Time- Dated Material GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW California Regulatory Notice Register REGISTER 2022, NUMBER 19-Z PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW MAY 13, 2022 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS TITLE 2. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Conflict–of–Interest Codes — Notice File Number Z2022–0503–05 ........................................ 535 AMENDMENT STATE AGENCY: Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency TITLE 2. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Complaint Against Commission Members — Notice File Number Z2022–0503–04 ............................ 536 TITLE 22.

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Family First Prevention Services Act — Notice File Number Z2022–0428–01 ................................ 537 TITLE 22.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD Board Hearings and Procedures — Notice File Number Z2022–0502–02 ................................... 539 GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Southern California Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ................................................... 541 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Northern California Summer Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ........................................... 542 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Consistency Determination Number 1653–2022–090–001–R1, Fish Creek Fish Passage Project, Humboldt County .............................................................................. 552 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Consistency Determination Request for Santa Ana River Stream Habitat Improvement Project, Tracking Number 1653–2022–093–001–R6), Riverside County .................................... 554 (Continued on next page)

DECISION NOT TO PROCEED DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS The Farm and Home Loan Amendments .............................................................. 554

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS Regulations filed with Secretary of State .............................................................. 554 The California Regulatory Notice Register is an official state publication of the Office of Administrative Law containing notices of proposed regulatory actions by state regulatory agencies to adopt, amend or repeal regulations contained in the California Code of Regulations. The effective period of a notice of proposed regulatory action by a state agency in the California Regulatory Notice Register shall not exceed one year [Government Code § 11346.4(b)].

It is suggested, therefore, that issues of the California Regulatory Notice Register be retained for a minimum of 18 months. CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER is published weekly by the Office of Administrative Law, 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250, Sacramento, CA 95814-4339. The Register is printed by Barclays, a subsidiary of West, a Thomson Reuters Business, and is offered by subscription for $205.00 (annual price). To order or make changes to current subscriptions, please call (800) 328−4880. The Register can also be accessed at http://www.oal.ca.gov .

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 535 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS Information contained in this document is published as received from agencies and is not edited by Thomson Reuters. TITLE 2.

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Political Practices Commission, pursuant to the authority vest - ed in it by Sections 82011, 87303, and 87304 of the Government Code to review proposed conflict–of– interest codes, will review the proposed/amended conflict–of–interest codes of the following: CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES AMENDMENT STATE AGENCY: Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency A written comment period has been established commencing on May 13, 2022 and closing on June 27, 2022.

Written comments should be directed to the Fair Political Practices Commission, Attention Daniel Vo, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811. At the end of the 45–day comment period, the pro - posed conflict–of–interest code(

s) will be submitted to the Commission’s Executive Director for his review, unless any interested person or his or her duly autho - rized representative requests, no later than 15 days pri- or to the close of the written comment period, a public hearing before the full Commission. If a public hear - ing is requested, the proposed code(

s) will be submit - ted to the Commission for review. The Executive Director of the Commission will review the above–referenced conflict–of– interest code(s), proposed pursuant to Government Code

Section 87300, which designate, pursuant to Government Code

Section 87302, employees who must disclose certain investments, interests in real property and income. The Executive Director of the Commission, upon his or its own motion or at the request of any interested person, will approve, or revise and approve, or return the proposed code(

s) to the agency for revision and re– submission within 60 days without further notice. Any interested person may present statements, ar - guments or comments, in writing to the Executive Director of the Commission, relative to review of the proposed conflict–of–interest code(s). Any writ - ten comments must be received no later than June 27, 2022. If a public hearing is to be held, oral comments may be presented to the Commission at the hearing.

COST TO LOCAL AGENCIES There shall be no reimbursement for any new or increased costs to local government which may re - sult from compliance with these codes because these are not new programs mandated on local agencies by the codes since the requirements described herein were mandated by the Political Reform Act of 1974. Therefore, they are not “costs mandated by the state” as defined in Government Code

Section 17514. EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS AND BUSINESSES Compliance with the codes has no potential effect on housing costs or on private persons, businesses or small businesses. AUTHORITY Government Code Sections 82011, 87303 and 87304 provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission as the code–reviewing body for the above conflict–of– interest codes shall approve codes as submitted, revise the proposed code and approve it as revised, or return the proposed code for revision and re–submission.

REFERENCE Government Code Sections 87300 and 87306 pro - vide that agencies shall adopt and promulgate conflict– of–interest codes pursuant to the Political Reform Act and amend their codes when change is necessitated by changed circumstances. CONTACT Any inquiries concerning the proposed conflict–of– interest code(

s) should be made to Amanda Apostol, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322–5660. A VAILABILITY OF PROPOSED CONFLICT–OF–INTEREST CODES Copies of the proposed conflict–of–interest codes may be obtained from the Commission offices or the respective agency. Requests for copies from the

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 536 Commission should be made to Amanda Apostol, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California 95811, telephone (916) 322–5660. TITLE 2. F AIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fair Political Practices Commission (the Commission), under the au- thority vested in it under the Political Reform Act (the Act) 1 by

Section 83112 of the Government Code, pro- poses to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations in Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. The Commission will consider the proposed regulation at a public hearing on or after June 16, 2022 at the offic- es of the Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, California, commenc- ing at approximately 10:00 a.m. Written comments must be received at the Commission offices no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 14, 2022.

BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW Members of the Commission, including the Chair, are subject to the Act like all other state and local of - ficers, and persons participating in regulated political activity. As a result, Commission members can be ac- cused of violating the Act. Such allegations should be investigated and can result in legal action if there is reason to believe a violation occurred.

A stated purpose of the Act is that “(a)dequate en - forcement mechanisms should be provided to public officials and private citizens in order that this title will be vigorously enforced.” 2 Consequently, the Act pro - vides multiple avenues for enforcement of its provi - sions.

Nearly all violations of the Act can be pursued through administrative or civil action. 3 Further, if a person knowingly or willfully violates the Act, they can also be subject to criminal prosecution. 4 The Commission’s Enforcement Division investi - gates and prosecutes most cases involving alleged vio- lations of the Act via administrative proceedings. The Commission has sole authority to bring administra- tive proceedings for alleged violations of the Act. 5 For 1 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014.

All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sec - tions 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated. 2

Section 81002(f). 3 Sections 89520, 89521, 91004, 91005, and 91005.5. 4

Section 91000. 5 Sections 83116 and 83116.5. civil court actions involving violations of the Act, the Commission shares jurisdiction with local district at - torneys, city attorneys, and the Office of the Attorney General (the AG’s Office), depending on who is alleged to have violated the Act. Specifically, the Commission is the “civil prosecutor” for cases involving any state agency, except itself.

The AG’s Office is the civil pros- ecutor for alleged violations of the Act involving the Commission, including its members. 6 The AG’s Office also has jurisdiction over criminal violations of the Act for state agencies, including the Commission. 7 While the Act does not explicitly provide for refer - ral of complaints to other agencies, such authority ex- ists as the result of the concurrent jurisdiction provid - ed under the Act.

The Enforcement Division occasion- ally refers complaints to other agencies in instances when doing so would be preferable for obtaining ad - equate resolution of the complaint, or where the other agency expresses an interest in pursuing a particular complaint. In instances where a current Commission mem - ber is accused of violating the Act, the AG’s Office is the appropriate agency to investigate the allegations and pursue any appropriate legal action.

While the Commission’s Enforcement Division has authority to pursue administrative action in such an instance, prac- tical and ethical concerns dictate that the best course of action is for the Enforcement Division to refer the matter to the AG’s Office. REGULATORY ACTION Adopt 2 Cal. Code Regs.

Section 18315 directing the Commission’s Chief of Enforcement to refer com- plaints alleging a current Commission member violat- ed the Act to the AG’s Office, provide notice of the re- ferral to the complainant and Commissioner named in the complaint, and provide notice of the complaint to the Commission’s Chair or Vice Chair. SCOPE The Commission may adopt the language noticed herein, or it may choose new language to implement its decisions concerning the issue identified above or any related issue. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Fiscal Impact on Local Government. None. Fiscal Impact on State Government. None. Fiscal Impact on Federal Funding of State Programs. None. 6 Sections 91001(b). 7

Section 91001(a).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 537 AUTHORITY Government Code

section 83112 provides that the Fair Political Practices Commission may adopt, amend, and rescind rules and regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of the Act. REFERENCE Government Code sections 83115, 91001, 91004, 91005, and 91005.5. CONTACT Any inquiries should be made to Dave Bainbridge, Fair Political Practices Commission, 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, CA 95811; telephone (916) 322–5660; dbainbridge@fppc.ca.gov. Proposed regu - latory language can be accessed at http://www.fppc. ca.gov/the–law/fppc–regulations/proposed–regula - tions–and–notices.html . TITLE 22.

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ORD #0122–01 SMALL FAMILY HOMES California Department of Social Services (CDSS) hereby gives notice of the proposed regulatory action described below. Any person interested may present statements or arguments relating to the proposed reg - ulations in writing, e–mail, or by facsimile to the ad - dress, e–mail address, or numbers listed below. All comments must be received by June 28th, 2022.

Following the close of the public notice, CDSS may thereafter adopt the proposals substantially as described below or may modify the proposals if the modifications are sufficiently related to the original text. Except for nonsubstantive, technical, or gram - matical changes, the full text of any modified propos - al will be available for 15 days prior to its adoption to all persons who submit written comments during the public comment period and all persons who request notification on this proposal. Please address requests for regulations as modified to the agency contact iden- tified below.

Copies of the express terms of the proposed regu - lations and the Initial Statement of Reasons are avail - able from the office listed below. This notice, the Initial Statement of Reasons and the text of the proposed regula- tions are available on CDSS’ public hearing page (http:// www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/Letters–Regulations/ Legislation–and–Regulations/CDSS–Regulation– Changes–In–Process–and–Completed–Regulations/ Public–Hearing–Information).

Additionally, all the information which CDSS considered as the basis for these proposed regulations (i.e., rulemaking file) is available for public reading at the address listed be - low. Following the public notice period, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons will also be available at the following address: CONTACT California Department of Social Services Office of Regulations Development 744 P Street, MS 8–4–192 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: (916) 657–2586, Fax: (916) 654–3286 Email: ord@dss.ca.gov CDSS has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action.

However, CDSS will hold a public hearing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her au - thorized representative, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period. Any request should be made to the contact information provided above. CHAPTERS Title 22, Division 6,

Chapter (Small Family Homes) INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW The Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) became federal law as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–123) and made signifi - cant changes to foster care funding, including limiting IV–E funding to specified congregate care settings, including Qualified Residential Treatment Programs (QRTPs). QRTPs are nationally accredited facili - ties that serve youth with clinical treatment needs.

In California, Short–Term Residential Therapeutic Programs (STRTPs) already had many of the traits required of QRTPs prior to passage of FFPSA and STRTP licensing standards became fully compliant with FFPSA QRTP requirements on October 1, 2021. The FFPSA also directed the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to is- sue model licensing standards for foster family homes.

States were subsequently required to provide ACF with detailed information about whether their state foster family home licensing standards (resource fam- ily approval standards in California) were consistent with the model licensing standards identified by ACF, and if not, why not.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 538 Small Family Homes (SFH) are defined in Health and Safety Code

section 1502 as residential facilities in a licensee’s family residence, licensed in California to provide care for six or fewer children who have men- tal health, developmental or physical disabilities re - quiring special care and supervision. They are subject to their own regulation scheme rather than Resource Family Approval standards because they serve this specialized population, but they are home–based set - tings, rather than congregate care facilities.

While STRTPs are intended for limited stays to sta- bilize children with acute mental health issues, and resource families are caregivers who provide out– of–home care for children in foster care, small fam - ily homes are generally long–term, often permanent homes for youth with chronic health care needs. In light of the changes that FFPSA made to federal IV–E funding, it became necessary to make clear to ACF that SFHs are not congregate care facilities subject to QRTP standards, but rather a type of foster family home.

Since they are not resource families, this subse- quently necessitated submitting a comparison to ACF of SFH regulations to the model licensing standards, similar to what was done for resource families. In the course of preparing the comparison for ACF, the Department identified several instances where spe- cific health and safety standards required of resource families were higher than those required of small fam- ily homes or absent in the SFH regulations.

The SFH regulations thus require amendments for consistency with health and safety requirements for resource fam - ilies, which has been communicated to ACF for the purpose of maintaining Title IV–E funding for SFHs. CDSS considered other possible related regulations in this area, and we found that these are the only reg - ulations dealing with licensing family residence, that provides 24–hour care for six or fewer foster children who have mental disorders or developmental or phys- ical disabilities and who require special care and su - pervision.

CDSS finds that these proposed regula - tions are compatible and consistent with existing state regulations. In order to conform the health and safety require - ments of small family home regulations to those re - quired of resource families, the Department is propos- ing the following amendments: Risk Assessment

Section 83018 is amended to add a requirement that prospective SFH licensees include in their application information sufficient to allow the licensing agency to conduct a risk assessment of the applicant, including past and current alcohol and substance use and abuse history; abuse, neglect and domestic violence histo - ry and; past and current physical and mental health. A definition of “risk assessment” is added to

Section 83001 for clarity. Carbon Monoxide Detectors Changes to

Section 83087(

e) amend current require- ments for carbon monoxide detectors, clarifying that they must be functioning and be placed on each level of occupancy and near all sleeping areas of the home, and be audible in each bedroom. Smoke Alarms A new subsection is added to

Section 83087 stat - ing that every small family home must have one or more functioning smoke alarms as required in the California Fire Code. Fire Extinguishers A new subsection is added to

Section 83088 stating that a small family home shall have at least one oper - ational fire extinguisher as required by the California Fire Code. Forms Incorporated by Reference Small Family Home Risk Assessment–Confidential (LIC XX (x/22) (CONFIDENTIAL) [draft to be final- ized prior to completion of rulemaking process] COST ESTIMATE 1. Costs or Savings to State Agencies: None. 2. Costs to Local Agencies or School Districts Which Must Be Reimbursed in Accordance with Government Code Sections 17500–17630: None. 3. Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings to Local Agencies: None. 4.

Federal Funding to State Agencies: None. LOCAL MANDATE STATEMENT These regulations do not impose a mandate on lo - cal agencies or school districts. There are no state– mandated local costs in these regulations which re - quire State reimbursement under

Section 17500 et seq. of the Government Code. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON BUSINESS The CDSS has made an initial determination that the proposed action will not have a significant, state - wide adverse economic impact directly affecting busi- nesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. This deter- mination was made based on the fact that these regu - lations largely clarify existing health and safety stan - dards for Small Family Homes in California.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 539 STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL COST IMPACT ON PRIVATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES The CDSS is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would nec - essarily incur in reasonable compliance with the pro - posed action. SMALL BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT These regulations will impact small family homes that are operating as small businesses, however, com - plying with them will incur little to no costs to these providers.

STATEMENT OF RESULTS OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT CDSS has determined that the adoption of these regulations will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California nor result in the elimination of ex - isting businesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California. The regulations as amended will yield the benefit of providing clarity to providers offer- ing small family homes to their communities and en - suring consistency of health and safety requirements between Small Family Homes and Resource Families.

The state’s environment and worker safety is not af - fected by this regulatory action. STATEMENT OF EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS The proposed regulatory action will have no effect on housing costs. STATEMENT OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED These regulations are being pursued in response to changes in federal law. In light of changes that the fed- eral FFPSA made to IV–E funding of state programs, it was necessary to make clear to the Administration of Children and Families that Small Family Homes are not congregate care facilities.

As they are home– based settings, but not resource families, this subse - quently necessitated submitting a comparison to the Administration of Children and Families of SFH reg - ulations to federal model licensing standards and amending SFH regulations where health and safety requirements were lower than those required of re - source families. No alternatives have been presented to CDSS for review.

CDSS must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the agency or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost–effective to affected private persons and equally effective in im- plementing the statutory policy or other provision of law. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE CITATIONS CDSS adopts these regulations under the authori - ty granted in Health and Safety Code

Section 1530. Subject regulations also add references to Title 24,

Chapter 9, Sections 201, 906.1, 907, and 915 of the California Fire Code. CDSS REPRESENTATIVE REGARDING THE RULEMAKING PROCESS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION Contact Person: Tyler Penn (916) 657–1808 Backup: Oliver Chu (916) 657–3588 TITLE 22. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) proposes to adopt, amend, and repeal the regulations described below after considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regard - ing the proposed action. CUIAB has not scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action.

However, CUIAB will hold a hear - ing if it receives a written request for a public hearing from any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, no later than 15 days before the close of the written comment period. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any person, or his or her authorized representa - tive, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to CUIAB. The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on June 28, 2022. CUIAB will consider only written comments received at CUIAB by that time.

Submit comments as follows: Kim Hickox, Attorney III California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Office of the Chief Counsel 2400 Venture Oaks Way, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95833 or

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 540 By facsimile (FAX) at (916) 263–6842, or by e–mail to kim.hickox@cuiab.ca.gov. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE California Unemployment Insurance Code

section 411 authorizes CUIAB to adopt these proposed reg - ulations. The proposed regulations implement, inter - pret, and make specific sections 1951, 1953.5, 2712, and 3262 of the California Unemployment Insurance Code. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW CUIAB is an independent administrative court system established to provide due process for work - ers and employers who seek to appeal Unemployment Insurance benefit decisions, Disability Insurance ben - efit decisions, and Employer Payroll Tax assessments made by the Employment Development Department.

Benefit decisions issued by CUIAB must be issued in accordance with the federal timeliness guidelines is - sued by the United States Department of Labor, as set forth in Title 20 Code of Federal Regulations

section 650.4. The purpose of this proposed rulemaking action is to enhance compliance with those timeliness guide- lines, and to improve the appeals process to make it convenient and accessible as possible to all parties. Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulation Changes These regulation changes will enhance the alterna - tives by which the parties, their representatives and witnesses will be able to access hearings on their ap - peals, enable the CUIAB to

schedule those hearings in the most expeditious manner possible, improve and provide clarity on Board procedures. Evaluation of Inconsistency/Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations CUIAB has determined that this proposed rulemak- ing action is not inconsistent or incompatible with ex- isting regulations. After conducting a review for any regulations that would relate to or affect this area, CUIAB has concluded that these are the only regu - lations that concern the quasi–judicial hearings of CUIAB.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION CUIAB has made the following initial determinations: Mandate on local agencies and school districts: None. Cost or savings to any state agency: None. Cost to any local agency or school district which must re reimbursed in accordance with Government Code sections 17500 through 17630: None. Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None. Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None. Cost impacts on a representative private person or business: Based on historical averages, charging fees in accordance with Government Code

section 69950 for transcripts will result in savings. However, charging a per–page fee for files may increase costs for non–claimants. Actual costs may vary from esti - mates based on the actual size of case files and/or tran- scripts requested by parties. Any additional costs or savings to parties will be solely dependent on the ac - tual size of the case file and/or transcript requested by a party, which will vary. Significant, statewide adverse economic impact di - rectly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states: None.

Significant effect on housing costs: None. Results of the Economic Impact Analysis/Assessment CUIAB concludes that the proposed regulato - ry action will neither create nor eliminate jobs with - in California, will neither create new businesses nor eliminate existing businesses within California, and will not result in the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California.

Benefits of the Proposed Action: The proposed reg- ulatory action will benefit the public by helping the scheduling of electronic hearings to be done more quickly and flexibly, and by clarifying Board practices and public access to administrative records in cases. It will also allow parties more time to file a request for reinstatement of a withdrawn appeal; request for re - opening; and a request to vacate a decision. CUIAB has determined there may be cost impacts incurred by a representative private person or business in reasonable compliance with the proposed regulato - ry action.

Charging a per–page fee for files may in - crease costs for non–claimants. Any additional costs to parties will be solely dependent on the actual size of the case file and/or transcript requested by a party, which will vary. Small Business Determination: CUIAB has deter - mined the proposed regulatory action will save small businesses money as it reduces the costs of obtaining transcripts, gives more flexibility to

schedule hearings electronically thereby reducing travel costs for small employers, and will allow small employers to electron- ically submit documents, thereby reducing mailing costs. However, charging a per–page fee for files may increase costs for small business employers who have a former employee who files a claim. Any addition - al costs or savings to parties will be solely dependent

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 541 on the actual size of the case file and/or transcript re - quested by a party, which will vary. The proposed regulations are not anticipated to have an effect on worker safety or the state’s environment. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Government Code

section 11346.5, subdivision (a)(13), CUIAB must determine that no reasonable alternative it considered or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provisions of law.

CUIAB invites interested persons to present state - ments or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulatory action at the scheduled hearing (if any) or during the written comment period.

CONTACT PERSON Kim Hickox, Attorney III California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Office of the Chief Counsel 2400 Venture Oaks Way, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95833 Email: kim.hickox@cuiab.ca.gov FAX: 916–263–6842 The back up contact person is: Mark Woo–Sam, Chief Counsel California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Office of the Chief Counsel 2400 Venture Oaks Way, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95833 Email: mark.woo–sam@cuiab.ca.gov FAX: 916–263–6842 Please also direct all requests for copies of the pro - posed text of the regulations, the initial statement of reasons, the modified text of the regulations, if any, or other information upon which the rulemaking is based to Ms.

Hickox at the above address. A VAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE CUIAB will have the entire rulemaking file avail - able for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its office at the above address. As of the date this notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regulations, and the initial statement of reasons. Copies may be obtained by con- tacting Ms. Hickox at the address or phone number listed above.

A VAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT Following the written comment period and/or pub - lic hearing if one is requested, and after considering all timely and relevant comments received, CUIAB may thereafter adopt the proposed regulatory actions substantially as described in this notice. If CUIAB makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days before CUIAB adopts the regulations as revised.

Please send requests for copies of any modified regulations to the attention of Ms. Hickox at the address indicated above. CUIAB will accept written comments on the modified regula - tions for 15 days after the date on which they are made available. A VAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting Ms. Hickox at the above address.

A VAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regulations in underline and strikeout format can be accessed through our website at www.cuiab.ca.gov. GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST FISH AND GAME COMMISSION NOTICE OF FINDINGS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA STEELHEAD (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to the provisions of

Section 2074.2 of the Fish and Game Code, the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission or FGC), at its April 20–21, 2022

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 542 meeting, accepted for consideration the petition sub - mitted to list the Southern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss ) as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Pursuant to subdivision (e)(2) of

Section 2074.2 of the Fish and Game Code, the Commission deter - mined that the amount of information contained in the petition, when considered in light of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (Department) writ- ten evaluation report, the comments received, and the remainder of the administrative record, would lead a reasonable person to conclude there is a substantial possibility the requested listing could occur. Based on that finding and the acceptance of the peti- tion, the Commission is also providing notice that the Southern California steelhead is a candidate species as defined by

Section 2068 of the Fish and Game Code. Within one year of the date of publication of this no- tice of findings, the Department shall submit a writ - ten report, pursuant to

Section 2074.6 of the Fish and Game Code, indicating whether the petitioned action is warranted. Copies of the petition, as well as minutes of the April 20–21, 2022 Commission meeting, are on file and available for public review from Melissa Miller–Henson, Executive Director, California Fish and Game Commission, 715 P Street, 16 th floor, Sacramento, California 95814, phone (916) 653–4899. Written comments or data related to the petitioned action should be directed to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, P.O.

Box 944209, Sacramento, CA 94244–2090, Attn: Vanessa Gusman or email SCSH@wildlife.ca.gov (include “Southern California steelhead”) in the subject line. Submission of informa- tion via email is preferred. Game Code,

Section 2050 et seq.). (See also California Code of Regulations, Title 14,

Section 670.1, subsec - tion (i)) NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that, at its April 20–21, 2022, meeting, the Commission adopted the following findings outlining the reasons for its determination. I. Background and Procedural History Petition History On September 28, 2018, the Friends of the Eel River submitted a petition to the Commission to list NCSS as endangered under CESA. The Commission re - viewed the petition for completeness, and pursuant to

Section 2073 of the California Fish and Game Code, referred the petition to the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) on October 8, 2018 for evaluation. The Commission gave public notice of re- ceipt of the petition on October 26, 2018 (California Regulatory Notice Register 2018, Number 43–Z, page 1915). The Department requested a 30–day extension of the 90–day review period which was granted by the Commission at its December 12–13, 2018 meeting.

The Department transmitted to the Commission the Department’s petition evaluation on January 24, 2019, and on February 6, 2019, the Commission formally re- ceived the Department’s petition evaluation. At its June 2019 meeting, FGC determined that list- ing may be warranted, and subsequently provided no - tice regarding NCSS’s protected, candidate species status (California Regulatory Notice Register 2019, Number 26–Z, page 954).

Status Review Overview The Commission’s action designating NCSS as a candidate species triggered the Department’s pro - cess for conducting a status review to inform the Commission’s decision on whether to list the species. At a public meeting in August 2019, the Commission approved a request for a 6–month extension to com - plete the status review. On March 29, 2021, the Department transmit - ted to the Commission the Department’s report to the Commission titled California Endangered Species Act Status Review for Northern California Summer Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (status re- view) dated March 11, 2021.

On April 14, 2021, the Commission formally received the Department’s sta - tus review during a public meeting. On June 16, 2021, the Commission found that the information contained in the petition to list NCSS and other information in the record before the Commission warranted listing NCSS as an endangered species under CESA. Species Description Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss is a species of salmonid native to cold–water tributaries of the Pacific Ocean in Asia and North America.

Oncorhynchus mykiss includes FISH AND GAME COMMISSION NOTICE OF FINDINGS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SUMMER STEELHEAD (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS) (4/21/2022) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission), at a meet- ing on June 16, 2021, found pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (Fish & G. Code)

Section 2075.5, that the information contained in the petition to list northern California summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (hereinafter “NCSS”) and other information in the record before the Commission, warrants add - ing NCSS to the list of endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 543 multiple subspecies and several ecotypic forms, in - cluding resident and anadromous forms which are detailed in the petition and status review. Steelhead are the anadromous 1 ecotype of Oncorhynchus myki - ss and are found in Asia and North America, occur - ring in North American watersheds from Alaska to Southern California (Light et al. 1989; CDFW 2021). Steelhead are the most widely present ecotype of all the Pacific salmonids, occupying nearly all ocean– connected streams throughout their range (Garza et al. 2014; CDFW 2021).

There are numerous non–taxonomic units or runs (below the species level), or nontaxa, of Oncorhynchus mykiss in California (Friends of Eel River 2018). The most commonly recognized nontaxa are defined by their migration types (i.e., anadromous or resident) or their seasonal run timing (i.e., summer or winter), though Oncorhynchus mykiss cannot be differentiated by seasonal run timing or anadromy through classical taxonomy (Behnke 1972; Wilson et al. 1985; Hayes et al. 2008).

Steelhead exhibit two seasonal run types; winter, also called ocean–maturing or mature migrating, and summer, also called stream–maturing or premature migrating (Withler 1966; CDFW 2021). The names of these two run types are reflective of the time of year the fish reenter the estuaries and rivers as adults in their upriver migration to reproduce (Busby et al. 1996; Moyle 2002). The life cycle, physiology, diet, and habitat needs are detailed in the petition and status review.

Northern California Summer Steelhead (NCSS) NCSS currently occupy fluvial habitat from Redwood Creek in northern Humboldt County south to the Mattole River, though they do not occur in all watersheds within this range (CDFW 2021). NCSS are categorized by the Department, for purposes of eval - uating this potential listing, within a larger Northern California steelhead distinct population segment (DPS) as one of two regional ecotypes: summer and winter (Pearse et al. 2019; CDFW 2021).

NCSS are included in two NMFS–defined geo - graphic diversity strata: Northern Coastal and North Mountain Interior; these two diversity strata encom - pass 10 historically functionally independent sum - mer steelhead populations (NMFS 2016b). The NCSS range encompasses Redwood Creek, the Mad River, and the Mattole River as well as sectors of the Eel River watershed including the Middle Fork Eel River and the Van Duzen River (Moyle et al. 2017). II.

Statutory and Legal Framework The Commission, as established by the California State Constitution, has exclusive statutory authority 1 Anadromous referring to the trait of migrating to the ocean as juveniles, and from the sea up into fresh water to spawn. under California law to designate endangered, threat - ened, and candidate species under CESA. (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 2 0, subdivision (b); Fish & G. Code, § 2 070.) The CESA listing process for NCSS began in the pres- ent case with the petitioners’ submittal of the petition to the Commission.

The regulatory and legal process that ensued is described in some detail in the preced - ing section, along with related references to the Fish and Game Code and controlling regulation. The CESA listing process generally is also described in some detail in published appellate case law in California, including: ● M ountain Lion Foundation v. California Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105; ● C alifornia Forestry Association v. California Fish and Game Commission (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1535; ● C enter for Biological Diversity v.

California Fish and Game Commission (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 597; ● N atural Resources Defense Council v. California Fish and Game Commission (1994) 28 Cal. App.4th 1104; ● C entral Coast Forest Association v. California Fish and Game Commission (2017), 2 Cal. 5th 594; and ● C entral Coast Forest Association v. California Fish and Game Commission (2018) 18 Cal. App. 5th 1191. The “is warranted” determination at issue here stems from Commission obligations established by Fish and Game Code

Section 2075.5. Under the provision, the Commission is required to make one of two findings for a candidate species at the end of the CESA listing process; namely, whether listing a species is warrant - ed or is not warranted. Here, with respect to NCSS, the Commission made the finding under

Section 2075.5(e) (2) that listing NCSS is warranted. The Commission was guided in making its determi- nations by statutory provisions and other controlling law. The Fish and Game Code, for example, defines an endangered species under CESA as “a native spe - cies or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibi - an, reptile or plant which is in serious danger of be - coming extinct throughout all, or a significant por - tion, of its range due to one or more causes, includ - ing loss of habitat, change in habitat, over exploitation, predation, competition, or disease.” (Fish & G.

Code, § 2 062.) Similarly, the Fish and Game Code defines a threatened species under CESA as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 544 protection and management efforts required by this chapter.” (Id., § 2067.) The Commission also considered Title 14,

Section 670.1, subsection (i)(1)(A), of the California Code of Regulations in making its determination regarding NCSS. This provision provides, in pertinent part, that NCSS shall be listed as endangered or threatened un - der CESA if the Commission determines that its con - tinued existence is in serious danger or is threatened by any one or any combination of the following factors: 1. Present or threatened modification or destruction of its habitat; 2. Overexploitation; 3. Predation; 4. Competition; 5. Disease; or 6. Other natural occurrences or human–related activities. Fish and Game Code

Section 2070 provides similar guidance, providing that the Commission shall add or remove species from the list of endangered and threat- ened species under CESA only upon receipt of suffi - cient scientific information that the action is warrant - ed. Similarly, CESA provides policy direction not spe- cific to the Commission per se, indicating that all state agencies, boards, and commissions shall seek to con - serve endangered and threatened species and shall uti- lize their authority in furtherance of the purposes of CESA. (Fish & G.

Code, § 2055.) This policy direc - tion does not compel a particular determination by the Commission in the CESA listing context. Nevertheless, “‘[l]aws providing for the conservation of natural re - sources’ such as the CESA are of great remedial and public importance and thus should be construed lib - erally.” (California Forestry Association v. California Fish and Game Commission , supra, 156 Cal. App.4th at pages 1545–1546, citing San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. City of Moreno Valley (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 593, 601; Fish & G.

Code, §§ 2051, 2052.) Finally, in considering the six identified fac - tors, CESA and controlling regulations require the Commission to actively seek and consider related in - put from the public and any interested party. (See, e.g., Id., §§ 2071, 2074.4, 2078; Cal. Code Regs., ti - tle 14, § 670.1, subdivision (h).) The related notice ob- ligations and public hearing opportunities before the Commission are also considerable. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2073.3, 2074, 2074.2, 2075, 2075.5, 2078; Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 670.1, subdivisions (c), (e), (g), (i); see also Gov.

Code, § 11120 et seq.) The referenced obliga- tions are in addition to the requirements prescribed for the Department in the CESA listing process, including an initial evaluation of the petition, a related recom - mendation regarding candidacy, and a review of the candidate species’ status, culminating with a report and recommendation to the Commission as to wheth - er listing is warranted based on the best available sci - ence. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2073.4, 2073.5, 2074.4, 2074.6; Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 670.1, subdivisions (d), (f), (h).) III.

Factual and Scientific Bases for the Commission’s Final Determination The factual and scientific bases for the Commission’s determination that designating NCSS as an endan - gered species under CESA is warranted are set forth in detail in the Commission’s record of proceed - ings, including the petition (Friends of the Eel River 2018); the Department’s petition evaluation report; the Department’s status review (CDFW 2021); writ - ten and oral comments received from members of the public, the regulated community, tribal entities, and the scientific community; and other evidence included in the Commission’s record of proceedings.

The Commission determines that the continued ex - istence of NCSS in the State of California is in serious danger or threatened by one or a combination of the following factors as required by the California Code of Regulations, Title 14,

Section 670.1, subsection (i) (1)(A): 1. Present or threatened modification or destruction of its habitat; 2. Overexploitation; 3. Predation; 4. Competition; 5. Disease; or 6. Other natural occurrences or human–related activities. The Commission also determines that the informa - tion in the Commission’s record constitutes the best scientific information available and establishes that designating NCSS as an endangered species under CESA is warranted.

Similarly, the Commission de - termines that NCSS is in serious danger of becom - ing extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease. The items highlighted here and detailed in the fol - lowing

section represent only a portion of the com - plex issues aired and considered by the Commission during the CESA listing process for NCSS. Similarly, the issues addressed in these findings represent some, but not all of the evidence, issues, and considerations affecting the Commission’s final determination. Other issues aired before and considered by the Commission are addressed in detail in the record before the Commission, which record is incorporated herein by reference.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 545 Background The Commission has previously listed units at a lower level than a taxonomic subspecies, in each case making a factually–specific determination as to whether the unit was appropriate to list under CESA. In 2004, the Commission listed two evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of coho salmon, a decision that was upheld in California Forestry Association v. California Fish and Game Commission. In 2016, the Commission listed an ESU of fisher.

In 2020, the Commission listed five clades of the foothill yellow– legged frog; a clade, also referred to as a monophylet- ic group, is a branch on a phylogenetic tree that con - tains a group of lineages comprised of an ancestor and all its descendants. In 2021, the Commission listed an ecotype of Chinook salmon — the Upper Klamath– Trinity Spring Chinook Salmon — as a threatened species. The Commission bases its “is warranted” finding for NCSS most fundamentally on its determination that NCSS qualifies as a “subspecies” as specified in CESA sections 2062 and 2067.

The qualification is based on the discreteness (when compared to other ecotypes) and significance of NCSS within the state of California (Fraser 2001; Waples 1991, 1995; Moran et al. 1994; de Guia and Saitoh 2007), coupled with the threats faced due to relatively small abundances, hab - itat loss and alteration, overexploitation, and climate change (Friends of the Eel River 2018; CDFW 2021; Moyle et al. 2008).

Construing “subspecies” under this framework supports the preservation of important elements of genetic diversity, which has been shown to support long–term species conservation (Frankham 2005; Frankham 1996; Waples and Lindley 2018) and is important to fulfill the purpose of CESA of biodi - versity preservation. Qualification for Listing The petition specifically refers to NCSS as a sub - species. and argues as to why NCSS should be con - sidered as such.

In making a recommendation to the Commission, the Department deemed that NCSS was best understood as an ecotype of a larger com - bined Northern California steelhead DPS composed of NCSS and Northern California winter steelhead, and from that the Department concluded that NCSS does not itself constitute an independent subspecies. Following from this conclusion, the Department rec - ommended against listing NCSS (CDFW 2021). The Commission must make its own factually–specific de- termination as to whether NCSS qualifies for listing, supported by CESA and relevant case law.

Although summer and winter steelhead are not thought to be separate taxonomic subspecies, the ge - netics of NCSS distinguishes it from individuals in the winter ecotype, due to a specific genomic region high- ly correlated with migration timing (Hess et al. 2016; Prince et al. 2017; Micheletti et al. 2018; Ford et al. 2020).

Summer and winter steelhead are more close - ly related within individual watersheds (Chilcote et al. 1980; Waples et al. 2004; Kinziger et al. 2013; Arciniega et al. 2016), and the National Marine Fisheries Service, accordingly, defines steelhead DPSs largely by geog - raphy (NMFS 2016a; Laird et al. 1995). Nevertheless, the summer and winter steelhead ecotypes do exhib - it meaningful distinction in run time, and NCSS rep - resents an important diversity component of the spe - cies (Kannry et al. 2020; Ford et al. 2020).

Summer and winter steelhead interbreed and can form heterozygous offspring at the GREB 1L/ROCK 1 gene region (Prince et al. 2017; Pearse et al. 2019), and these heterozygous fish are themselves capable of breeding. Heterozygotes may exhibit intermediate run timing, in the late summer to fall (Pearse et al. 2019; Greacen 2021).

Adult heterozygotes may have reduced fitness (Pearse et al. 2019; Micheletti et al. 2018; Greacen 2021; Papa et al. 2007), and fish that migrate at that time may face substandard conditions, including river temperature (Quinn et al. 2016; Willis et al. 2020), although specific NCSS heterozygote per- sistence patterns have yet to be studied in detail. High heterozygote numbers may be a consequence of rel - atively small populations and disconnection from upstream habitats (Ford et al. 2020; Greacen 2021).

Heterozygotes are likely an important mechanism for the spread and maintenance of the early migration al - leles over long time scales (Ford et al. 2020). The genetically–based run–time discreteness of summer and winter life history variants is meaning - ful, given that it expresses as the seasonal run in a very precise (albeit not perfectly exact) relationship (Hess et al. 2016; Prince et al. 2017; Micheletti et al. 2018; Ford et al. 2020).

Although the two ecotypes are not completely distinct, and future developments may refine the understanding of how genetics (includ- ing GREB1L) define summer and winter runs (Ford et al. 2020), the two ecotypes are notably separate from each other as a consequence of genetic, ecological, and behavioral factors (e.g., Leider et al. 1984). The summer run–time of NCSS provides a unique, adaptive contribution to the species.

The run–time dif- ferentiation allows access to disparate habitat condi - tions during the return migration, conferring a sig - nificant adaptive consequence but also makes them particularly vulnerable to habitat degradation (Ford et al. 2020; Pearse et al. 2019). The summer–run

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 546 metapopulation2 brings important diversity to the species that increases its chances of surviving when faced with natural and human–caused environmental change and environmental stochasticity.

This critical life history variant, shared across watersheds despite their more distant evolutionary lineage through isola- tion by distance (Bjorkstedt et al. 2005; Arcinega et al. 2016; Nielsen 1999; Pearse et al. 2007; Garza et al. 2014; Reisenbichler et al. 1992), allows NCSS to per- sist in a unique ecological setting, with dissimilar hab- itat conditions to its winter counterpart, providing the (taxonomic) species with population diversity and pro- tection against adverse winter conditions.

The best available genetic and evolutionary in - formation indicates that run–timing genetics (at the GREB1L/ROCK1 locus) manifested from a single evolutionary event (Prince et al. 2017; Ford et al. 2020). Given its evolutionary history, run–timing in the sum- mer is unlikely to evolve again in northern California steelhead over ecological time scales should it disap - pear (Ford et al. 2020; Prince et al. 2017).

In the case of reestablishment following localized losses, there is evidence (from other species) to suggest that reintro - duction through intra–basin migration from another source population (Thompson et al. 2020) or through heterozygotes (CDFW 2021) may be possible, but ulti- mately the likelihood of success is unknown (Greacen 2021). Although the relationship between the genetic makeup of a particular fish is very closely related to its run timing, some variation is recognized in when it may choose to return from the ocean, even among homozygous individuals (Ford et al. 2020).

That is, an individual with homozygous summer alleles may re - turn well into the winter, and vice versa. Ultimately however, the strong associative link between observed run timing and NCSS’s genetic composition (Hess et al. 2016; Prince et al. 2017; Micheletti et al. 2018; Ford et al. 2020) suggests an important genetic role in its inclination to migrate at a particular time of year.

Therefore, the fundamental determinant of whether a fish is a NCSS is its genetic makeup; only North Coast steelhead that possess homozygous alleles associated with the summer return are classified as NCSS, for the purposes of this CESA listing. Based on the foregoing factors, the Commission finds NCSS qualifies as a subspecies under CESA. Threats NCSS is endangered due to: 2 The metapopulation framework can be a useful concept to un - derstand NCSS dynamics because (

i) the various NCSS spawning habitats are discrete and are separated by a matrix of unsuitable habitat; (ii) there is sufficient asynchrony in the population dy - namics of local populations, such that some may persist while others may not, and (iii) some NCSS stray from their natal popu - lation, linking the disparate populations via dispersers. ● p resent or threatened modification of its habitat; ● o verexploitation; ● p redation; and ● o ther natural events or human–related activities NCSS is protected as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act, as part of the listed Northern California steelhead DPS, which includes NCSS and winter steelhead (50 Code of Fed.

Regs. 17.11 and 223.102). Present or Threatened Modification or Destruction of Habitat While there is spatial overlap between summer and winter steelhead, which can foster interbreeding, NCSS can often be found in higher reaches of water - sheds in which they occur (Friends of the Eel River 2018). They specialize in climbing river roughs and difficult–to–navigate water stretches, to reach pools and other upstream holding areas that are difficult to reach for winter steelhead (Kannry et al. 2020).

Still, major dams do obstruct passage to historic spawn - ing habitat, including Matthews Dam on the Mad River and Scott Dam on the Eel River (NMFS 2005; Cooper 2017). The majority of NCSS are in the Eel and Mad Rivers combined (NOAA 2016; Greacen 2021). Additionally, dams and other large barriers may prevent anadromy in steelhead populations that have been isolated above them (Kannry et al. 2020). Particularly problematic natural obstructions may also isolate significant portions of habitat, particularly during sustained periods of lower flows (CDFW 2021).

Even small migration barriers may cause losses to ge- netic diversity (Waples et al. 2008). Because NCSS hold for nine to twelve months be - fore spawning, they may be subject to amplified ex - posure to adverse riverine conditions — even tempo - rary perturbations. To complete their reproductive cy- cle, they require (1) deep, cold pools with riparian cov- er for holding (Baigún 2000, 2003; Nakamoto 1994; High et al. 2006; Nielsen and Lisle 1994), (2) loose gravel and adequate flows for spawning, and (3) suf - ficient flows, cool temperatures, and protection from predators for rearing (CDFW 2021).

Changes in these factors have been suspected in the historical alteration of steelhead migration patterns (Robards and Quinn 2002). Significant land uses that adversely affect condi - tions necessary for the NCSS life cycle include wa- ter use (particularly from noncompliant sites), min - ing, timber production, deforestation, road construc - tion and maintenance, livestock grazing, and agricul - ture (CDFW 2021; Dillis et al. 2019). Effects from ille- gal cannabis operations can include both water diver - sions and the introduction of pollutants.

Flood events (Jowett and Richardson 1989) and unstable geology have also contributed to NCSS habitat loss (Waples et

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 547 al. 2008; CDFW 2021; Becker and Reining 2009), the effects of which can be amplified when experienced by small abundances. Wildfires present an ever–increas - ing threat to riparian habitat (Friends of the Eel River 2018). These threats have contributed to an overall contraction of available habitat for NCSS, and on bal- ance the threats facing NCSS are increasing. Therefore, the Commission finds habitat modifica - tion and destruction to be a significant threat to the continued existence of NCSS.

Overexploitation There are currently no fisheries that target NCSS for harvest. (CDFW 2021). However, anecdotal evi - dence of poaching exists, especially in remote areas of NCSS watersheds (CDFG 1966–2018; CDFW 2021). There are no directed studies that quantify illegal take or identify poaching to be at a level that would affect NCSS abundance, though illegal activities are noto - riously difficult to quantify. Still, NCSS are unusual - ly vulnerable to fishing pressure given their high vis - ibility and tendency to remain in holding pools, even when disturbed (CDFW 2021).

Poaching continues to plague NCSS due to the difficulties with provid - ing substantial law enforcement in such remote areas (Moyle et al. 2008). Even when released after being caught, steelhead can suffer an increased risk of mor - tality (Twardek et al. 2018), which can be exacerbated by warmer temperatures (Taylor and Barnhart 1996). Therefore, the Commission finds overexploitation to be a significant threat to the continued existence of NCSS. Predation NCSS life history renders the species significantly more vulnerable to predation than winter run steel - head, particularly when the adults are in–river.

With very small populations of NCSS in some of the wa - tersheds where NCSS occur, high predation rates on adults could reduce or even eliminate successful spawning at a given location for a particular year. The introduction of Sacramento pikeminnow to the Eel River watershed has significantly increased the impact of predation on NCSS (Yoshiyama and Moyle 2010; NMFS 2005). While pikeminnow are native to California, and even to the Russian River immediate - ly to the south, they are not native to the Eel River.

Recent geomorphic and hydrological changes in the upper Eel River are conducive to growing pikemin - now populations (Yoshiyama and Moyle 2010), par - ticularly warmer water (Good et al. 2005). Negative effects from pikeminnow may be amplified when steelhead abundances are low, and pikeminnow may prove a significant barrier to recovery in the Eel River (Yoshiyama and Moyle 2010). Predation in the marine environment is less un - derstood.

Increases in pinniped abundances and the relatively high prevalence of predatory wounds on returning steelhead may signal that ocean predation may warrant greater concern (CDFW 2021). NCSS are particularly susceptible to impacts from these predation threats due to the very low population numbers (Friends of the Eel River 2018). Additionally, water depth and complex habitat structure may help salmonids deal with predation (Lonzarich and Quinn 1995), so changes in habitat configurations may in - crease the level and significance of predation.

Overall, predation is likely a moderate threat on NCSS, al - though when combined with other threats (e.g., warm- ing temperatures that stress fish, declines in habitat quality that degrade. NCSS ability to handle preda - tors), predation impacts may increase in the future. Therefore, the Commission finds predation to be a significant threat to the persistence of NCSS. Other Natural Occurrences or Human–Related Activities Small Populations Small, isolated populations are inherently vulnera - ble to increased impacts from other identified threats and extinction generally.

NCSS populations are likely far below historical abundances (CDFW 2021). NCSS populations in Redwood Creek have been declining recently, Middle Fork Eel River populations (the most robust of all NCSS populations) have been declining over a longer term. While other populations show ei - ther no statistically significant trends or do not have reliable trend estimates, all surveyed populations are either at low–to–moderate numbers or have already been extirpated. All NCSS population segments face a high risk of extinction (CDFW 2021).

Cohort Replacement Rate, one indicator of NCSS productivity, has been declining for all population seg- ments in the most recent years (CDFW 2021). NMFS viability targets (2500 adult summer steelhead per generation) have not been met for all NCSS population segments with long–term survey data (CDFW 2021). Competition from brown trout (CDFW 2021) may also exacerbate the risks from small population sizes. Therefore, the Commission finds small population sizes to be a threat to the persistence of NCSS.

Climate Change The Earth’s climate is warming, and the primary causes are greenhouse gas emissions and deforesta - tion (IPCC 2007; USGCRP 2009; USGCRP 2017). Since 1900, global average temperature has increased 0.7° C (NRC 2006) due to carbon dioxide emissions. Ice core data indicates that atmospheric carbon diox - ide is currently 30% greater than its peak in the last 800,000 years. Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide levels have increased 37.5% (CDFW 2021).

Greenhouse gas increases have resulted in changes in seasonal precipitation, decreased snowpack, earli - er snowmelt, and increased storm severity (USGCRP

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 548 2009; USGCRP 2017), 0.1° C increase in seas surface temperature since 1961 and increased ocean acidifi - cation (USGCRP 2009), 203 mm increase in sea level after approximately 2000 years of stability (USGCRP 2009), and approximately a 20% decrease in the amount of arctic sea ice since the 1950s (Curran et al. 2003). If current conditions remain unchanged, studies project that global climate will change drastically.

Projections include an increase of 1.1–6.4° C in aver - age global surface temperature (USGCRP 2009), sea level rise of 1–3 meters (IPCC 2007; USGCRP 2009; USGCRP 2017), and greater extremes in storm events and wildfire (Krawchuck et al. 2009). A warming climate is likely to result in poorer fu - ture environmental conditions for California’s sal - monids in general (Isaak et al. 2018; Katz et al. 2012; Crozier et al. 2019), including for steelhead in other ar- eas (McCarthy et al. 2009; Sloat and Osterback 2013; Robards and Quinn 2002), and for NCSS specifically (CDFW 2021).

With the impending effects of climate change, the limited amount of NCSS habitat will likely continue to decline in quality and extent; California’s north coast may experience pronounced climate change impacts including rising water temperatures, intensified flood- ing, more frequent and persistent drought conditions, lower summer baseflows, altered hydrography espe - cially in watersheds impacted by snowmelt and large– scale historical logging, ocean acidification, increased wildfires, and sea level rise (CDFW 2021).

Additionally, changing climate could adversely af - fect marine habitats during the life stages in which NCSS inhabits the ocean (Hayes et al. 2016; CDFW 2021; Thalmann et al. 2020), including changes in temperature, salinity, pH, and nutrient availability, in- fluencing the availability of food, predation rates, and other factors. Therefore, the Commission finds climate change to be a threat to the persistence of NCSS. Therefore, the Commission finds the natural occur - rences or human–related activities discussed above to be a significant threat to the continued existence of NCSS.

Conclusion The continued existence of NCSS is in serious dan - ger or threatened by significant threats, including present or threatened modification or destruction of habitat, overexploitation, predation, and other natural events or human–related activities. IV.

Final Determination by the Commission The Commission has weighed and evaluated the in- formation for and against designating NCSS as an en- dangered species under CESA; this information in - cludes scientific and other general evidence in the pe - tition; the Department’s petition evaluation report; the Department’s status review; the Department’s re - lated recommendations; written and oral comments received from members of the public, the regulated community, various public agencies, and the scien - tific community; and other evidence included in the Commission’s record of proceedings.

Based upon the evidence in the record the Commission has determined that the best scientif - ic information available indicates that the continued existence of NCSS is in serious danger or threatened by present or threatened modifications or destruction of the species’ habitat, overexploitation, predation, or other natural occurrences or human–related activ - ities, where such factors are considered individually or in combination. (See generally California Code of Regs., title 14, § 670.1, subdivision (i)(1)(A); Fish & G.

Code, §§ 2062, 2067.) The Commission determines that there is sufficient scientific information to indi - cate that designating NCSS as an endangered species under CESA is warranted at this time, and that with adoption and publication of these findings NCSS, for purposes of its legal status under CESA, shall be list - ed as endangered. CITATIONS Arciniega, M., A.J. Clemento, M.R. Miller, M. Peterson, J.C. Garza, and D.E Pearse. 2016. Parallel evolution of the summer steelhead ecotype in multiple populations from Oregon and Northern California. Conservation Genetics 17:165–175. Baigún, C.R.M. 2003.

Characteristics of deep pools used by adult summer steelhead in Steamboat Creek, Oregon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23(4):1167–74. Baigún, C.R., J. Sedell, and G. Reeves. 2000. Influence of water temperature in use of deep pools by sum - mer steelhead in Steamboat Creek, Oregon (USA). Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15(2):269–79. Becker, G. S., and I. J. Reining. 2009. Steelhead/ Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) resources of the Eel River watershed, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Behnke, R.J. 1972.

The systematics of salmonid fishes of recently glaciated lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:639–671. Bjorkstedt, E.P., B.C. Spence, J.C. Garza, D.G. Hankin, D. Fuller, W.E. Jones, J.J. Smith, and R. Macedo. 2005. An analysis of historical population struc - ture for evolutionarily significant units of Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, and steelhead in the North– Central California Coast Recovery Domain. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS–SWFSC–382. Santa Cruz, CA.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 549 Busby, P.J, T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I. V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of West Coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS–NWFSC–27. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Multiple: 1966–2018. Middle Fork Eel River sum - mer steelhead survey annual report. Internal CDFG reports. Unpublished. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021.

REPORT TO THE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION, California Endangered Species Act Status Review for Northern California Summer Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Chilcote, M.W., B.A. Crawford, and S.A. Leider. 1980. A genetic comparison of sympatric populations of summer and winter steelheads. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 109:203–206. Cooper, E.G. 2017. An estimation of potential salmonid habitat capacity in the Upper Mainstem Eel River, California. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 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:e0217711. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217711 de Guia, P., and T. Saitoh. 2007.

The gap between the concept and defi- nitions in the Evolutionarily Significant Unit: The need to integrate neutral genetic variation and adap- tive variation. Ecological Research 22:604–612. Dillis, C., T.E. Grantham, C. Mclntee, B. McFadin, and K. Grady. 2019. Watering the Emerald Triangle: Irrigation sources used by cannabis cultivators in Northern California. California Agriculture 73:146–153. Ford, M., K. Nichols, R. Waples, E. C. Anderson, M. Kardos, I. Koch, G. McKinney, M. R. Miller, J. Myers, K. Naish, S. Narum, K. G. O’Malley, D. Pearse, T. Seamons, A. Spidle, P. Swanson, T. Q. Thompson, K.

Warheit, and S. Willis. 2020. Reviewing and Synthesizing the State of the Science Regarding Associations between Adult Run Timing and Specific Genotypes in Chinook Salmon and Steelhead: Report of a workshop held in Seattle, Washington, 27–28 February 2020. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Processed Report NMFS–NWFSC–PR–2020–06. Friends of the Eel River. September 27, 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to list Northern California Summer Steelhead. Garza, J.C., E.A. Gilbert–Horvath, B.C. Spence, T.H. Williams, H. Fish, S.A. Gough, J.H. Anderson, D. Hamm, and E.C. Anderson. 2014.

Population struc- ture of steelhead in coastal California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 143:134–152. Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams. 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast salm - on and steelhead. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS–NWFSC–66. https://swfsc.noaa.gov/ publications/fed/00749.pdf Greacen, Scott June 16, 2021 “Protecting Northern California summer steelhead under the California Endangered Species Act” presentation before the California Fish and Game Commission. Hayes, S.A., A.J. Ammann, J.A. Harding, J.L. Hassrick, L. deWitt, and C.A. Morgan. 2016.

Observations of steelhead in the California Current lead to a marine–based hypothesis for the “half– pounder” life history, with climate change impli - cations for anadromy. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission, Bulletin Number 6:97–105. DOI:10.23849/npafcb6/97.105. Hayes, S.A., M.H. Bond, C. V. Hanson, E. V. Freund, J.J. Smith, E.C. Anderson, A.J. Ammann, and R.B. MacFarlane. 2008. Steelhead growth in a small central California watershed: upstream and estuarine rearing patterns. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:114–128. https://doi. org/10.1577/t07–043.1 Hess, J.E., J.S. Zendt, A.R.

Matala, and S.R. Narum. 2016. Genetic basis of adult migration timing in anadromous steelhead discovered through multi - variate association testing. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 283(20153064). https://doi.org/10.1098/ rspb.2015.3064 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. R. K. Pacharui and A. Reisinger, editors. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Isaak, D.J., C.H. Luce, D.L. Horan, G.L. Chandler, S.P. Wollrab, and D.E. Nagel. 2018.

Global warm - ing of salmon and trout rivers in the Northwestern U.S.: Road to ruin or path through purgatory? Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 147:566 –587. Jowett, I.G. and J. Richardson. 1989. Effects of a se - vere flood on instream habitat and trout populations in seven New Zealand rivers. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 23:11–17.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 550 Kannry, S.H., S.A. Thompson, S.M. O’Rourke, S.L. Harris, S.J. Kelson, and M.R. Miller. 2020. On the ecology and distribution of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in California’s Eel River. Pre–print. https:// doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.18.996934 Kinziger, A.P., M. Hellmair, D.G. Hankin, and J.C. Garza. 2013. Contemporary Population Structure in Klamath River Basin Chinook Salmon Revealed by Analysis of Microsatellite Genetic Data. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142:1347–1357. Laird, A., J. E. Baldrige, W. T. Mitchell, K. Barnard, R. C.

Nuzum, D. B. Demko, R. Orton, D. H. Dettman, J. J. Smith, B. Farrell, T. L. Taylor, J. Hagar, P. A. Unger, T. P. Keegan, and E. S. V. Dyke. 1995. The status of steelhead populations in California in re - gards to the Endangered Species Act. Association of California Water Agencies, Gresham, OR. Leider, S.A., M.W. Chilcote, and J.J. Loch. 1984. Spawning characteristics of sympatric populations of steelhead trout ( Salmo gairdneri ): evidence for partial reproductive isolation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:1454–1462. https://doi.org/10.1139/f84–179 Light, J.T., C.K. Harris, and R.L.

Burgner. 1989. Ocean distribution and migration of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss , formerly Salmo gairdneri). Document submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute. Lonzarich, D.G. and T.P. Quinn. 1995. Experimental evidence for the effect of depth and structure on the distribution, growth, and survival of stream fishes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:2223–2230. McCarthy, S.G., J.J. Duda, J.M. Emlen, G.R. Hodgson, and D.A. Beauchamp. 2009.

Linking habitat quality with trophic performance of steelhead along forest gradients in the South Fork Trinity River watershed, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:506–21. https://doi.org/10.1577/ t08–053.1. Micheletti, S.J., J.E. Hess, J.S. Zendt, and S.R. Narum. 2018. Selection at a genomic region of major effect is responsible for evolution of complex life histories in anadromous steelhead. BMC Evolutionary Biology 18:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862–018–1255–5 Moyle, P. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. D. Kretschmer and P. Strupp, editors. 2nd Edition.

Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Moyle, P.B., J.A. Israel, S.E. Purdy. 2008. State of the salmonids: status of California’s emblematic fishes. Davis, California: University of California, Davis. Moyle, P.B., R.A. Lusardi, P.J. Samuel, and J. V.E. Katz. 2017. State of the salmonids: status of California’s emblematic fishes. Davis, CA: University of California, Davis and California Trout. 579 pages Nakamoto, R.J. 1994. Characteristics of pools used by adult summer steelhead oversummering in the New River, California.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:757–65. https://doi.org/10.157 7/1548–8659(1994)123<0757:copuba>2.3.co;2 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA Fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016a. 2016 5–Year Review:

Summary & evaluation of California coastal Chinook Salmon and Northern California steelhead. National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016b. Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan. National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, Santa Rosa, California. Nielsen, J.L. 1999. The evolutionary history of steel - head (Oncorhynchus mykiss ) along the US Pacific Coast: Developing a conservation strategy using genetic diversity. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56:449–458. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.1999.0452 Nielsen, J. L., and T. E. Lisle. 1994.

Thermally strat - ified pools and their use by steelhead in northern California streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:613–626. Pearse, D.E., C.J. Donohoe, and J.C. Garza. 2007. Population genetics of steelhead (Oncorhynchus my- kiss) in the Klamath River. Environmental Biology of Fishes 80:377–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10641–006–9135–z Pearse, D.E., J.C. Garza, J. Myers, and B. Spence. 2019. Northern California steelhead DPS– configuration review–panel report. Santa Cruz, CA, and Seattle, WA. Prince, D.J., S.M. O’Rourke, T.Q. Thompson, O.A. Ali, H.S. Lyman, I.K. Saglam, T.J.

Hotaling, A.P. Spidle, and M.R. Miller. 2017. The evolutionary ba- sis of premature migration in Pacific salmon high - lights the utility of genomics for informing conser - vation. Science Advances 3:e1603198. https://doi. org/10.1126/sciadv.1603198 Quinn T.P., McGinnity P., and Reed T.E. 2016. The paradox of “premature migration” by adult anad - romous salmonid fishes: patterns and hypotheses. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 73:1015–1030. Reisenbichler, R.R., J.D. Mclntyre, M.F. Solazzi, and S.W. Landino. 1992. Genetic variation in steelhead of Oregon and Northern California.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:158–169. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548–8659(1992)121<0158: gvisoo>2.3.co;2

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 551 Robards, M. D., and T. P. Quinn. 2002. The migra - tory timing of adult summer–run steelhead in the Columbia River over six decades of environmen - tal change. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:523–536. Sloat, M.R., and A.K. Osterback. 2013. Maximum stream temperature and the occurrence, abundance, and behavior of steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus my- kiss) in a Southern California stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 70:64–73. Taylor, G., and R.A. Barnhart. 1996.

Mortality of angler caught and released summer steelhead. California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit and Humboldt State University Foundation. Contract Number FG 5018. California Department of Fish and Game Steelhead Trout Catch Report — Restoration Card. Thalmann, H. L., E. A. Daly, and R. D. Brodeur. 2020. Two anomalously warm years in the northern California Current: impacts on early marine steel - head diet composition, morphology, and potential survival. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 149:369–382. Thompson, N.F., E.C. Anderson, A.J. Clemento, M.A. Campbell, D.E. Pearse, J.W. Hearsey, A.P.

Kinziger, J.C. Garza. 2020. A complex phenotype in salmon controlled by a simple change in migratory timing. Science 370:609–613. Thompson, T.Q., M. Renee Bellinger, S.M. O’Rourke, D.J. Prince, A.E. Stevenson, A.T. Rodrigues, M.R. Sloat, C.F. Speller, D.Y. Yang, V.L. Butler, M.A. Banks, and M.R. Miller. 2019. Anthropogenic hab - itat alteration leads to rapid loss of adaptive varia - tion and restoration potential in wild salmon pop - ulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116:177– 186. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811559115 Twardek, W. M., T. O. Gagne, L. K.

Elmer, S. J. Cooke, M. C. Beere, and A. J. Danylchuk. 2018. Consequences of catch–and–release angling on the physiology, behaviour and survival of wild steel - head Oncorhynchus mykiss in the Bulkley River, British Columbia. Fisheries Research 206:235–246. United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. Global climate change im - pacts in the United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, editors. Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press. United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2017. Climate science special re - port: fourth national climate assessment, Volume I.

Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock editors. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. DOI:10.7930/J0J964J6. Waples R.S. 1991a. Genetic interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids: Lessons from the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:124–133. Waples R.S. 1991b. Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the definition of “species” under the Endangered Species Act. Application to Pacific Salmon. Marine Fisheries Review 53:11–22. Waples, R.S. 1995.

Evolutionarily Significant Units and the conservation of biological diversity under the Endangered Species Act. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:8–27. Waples, R.S., and S.T. Lindley. 2018. Genomics and conservation units: The genetic basis of adult mi - gration timing in Pacific salmonids. Evolutionary Applications 11:1518–1526. Waples, R.S., G.R. Pess, and T. Beechie. 2008. Evolutionary history of Pacific salmon in dy - namic environments. Evolutionary Applications 1:189–206. Waples, R.S., D.J. Teel, J.M. Myers, and A.R. Marshall. 2004.

Life history divergence in Chinook Salmon: historic contingency and parallel evolution. Evolution 58:386–403. Willis, S. C., J. E. Hess, J. K. Fryer, J. M. Whiteaker, C. Brun, R. Gerstenberger, and S. R. Narum. 2020. Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) lineages and sex- es show variable patterns of association of adult migration timing and age–at–maturity traits with two genomic regions. Evolutionary Applications 13:2836–2856. Wilson, G.M., W.K. Thomas, and A.T. Beckenbach. 1985. Intra– and inter–specific mitochondrial DNA sequence divergence in Salmo: Rainbow, steelhead, and Cutthroat trouts.

Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:2088–2094. Withler, I. L. 1966. Variability in life history charac - teristics of steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) along the Pacific Coast of North America. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 23:365–393. Yoshiyama, R.M, and P.B. Moyle. 2010. Historical review of Eel River anadromous salmonids, with emphasis on Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, and steelhead. University of California, Davis: Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA.

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 552 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT ACT CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION NUMBER 1653–2022–090–001–R1 Project: Fish Creek Fish Passage Project Location: Humboldt County Applicant: Susan Leroy, California Department of Transportation Background Project Location: The Fish Creek Fish Passage Project (Project) is located at post mile 4.18 on State Route 254, also known as the Avenue of the Giants, approximately two miles northwest of the unincorpo - rated community of Phillipsville and two miles south- east of the unincorporated community of Miranda.

Coordinates for the Project are 40.22303° North, 123.80136° West, on Humboldt Redwoods State Park (Assessor Parcel Number 214–122–013–000) and within California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Right of Way. The Project affects Fish Creek, tributary to the South Fork Eel River. Fish Creek supports populations of Coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead trout ( O. mykiss), and other aquat - ic species. Project Description: Caltrans (Applicant) proposes to improve fish passage conditions within Fish Creek, which will result in a net conservation benefit for Coho salmon and steelhead trout.

The Project includes replacement of a concrete box culvert with a bridge, installation of large wood features, and regrading the channel. Areas disturbed by construction activities will be revegetated with appropriate native species. If feasible, large trees slated for removal will be in - corporated into the proposed wood features. Access to aquatic habitat above the existing box culvert is ex- pected to improve for multiple life–stages of salmo - nids, as the current condition is considered a partial barrier for adults and a complete barrier for juvenile and resident fish.

Replacing the box culvert with a bridge will restore an estimated 2.7 miles of habitat upstream for anadromous salmonids. Detailed Project plans, discussion of proposed work, species protection measures, site photos and maps are on file with California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Habitat Conservation Planning Branch (HCPB). Project Size: The total area of ground disturbance associated with the Project is approximately 1.17 acres and 400 linear feet. The Applicant has included project size calculations that were used to determine the total size of the Project.

The Project complies with the General 401 Certification for Small Habitat Restoration Projects and associated categorical ex - emption from the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 15333). Project Associated Discharge: Discharge of ma - terials into Waters of the State, as defined by Water Code

section 13050 subdivision (e), resulting from the Project include those associated with the following: (1) 1,100 cubic yards of engineered streambed materi- al and rock, (2) 120 cubic yards of large woody debris, (3) assorted erosion control materials (fiber rolls, com- post, duff, etc.), and (4) native planting stock.

Project Timeframes: Start date: August 2022 Completion date: March 2027 Work window: June 15–October 31 Work below top of bank may occur outside of the seasonal work window (June 15–October 31), with ap- propriate best management practices and written ap - proval from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) and CDFW.

Water Quality Certification Background : Because the Project’s primary purpose is habitat restoration in- tended to improve the quality of waters in California and improve fish passage to 2.7 miles of spawning and rearing habitat, the Regional Water Board issued a Notice of Applicability (NOA) for Coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board General 401 Water Quality Certification Order for Small Habitat Restoration Projects SB12006GN (Order) Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number 1B22021WNHU, Electronic Content Management Identification (ECM PIN) Number CW–875231 for the Project.

The NOA describes the Project and requires the Applicant to comply with terms of the Order. Additionally, the Applicant has provided a supple - mental document that sets forth measures to avoid and minimize impacts to Coho salmon, steelhead trout, and other aquatic and terrestrial species. Receiving Water: Fish Creek, tributary to the South Fork Eel River. Filled or Excavated Area: Permanent area impacted: 0.47 acre Temporary area impacted: none Length permanently impacted: 400 linear feet Length temporarily impacted: none Dredge Volume: None. Latitude/Longitude: 40.22303° North, 123.80136° West.

Regional Water Board staff determined that the Project may proceed under the Order. Additionally, Regional Water Board staff determined that the Project, as described in the Notice of Intent (NOI) complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 553 On April 1, 2022, the Director of CDFW received a notice from the Applicant requesting a determination pursuant to Fish and Game Code

Section 1653 that the NOA, NOI, and related species protection mea - sures are consistent with the Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Act (HREA) with respect to the Project. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code

section 1653 sub - division (c), CDFW filed an initial notice with the Office of Administrative Law on April 1, 2022, for publishing in the General Public Interest

section of the California Regulatory Notice Register (Cal. Reg. Notice File Number [Z–2022–0401–01]) on April 15, 2022. Upon approval, CDFW will file a final notice pursuant to Fish and Game Code

section 1653 subdi - vision (f). Determination CDFW has determined that the NOA, NOI, and re - lated species protection measures are consistent with HREA as to the Project and meets the conditions set forth in Fish and Game Code

section 1653 for autho - rizing the Project. Specifically, CDFW finds that:

(1) The Project pur- pose is voluntary habitat restoration and the Project is not required as mitigation; (2) the Project is not part of a regulatory permit for a non–habitat restoration or enhancement construction activity, a regulatory set - tlement, a regulatory enforcement action, or a court order; and (3) the Project meets the eligibility require- ments of the State Water Resources Control Board’s Order for Clean Water Act

Section 401 General Water Quality Certification for Small Habitat Restoration Projects. Avoidance and Minimization Measures The avoidance and minimization measures for the Project, as required by Fish and Game Code sec - tion 1653, subdivision (b)(4), were included in an at - tachment to the NOI, which contains the following categories:

(1) Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures;

(2) Dewatering and Aquatic Species Relocation Measures;

(3) Construction Equipment Spill Prevention Measures; and

(4) General Measures to Avoid Impacts on Biological Resources. The spe - cific avoidance and minimization requirements are found in an attachment to the NOI, Fish Creek Fish Passage Project: Biological Study. Monitoring and Reporting As required by Fish and Game Code

section 1653, subdivision (g), the Applicant included a copy of the monitoring and reporting plan. The Applicant’s Monitoring and Reporting Plan provides a timeline for restoration, performance standards, and monitor - ing parameters and protocols. Specific requirements of the plan are found in an attachment to the NOI, Fish Creek Fish Passage Project: Hydraulic and Geomorphic Monitoring Plan.

Notice of Completion Coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board General 401 Water Quality Certification Order for Small Habitat Restoration Projects requires the Applicant to submit a Notice of Completion (NOC) no later than 30 days after the Project has been complet - ed. A complete NOC includes at a minimum: ● photographs with a descriptive title; ● date the photograph was taken; ● name of the photographic site; ● WDID number and ECM PIN number indicated above; ● success criteria for the Project.

The NOC shall demonstrate that the Applicant has carried out the Project in accordance with the Project description as provided in the Applicant’s NOI. Applicant shall include the project name, WDID num- ber, and ECM PIN number with all future inquiries and document submittals. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code

section 1653, subdivision (g), the Applicant shall submit the monitoring plan, monitoring report, and notice of completion to CDFW as required by the General Order. Applicant shall submit documents electronically to: Nicholas VanVleet. Project Authorization Pursuant to Fish and Game Code

section 1654, CDFW’s approval of a habitat restoration or enhance- ment project pursuant to

section 1652 or 1653 shall be in lieu of any other permit, agreement, license, or other approval issued by the department, including, but not limited to, those issued pursuant to

Chapter 6 (commencing with

section 1600) and

Chapter 10 (commencing with

section 1900) of this Division and

Chapter 1.5 (commencing with

section 2050) of Division 3. Additionally, the Applicant must adhere to all measures contained in the approved NOA and com- ply with other conditions described in the NOI. If there are any substantive changes to the Project or if the Water Board amends or replaces the NOA, the Applicant shall be required to obtain a new consisten- cy determination from CDFW. (See generally Fish & G. Code, § 1654, subdivision (c).)

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 554 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE FISH AND GAME CODE

SECTION 1653 CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION REQUEST FOR SANTA ANA RIVER STREAM HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (TRACKING NUMBER: 1653–2022–093–001–R6) RIVERSIDE COUNTY California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Request to Approve on 4/25/2022, that San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District propos - es to carry out a habitat restoration or enhancement project pursuant to Fish and Game Code

section 1653. The proposed project involves installing stake arrays in two zones of the river, to create turbulence and flush sediments downstream to improve habitat. The pro - posed project will be carried out on the Santa Ana River, within three miles of 5370 Riverview Drive, City of Riverside, Riverside County, California.

On 2/1/2022, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) re - ceived a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the terms of, and obtain coverage under, the General 401 Water Quality Certification Order for Small Habitat Restoration Projects (General 401 Order) for the Santa Ana River Stream Habitat Improvement Project.

The Regional Water Board determined that the Project, as described in the NOI, was categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (section 15333 — Small Habitat Restoration Projects) and met the eligibility requirements for coverage un - der the General 401 Order. The Regional Water Board issued a Notice of Applicability (WDID Number 332022–02) for coverage under the General 401 Order on 4/4/2022. The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District is requesting a determination that the project and as - sociated documents are complete pursuant to Fish and Game Code

section 1653 subdivision (d). If CDFW de- termines the project is complete, the District will not be required to obtain an incidental take permit under Fish and Game Code

section 2081 subdivision (

b) or a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement under Fish and Game Code

section 1605 for the proposed project. In accordance with Fish and Game Code

section 1653 subdivision (e), if CDFW determines during the review, based on substantial evidence, that the request is not complete, the District will have the opportuni - ty to submit under Fish and Game Code

section 1652. DECISION NOT TO PROCEED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE

SECTION 11347 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS RE: NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING CONCERNING THE FARM AND HOME LOAN AMENDMENTS Pursuant to Government Code

Section 11347, the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) hereby gives notice that it has decided not to proceed with the rulemaking action published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on January 15, 2021, Register 2021, Number 3–Z. The proposed rulemak - ing concerned the Farm and Home Loan Amendments. (OAL Notice Z2020–1229–04.) Any interested person with questions concerning this rulemaking should contact Phil McAllister at ei - ther 916–202–0846 or by e–mail at: phil.mccallister@ calvet.ca.gov. CalVet will also post this Notice of Decision Not to Proceed on its website.

This regulatory action will be resubmitted at the earliest possible date for publishing and public review.

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIONS REGULATIONS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE This

Summary of Regulatory Actions lists regula- tions filed with the Secretary of State on the dates in - dicated. Copies of the regulations may be obtained by contacting the agency or from the Secretary of State, Archives, 1020 O Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 653−7715. Please have the agency name and the date filed (see below) when making a request. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation File # 2022–0422–01 Program and Credit Earning Revisions (ISUDT/ M CCS) This emergency rulemaking action by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation re - adopts the changes approved in OAL File Nos. 2021– 0407–03EON and 2022–0112–01EON. Those actions

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2022, VOLUME NUMBER 19-Z 555 updated terminology, expanded rehabilitative pro - grams and reentry services, and eliminated the Long– Term Offender Program by incorporating partici - pants into the new Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment (ISUDT) Program. Those actions also amended the Milestone Completion Credit

Schedule (MCCS) to add new programs, discontinue programs that are no longer available to inmates, amend the amount of credit earned for some programs, and reor - ganize the schedule.

Title 15 Adopt: 3040.1 Amend: 3000, 3040, 3041, 3041.3, 3043.3, 3043.5, 3044, 3044.1 (previously 3043.7), 3044.2 (previ- ously 3043.8), 3075.1, 3077.1, 3315, 3375, 3375.2, 3375.4, 3375.5, 3375.6, 3379 Repeal: 3040.1, 3040.2 Filed 05/02/2022 Effective 05/03/2022 Agency Contact: Sarah Pollock (916) 445–2308 California Science Center File # 2022–0322–01 Conflict–of–Interest Code This is a Conflict–of–Interest code that has been ap- proved by the Fair Political Commission and is being submitted for filing with the Secretary of State and printing.

Title 02 Amend: 46000, 46001 Filed 04/27/2022 Effective 05/27/2022 Agency Contact: Alfred Konuwa (213) 744–2308 Fish and Game Commission File # 2022–0427–02 Northern California Summer Steelhead This action to add the Northern California Summer Steelhead (“NCSS”) to the endangered species list is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act pursu- ant to Fish & Game Code § 2075.5(e)(2). This action was submitted to OAL for filing and printing only.

Title 14 Amend: 670.5 Filed 05/03/2022 Effective 05/03/2022 Agency Contact: Jennifer Greaves (916) 653–4899 Board of Behavioral Sciences File # 2022–0321–01 Supervision; LPCC Requirements to Assess or Treat Couples or Families This action makes changes without regulatory ef - fect to requirements for licensed professional clinical counselors (LPCCs) as a result of changes made by Assembly Bill 462 (Stats. 2021,

chapter 440). Title 16 Amend: 1815.8, 1821,1833.1 Repeal: 1820.5, 1820.7 Filed 05/02/2022 Agency Contact: Christy Berger (916) 574–7817 State Allocation Board File # 2022–0318–03 Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1995; 20–Year Repayment This rulemaking action by the State Allocation Board increases the maximum timeline for repayment plans from five years to twenty years.

Title 02 Amend: 1859.106.1 Filed 05/02/2022 Effective 07/01/2022 Agency Contact: Lisa Jones (279) 946–8459 State Water Resources Control Board File # 2022–0318–01 Reconsideration of the Implementation Plans for Nine Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLS) This action amends the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region. On March 11, 2021, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Resolution Number R21–001 to revise the fi- nal near–term wet weather total maximum daily load implementation schedules for MS4 dischargers.

The State Water Resources Control Board approved the amendments under Resolution Number 2021–0037. Title 23 Adopt: 3939.58 Filed 05/02/2022 Effective 05/02/2022 Agency Contact: Jun Zhu (916) 576–6691 PRIOR REGULATORY DECISIONS AND CCR CHANGES FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE A quarterly index of regulatory decisions by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) is provided in the California Regulatory Notice Register in the vol - ume published by the second Friday in January, April, July, and October following the end of the preceding quarter.

For additional information on actions taken by OAL, please visit www.oal.ca.gov.