A young salmon that begins the migration from fresh water to marine waters. A smolt ischaracterized by its physiological changes needed for life in the sea.
Taxa: Plural form of taxon, classification category such as genus or species.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

151

July 18, 2023

Section 10 – List of Preparers and Cooperating Agencies

10.0

LIST OF PREPARERS AND COOPERATING AGENCIES

Alice Berg, NMFS (B.S. Biology, M.S. Fisheries, M.H.S. Health Sciences), 31 years of experience.
Steve Edmondson, NMFS (B.S. Biology (emph. Marine Biology), M.S. Aquatic Ecology, 40 years ofexperience.
Stacie Smith, NMFS (B.S. Aquatic Biology, M.S. Biology, D. Environment), 14 years of experience.
Cooperating agencies in the review of this document were CDFW, USFWS, Reclamation and USFS.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

152

July 18, 2023

Section 11 – Finding of No Significant Impact

11.0

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

Background
Proposed Action:
The Proposed Action is for NMFS to designate and authorize the release of nonessential experimental
populations (NEPs) of Sacramento River (SR) winter-run and Central Valley (CV) spring-run Chinook
salmon in the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam under section 10(j) of the
ESA. The rulemaking would also establish take prohibitions for the nonessential experimental
populations and exceptions for particular activities under ESA section 4(d).
The NEP Area (EA Figure 3) extends from Shasta Dam up to Pit 7 Dam on the Pit River, McCloud
Dam on the McCloud River, and Box Canyon Dam on the upper Sacramento River. All othertributaries flowing into Shasta Reservoir up to the ridge line, including tributaries below Pit 7 Dam,
McCloud Dam, and Box Canyon Dam, up to the ridge line would be included in the NEP Area. Allother areas above Pit 7 Dam on the Pit River, McCloud Dam on the McCloud River, and Box Canyon
Dam on the upper Sacramento River would not be part of the NEP Area. The NEP Area extends up to
the ridgelines to account for watershed processes and ends at the aforementioned dams because thesedams lack fish passage facilities.
The potential significance of this action is analyzed based on the NAO 216-6 criteria and CEQ’scontext and intensity criteria.
This FONSI and EA is being prepared using the 1978 CEQ NEPA Regulations. NEPA reviews
initiated prior to the effective date of the 2020 CEQ regulations may be conducted using the 1978
version of the regulations. The effective date of the 2020 CEQ NEPA Regulations was September 14,
2020. This review began on February 10, 2017, and the agency has decided to proceed under the 1978
regulations.
Alternatives Evaluated in the Environmental Assessment:●

Alternative 1 (No-action) –No Designation of Experimental Populations, No Authorization for
Release, and no Adoption of Protective Regulations.

●

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential
Experimental Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective
Regulations.

●

Alternative 3 – Designation of Nonessential Experimental Populations, Authorization for
Release, and Adoption of Current Protective Regulations.

Selected Alternative:
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) – Designation of Nonessential Experimental
Populations, Authorization for Release, and Adoption of Limited Protective Regulations.
Related Consultations:●

SHPO consultation concluded on December 17, 2017.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

153

July 18, 2023

Section 11 – Finding of No Significant Impact

Significance Review:
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations state that the determination of significanceusing an analysis of effects requires examination of both context and intensity, and lists ten criteria forintensity (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (1978)). In addition, the Companion Manual for National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration Administrative Order 216-6A provides sixteen criteria, the same ten as the
CEQ Regulations and six additional, for determining whether the impacts of a proposed action are
significant. Each criterion is discussed below with respect to the proposed action and considered
individually as well as in combination with the others.
1. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to cause both beneficial and adverse impacts
that overall may result in a significant effect, even if the effect will be beneficial?
Response: The SR winter-run Chinook salmon ESU is composed of a single population that includes
all naturally spawned SR winter-run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its tributaries, aswell as SR winter-run Chinook salmon that are part of the conservation hatchery program at the
Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH).
The CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESU is currently limited to: (a) independent populations in Mill,
Deer, and Butte Creeks, (b) persistent and presumably dependent populations in the Feather and Yuba
Rivers, (c) persistent and presumably dependent populations in Big Chico, Antelope, and Battle
Creeks, and (d) a few ephemeral or dependent populations in the northwestern California region (e.g.,
Beegum, Clear, and Thomes Creeks). Significant areas of historical habitat, mostly in the upper
watersheds, are blocked by a series of dams in the Sacramento and San Joaquin basins. The San
Joaquin River watershed downstream of tributary dams is accessible, but populations were largely
extirpated until recent reintroduction efforts in the mainstem of the San Joaquin River went into effect.
The Proposed Action will not have adverse effects but will have a beneficial impact and further theconservation of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon by increasing the abundance,
productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of these species as the reintroduced populations become
established and contribute to the recovery of the ESUs.
The Proposed Action has the potential to indirectly beneficially affect SR winter-run and CV springrun Chinook salmon in the future because it would provide an increased incentive to create additional
habitat or to improve existing habitat in the NEP Area by providing regulatory relief for habitat
improvement within the NEP Area and could increase the amount of habitat available to the ESUs. The
quantity of habitat available would increase over current conditions. An increase in salmon carcasses in
the NEP Area would likely have a beneficial effect on availability of food for rearing fishes, growth ofriparian forests, and salmonid productivity through the addition of marine-derived nutrients from thecarcasses. The increased transport of marine-derived nutrients and trace elements from returning
Chinook salmon adults associated with reintroduction is expected to enhance stream productivity(Scheuerell et al. 2005). The Proposed Action would increase the recreational viewing opportunities of
salmon in the NEP Area, with a possible concomitant increase in tourism and associatedsocioeconomic benefits.
2. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to significantly affect public health or safety?
Response: The Proposed Action would not have significant adverse impacts on public health or safety.
It would not alter any current laws or regulations specific to public health and safety. No activities
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

154

July 18, 2023

Section 11 – Finding of No Significant Impact

related to public health or safety would occur under the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action will
authorize the establishment and release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon
in the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam under section 10(j) of the ESA andadopt limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d) to allow management of the ESA 10(j)designated NEPs in furtherance of conservation.
3. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in significant impacts to uniquecharacteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas?
Response: The Proposed Action would not result in significant adverse impacts to uniquecharacteristics of the geographic area because there would be no activities associated with the Proposed
Action in or near historic or cultural resources, park land, prime farmlands, wetlands, or wild andscenic rivers. The Proposed Action is designation of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV Chinook salmon,
authorization for release, and adoption of limited protective regulations. SR winter-run and CV springrun Chinook salmon individuals from outside the NEP Area will not be captured, transported orreleased into the NEP Area until the necessary State of California and Federal permits are acquired by
the permittee(s) for the reintroduction effort. The Proposed Action does not include ground-disturbing
activities.
4. Are the proposed action’s effects on the quality of the human environment likely to be highly
controversial?
Response: The Proposed Action’s effects are not likely to be considered highly controversial. The
Proposed Action is designation of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV Chinook salmon, authorization for
release, and adoption of limited protective regulations. SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook
salmon individuals from outside the NEP Area will not be captured, transported or released into the
NEP Area until the necessary State of California and Federal permits are acquired by the permittee(s)for the reintroduction effort. NMFS has designated four other experimental populations (78 Fed. Reg.
2893, January 15, 2013; 78 Fed. Reg. 79622, December 31, 2013; 79 FR 40004, July 11, 2014; 87 Fed.
Reg. 79808, December 28, 2022) and promulgated regulations, codified at 50 CFR part 222, subpart E,
to implement section 10(j) of the ESA (81 Fed. Reg. 33416, May 26, 2016).
5. Are the proposed action’s effects on the human environment likely to be highly uncertain or
involve unique or unknown risks?
Response: Although there is uncertainty as to whether the reintroductions will succeed, the Proposed
Action’s effects are not likely to result in highly uncertain effects on the human environment or involve
unique or unknown risks. A benefit to the SR winter-run and CV Chinook salmon ESUs is anticipatedby the Proposed Action; however, the degree of benefit is uncertain.
There are no unique or unknown risks to the human environment that would result from the Proposed
Action. The Proposed Action would allow both public and private entities to conduct business andactivities as they are normally accustomed to under federal, state and local laws. The NEP designations
and reduced protective regulations afforded the SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon
reintroduced into the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam under the Proposed
Action would produce no unique or unknown risks to the human environment.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

155

July 18, 2023

Section 11 – Finding of No Significant Impact

6. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to establish a precedent for future actions withsignificant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration?
Response: No decision in principle about a future action would occur from implementation of the
Proposed Action. While the Proposed Action could potentially establish a precedent for otheranadromous fish designations, the Proposed Action is not reasonably expected to establish a precedent
for future actions with significant effects nor represent a decision in principle because each potential
future NEP designations would be independently analyzed based on the unique facts of the particularsituation.
7. Is the proposed action related to other actions that when considered together will haveindividually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts?
Response: The Proposed Action would not cause cumulatively significant impacts. Many of thepotential adverse effects of other ongoing planning efforts and actions in the analysis area would be
avoided or offset through the implementation of federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, manyof which entail review and permitting processes for proposed projects. Projects with the greatest
potential to affect fish and fish-dependent resources—that is, projects occurring in or near the water—
are subject to particular scrutiny through several regulatory avenues. Examples of reviews and permits
that would limit the potential for adverse effects on physical and biological resources include thefollowing (Section 7, Cumulative Effects):• NEPA and CEQA reviews of agency actions with the potential to significantly affect the quality ofthe environment.
• CWA section 404 permits for excavating, clearing land, or discharging dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States, including wetlands.
• California Fish and Game Code section 1600, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act(Pub. Resources Code sections 21000, et seq.) (CEQA) set forth criteria for the incorporation of
avoidance, minimization, and feasible mitigation measures for on-going activities as well as forindividual projects.
• The FPA authorizes FERC to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of
non-federal hydroelectric developments subject to its jurisdiction. The FPA authorizes NMFS to issue
mandatory prescriptions for fish passage and recommend other measures to protect salmon, steelhead,and other anadromous fish.
Cumulative negative effects to SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon from land use
actions in the area, such as agriculture, residential development, road construction, and the operation ofhydroelectric projects, would likely continue under the Proposed Action. Additionally, climate changes
indicate that continued pressures on fish habitat from warming trends would likely exist into the future.
However, NMFS does not anticipate that these impacts would increase as a result of the Proposed
Action because of ongoing efforts in the action area and the regional vicinity by many entities toimprove degraded conditions. Incidental take of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon
under the NEP designations would be consistent with Congressional intent for 10(j) of the ESA tofoster improved habitat and abundance conditions while ongoing, lawful landowner activities are
occurring.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

156

July 18, 2023

Section 11 – Finding of No Significant Impact

8. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect districts, sites, highways,
structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or
may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources?
Response: The Proposed Action would have no adverse effects on districts, sites, highways, structures,or objects listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or cause loss ordestruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources because the Proposed Action would
not impact or alter the physical environment, including these structures and resources. The Proposed
Action will only authorize the establishment and release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run
Chinook salmon in the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam under section 10(j)of the ESA and adopt limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d) to allow management of
the ESA 10(j) designated NEPs in furtherance of conservation.
9. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on endangered or
threatened species, or their critical habitat as defined under the Endangered Species Act of1973?
Response: The Proposed Action would not significantly impact endangered or threatened species ortheir critical habitat, or non-listed fish species in the NEP Area, but would be a benefit to them for thefollowing reasons: 1) the designation would encourage habitat improvement tailored to support thereintroduction of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon, which in turn would further
support recovery of the ESUs and provide broader ecosystem benefits to non-target species; 2) the
return of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon to historical habitat above Shasta Damwould provide marine-derived nutrients to the ecosystem, and would increase productivity for all
species in the NEP Area over time; and, 3) an increase in the abundance of SR winter-run and CV
spring-run Chinook salmon in the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam would
likely increase the food resources available to multiple species (e.g., those that prey on juvenile
salmonids and returning adults). The proposed action is expected to contribute to the recovery of theSR winter-run and CV Chinook salmon ESUs.
10. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to threaten a violation of Federal, state, or local
law or requirements imposed for environmental protection?
Response: The Proposed Action would not threaten a violation of federal, state, tribal, or local law or
requirements to protect the environment because it is based on current environmental law andregulations, and requires necessary State of California and federal permits for the reintroduction effort,
and supports the SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon reintroduction.
11. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to significantly adversely affect stocks of marine
mammals as defined in the Marine Mammal Protection Act?
Response: The Proposed Action is not reasonably expected to significantly adversely affect stocks ofmarine mammals. It could increase the numbers of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon
in the Pacific Ocean and would likely have a small, but beneficial effect, on ESA-listed Southern
Resident killer whales that feed on adult salmon off the California coast.

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

157

July 18, 2023

Section 11 – Finding of No Significant Impact

12.
Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to significantly adversely affect managed
fish species?
Response: The Proposed Action would not reasonably be expected to significantly adversely affect thesustainability of managed fish species, including non-target species. McCloud redband occur in theupper McCloud River above Middle Falls, above the historical extent of anadromy. Consequently,
there is minimal likelihood reintroduced SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon andredband trout would co-occur and interact. There are no other ESA-listed fish species currently in the
NEP Area. Absence of other ESA-listed fish species in the NEP Area precludes any effects on other
ESA-listed fish species in the NEP Area. The Proposed Action would not be expected to jeopardize thesustainability of resident rainbow trout because salmon and native rainbow trout do not exhibit
interspecific competition when in the same location. It is uncertain if the Proposed Action could
potentially affect, but would not be expected to significantly adversely affect, the sustainability of nonnative fish species. Benefits to non-native fish are likely because the NEP would likely increase
productivity and potential food resources available to non-native fish species. There are no data toprovide information on potential interactions between the experimental population and other non-nativefish species (i.e., brook trout, bass) in the NEP Area (Subsection 6.2, Effects on Fisheries Resources).
Any adverse effects on non-native fish species from the reintroduction cannot be assessed because of alack of quantitative or qualitative data that are reliable to estimate impact trends.
13. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to significantly adversely affect essential fish
habitat as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act?
Response: The Proposed Action does not include any activities that would affect EFH downstream of
Shasta Dam or any EFH outside of the NEP Area. EFH does not occur in the NEP Area.
14. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to significantly adversely affect vulnerable
marine or coastal ecosystems, including but not limited to, deep coral ecosystems?
Response: No activities affecting ocean or coastal habitats will result from the Proposed Action. The
Proposed Action will authorize the establishment and release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV springrun Chinook salmon in the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam under section
10(j) of the ESA and adopt limited protective regulations under ESA section 4(d) to allow managementof the ESA 10(j) designated NEPs in furtherance of conservation. The Proposed Action does not have a
direct relationship to any activities in the ocean, coastal habitat. Other ongoing lawful activities related
to and carrying out conservation of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon would continue
under the Proposed Action such as monitoring and implementation of recovery plans. These activities,
however, are not a direct result of the Proposed Action, and regardless do not have any potential tocause substantial damage to any habitat.
15. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to significantly adversely affect biodiversity or
ecosystem functioning (e.g., benthic productivity, predator-prey relationships, etc.)?
Response: The Proposed Action is not reasonably expected to significantly adversely affectbiodiversity or ecosystem functioning, Restoring SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon to
the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam that is part of their historical range
would not have a substantial impact on biodiversity and/or ecosystem function, but would benefit theecosystem by the return of marine-derived nutrients that have been absent from the NEP Area since themid-20th century. Over the long term, this would improve ecosystem function and diversity by
Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

158

July 18, 2023

Section 11 – Finding of No Significant Impact

increasing primary productivity, increased aquatic insect production, and thus potentially increasing
prey for all fish species in the NEP Area.
16. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in the introduction or spread of anonindigenous species?
Response: The Proposed Action is not reasonably expected to result in the introduction or spread of anonindigenous species. The Proposed Action would authorize the release of NEPs of SR winter-run
and CV spring-run Chinook salmon that are the indigenous stock that was historically present in the
NEP Area. The likelihood that this reintroduction effort would unintentionally spread non-indigenous
species is very low given the strict, legally required pathogen and fish-health protocols employed byhatchery managers and CDFW. Furthermore, the NEP designations and reduced protective regulations
afforded the SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon reintroduced into the McCloud andUpper Sacramento Rivers under the Proposed Action would have no effect on the introduction or
potential spread of non-indigenous species because the Proposed Action only authorizes theestablishment and release of NEPs of SR winter-run and CV spring-run Chinook salmon in the NEPArea under section 10(j) of the ESA and adoption of limited protective regulations under ESA section
4(d) to allow management of the ESA 10(j) designated NEPs in furtherance of conservation.
Determination
In view of the information presented in this document and the analysis contained in the supporting
Environmental Assessment prepared for the Designation and Release of Nonessential Experimental
Populations of Sacramento River winter-run and Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon in the
McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers under Endangered Species Act Section 10(j), it is hereby
determined that the Designation and Release of Nonessential Experimental Populations of Sacramento
River winter-run and Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon in the McCloud and Upper
Sacramento Rivers under Endangered Species Act Section 10(j) will not significantly impact thequality of the human environment as described above and in the supporting Environmental Assessment.
In addition, all beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed action have been addressed to reach theconclusion of no significant impacts. Accordingly, preparation of an environmental impact statement
for this action is not necessary.

7/20/2023
Date

Jennifer Quan
Regional Administrator
West Coast Region
National Marine Fisheries Service

Sacramento Winter Run and Central Valley
Spring Run Endangered Species Act 10(j) EA

159

July 18, 2023

Appendix A – Public Comments

APPENDIX A Public Comments
APPENDIX A. Public Comments
NMFS published a proposed rule and notice of availability for the draft Environmental Assessment(EA) in the Federal Register on May 12, 2023 (88 FR 30690) with a 30-day public comment periodwith the comment period closing on June 12, 2023. During the public comment period NMFS received
seven comment letters.
Commenter #1: W.M. Beaty & Associates on behalf of Manulife Investment Management
Commenter #2: Anonymous
Commenter #3: Richard SpottsCommenter #4: United States Forest Service (USFS)
Commenter #5: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Commenter #6: California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
Commenter #7: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
After the public comment period closed, NMFS received an additional letter from the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) via electronic mail. NMFS considered BOR’s comments for purposes of finalizing
the Rule and EA making.
Commenter #2’s comment was unrelated to the scope of the EA or Proposed Rule and therefore notincorporated or considered further.
All commenters supported promulgation of a Final Rule. Commenters #3, #4, and #6 focused solely on
the Proposed Rule while commenters #5 and #7 provided comments on both the Proposed Rule and the
EA. Commenter #7 (PG&E) was the only commenter who provided suggestions and proposed change
to be reflected in the Final Rule and Final EA. Therefore, PG&E’s comments are addressed inAppendix A.
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provided comments on the Proposed Rule and on thedraft EA:
Comment #1: The proposed exemption from Section 9 take prohibitions requires additional detail inwhich PG&E requests specific language detailing activities associated with its McCloud-Pit
Hydroelectric Project (Project, FERC Project No. 2106).
NMFS #1 Response: The examples in the Federal Register Notice (FRN) represent a broad, but noncomprehensive subset of the types of otherwise legal activities that may occur in the nonessential
experimental populations (NEP) area that are exempted from Section 9 take prohibitions. The list isintended to be illustrative rather than all-inclusive. Regardless of the types of activities listed as
examples in the 4(d) rule, if a legal activity results in incidental take and the take is not due tonegligence, then the activity is exempted from take prohibitions, even if not included in the list of
examples.
Comment #2: PG&E claims that the level of consultation with stakeholders was inadequate.
NMFS #2 Response: To the contrary, over the past 12 years (starting in 2010) NMFS’ public outreachand engagement strategy for both reintroduction and the 10(j) rule has been extensive, comprehensive
NMFS McCloud & Upper Sacramento Rivers
Above Shasta Dam ESA 10(j) EA

A-1

July 2023

Appendix A – Public Comments

and sustained. This includes public meetings, landowner and stakeholder meetings, briefings andupdates with tribes, local, state and federal government representatives and government groups,
webinars, podcasts and electronically posting web stories, fact sheets, videos and Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) documents on NMFS’ website. Further, in response to concerns raised bystakeholders as a result of the above outreach efforts, NMFS worked with the California Board ofForestry to amend the California Forest Practice Rules to better align with the 10(j) rule; worked with
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to address concerns over their freshwater
fishing regulations and the California Endangered Species Act; and entered into a formal costewardship agreement with CDFW and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe to jointly pursue reintroduction.
This also includes partnering and participation in several multi-agency and multi-stakeholder technicalcommittees.
Comment #3: The Determination by NMFS that the Experimental Population is Non-Essential isAppropriate.
NMFS #3 Response: Comment noted.
Comment #4: PG&E requested "unambiguous exclusion of hydropower" to be consistent with NMFS’2013 Middle Columbia River Steelhead rule.
NMFS #4 Response: See response to Comment #1. As stated in PG&E's letter, "the proposed rulewould exclude all lawful activities from the take prohibition…including the operation and maintenanceof hydroelectric facilities.” PG&E also notes that its request would be consistent with the Middle
Columbia River Steelhead 10(j) and 4(d) rule (see 78 Federal Register, 2,893 to 2,907 (January 15,2013)). However, in the case of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead rule, the inclusion ofhydropower was explicitly related to a requirement of the new hydropower license for the Pelton
Round Butte Project stipulating reintroduction. There is no similar license requirement or final plan toreintroduce SR winter-run Chinook salmon or CV spring-run Chinook salmon upstream of Shasta
Dam.
Comment #5: Regarding the congressional history and intent, PG&E claims that subsequent to the1982 amendments of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Secretary is not authorized to reintroduce
eggs, propagules, or individuals outside of the current range of the species without first making thedeterminations required under Section 10(j).
NMFS #5 Response: PG&E’s interpretation of Section 10(j) of the ESA is inconsistent with thestatute, congressional history and intent. Section 10(j) does not limit or restrict any previously held
authority on the part of the Secretary to authorize or reintroduce species outside their current range. On
the contrary, section 10(j) expands the Secretaries authorities, in this case, to designate and authorize
the release of nonessential experimental populations (NEPs or experimental populations) of
Sacramento River (SR) winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Central Valley(CV) spring-run Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) in the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers
upstream of Shasta Dam (the NEP Area), California, and, under the ESA, establish a limited set of takeexceptions for the experimental populations.
Comment #6: Regarding the congressional history and intent, PG&E claims that the key mechanism in
Section 10(j) to afford landowner cooperation is the provision providing that endangered experimental
populations could be treated as threatened species, which consequently authorizes NMFS to relax
incidental take prohibitions for endangered experimental populations. Further, that this reflects the
NMFS McCloud & Upper Sacramento Rivers
Above Shasta Dam ESA 10(j) EA

A-2

July 2023

Appendix A – Public Comments

congressional intent that species reintroductions should be accomplished with the support of affectedstakeholders.
NMFS #6 Response: See response to Comment #2; and section 1.2.4.1. of the EA. Further, Congressviewed ESA section 10(j) as an opportunity “to encourage the recovery of species through population
re-establishment with the cooperation of, not despite, state and local groups.” (Wolok 1996). Congress
intended that regulations promulgated by the Services to designate experimental populations “should beviewed as an agreement among the Federal agencies, the state fish and wildlife agencies and any
landowners involved” (Wolok 1996 quoting H.R. Rep. No. 567, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1982)). We
note that designation and release of NEPs of Sacramento River (SR) winter-run and Central Valley(CV) spring-run Chinook salmon in the McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers above Shasta Dam
under section 10(j) of the ESA was formally requested by the United States Forest Service (primarylandowner in the NEP area) and generally supported by other landowners.
Comment #7: The description of the No Action Alternative is confusing due to Table 1 wording as
compared to section 6.3.1.1 wording related to no action alternative.
NMFS #7 Response: The language PG&E describes as confusing and inconsistent with othersubsections is under the Table 1 header of "ESA Take Prohibitions on SR winter-run and CV springrun Chinook Salmon," and therefore different from the text in section 6.3.1.1 which describes the noaction alternative more broadly. Section 6.3.1.1 simply states there would be no "protective
regulations" otherwise known as take prohibitions under the 4(d) rule since there would be noreintroduction under the alternative. The word “related” has been added to "protective regulations" forclarification.
Comment #8: PG&E recommends adding language to Alternative 2 related to an ongoing Federal
Power Act proceeding administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in order to restrict
NMFS from making any future flow related recommendations in that proceeding.
NMFS #8 Response: PG&E 's requested addition is outside of the scope of this EA and rulemaking.
Comment #9: The Alternative 2 analysis of socioeconomic impacts is cursory and fails to address
potential effects on power generation.
NMFS #9 Response: Section 5.9 of the EA describes socioeconomic impacts more broadly than undereach alternative. For instance, NMFS did not analyze specific potential financial impacts to PG&E ortheir ratepayers. NMFS is not aware of, and PG&E has not provided information regarding how, and towhat extent the Proposed Action could increase costs or otherwise affect ratepayers.
Comment #10: PG&E suggests adding the following clarifying language to Alternative 2: “if NMFS
issues mandatory prescriptions for fish passage under the FPA in the NEP Area, the ESA Section 4(d)rule would provide exception for take of experimental population fish in the NEP Area that isincidental to an otherwise lawful activity and unintentional, not due to negligent conduct.”
NMFS #10 Response: NMFS accepted this suggestion and has made the modification in section
4.2.2.5 of the Final EA.
Comment #11: Alternative 2 within Section 6.3.3.2 of the draft EA states that an effect of the proposed
action would be “an increased incentive to create additional habitat or to improve existing habitat in
NMFS McCloud & Upper Sacramento Rivers
Above Shasta Dam ESA 10(j) EA

A-3

July 2023

Appendix A – Public Comments

the NEP Area”. However, NMFS does not specify what creation or improvement of habitat would
occur or how it would affect landowners and other stakeholders in the watershed.
NMFS #11 Response: NMFS agrees this statement would benefit from clarity. In section 6.3.3.2 of the
Final EA, NMFS will add: “by providing regulatory relief for habitat improvement within the NEP
Area” at the end of the sentence.
Comment #12: Section 5.5 of the draft EA addresses affected wildlife species but omits the foothill
yellow- legged frog, a California Species of Special Concern, Forest Service Sensitive Species, andFederal Species of Concern found in the McCloud River.
NMFS #12 Response: The NEP Area (EA Figure 3) is home to a variety of wildlife species, many ofwhich rely to varying extents on fish, including salmonids. Of the approximately 311 wildlife species(amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) that may occur in the NEP Area (CDFW 2016c), 33 (11percent) have a strong- consistent or recurrent relationship with salmon as a food resource (Cederholm
et al. 2000) and therefore, these are the species most likely affected under the range of alternatives.
Section 5.5 is not inclusive of all species and focuses on species that have a strong-consistent orrecurrent relationship with salmon per Cederholm (2000).
Comment #13: The draft EA should discuss how NMFS would meet the requirements under the
regulations if it selected Alternative 3.
NMFS #13 Response: This is generally discussed in regulatory process 4.3.2 and more specificallydescribed in: 4.3.2.2. (ESA section 4(d)) 4.3.2.4 (ESA Section 10); 4.3.2.1 (ESA Section 9); and 4.3.2.3(ESA Section 7).
Comment #14: Since NMFS has excluded incidental take by lawful activities from other Section 4(d)rules associated with species reintroductions, there is no obvious reason why it would not bepracticable to do so for Alternative 3.
NMFS #14 Response: Consistent with other experimental population designations, the EA preferred
Alternative (Alternative 2) and FRN specify that if a legal activity results in incidental take and the takeis not due to negligence, then the activity is
exempted from take prohibitions. In contrast,
Alternative 3 would apply the existing 4(d) rule for extant populations to the NEP Area.
Comment #15: In Alternative 3 it is not clear how NMFS would simultaneously determine that a
population was non- essential (that its loss would not jeopardize survival and recovery of the species)
but at the same time it was “necessary and advisable” to impose full Section 9 prohibitions on
individuals of the NEP.
NMFS #15 Response: The EA language states “For a threatened species, ESA section 9 does not
specifically prohibit take of those species, but the ESA instead authorizes NMFS to adopt regulations
under section 4(d) to prohibit take or that it deems necessary and advisable for species conservation.”
For endangered species, section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of those species. For a threatened species,
ESA section 9 does not specifically prohibit take of those species, but the ESA instead authorizes
NMFS to adopt regulations under section 4(d) to prohibit take or that it deems necessary and advisable
for species conservation. The experimental populations must generally be treated as a threatened
species. Therefore, in the preferred Alternative 2, we propose to issue tailored protective regulations
under ESA section 4(d) for the experimental populations to identify take prohibitions that would
NMFS McCloud & Upper Sacramento Rivers
Above Shasta Dam ESA 10(j) EA

A-4

July 2023

Appendix A – Public Comments

provide for the conservation of the species with exemptions for particular activities. Alternative 3
would apply the existing 4(d) rule for extant populations to the NEP Area.
Comment #16: For Alternative 3, the draft EA fails to evaluate the impact on discretionary federal
actions in the event full Section 9 prohibitions are imposed but the conference opinion does not
authorize incidental take.
NMFS #16 Response: Similar to Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, in accordance with ESA section
10(j)(2)(C), the ESA section 7(a)(2) consultation requirement would not apply to Federal actions that
may affect the NEPs in the NEP Area. For purposes of ESA section 7, the NEP would be treated as a
species proposed for ESA listing, and only two provisions of ESA section 7 would apply: (1) section
7(a)(1) (requiring Federal agencies to use their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA bycarrying out programs for the conservation of listed species); and (2) section 7(a)(4) (triggered byFederal actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to be listed).
In addition, no critical habitat could be designated for the NEP.
Comment #17: On page 33, Section 4.3.2.5, the draft EA erroneously states that “if NMFS issues
mandatory prescriptions for fish passage under the FPA in the NEP Area, the ESA section 4(d) rule in
NMFS’ rulemaking would provide exceptions to take prohibitions appropriate to the circumstances,including NMFS’ exception for take of experimental population fish in the NEP Area that is incidental
to an otherwise lawful activity and unintentional, not due to negligent conduct.” This should becorrected to reflect that under Alternative 3, the more onerous Section 4(d) rule applied below Shasta
dam would be the rule in effect.
NMFS #17 Response: Comment noted, the EA language will be corrected to read "Under Alternative
3, NMFS expects restrictions placed on water resource management in the NEP Area would be similar
to those that are currently in place outside of the NEP Area downstream of Shasta and Keswick Dams."

NMFS McCloud & Upper Sacramento Rivers
Above Shasta Dam ESA 10(j) EA

A-5

July 2023