[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36074-36094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14196]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 000202022-0156-02; I.D. 012100F]
RIN 0648-AN58


Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for One 
Steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) in California

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Following completion of a comprehensive status review of west 
coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss, or O. mykiss) populations 
throughout Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, NMFS published a 
proposed rule to list 10 ESUs as threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) on August 9, 1996. One of these steelhead 
ESUs, the Northern California ESU, was proposed for listing as a 
threatened species. Because of scientific disagreements, NMFS deferred 
its final listing

[[Page 36075]]

determination for five of these steelhead ESUs, including the Northern 
California ESU, on August 18, 1997. After soliciting and reviewing 
additional information to resolve these disagreements, NMFS published a 
final determination in March 1998 that the Northern California ESU did 
not warrant listing under the ESA because available scientific 
information and conservation measures indicated the ESU was at a lower 
risk of extinction than at the time of the proposed rule. Because the 
State of California did not implement conservation measures that NMFS 
considered critically important in its decision to not list the 
Northern California steelhead ESU, NMFS completed an updated status 
review for the ESU and reassessed the State and Federal conservation 
measures that were in place to protect the ESU. Based on this 
reconsideration, NMFS proposed to list the Northern California 
steelhead ESU as a threatened species under the ESA on February 11, 
2000.
    After considering public comments on the proposed determination, 
NMFS now issues a final rule to list the Northern California ESU of 
steelhead as a threatened species. Within the Northern California ESU, 
only naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) 
residing below naturally occurring and man-made impassable barriers 
(e.g., impassable waterfalls and dams) are listed. NMFS has examined 
the relationship between hatchery and natural populations of steelhead 
in this ESU and concludes hatchery populations are not essential for 
recovery; therefore, no hatchery populations are listed. At this time, 
NMFS is listing only the anadromous life forms of O. mykiss in this 
ESU. NMFS intends to designate critical habitat and promulgate 
protective regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA for this ESU in 
separate rulemakings.

DATES: Effective August 7, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources 
Division, NMFS, Southwest Region, 401 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, 
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Wingert, 562-980-4021, or Chris 
Mobley, 301-713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Steelhead

    The history of petitions NMFS has received regarding west coast 
steelhead is summarized in a final rule and notice of determination for 
five steelhead ESUs (Lower Columbia River; Central Valley, California; 
Oregon Coast; Klamath Mountains Province; and northern California ESUs) 
that was published on March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13347). The most 
comprehensive petition was submitted by Oregon Natural Resources 
Council and 15 co-petitioners on February 16, 1994. In response to this 
petition, NMFS assessed the best available scientific and commercial 
data, including technical information from Pacific Salmon Biological 
Technical Committees (PSBTCs) and interested parties in Washington, 
Oregon, Idaho, and California, and convened a Biological Review Team 
(BRT), composed of staff from NMFS' Northwest and Southwest Fisheries 
Science Centers and Southwest Regional Office, as well as a 
representative of the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources 
Division (formerly the National Biological Service) to conduct a coast-
wide status review for west coast steelhead (Busby et al., 1996).
    Based on the results of the BRT's status review, an analysis of 
Federal, State and local conservation measures, and other information 
which NMFS determined constituted the best scientific and commercial 
data available, NMFS published a proposed listing determination (61 FR 
41541, August 9, 1996) that identified 15 ESUs of steelhead in the 
states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Ten of these ESUs, 
including the northern California ESU, were proposed for listing as 
threatened or endangered species, four were found not warranted for 
listing, and one was identified as a candidate for listing.
    On August 18, 1997, NMFS published a final rule listing five ESUs 
as threatened and endangered under the ESA (62 FR 43937). In a separate 
notice published on the same day, NMFS determined substantial 
scientific disagreement remained for five proposed ESUs, including the 
northern California steelhead ESU (62 FR 43974, August 18, 1997). In 
accordance with section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA, NMFS deferred its 
decision on these five steelhead ESUs for 6 months for the purpose of 
soliciting additional data. During this 6-month period of deferral, 
NMFS received new scientific information regarding the status of these 
proposed steelhead ESUs. This new information was evaluated by NMFS' 
BRT which prepared both an updated status review for these five ESUs 
(Memorandum to William Stelle and William Hogarth from M. Schiewe, 
December 18, 1997, Status of Deferred and Candidate ESUs of West Coast 
Steelhead (NMFS, 1997a)), and a review of the associated hatchery 
populations (Memorandum to William Stelle and William Hogarth from 
Michael Schiewe, January 13, 1998, Status Review Update for Deferred 
ESUs of West Coast Steelhead: Hatchery Populations (NMFS, 1998a)).
    Based on a review of the updated scientific information for these 
ESUs, as well as a review and evaluation of Federal, state, and local 
conservation measures reducing the threats to these ESUs, NMFS issued a 
final rule (63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998) listing two ESUs as threatened 
(Lower Columbia River and Central Valley California), and a notice of 
determination that three ESUs (Oregon Coast, Klamath Mountains 
Province, and Northern California) did not warrant listing. NMFS' 
determination that these three ESUs did not warrant listing was based 
on the best available scientific and commercial data which indicated 
these ESUs were at a lower risk of extinction than at the time of the 
proposed listing determination. Even though the risks confronting these 
ESUs had been reduced to a point at which listing was not warranted, 
NMFS still expressed concerns about the status of these three ESUs in 
the notice of determination, and, therefore, identified them as 
candidate species which the agency would continue to monitor.
    NMFS's March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13347), decision not to list the 
Northern California steelhead ESU was based largely on a determination 
that sufficient Federal and state conservation measures were in place 
to reduce threats to the ESU such that the proposed threatened listing 
was unnecessary. The Federal and state conservation measures upon which 
NMFS based this determination included: (1) implementation of a March 
11, 1998, Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between NMFS and the State of 
California (NMFS/California MOA, 1998), with particular importance 
given to implementation of those provisions in the MOA which were 
intended to improve non-Federal forest land protections in the ESU (81 
percent of land ownership is non-Federal land); (2) implementation of 
more restrictive in-river harvest regulations by California which were 
intended to reduce mortality and increase the viability of naturally 
reproducing steelhead populations; and (3) improved protections to 
habitat and naturally reproducing steelhead from expanded habitat 
protection and restoration efforts, improvements in the management of 
hatchery steelhead stocks, and expanded population monitoring.

[[Page 36076]]

    At the time of its decision not to list the Northern California 
ESU, NMFS considered the protection and restoration of freshwater 
spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat on non-Federal lands to be 
essential for the long-term survival and recovery of this ESU because 
non-Federal lands represented such a large portion of the available 
habitat (63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998). Because of NMFS' concerns 
regarding the preponderance of private timber lands and timber harvest 
in the northern California ESU, the NMFS/California MOA contained 
several provisions calling for the review and revision of California's 
forest practice rules (FPRs), and a review of their implementation and 
enforcement by January 1, 2000. NMFS considered full implementation of 
these critical provisions within the specified time frame to be 
essential for achieving properly functioning habitat conditions for 
steelhead in this ESU.
    In accordance with the NMFS/California MOA, a scientific review 
panel was established by the State to review the California FPRs, 
including their implementation and enforcement. The scientific review 
panel completed its review and provided the State's Board of Forestry 
(BOF) with its findings and recommendations in June 1999. In its 
findings, the review panel concluded that California's FPRs, including 
their implementation through the existing timber harvest plan process, 
do not ensure protection of anadromous salmonid habitat and 
populations. To address these shortcomings, and as specified in the 
NMFS/California MOA, the California Resources Agency and CalEPA jointly 
presented the BOF with a proposed rule change package in July 1999. 
Following several months of public review, the Board of Forestry took 
no action on the package in October 1999, thereby precluding any 
possibility of implementing improvements in California's FPRs by 
January 1, 2000, as the State committed to do in the NMFS/California 
MOA.
    Although NMFS' March 19, 1998, decision not to list the northern 
California ESU concluded that improvements in steelhead harvest and 
hatchery management would provide immediate conservation benefits to 
this ESU, an essential component of the decision was based on NMFS' 
expectation that changes in the State's FPRs would be implemented by 
January 1, 2000. Because these critical conservation measures were not 
being implemented by the State of California, and therefore, were not 
reducing threats to this ESU that were anticipated at the time of its 
March 19, 1998, decision not to list the ESU, NMFS determined that a 
formal reconsideration of the status of this ESU was warranted 
(December 3, 1999, Memorandum from Rodney R. McInnis and William 
Stelle, Jr. to Penelope D. Dalton (NMFS, 1999)).
    As part of this reconsideration, the Southwest Fisheries Science 
Center (SWFSC) completed an updated status review for the Northern 
California steelhead ESU in January, 2000 which concluded that its 
biological status had changed little since NMFS' steelhead BRT 
determined in December 1997 that the ESU was likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future. NMFS also conducted a re-
evaluation of Federal and state conservation measures that were in 
place to protect this ESU, including the implementation and success of 
measures such as the NMFS/California MOA that were considered important 
factors in the original decision not to list the ESU. Based on the 
updated status review and re-assessment of conservation measures, NMFS 
concluded that the Northern California steelhead ESU was likely to 
become endangered in the foreseeable future, and therefore, proposed to 
list the ESU as a threatened species under the ESA on February 11, 2000 
(65 FR 6960).

Steelhead Life History and Background

    Biological information for west coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus 
mykiss) and the northern California ESU in particular can be found in 
steelhead status assessments conducted by NMFS (Busby et al., 1996; 
NMFS, 1997a; NMFS, 2000) and in previous Federal Register documents (61 
FR 41541, August 9, 1996; 63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998; 65 FR 6960, 
February 11, 2000). A summary of steelhead life history follows.
    O. mykiss exhibits one of the most complex suites of life history 
traits of any salmonid species. Individuals may exhibit anadromy 
(meaning they migrate as juveniles from fresh water to the ocean, and 
then return to spawn in fresh water) or freshwater residency (meaning 
they reside their entire life in fresh water). Resident forms are 
usually referred to as ``rainbow'' or ``redband'' trout, while 
anadromous life forms are termed ``steelhead.'' Few detailed studies 
have been conducted regarding the relationship between resident and 
anadromous O. mykiss and as a result, the relationship between these 
two life forms is poorly understood. The scientific name for the 
biological species that includes both steelhead and rainbow trout has 
been changed from Salmo gairdneri to O. mykiss. This change reflects 
the premise that all trouts from western North America share a common 
lineage with Pacific salmon.
    Steelhead typically migrate to marine waters after spending 2 years 
in fresh water. They then reside in marine waters for typically 2 or 3 
years prior to returning to their natal stream to spawn as 4- or 5-
year-olds. Unlike other Pacific salmon, steelhead are iteroparous, 
meaning they are capable of spawning more than once before they die. 
However, it is rare for steelhead to spawn more than twice before 
dying; most that do so are females. Steelhead adults typically spawn 
between December and June (Bell, 1990; Busby et al., 1996). Depending 
on water temperature, steelhead eggs may incubate in ``redds'' (nesting 
gravels) for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as ``alevins'' (a larval 
life stage dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac 
absorption, young juveniles or ``fry'' emerge from the gravel and begin 
actively feeding. Juveniles rear in fresh water from 1 to 4 years, then 
migrate to the ocean as ``smolts.''
    Biologically, steelhead can be divided into two reproductive 
ecotypes, based on their state of sexual maturity at the time of river 
entry and the duration of their spawning migration. These two ecotypes 
are termed ``stream maturing'' and ``ocean maturing.'' Stream maturing 
steelhead enter fresh water in a sexually immature condition and 
require several months to mature and spawn. Ocean maturing steelhead 
enter fresh water with well developed gonads and spawn shortly after 
river entry. These two reproductive ecotypes are more commonly referred 
to by their season of freshwater entry (i.e., summer [stream maturing] 
and winter steelhead [ocean maturing]). The Northern California ESU 
contains populations of both winter and summer steelhead.
    Two major genetic groups or ``subspecies'' of steelhead occur on 
the west coast of the United States: a coastal group and an inland 
group, separated in the Fraser and Columbia River Basins approximately 
by the Cascade crest (Huzyk & Tsuyuki, 1974; Allendorf, 1975; Utter & 
Allendorf, 1977; Okazaki, 1984; Parkinson, 1984; Schreck et al., 1986; 
Reisenbichler et al., 1992). Behnke (1992) proposed classifying the 
coastal subspecies as O. m. irideus and the inland subspecies as O. m. 
gairdneri. These genetic groupings apply to both anadromous and 
nonanadromous forms of O. mykiss. Both coastal and inland steelhead 
occur in Washington and Oregon. California is thought to have only 
coastal steelhead while Idaho has only inland steelhead. The northern

[[Page 36077]]

California steelhead ESU is part of the coastal grouping.
    Historically, steelhead were distributed throughout the North 
Pacific Ocean from the Kamchatka Peninsula in Asia to the northern Baja 
Peninsula. Presently, the species distribution extends from the 
Kamchatka Peninsula, east and south along the Pacific coast of North 
America, to at least Malibu Creek in southern California. There are 
infrequent anecdotal reports of steelhead occurring as far south as the 
Santa Margarita River in San Diego County (McEwan & Jackson, 1996). In 
1999, juvenile O. mykiss suspected of being the progeny of steelhead 
were reported from San Mateo Creek which is in northernmost San Diego 
County, just north of the Santa Margarita River. Historically, 
steelhead likely inhabited most coastal streams in Washington, Oregon, 
and California as well as many inland streams in these states and 
Idaho. However, during this century, over 23 indigenous, naturally 
reproducing stocks of steelhead are believed to have been extirpated, 
and many more are thought to be in decline in numerous coastal and 
inland streams in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Forty-
three stocks have been identified by Nehlsen et al. (1991) as being at 
moderate or high risk of extinction.

Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule

    Following NMFS proposal to list 10 steelhead ESUs in 1996, 
including the Northern California ESU (61 FR 41541), a total of 16 
public hearings were held in California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington 
to solicit comments on the proposed rule. During the 90-day public 
comment period, NMFS received nearly 1,000 written comments on the 
proposed rule from Federal, state, and local government agencies, 
Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations, the scientific 
community, and other individuals. A number of comments addressed 
specific technical issues pertaining to a particular geographic region 
or O. mykiss population. These technical comments were considered by 
NMFS' steelhead BRT in its re-evaluation of ESU definitions and status, 
including the Northern California steelhead ESU, and were discussed in 
the updated status review report (NMFS, 1997a).
    During the 60-day public comment period that followed publication 
of the proposal to list this ESU (65 FR 6960), NMFS received numerous 
written comments and also held one public hearing in Eureka, California 
to solicit comments on the proposal. A total of 20 individuals 
presented testimony at this public hearing, with the majority 
expressing their opposition to the proposed listing. During the 60-day 
public comment period that followed publication of the proposed rule, 
NMFS received 44 written comments from Federal, state, and local 
government agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations, and 
other individuals. In contrast to the public hearing, the majority of 
written comments were supportive of the proposal. A number of comments 
addressed issues pertaining to the designation of critical habitat 
which was not proposed at the time of the listing proposal. Several 
commenters requested NMFS promulgate an ESA 4(d) rule that would allow 
continued catch and release angling opportunities in coastal streams 
occurring within the Northern California steelhead ESU. At least one 
commenter resubmitted comments that had originally been submitted to 
NMFS when this ESU was first proposed for listing in 1996.
    A summary of comments received in response to the proposed rule 
follows.
    Issue 1: Sufficiency and Accuracy of Scientific Information and 
Analysis
    Comment 1: Some commenters questioned the sufficiency and accuracy 
of data NMFS employed in the listing proposal.
    Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires that NMFS make its 
listing determinations solely on the basis of the best available 
scientific and commercial data, after reviewing the status of the 
species and taking into account any efforts being made to protect such 
species. NMFS believes that information contained in the agency's 
original status review (Busby et al., 1996), together with more recent 
information (NMFS, 1997a; NMFS, 1998a; NMFS, 2000), represents the best 
scientific and commercial information presently available for the 
Northern California steelhead ESU addressed in this final rule. NMFS 
has made every effort to conduct an exhaustive review of all available 
information and has solicited information and opinion from all 
interested parties.
    Comment 2: Some comments suggested that the ESA does not provide 
for the creation of ESUs and that ESUs do not correspond to species, 
subspecies, or distinct population segments (DPSs) that are 
specifically identified in the ESA. Further, NMFS' use of genetic 
information (allozyme- or DNA-derived information) to determine ESU 
boundaries was criticized. It was argued that allozyme-based 
electrophoretic data cannot be used to imply either evolutionary 
significance or local adaptation. Some commenters felt that information 
was lacking concerning a number of ``key'' criteria for defining the 
Northern California steelhead ESU, such as phenotypic differences, 
evolutionary significance, or ecological significance of various summer 
and winter steelhead populations. Commenters contended that NMFS did 
not find any life history, habitat, or phenotypic characteristics that 
were unique to any of the steelhead populations discussed.
    Response: General issues relating to ESUs, Distinct Population 
Segments (DPSs), and the ESA have been discussed extensively in past 
Federal Register documents. Regarding application of its ESU policy, 
NMFS relies on its policy describing how it will apply the ESA 
definition of ``species'' to anadromous salmonid species published in 
1991 (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). More recently, NMFS and the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service published a joint policy, that is consistent 
with NMFS' policy, regarding the definition of ``distinct population 
segments'' (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The earlier policy is more 
detailed and applies specifically to Pacific salmonids, and therefore, 
was used for this determination. This policy indicates that one or more 
naturally reproducing salmonid populations will be considered to be 
distinct and, hence, a species under the ESA, if they represent an ESU 
of the biological species. To be considered an ESU, a population must 
satisfy two criteria: (1) It must be reproductively isolated from other 
population units of the same species; and (2) it must represent an 
important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological 
species. The first criterion, reproductive isolation, does not have to 
be absolute but must have been strong enough to permit evolutionarily 
important differences to occur in different population units. The 
second criterion is met if the population contributes substantially to 
the ecological or genetic diversity of the species as a whole. Guidance 
on applying this policy is contained in a NOAA Technical Memorandum 
entitled ``Definition of `Species' Under the Endangered Species Act: 
Application to Pacific Salmon'' (Waples, 1991) and in a more recent 
scientific paper by Waples (1995).
    NMFS identified all west coast steelhead ESUs including the 
Northern California ESU in the original steelhead status review, using 
the best available scientific and commercial information. As discussed 
in the original status review, genetic data were used primarily to 
evaluate the criterion

[[Page 36078]]

regarding reproductive isolation, not evolutionary significance. In 
some cases, there was a considerable degree of confidence in the ESU 
determinations. The west coast steelhead status review describes a 
variety of characteristics that support the ESU delineations for this 
species, including ecological and life history parameters.
    Comment 3: Some commenters suggested that listing of the Klamath 
Mountains Province (KMP) steelhead ESU was also warranted based on the 
rationale NMFS provided for its decision to propose listing the 
Northern California steelhead ESU.
    Response: NMFS' decision not to reconsider the KMP steelhead ESU 
for listing is based on the determination that there are sufficient 
Federal and state conservation measures in place to reduce the threats 
to the ESU such that listing is not warranted. The Federal and state 
conservation measures which NMFS bases this determination on include: 
(1) the large portion of Federal land ownership in the ESU (64 percent 
for the entire ESU and 80 percent in the California portion of the ESU) 
coupled with successful implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan on 
Federal lands which reduced habitat risks; (2) substantial changes to 
the management of recreational fisheries and artificial propagation 
programs by the states of Oregon and California which are reducing 
impacts to steelhead; and (3) general improvements to habitat 
conditions throughout the ESU resulting from state-wide conservation 
strategies and monitoring efforts in both Oregon and California. In 
California, these efforts include implementation of the California 
Department of Fish and Game's (DFG) strategic management plan for KMP 
steelhead ESU, the State's Watershed Protection Program which includes 
an ongoing habitat restoration program, and the NMFS/California MOA 
which assures implementation of steelhead angling regulation changes, 
changes in the management of hatchery steelhead programs, habitat 
protections on non-Federal land, and expanded steelhead monitoring. In 
Oregon, these efforts include the implementation of conservation 
measures contained in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds.
    Issue 2: Status Assessment for the Northern California Steelhead 
ESU
    Comment 4: Some commenters suggested that risk assessments were 
made in an arbitrary manner and that NMFS did not rely on the best 
available science. Several commenters questioned NMFS' methodology for 
determining whether the Northern California steelhead ESU warranted 
listing. In some cases, such commenters also expressed opinions 
regarding whether listing was warranted.
    Response: Throughout the status review for west coast steelhead and 
all subsequent updates, NMFS has solicited and evaluated the best 
available scientific and commercial data for the species. NMFS believes 
that these reviews, coupled with considerable input from the public, 
co-managers, peer reviewers, and other species experts, clearly 
demonstrate that its listing determinations are not arbitrary, but 
instead are based on an open and rigorous scientific assessment.
    NMFS has identified a number of factors that should be considered 
in evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU, including: (1) 
absolute numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal distribution; 
(2) current abundance in relation to historical abundance and current 
carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) trends in abundance; (4) natural 
and human-influenced factors that cause variability in survival and 
abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity (e.g., from strays 
or outplants from hatchery programs); and (6) recent events (e.g., a 
drought or changes in harvest management) that have predictable short-
term consequences for abundance of the ESU. These factors were 
considered by NMFS in the original 1996 status review and all 
subsequent updated reviews (NMFS, 1997a; NMFS, 2000) and served as the 
basis for agency determinations regarding the biological status of the 
Northern California steelhead ESU.
    Issue 3: Factors Contributing to the Decline of Northern California 
Steelhead ESU
    Comment 5: Some commenters identified factors for decline that were 
either not identified in the original or updated status reviews or 
which they believed were not given sufficient weight in the risk 
analysis. Other commenters contended that recent declines in Northern 
California steelhead abundance were related to natural factors such as 
predation and changes in ocean productivity. Furthermore, these 
commenters contend that NMFS did not show how the present declines were 
significantly different from natural variability in abundance, nor that 
abundances were below the current carrying capacity of the marine 
environment and freshwater habitat.
    Response: The status review did not attempt to exhaustively 
identify factors for decline, except insofar as they contributed 
directly to the risk analysis. Nevertheless, NMFS agrees that a 
multitude of factors, past and present, have contributed to the decline 
of west coast steelhead. Many of the identified risk factors were 
specifically cited in NMFS' original west coast steelhead status review 
(Busby et al., 1996) and subsequent listing notices (61 FR 41541; 63 FR 
13347; 65 FR 6960). In addition, NMFS has prepared a report that 
summarizes the factors leading to the decline of steelhead on the west 
coast entitled: ``Factors for Decline: A supplement to the notice of 
determination for west coast steelhead'' (NMFS, 1996). This report 
concludes that all of the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the 
ESA have played a role in the decline of the species. The report 
identifies destruction and modification of habitat, overutilization for 
recreational purposes, and natural and human-made factors as being the 
primary causes for the decline of steelhead on the west coast. NMFS 
recognizes that natural environmental fluctuations have likely played a 
role in the species' recent declines as well. However, NMFS believes 
other human-induced impacts (e.g., harvest in certain fisheries, 
artificial propagation, and widespread habitat modification) have 
played an equally significant role in the decline of steelhead.
    NMFS' 1996 status review briefly addressed the impact of adverse 
marine conditions and climate change, but concluded that there is 
considerable uncertainty regarding the role of these factors in 
steelhead abundance. At this time, we do not know whether these climate 
conditions represent a long-term shift in conditions that will continue 
into the future or short-term environmental fluctuations that can be 
expected to reverse soon (NMFS, 1996). A recent review by Hare et al. 
(1999) suggests that these conditions could be part of an alternating 
20- to 30-year regime pattern. These authors concluded that although 
at-risk salmon stocks may benefit from a reversal in the current 
climate/ocean regime, fisheries management should continue to focus on 
reducing impacts from harvest and artificial propagation and improving 
freshwater and estuarine habitats.
    NMFS believes there is ample evidence to suggest that the 
elimination and degradation of freshwater habitats have contributed to 
the decline of this steelhead ESU (NMFS, 1996). Many of the identified 
risks and conclusions apply specifically to Northern California 
steelhead populations. Examples of habitat alterations affecting 
steelhead include: water withdrawal, conveyance, storage, and flood 
control (resulting in insufficient flows, stranding, juvenile 
entrainment, and increased stream temperatures); and logging and

[[Page 36079]]

agriculture (resulting in loss of large woody debris, sedimentation, 
loss of riparian vegetation, and habitat simplification) (NMFS, 1996; 
Spence et al., 1996; Busby et al., 1996). These human-induced impacts 
in freshwater ecosystems have likely reduced the species' resiliency to 
natural factors for decline such as drought and poor ocean conditions. 
A critical next step in restoring listed steelhead will be identifying 
and ameliorating specific factors for decline at both the ESU and 
population level.
    With respect to predation impacts on steelhead, NMFS has recently 
published reports describing the impacts of California sea lions and 
Pacific harbor seals upon salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of 
Washington, Oregon, and California (NMFS, 1997 and 1999b). These 
reports conclude that in certain cases where pinniped populations co-
occur with depressed salmonid populations, salmonid populations may 
experience severe impacts due to predation. An example of such a 
situation is at the Ballard Locks, Washington, where sea lions are 
known to consume significant numbers of adult winter steelhead. These 
reports further conclude that data regarding pinniped predation are 
quite limited and that substantial additional research is needed to 
fully address this issue. Existing information on the seriously 
depressed status of many salmonid stocks may be sufficient to warrant 
actions to remove pinnipeds in areas of co-occurrence where pinnipeds 
prey on depressed salmonid populations (NMFS, 1997 and 1999b).
    Issue 4: Consideration of Existing Conservation Measures
    Comment 6: Some commenters expressed concerns about NMFS' reliance 
and characterization of the efficacy of the Northwest Forest Plan 
(NFP), citing significant differences in management practices between 
various Federal land management agencies. Numerous commenters noted 
that an array of state and Federal conservation measures were underway 
for this and other species (particularly in northern California) and 
asked that NMFS give them more consideration in its listing 
determination.
    Response: In the listing proposal, NMFS noted that the NFP requires 
specific management actions on Federal lands, including actions in key 
watersheds in southern Oregon and northern California that comply with 
special standards and guidelines designed to preserve their refugia 
functions for at-risk salmonids (i.e., watershed analysis must be 
completed prior to timber harvests and other management actions, road 
miles should be reduced, no new roads can be built in roadless areas, 
and restoration activities are prioritized). In addition, the most 
significant element of the NFP for anadromous fish is its Aquatic 
Conservation Strategy (ACS), a regional-scale aquatic ecosystem 
conservation strategy that includes: (1) special land allocations (such 
as key watersheds, riparian reserves, and late-successional reserves) 
to provide aquatic habitat refugia; (2) special requirements for 
project planning and design in the form of standards and guidelines; 
and (3) new watershed analysis, watershed restoration, and monitoring 
processes. These ACS components collectively ensure that Federal land 
management actions achieve a set of nine ACS objectives that strive to 
maintain and restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape 
scales, to protect habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent 
species and to restore currently degraded habitats. NMFS will continue 
to support the NFP strategy and address Federal land management issues 
via ESA section 7 consultations.
    Additional consideration was given to various conservation efforts 
in California that have been implemented or are expected to be 
initiated. See ``Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast steelhead'' 
later in this document.
    Comment 7: Several commenters expressed their belief that current 
California Forest Practice Rules (FPR's) were adequate to protect the 
Northern California steelhead ESU. Several comments expressed concern 
that NMFS did not adequately review and consider the interim FPR 
changes adopted by the California Board of Forestry (BOF) for 
anadromous salmonids in March 2000.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the assertion that the state's FPRs 
as currently implemented are adequate to protect anadromous salmonids 
in California. NMFS has reviewed the State FPRs, including those 
interim changes recently adopted by the Board of Foresty and concludes 
that they do not adequately protect anadromous salmonids, including 
steelhead, or provide for properly functioning habitat conditions. In 
fact, the deleterious impacts of timber harvest and other activities 
have resulted in recent listings by the Environmental Protection Agency 
of many north coast California streams as sediment and/or temperature 
impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
    NMFS' March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13347), decision not to list the 
Northern California steelhead ESU was based largely on a determination 
that sufficient Federal and state conservation measures were in place 
to reduce threats to the ESU such that the proposed threatened listing 
was unnecessary. The Federal and state conservation measures upon which 
NMFS based this determination included the implementation of a March 
11, 1998, Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between NMFS and the State of 
California (NMFS/California MOA, 1998), with particular importance 
given to implementation of those provisions in the MOA which were 
intended to improve non-Federal forest land protections in the ESU. At 
the time of NMFS' decision not to list the Northern California ESU in 
1998, NMFS considered the protection and restoration of freshwater 
spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat on non-Federal lands to be 
essential for the long-term survival and recovery of this ESU because 
non-Federal lands represented such a large portion (81 percent) of the 
available habitat (63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998; 65 FR 6960, February 
11, 2000). Because of NMFS' concerns regarding the preponderance of 
private timber lands and timber harvest in the northern California ESU, 
the NMFS/California MOA contained several provisions calling for the 
review and revision of California's FPRs, and a review of their 
implementation and enforcement by January 1, 2000. NMFS considered full 
implementation of these critical provisions within the specified time 
frame to be essential for achieving properly functioning habitat 
conditions for steelhead in this ESU. In accordance with the NMFS/
California MOA, a scientific review panel was established by the state 
to review the California FPRs, including their implementation and 
enforcement. The scientific review panel completed its review and 
provided the state's Board of Forestry with its findings and 
recommendations in June 1999. In its findings, the review panel 
concluded that California's FPRs, including their implementation 
through the existing timber harvest plan process, do not ensure 
protection of anadromous salmonid habitat and populations. To address 
these shortcomings, and as specified in the NMFS/California MOA, the 
California Resources Agency and CalEPA jointly presented the Board of 
Forestry with a proposed rule change package in July 1999. Following 
several months of public review, the Board of Forestry took no action 
on the package in October 1999, thereby precluding any possibility of 
implementing improvements in California's FPRs by January 1, 2000, as 
the State committed to do in the NMFS/California MOA.

[[Page 36080]]

    The California State Legislature, purusant to Senate Bill 621, gave 
special authority to BOF to adopt new rules twice during the year 2000 
for the specific purpose of revising the State's FPRs to meet ESA 
requirements for salmonids. Following its decision to take no action in 
October 1999, BOF continued working on revisions to the state's FPRs 
through March 2000. During this period, NMFS and other groups strongly 
urged BOF to adopt the entire FPR package as a necessary first step for 
protecting anadromous salmonid habitat. On March 14, 2000, (the 
deadline for the Board of Forestry to exercise its authority under SB 
621), the Board only adopted a subset of rule changes from the package. 
These rule changes only apply to those harvest plans approved between 
July 1, 2000, and December 31, 2000. NMFS has reviewed these recently 
adopted rule changes and has determined that they are inadequate to 
protect anadromous salmonids or provide for properly functioning 
habitat conditions. This position is supported by the scientific review 
panel report of June 1999. For a more detailed discussion on the 
adequacy of California's FPRs, including the recently proposed interim 
FPRs changes, see ``Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, Land 
Management'' later in this document.
    Comment 8: Several commenters argued that NMFS had not considered 
existing conservation programs designed to enhance steelhead stocks 
within the northern California ESU.
    Response: NMFS has reviewed existing conservation efforts relevant 
to the Northern California steelhead ESU and concludes that existing 
conservation efforts in these areas are not sufficient to preclude 
listing of the ESU at this time. Several of the plans addressed in 
comments show promise for ameliorating the risks facing steelhead. 
However, in most cases, measures described in comments have not been 
implemented or are in their early stages of implementation and have not 
yet demonstrated success. Some of these measures are also 
geographically limited to individual river basins or political 
subdivisions, thereby improving conditions for only a small portion of 
the entire ESU.
    While existing conservation plans are unable to preclude the need 
for listing at this time, they are nevertheless valuable for improving 
watershed health and restoring fishery resources. In those cases where 
well-developed, reliable conservation plans exist, NMFS may choose to 
incorporate them into the recovery planning process. In the case of 
threatened species, NMFS also has flexibility under ESA section 4(d) to 
tailor section 9 take regulations based on the contents of available 
conservation measures. NMFS fully intends to recognize local 
conservation efforts to the fullest extent possible.
    Issue 5: Steelhead Biology and Ecology
    Comment 9: Some commenters believe that resident rainbow trout 
should be included in the Northern California steelhead ESU if it is 
listed. Several commenters also stated that NMFS should address how the 
presence of rainbow trout populations may ameliorate risks facing 
anadromous populations within listed ESUs.
    Response: In its August 9, 1996, listing proposal, NMFS stated that 
based on available genetic information, it was the consensus of NMFS 
scientists, as well as regional fishery biologists, that resident fish 
should generally be considered part of the steelhead ESUs, but also 
concluded that available data were inconclusive regarding the 
relationship of resident rainbow trout and steelhead. NMFS requested 
additional data in the proposed rule to clarify this relationship and 
determine if resident rainbow trout should be included in listed 
steelhead ESUs.
    In response to this request for additional information, many groups 
and individuals expressed opinions regarding this issue. In most cases 
these opinions were not supported by new information that resolves 
existing uncertainty. Two state fishery management agencies (CDFG and 
WDFW) and one peer reviewer provided comments and information 
supporting the inclusion of resident rainbow trout in listed steelhead 
ESUs. In general, these parties also felt that rainbow trout may serve 
as an important reservoir of genetic material for at-risk steelhead 
stocks.
    While conclusive evidence does not yet exist regarding the 
relationship of resident and anadromous O. mykiss, NMFS believes 
available evidence suggests that resident rainbow trout should be 
included in listed steelhead ESUs in certain cases. Such cases include: 
(1) where resident O. mykiss have the opportunity to interbreed with 
anadromous fish below natural or man-made barriers; or (2) where 
resident fish of native lineage once had the ability to interbreed with 
anadromous fish but no longer do because they are currently above 
human-made barriers, and they are considered essential for recovery of 
the ESU. Resident fish above long-standing natural barriers, and those 
that are derived from the introduction of non-native rainbow trout, 
would not be considered part of any ESU.
    NMFS believes resident fish can help buffer extinction risks to an 
anadromous population by mitigating depensatory effects in spawning 
populations, by providing offspring that migrate to the ocean and enter 
the breeding population of steelhead, and by providing a ``reserve'' 
gene pool in freshwater that may persist through times of unfavorable 
conditions for anadromous fish. In spite of these potential benefits, 
presence of resident populations is not a substitute for conservation 
of anadromous populations. A particular concern is isolation of 
resident populations by human-caused barriers to migration. This 
interrupts normal population dynamics and population genetic processes 
and can lead to loss of a genetically based trait (anadromy). As 
discussed in NMFS' ``species identification'' paper (Waples, 1991), the 
potential loss of anadromy in distinct population segments may in and 
of itself warrant listing the species as a whole.
    FWS and NMFS adopted a joint policy to clarify their interpretation 
of the phrase ``distinct population segment (DPS) of any species of 
vertebrate fish or wildlife'' for the purposes of listing, delisting, 
and reclassifying species under the ESA (61 FR 4722). DPSs are 
``species'' pursuant to section 3(15) of the ESA. Previously, NMFS had 
developed a policy for stocks of Pacific salmon where an ESU of a 
biological species is considered ``distinct'' (and hence a species) if 
(1) it is substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific 
population units, and (2) it represents an important component in the 
evolutionary legacy of the species (November 20, 1991, 56 FR 58612). 
NMFS believes available data suggest that resident rainbow trout are in 
many cases part of steelhead ESUs. However, the FWS, which has ESA 
authority for resident fish, maintains that behavioral forms can be 
regarded as separate DPSs and that absent evidence suggesting resident 
rainbow trout need ESA protection, the FWS concludes that only the 
anadromous forms of each ESU should be listed under the ESA (DOI, 1997; 
FWS, 1997).
    Comment 10: Commenters and some peer reviewers questioned NMFS' 
inclusion of both summer- and winter-run steelhead in the same ESU. 
These commenters suggested that summer- and winter-run steelhead be 
segregated into individual ESUs based on life history differences.
    Response: While NMFS considers both life history forms (summer- and 
winter-run steelhead) to be important components of diversity within 
the species, new genetic data reinforce

[[Page 36081]]

previous conclusions that, within a geographic area, summer- and 
winter-run steelhead typically are more genetically similar to one 
another than either is to populations with similar run timing in 
different geographic areas. This indicates that an ESU that included 
summer-run populations from different geographic areas but excluded 
winter-run populations (or vice-versa) would be an inappropriate unit. 
The only biologically meaningful way to have summer- and winter-run 
steelhead populations in separate ESUs would be to have a very large 
number of ESUs, most consisting of just one or a very few populations. 
This would be inconsistent with the approach NMFS has taken in defining 
ESUs in other anadromous Pacific salmonids. Taking these factors into 
consideration, NMFS concludes that summer- and winter-run steelhead 
should be considered part of the same ESU in geographic areas where 
they co-occur.
    Issue 6: Consideration of ESA Section 4(d) Regulation for 
Recreational Angling
    Comment 11: Numerous commenters requested that if NMFS lists the 
Northern California steelhead ESU as a threatened species the agency 
promulgate an ESA 4(d) rule that provides for recreational angling 
opportunities similar to what is contained in the ESA 4(d) rule NMFS 
recently proposed for other threatened steelhead ESUs in California (64 
FR 73479; December 30, 1999).
    Response: The steelhead ESA 4(d) rule that NMFS proposed on 
December 30, 1999, contains a limitation on the application of the 
section 9 take prohibitions that would allow recreational angling for 
steelhead listed as threatened to continue under certain conditions, 
provided that the State of California prepares a Fishery Management and 
Evaluation Plan (FMEP) meeting certain criteria and that NMFS approves 
it. Because the pending steelhead 4(d) rule will be finalized by June 
19, 2000, NMFS expects to begin working soon with the State of 
California and DFG in preparing one or more FMEPs so that recreational 
angling can continue where it is consistent with the conservation of 
steelhead listed as threatened. It is NMFS' intent to promulgate an ESA 
4(d) rule for the Northern California steelhead ESU which is consistent 
with the 4(d) rule that will be published on June 19, 2000 so that 
recreational angling which meets appropriate conservation criteria can 
continue.

Northern California Steelhead ESU Determination

    The Northern California steelhead ESU has been described in 
previous Federal Register documents (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996; 62 FR 
43937, August 18, 1997; 63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998; 65 FR 6960, 
February 11, 2000) based on analyses conducted by NMFS and summarized 
in the following documents: ``Status Review for West Coast Steelhead 
from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California'' (Busby et al., 1996); 
and ``Status Review Update for West Coast Steelhead from Washington, 
Idaho, Oregon, and California'' (NMFS, 1997a). The relationship between 
hatchery steelhead populations and naturally spawned steelhead within 
this ESU was also assessed in: ``Status Review Update for Deferred ESUs 
of West Coast Steelhead: Hatchery Populations'' (NMFS, 1998a). Copies 
of these NMFS documents are available upon request (see ADDRESSES). 
NMFS received no new scientific or commercial information as a result 
of the February 11, 2000, proposal to list this ESU, which indicates 
that a change in the Northern California ESU is warranted.
    The ESU occupies river basins from Redwood Creek in Humboldt 
County, CA, to the Gualala River, inclusive, in Mendocino County, CA. 
Dominant vegetation along the coast is the redwood forest, whereas some 
interior basins, much drier than surrounding areas, are characterized 
by many endemic species. This area includes the extreme southern end of 
the contiguous portion of the Coast Range Ecoregion (Omernick, 1987). 
Elevated stream temperatures are a factor in some of the larger river 
basins (greater than 20 deg.C), but not to the extent that they are in 
river basins further south. Precipitation is generally higher in this 
geographic area than in regions to the south, averaging 100-200 cm of 
rainfall annually (Donley et al., 1979). With the exception of such 
major river basins as the Eel, most rivers in this region have peak 
flows of short duration. Strong and consistent coastal upwelling begins 
at about Cape Blanco and continues south into central California, 
resulting in a relatively productive nearshore marine environment.
    The northern California ESU includes both winter and summer 
steelhead, including what is presently considered to be the 
southernmost population of summer steelhead, in the Middle Fork Eel 
River. Half-pounder juveniles also occur in this geographic area, 
specifically in the Mad and Eel Rivers. Snyder (1925) first described 
the half-pounder from the Eel River; however, Cramer et al. (1995) 
suggested that adults with the half-pounder juvenile life history may 
not spawn south of the Klamath River Basin. As with the Rogue and 
Klamath Rivers which are located in the Klamath Mountains Province ESU, 
some of the larger rivers in this ESU have migrating steelhead year-
round, and seasonal runs have been named. River entry ranges from 
August through June and spawning from December through April, with peak 
spawning in January in the larger basins and late February and March in 
the smaller coastal basins.
    Based on the review of steelhead hatchery programs in this ESU 
(NMFS, 1998a), NMFS' steelhead BRT concluded that the following 
steelhead hatchery stocks are part of this ESU because they were 
established from indigenous natural populations and there is limited 
impact from the inclusion of out-of-basin fish in the broodstock: Van 
Arsdale Fisheries Station stock (Eel River), the Yager Creek stock (Eel 
River tributary), Ten Mile River stock, and North Fork Gualala River 
stock. The BRT concluded that the Mad River hatchery summer steelhead 
stock is not part of the ESU based on its origin from out-of-basin 
steelhead populations combined with the mixing of Eel River summer 
steelhead in the broodstock. Rearing of this stock was terminated at 
the Mad River hatchery in 1996. The majority of the BRT concluded that 
the Mad River hatchery winter steelhead stock is not part of this ESU 
although a minority of the BRT was uncertain regarding its relationship 
to the naturally spawning population. This stock was founded from South 
Fork Eel River steelhead (within the ESU, but out of the Mad River 
basin) and some local Mad River steelhead.

Status of Northern California Steelhead ESU

    Section 3 of the ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as 
``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is 
defined as ``any species which is likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. In its previous status reviews for west coast 
salmon and steelhead, NMFS has identified a number of factors that 
should be considered in evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU, 
including: (1) absolute numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal 
distribution; (2) current abundance in relation to

[[Page 36082]]

historical abundance and current carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) 
trends in abundance; (4) natural and human-influenced factors that 
cause variability in survival and abundance; (5) possible threats to 
genetic integrity (e.g., from strays or outplants from hatchery 
programs); and (6) recent events (e.g., a drought or changes in harvest 
management) that have predictable short-term consequences for abundance 
of the ESU.
    Based on these factors and the best available scientific 
information, NMFS' BRT first reviewed the status of the northern 
California ESU in its original coast-wide status review for steelhead 
(Busby et al., 1996). The BRT concluded that the northern California 
steelhead ESU was likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future. Population abundance was determined to be very low relative to 
historical estimates (1930's dam counts), and recent trends were 
downward in most stocks for which data were. The BRT expressed 
particular concern regarding sedimentation resulting in part from poor 
land management practices and channel restructuring due to floods. The 
abundance of the pikeminnow as a predator in the Eel River was also 
identified as a significant concern. For the Mad River, in particular, 
the BRT was concerned about the influence of hatchery stocks both in 
terms of genetic introgression and the potential for ecological 
interactions between introduced stocks and native stocks.
    The status of the northern California ESU was reassessed by NMFS' 
BRT in an updated status review following the 6-month period of 
deferral because of scientific disagreements (NMFS, 1997a). Based on 
this updated status review, NMFS' BRT once again concluded that 
northern California steelhead ESU was likely to become endangered in 
the foreseeable future. The BRT reported that there was very limited 
abundance data available for this ESU, particularly for winter-run 
steelhead. The most complete data set available in this ESU is a time 
series of winter steelhead dam counts on the Eel River at Cape Horn 
Dam. The updated abundance data (through 1997) showed moderately 
declining long-term and short-term trends in abundance, and the vast 
majority of these fish were believed to be of hatchery origin. These 
data show a strong decline in abundance prior to 1970, but no 
significant trend thereafter. Additional winter steelhead data are 
available for Sweasy Dam on the Mad River which show a significant 
decline, but that data set ends in 1963. For the seven populations 
where recent trend data were available, the only runs showing recent 
increases in abundance in the ESU were the relatively small populations 
of summer steelhead in the Mad River which has had high hatchery 
production, and winter steelhead in Prairie Creek where the increase 
may be due to increased monitoring or mitigation efforts.
    As in its original assessment, the BRT continued to be concerned 
about the risks associated with interactions between naturally spawning 
populations and hatchery steelhead in this ESU. Of particular concern 
to the BRT was the potentially deleterious impact to wild steelhead 
from past hatchery practices at the Mad River hatchery, primarily from 
transfers of non-indigenous Mad River hatchery fish to other streams in 
the ESU and the production of non-indigenous summer steelhead. These 
potentially deleterious hatchery practices for summer steelhead ended 
in 1996.
    Habitat degradation and other factors were also of concern to the 
BRT in its reassessment of the long-term risks to this ESU. Specific 
factors which the BRT identified included dams on the upper Eel and Mad 
Rivers, the likely existence of minor blockages throughout the ESU, 
continuing impacts of catastrophic flooding on the 1960s, and 
reductions in riparian and instream habitat and increased sedimentation 
from timber harvest activities. The BRT also cited poaching of summer 
steelhead and predation by pikeminnow in the Eel River as factors for 
concern. NMFS' supplemental review of factors affecting west coast 
steelhead also identified water diversion and extraction, agriculture, 
and mining as factors affecting habitat conditions for steelhead in 
this ESU (NMFS, 1996).
    In conjunction with NMFS' reconsideration of the Northern 
California steelhead ESU, the BRT provided a status review update for 
this ESU [January 2000 Memorandum from Pete Adams, Southwest Fisheries 
Science Center [SWFSC] to Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, 
SWR (NMFS, 2000)]. Based on a review of updated abundance and trend 
information that was available for this ESU, the SWFSC concluded that 
the current status of the ESU has not changed significantly since it 
was last evaluated by NMFS' BRT in December 1997 (NMFS, 1997a). The Eel 
River winter and summer steelhead populations, which represent the best 
available data set for this ESU, are still severely reduced from pre-
1960's levels. Updated abundance and trend data show small increases 
for winter and summer steelhead in the Eel River, but current abundance 
is still well below estimates in the 1980s, and even further reduced 
from levels in the 1960s. Redwood Creek summer steelhead abundance 
remains very low. There are no new data suggesting substantial 
increases or decreases in populations since the last updated status 
review was completed. NMFS received no new scientific or commercial 
data or information as a result of the February 11, 2000, listing 
proposal which changes the conclusions reached by the SWFSC.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 
CFR part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary 
of Commerce (Secretary) must determine, through the regulatory process, 
if a species is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a 
combination of the following factors: (1) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education 
purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    NMFS has prepared a report that summarizes the factors leading to 
the decline of steelhead on the west coast entitled: ``Factors for 
Decline: A supplement to the notice of determination for west coast 
steelhead'' (NMFS, 1996). This report, available upon request (see 
ADDRESSES), concludes that all of the factors identified in section 
4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a role in the decline of the species. 
The report identifies destruction and modification of habitat, 
overutilization for recreational purposes, and natural and human-made 
factors as being the primary causes for the decline of steelhead on the 
west coast. NMFS (1996) identified several factors that were considered 
to have contributed to its decline of the northern California steelhead 
ESU including: impacts from historic flooding (principally in 1955 and 
1964), predation, water diversions and extraction, minor habitat 
blockages, poaching, timber harvest, agriculture, and mining. NMFS' 
steelhead BRT also identified the potentially adverse impacts of the 
release of non-indigenous, hatchery-produced steelhead in this ESU as 
an important factor, and expressed concerns regarding the lack of 
reliable abundance and trend data for assessing the status of steelhead 
in this ESU (NMFS, 1997a).

[[Page 36083]]

Finally, NMFS was also concerned about the impacts of recreational 
angling because of the depressed status of steelhead populations and 
the uncertainty regarding the status of this ESU (March 11, 1998, 
Memorandum from William Hogarth to Rolland Schmitten (NMFS, 1998e)). 
The following discussion briefly summarizes findings regarding factors 
for decline across the range of west coast steelhead, including the 
northern California ESU.

The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Steelhead Habitat or Range

    Steelhead on the west coast of the United States have experienced 
declines in abundance in the past several decades as a result of 
natural and human factors. Forestry, agriculture, mining, and 
urbanization have degraded, simplified, and fragmented habitat. Water 
diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower 
purposes have greatly reduced or eliminated historically accessible 
habitat. Among other factors, NMFS (1996) specifically identified 
timber harvest, agriculture, mining, habitat blockages, and water 
diversions as important factors for the decline of steelhead in the 
northern California ESU. NMFS (1998a) discussed these factors in more 
detail. Studies estimate that during the last 200 years, the lower 48 
states have lost approximately 53 percent of all wetlands and the 
majority of the rest are severely degraded (Dahl, 1990; Tiner, 1991). 
Washington and Oregon's wetlands are estimated to have diminished by 
one-third, while California has experienced a 91 percent loss of its 
wetland habitat (Dahl, 1990; Jensen et al., 1990; Barbour et al., 1991; 
Reynolds et al., 1993). Loss of habitat complexity has also contributed 
to the decline of steelhead. For example, in national forests in 
Washington, there has been a 58 percent reduction in large, deep pools 
due to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming structures such as 
boulders and large woody debris (FEMAT, 1993). Similarly, in Oregon, 
the abundance of large, deep pools on private coastal lands has 
decreased by as much as 80 percent (FEMAT, 1993). Sedimentation from 
land use activities is recognized as a primary cause of habitat 
degradation in the range of west coast steelhead.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Education 
Purposes

    Steelhead are not generally targeted in commercial fisheries. High 
seas driftnet fisheries in the past may have contributed slightly to a 
decline of this species in local areas, but could not be solely 
responsible for the large declines in abundance observed along most of 
the Pacific coast over the past several decades (NMFS, 1996).
    Steelhead support an important recreational fishery throughout most 
of their range. During periods of decreased habitat availability (e.g., 
drought conditions or summer low flows when fish are concentrated), the 
impacts of recreational fishing on native anadromous stocks may be 
heightened.
    Although harvest of steelhead in the Northern California ESU was 
not originally identified as a major factor for decline (NMFS, 1996), 
NMFS is concerned about the impacts of recreational angling given 
currently depressed steelhead population levels and the lack of 
reliable abundance and trend data for accurately assessing the status 
of individual populations and the ESU as a whole. Because of NMFS' 
concerns about recreational angling impacts to naturally reproduced 
steelhead populations in coastal watersheds in California north of the 
Russian River, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) 
proposed and the California Fish and Game Commission adopted new 
steelhead angling regulations in 1998 for all watersheds in the 
northern California ESU. These new regulations prohibit retention of 
naturally spawned adult steelhead; eliminate fishing for juvenile 
steelhead in tributary streams; minimize impacts on juvenile steelhead 
in mainstem rearing and migratory areas through a combination of gear 
restrictions and delayed seasonal openings; prohibit retention of 
summer steelhead during their upstream migration and prohibit fishing 
in their summer holding areas; and provide for directed harvest and 
retention of hatchery-produced steelhead which are fully marked state-
wide. NMFS (1998b,c,d) analyzed these new regulations and concluded 
that they would substantially reduce fishing effort and reduce 
mortality to that associated with catch-and-release of naturally 
produced steelhead in the northern California ESU. These regulations 
remain in effect and are enforced by DFG.

Disease or Predation

    Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult 
and juvenile steelhead survival. Steelhead are exposed to numerous 
bacterial, protozoan, viral, and parasitic organisms in spawning and 
rearing areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and the marine environment 
(NMFS, 1996). Specific diseases such as bacterial kidney disease (BKD), 
ceratomyxosis, columnaris, furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic 
necrosis virus, redmouth and black spot disease, erythrocytic inclusion 
body syndrome, and whirling disease, among others, are present and are 
known to affect steelhead and salmon (Rucker et al., 1953; Wood, 1979; 
Leek, 1987; Foott et al., 1994; Gould and Wedemeyer, undated). Very 
little current or historical information exists to quantify changes in 
infection levels and mortality rates attributable to these diseases for 
steelhead (NMFS, 1996). However, studies have shown that naturally 
spawned fish tend to be less susceptible to pathogens than hatchery-
reared fish (Buchanon et al., 1983; Sanders et al., 1992).
    Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have 
resulted in increased predator populations in numerous river systems, 
thereby increasing the level of predation experienced by salmonids. In 
the Northern California steelhead ESU, predation from Sacramento 
pikeminnow that were released into the Eel River is a major problem. 
Predation from pikeminnow is discussed in more detail in NMFS (1996). 
The DFG is currently engaged in a program to control pikeminnow 
predation in the Eel River.
    Predation by marine mammals is also of concern in some areas 
experiencing dwindling steelhead run sizes. NMFS (1997b) reviewed the 
available literature concerning the impacts of California sea lion and 
Pacific harbor seal predation on west coast anadromous salmonids, and 
concluded that there was insufficient data in all but one instance 
(i.e., Ballard Locks in Puget Sound) to conclude that pinnipeds were 
having a significant impact on wild salmon or steelhead populations. 
For this reason, and because of the high likelihood that impacts might 
be occurring, the study concluded that substantial additional research 
was needed to address this issue further. Based on this research 
recommendation, NMFS has initiated several field studies in coastal 
watersheds on the west coast designed to assess the magnitude of 
pinniped predation on individual salmon or steelhead populations. In 
California, these studies are being conducted in the lower Klamath 
River, Scott Creek, and the San Lorenzo River.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    1. Federal Land and Water Management
    The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is a Federal land management policy 
with important benefits for west coast steelhead. While the NFP covers 
a very

[[Page 36084]]

large area, the overall effectiveness of the NFP in conserving 
steelhead is limited by the extent of Federal lands and the fact that 
Federal land ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds that 
comprise individual ESUs. The extent and distribution of Federal lands 
limits the ability of the NFP to achieve its aquatic habitat 
restoration objectives at watershed and river basin scales, and 
highlights the importance of complementary salmon habitat conservation 
measures on non-federal lands within the subject ESUs.
    Federal land ownership and management in the Northern California 
steelhead ESU is very limited; representing only about 19 percent of 
the total land area. Federal lands (i.e., Redwood National Park, 
portions of the Six Rivers and Mendocino National Forests, and the 
Kings Range National Conservation Area) that do occur in this ESU are 
also highly fragmented, unlike some other steelhead ESUs (e.g., Klamath 
Mountains Province and Snake River Basin). Although Federal lands are 
limited in extent and fragmented in this ESU, NMFS believes that 
implementation of the NFP on the Six Rivers and Mendocino National 
Forests lands (upper reaches of Eel and Mad Rivers) and implementation 
of other habitat protections in Redwood National Park (lower reach of 
Redwood Creek) will provide some limited benefits to steelhead. 
Nevertheless, long-term habitat protection and the key to achieving 
properly functioning habitat conditions in this ESU continues to be 
improvement in non-Federal land management, particularly those lands 
used for timber harvest.
    Because threatened coho salmon populations occur on Federal lands 
located within the Northern California steelhead ESU, NMFS routinely 
engages the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM), and Redwood Creek National Park in section 7 consultations to 
ensure that ongoing or proposed activities do not jeopardize coho 
salmon or adversely modify its critical habitat. Through this section 7 
consultation process, NMFS ensures that the NFP and other protective 
measures are fully implemented on Federal lands that occur in this ESU. 
The NFP and measures implemented as a result of the section 7 
consultations for coho salmon also benefit steelhead.
    The Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) Potter Valley 
hydroelectric project is a major diverter of water from the mainstem 
Eel River, which is located in the northern California ESU. This water 
is diverted into the Russian River basin to generate hydroelectric 
power and provide water for agriculture and urban uses. Pursuant to a 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing requirement, PG&E 
implemented a 10-year monitoring program in the Eel River for the 
purpose of developing recommendations for a flow release schedule and 
other project facilities and/or operations necessary to protect and 
maintain fishery resources, including steelhead. This study was 
completed in 1996, as was construction of a $14 million dollar fish 
screen facility at the Van Arsdale Dam diversion on the Eel River. 
Based on the results of the monitoring study, PG&E has developed a 
preferred alternative for project operations that, along with several 
other alternatives, are the subject of National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) review for ongoing FERC license amendment proceedings. NMFS 
is currently consulting with FERC pursuant to section 7 of the ESA on 
PG&E's proposed license amendment.
    On March 1, 1999, the Pacific Lumber Company (PALCO), the State of 
California, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of 
Commerce entered into a complex land purchase, land exchange and 
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) transaction covering the Headwaters 
Forest, Elk Head Springs Forest and the remainder of Pacific Lumber 
Company's land holdings in Humboldt County California. The Federal and 
State governments acquired approximately 10,000 acres of conifer and 
hardwood forest, over 3,000 acres of which is ancient redwoods, with 
some trees over 1,000 years old. This land is now subject to Federal 
and state control under conservation easements. The PALCO HCP addresses 
non-Federal timber lands in several drainages that occur in the 
northern portion of Northern California steelhead ESU. These include 
portions of several tributaries to Humboldt Bay (Elk River, Jacoby 
Creek, Freshwater Creek, and Salmon Creek), and portions of the Van 
Duzen River (including Yager Creek), Eel River, Bear River, Salt River, 
and Mattole River watersheds. The HCP covers 211,000 acres, has a term 
of 50 years and covers the following federally listed and candidate 
anadromous salmonid ESUs: (1) Southern Oregon/Northern California coho 
salmon (threatened), (2) Northern California steelhead (candidate), and 
(3) California Coastal Chinook salmon (threatened). The HCP also covers 
numerous terrestrial species listed under the ESA and California 
Endangered Species Act.
    The HCP's Operating Conservation Program (Program) contains the 
conservation and management measures and prescriptions necessary to 
minimize, mitigate and monitor the impacts of take of the covered 
species resulting from timber operations. The Program incorporates 
specific conservation plans for all terrestrial and aquatic species 
covered under the HCP along with measures to conserve habitat diversity 
and structural components. Monitoring for implementation, effectiveness 
and trends is a critical component of the Program. The monitoring 
component includes an independent third party HCP monitor to determine 
if the provisions of the aquatics plan are effective and whether the 
aquatic habitat is responding as expected. There is also a provision 
for adaptive management if the results are not as predicted. An 
Aquatics Conservation Plan (ACP) is an integral part of the overall 
Program. The goal of the ACP is to maintain or achieve over time 
properly functioning aquatic habitat conditions, which are essential to 
the long-term survival of salmonids. The reduction in land management 
impacts and habitat improvement that will be realized through 
implementation of the ACP will also benefit other species.
    NMFS believes that the conservation measures contained in the HCP 
will protect and provide for long-term conservation of steelhead 
populations occurring on PALCO lands in the northern California ESU.
    2. State Land Management
    Timber Harvest. The California Department of Forestry and Fire 
Protection (CDF) enforces California's FPRs on non-Federal (private and 
State managed forests) lands. These rules are promulgated through the 
State Board of Forestry (BOF). Timber harvest activities have been 
documented to result in adverse effects on streams and stream side 
zones including the loss of large woody debris, increased 
sedimentation, loss of riparian vegetation, and the loss of habitat 
complexity and connectivity (NMFS, 1996).
    The vast majority of freshwater habitat in the northern California 
steelhead ESU (approximately 81 percent of total land) is on non-
Federal lands, with the majority being privately owned. For the major 
river basins in this ESU (i.e., Redwood Creek, Mad River, Eel River, 
Mattole River, Ten Mile River, Noyo River, Big River, Albion River, 
Navarro River, Garcia River, and Gualala River), private forest lands 
average about 75 percent of the total acreage, with a range of 42 
percent (Eel River) to 94 (Gualala River ) percent.
    NMFS reviewed the California FPRs in conjunction with its 
determination to

[[Page 36085]]

not list the Northern California steelhead ESU in 1998 (63 FR 13347). 
That review concluded that although the FPRs mandate protection of 
sensitive resources such as anadromous salmonids, the FPRs and their 
implementation and enforcement do not accomplish this objective. 
Specific problems with the FPRs include: (1) protective provisions that 
are not supported by scientific literature; (2) provisions that are 
scientifically inadequate to protect salmonids including steelhead; (3) 
inadequate and ineffective cumulative effects analyses; (4) dependence 
upon registered professional foresters (RPFs) that may not possess the 
necessary level of multi-disciplinary technical expertise to develop 
THPs protective of salmonids; (5) dependence by CDF on other State 
agencies to review and comment on THPs; (6) failure of CDF to 
incorporate recommendations from other agencies; and (7) inadequate 
enforcement due to staffing limitations. NMFS further concluded that 
until a comprehensive scientific peer review process was implemented 
and appropriate changes to the FPRs and the THP approval process were 
made, properly functioning habitat conditions would not exist on non-
Federal lands in the northern California steelhead ESU.
    The NMFS/California MOA which was entered into in March 1998 to 
ensure the conservation of steelhead populations in northern California 
(i.e., Northern California and KMP steelhead ESUs) contained specific 
provisions to address NMFS' concerns over the California FPRs. In the 
NMFS/California MOA, the State committed to: (1) conduct a scientific 
review of the State's FPRs, including their implementation and 
enforcement; (2) make appropriate changes in implementation and 
enforcement of the FPRs based on this review; and (3) make 
recommendations to the BOF for changes in the FPRs if they were found 
to be necessary for the conservation of northern California coastal 
anadromous salmonids. Full implementation of these provisions in the 
NMFS/California MOA, including implementation of changes in the FPRs by 
January 1, 2000, was a critical factor in NMFS's decision previously to 
not list this ESU.
    In accordance with these provisions, a subcommittee of the State's 
scientific review panel for its Watershed Protection Program was 
appointed to undertake an independent review of the FPRs. The 
subcommittee's review and recommendations were completed and presented 
to the BOF in June 1999. The scientific review panel concluded that 
California's FPRs, including their implementation through the timber 
harvest plan process, do not ensure protection of anadromous salmonid 
populations. Based in part on the scientific review panel report and 
findings in July 1999, the California Resources Agency and CalEPA 
jointly presented the BOF with a proposed rule change package designed 
to address shortcomings in the State's existing FPRs. The BOF 
circulated the proposed rule package for public review, held several 
meetings and two public hearings on the proposals from July until 
October 1999, but failed to take action to adopt any of the proposed 
FPR changes, thereby precluding any possibility of implementing 
improvements in California's FPRs by January 1, 2000, as the State 
committed to do in the NMFS/California MOA.
    The California State Legislature, under Senate Bill 621, gave 
special authority to the BOF to adopt new rules twice during the year 
2000 for the specific purpose of revising the State's FPRs to meet ESA 
requirements for salmon. Public review and revisions of the BOF's FPR 
package continued from January 2000 to March 2000, during which time 
NMFS, California Legislature, the California Department of Forestry, 
the California Department of Fish and Game, the North Coast Water 
Quality Control Board, environmental groups and others strongly urged 
the Board to adopt the package in its' entirety as a necessary first 
step in protecting anadromous salmonid habitat. On March 14, 2000, the 
deadline for the BOF to exercise its authority under SB 621, the BOF 
adopted a subset of rule changes from the package which will only apply 
for those timber harvest plans approved between July 1 and December 31, 
2000. During this period, the BOF has committed to work with interested 
parties in the development of a watershed analysis approach to timber 
harvest planning.
    The interim FPRs changes adopted by the BOF, which sunset December 
31, 2000: (1) define watersheds with threatened and impaired values, 
acknowledging they exist and need special prescriptions; (2) direct 
analysis on cumulative watershed effects to ensure beneficial uses of 
water are maintained if in good condition, protected where threatened, 
and restored where impaired, and that riparian zones be fully protected 
from site specific and cumulative impacts; (3) require protection and 
maintenance of stream flow during low water periods, large woody debris 
recruitment and shade canopy for temperature control; (4) require no 
measurable increase in sediment load, no decrease in channel or bank 
stability and no measurable blockage of aquatic migratory route; (5) 
define the watercourse transition line as 2 times the bankfull depth 
for confined channels and the outer edge of the active channel boundary 
for unconfined channels; (6) identify a 150 foot minimum water and lake 
protection zone for all fish-bearing streams, with 85 percent overstory 
shade canopy retained post-harvest for the first 75 feet (22.9 meters 
(m)), and 65 percent shade retained for the outer 75 feet (22.9 m); (7) 
require a no-cut buffer in channel zones out to the transition line and 
large woody debris standards including no salvage logging within the 
water and lake protection zone without an approved plan; (8) request 
the registered professional forester identify all active erosion sites 
and provide remediation; (9) prohibit construction of roads, landings 
and skid trails during the winter months on slopes over 40 percent; 
(10) provide specific road construction provisions on slopes over 50 
percent; and (11) require that all crossings over fish-bearing streams 
meet 100-year flood standard and allow for passage of all life stages 
of fish.
    NMFS believes the interim rule changes adopted by the Board of 
Forestry constitute a good first step in addressing many concerns 
raised during the FPR review process; however, they are currently 
inadequate to protect anadromous salmonids, including steelhead, and 
their habitat. Specifically, the interim rule changes are inadequate 
because they to not address: (1) site-specific variation and long-term 
riparian functions; (2) non-fishbearing perennial streams and ephemeral 
streams that carry water during the winter months; (3) rate of timber 
harvest in a watershed; (4) all other winter operations and wet weather 
road and skid trail planning; (5) road planning, construction, 
maintenance and decommissioning; (6) loss of riparian function and 
chronic sediment inputs from streamside roads; (7) unstable areas 
except for inner gorges; (8) timber harvest plan preparation, review, 
implementation, enforcement and technical validity; (9) harvest plan 
exemptions and (10) watershed analysis, cumulative effects, adaptive 
management and monitoring. The adopted rules lack these, and other, 
critical elements recommended by the scientific review panel as 
necessary to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate adverse cumulative 
watershed impacts on salmonid populations.
    Multi-County Planning Efforts. As a result of the listing of coho 
salmon in coastal watersheds in northern

[[Page 36086]]

California, the counties of Del Norte, Siskiyou, Trinity, Humboldt and 
Mendocino developed and have implemented a multi-county, regional 
approach to assessing and improving county-controlled activities in a 
way that would enhance the quality and increase the quantity of 
salmonid habitat that is potentially affected by those county 
activities. NMFS and the State of California have contributed funding 
to this multi-county planning effort.
    This county-level conservation planning approach involves a 
thorough review of general plans, ordinances, procedures, practices and 
policies developed and implemented at the county level. Through the 
assessment and evaluation of these county-controlled mechanisms, a 
process is being developed that will enable the counties to exert 
control at the local level over human activities that can adversely 
affect anadromous salmonid populations and habitat. This multi-county 
planning effort was memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement (Multi-
County MOA) which was signed by all five counties in late 1997. Under 
the terms of the Multi-County MOA, the counties agreed to embark on a 
cooperative planning and restoration effort; assess the adequacy of 
existing general plans, county policies and practices, zoning and other 
land use ordinances; review county management procedures that affect 
anadromous salmonid habitat in each county; recommend changes to 
specific county ordinances and/or practices as necessary; develop a 
watershed-based education and technical assistance/training program for 
local agencies and decision-makers that will foster better 
understanding of the linkages between land use and county maintenance 
practices and salmonid habitat; and seek to establish some form of 
regulatory recognition at the state and/or federal level. As an 
example, within the range of the northern California steelhead ESU, the 
northern five counties (Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Siskiyou, and 
Mendocino Counties) Conservation Planning Group has organized a program 
to survey approximately 4700 miles of county roads to identify existing 
and potential barriers to the passage of listed salmonids in northern 
California streams. These barriers, which include undersized or failed 
culverts and other types of road crossings over streams, presently 
block significant amounts of stream habitat that could otherwise 
support spawning, rearing and migration of listed salmon and steelhead. 
To date, all coastal streams in Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino 
Counties have been inventoried, and habitat assessment and treatment 
prioritization reports are being drafted (Pers. Comm. Mark Lancaster, 
Trinity County Planning Dept. with Miles Croom, NMFS, April 24, 2000). 
In the coastal streams within Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino 
Counties, some 81 barriers have been identified. When removed, an 
additional 77 miles of suitable salmonid habitat will become available 
to listed species. The passage barrier inventory is part of a 
comprehensive aquatic habitat conservation program being developed by 
the multi-county group to improve county-level policies and procedures 
in an effort to reduce sedimentation and erosion, protect water 
quality, establish priorities for repairing problem sites, and 
institutionalize the utilization of improved practices at the county 
level with the goal of conserving aquatic habitat for the survival and 
recovery of listed salmonids.
    This multi-county assessment is being used to document the 
effectiveness of existing regulations. Where the assessment identifies 
areas for improvement, the planning effort will develop alternative 
policies, ordinances and practices that are suitable for maintaining or 
enhancing anadromous salmonid habitat. The assessment will address the 
need to focus public works projects on sites that improve fisheries 
habitat. A watershed-based approach will be used, even where watersheds 
cross county boundaries, to ensure that enhancement efforts are 
complementary to natural ecosystem processes.
    The outcome of this county-level effort is expected to be a 
comprehensive and coordinated analysis of local land use regulations. 
Where it is found that development standards such as subdivision 
restrictions, zoning, and capital improvement programs may not 
adequately maintain or restore salmonid habitat, model ordinances will 
be developed for consideration by each of the participating counties. 
Conversely, innovative approaches for land use (such as density 
modifications and standards that preserve habitat functions) or other 
county activities that have been developed in some counties will be 
presented as options for the other counties. This collaborative, 
regionally-based planning effort is based on existing environmental, 
economic, social and administrative concerns and opportunities. At the 
same time, the planning effort is designed to be complementary with 
state and national salmonid recovery efforts. The planning process 
encourages public participation through direct contact with interested 
public agencies, landowners, community organizations, environmental 
groups, industry representatives and others. The public process is 
being implemented through public hearings, meetings, scoping sessions, 
forums and other avenues.
    Agricultural Activities. Agricultural activity has had multiple and 
often severe impacts on salmonid habitat. These include depletion of 
needed flows due to irrigation withdrawals, blocking of fish passage by 
diversion or other structures, destruction of riparian vegetation and 
bank stability by grazing or cultivation practices, and channelization 
resulting in loss of side channel and wetland-related habitat (NMFS, 
1996).
    Impacts from agricultural and grazing practices have not 
historically been closely regulated in California. This is an important 
concern to NMFS because a significant portion of the acreage in the 
northern California ESU is comprised of farmland. For example, farmland 
constitutes approximately 25-30 percent of the total acreage of 
Humboldt and Mendocino counties which in turn constitute much of the 
northern California ESU. Private lands, and public lands not 
administered by the Federal government, are now being addressed by the 
California Rangeland Water Quality Management Program (CRWQMP) which 
was adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board and CDF in 1995. 
The CRWQMP is a water quality improvement program based on the 
voluntary participation of landowners for compliance with state and 
Federal non-point source pollution reduction requirements. The CRWQMP 
was initiated as a cooperative effort among the livestock industry, 
conservation organizations and state and Federal agencies to address 
the impacts of grazing and land use practices on water quality in 
streams that flow through private property. Through this Program, 
private landowners will be able to maintain rangeland productivity and 
enhance landowners' abilities to manage these lands in a manner that 
protects water quality standards necessary for the survival and 
recovery of listed salmonids.
    Between 1995-1998, rangeland plans were developed under the CRWQMP 
for more than 250,000 acres on the north coast ranging from San 
Francisco to the Oregon border. The State plans to review the 
implementation status of these plans at intervals of 3, 5 and 10 years, 
provided resources are available. NMFS is encouraged by these ongoing 
efforts. Plans that are consistent with this guidance are likely to 
meet state

[[Page 36087]]

water quality standards, but the program is voluntary and it is 
uncertain to what extent their implementation will contribute to 
improved habitat conditions and riparian function.
    The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), NMFS, FWS, 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California 
Association of Resource Conservation Districts (CARCD), and the State 
of California (State) have recently developed a joint approach that is 
expected to encourage the voluntary use of improved conservation 
management practices for agriculture on private land. Recognizing that 
recovery of listed and other at-risk salmonid populations depends on 
the willing participation of private landowners, these agencies have 
the goal of providing an incentive to landowners to enhance the quality 
and quantity of habitat needed by species of concern. To accomplish 
this goal, the agencies have agreed to support cooperative approaches 
and consensus-building activities, foster communication among agencies 
and private landowners, share resources and information, and establish 
strong, effective working relationships that instill trust and promote 
sound stewardship.
    This agreement is the subject of a draft Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) among the partner agencies. Through the procedures 
described in the MOU, landowners will have the knowledge that practices 
contained in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guides (FOTG) have 
undergone ESA section 7 scrutiny by NMFS and FWS. For those practices 
that NMFS and FWS determine are not likely to adversely affect listed 
species or critical habitat, the landowner should have confidence that 
those practices, if implemented in accordance with the FOTG standards 
and specifications, will not result in any additional permitting 
requirement or penalties under the ESA. The objective of this MOU is to 
encourage the adoption of protective land use practices on private 
lands, to provide some regulatory assurance for landowners, to improve 
habitat conditions for sensitive species, to continue sustainable 
economic production on private lands, to facilitate better coordination 
among the partner agencies and to foster better awareness and support 
for conservation programs throughout the State. The draft MOU is under 
review by the State and upon completion is expected to be formally 
signed by all parties.
    3. Dredge, Fill, and In-water Construction Programs
    Corps of Engineers Section 404 Program. The Army Corps of Engineers 
(COE) regulates removal/fill activities under section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act (CWA), which requires that the COE not permit a discharge 
that would ``cause or contribute to significant degradation of the 
waters of the United States.'' One of the factors that must be 
considered in this determination is cumulative effects. However, the 
COE guidelines do not specify a methodology for assessing cumulative 
effects or how much weight to assign them in decision-making. 
Furthermore, the COE does not have in place any process to address the 
additive effects of the continued development of waterfront, riverine, 
coastal, and wetland properties.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State, and local governments have 
developed and implemented procedures reviewing, approving and 
monitoring gravel mining activities in Del Norte and Humboldt counties 
which are authorized under a Letter of Permission (LOP) process. This 
process regulates gravel mining in a substantial portion of the 
Northern California steelhead ESU (including the Mad, Eel and Van Duzen 
Rivers) where listed coho salmon and chinook salmon populations also 
occur. These procedures are designed to provide substantially improved 
protection for anadromous salmonids and their habitats, including 
steelhead. Important elements of the process include: a prohibition on 
gravel mining in the active channel and on trenching except in limited 
instances, a restriction on gravel operations to the dry season, 
monitoring of channel cross sections to detect changes in channel 
morphology and habitat conditions, fisheries monitoring, and gravel 
mining on a sustained yield basis. An additional element of the process 
in Humboldt County, which is located in the Northern California ESU, is 
the participation of an independent scientific review committee which 
makes annual recommendations on gravel quantities and site design 
features in order to minimize adverse impacts. Additionally, any 
channel crossings must be designed to allow for fish passage. NMFS 
participated in the development of these procedures and has concluded, 
through section 7 consultation with the COE, that these procedures will 
not jeopardize the continued existence of coho salmon or steelhead. 
NMFS recently reinitiated formal consultation with the COE on the LOP 
process to address the final critical habitat designation for coho 
salmon and the recent listing of California Coastal chinook salmon as 
threatened.
    State Streambed Alteration Agreements. Section 1603 of the Fish and 
Game Code in California requires that any person who proposes a project 
that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or 
substantially change the bed, channel or river bank of any river, 
stream or lake, or use materials from a streambed, notify the DFG 
before beginning any work. The authorization for these activities under 
section 1603 is called a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. 
Beginning May 1, 1999, the 1603 process was significantly modified to 
require a higher level of review by DFG that is in compliance with the 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Any proposed project that 
DFG determines may substantially adversely affect existing fish and 
wildlife resources will need to comply with the CEQA standard of 
mitigating project impacts to the level of insignificance. The new 
standard for project review has resulted in increasing the time needed 
for project approval from two weeks to 60-120 days.
    Although the State has substantially improved the level of project 
review under the 1603 process to comply with the new CEQA standard, the 
State has not submitted the program to NMFS for review to determine 
whether it adequately protects anadromous salmonids. The State 
currently issues 1603 streambed alteration agreements to project 
applicants with the disclosure that the applicant may need to obtain 
incidental take authorization from NMFS. In most cases, however, where 
a project proposes a stream or watercourse modification and listed 
species are present, a Clean Water Act, section 404 permit from the 
Army Corps of Engineers is required. Within the geographic area 
encompassing the northern California steelhead ESU, the presence of 
listed coho and chinook salmon populations requires the Corps to 
consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA prior to the issuance of 
404 permits.
    4. Water Quality Programs
    Under Clean Water Act section 303(d), states, territories and 
authorized Tribes are required to establish lists of impaired water 
bodies, set priorities for addressing the pollutant source, and write 
pollutant control plans to achieve and maintain water quality 
standards. These plans, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), provide an 
effective mechanism for determining the causes of water body 
impairment, quantifying the various pollutant sources, and setting 
targets for reducing pollutant discharges. Generally, states are 
responsible for developing TMDLs and related implementation plans, 
which are

[[Page 36088]]

subject to EPA review and approval. If the EPA disapproves a TMDL or if 
a state fails to establish one, the EPA is required to step in and 
establish the TMDL. The TMDL is then implemented through existing 
regulatory and non-regulatory programs to control, reduce or eliminate 
pollution from both point and non-point sources.
    The TMDL process provides a flexible assessment and planning 
framework for identifying load reductions or other actions needed to 
attain water quality standards such as protection of aquatic life, 
provision of safe drinking water, etc. The TMDL should address all 
significant stressors (e.g., chemicals, temperatures, sediment loads) 
that cause or threaten to cause deleterious effects to water quality. 
The TMDL assessment is the sum of the individual waste load allocations 
from point sources, load allocations from non-point sources, allocation 
from natural sources, and an appropriate margin of safety to account 
for uncertainty. The TMDL may address single or multiple pollutants but 
must clearly identify the links between the water quality impairment 
(or threat) of concern, the causes of the threat or concern and the 
load reductions or conservation actions needed to remedy or prevent the 
impairment.
    As TMDL assessments and implementation plans are developed and 
approved, the State of California, through the State Water Resources 
Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, will 
adopt and implement the TMDLs. The TMDL contains a problem statement, 
numeric targets, source analysis, allocations of loads or controls and 
a monitoring plan. The implementation component includes descriptions 
of land management practices, remediation activities and restoration 
projects necessary to attain the goals established in the TMDL 
assessment. It is through the implementation plan that necessary 
controls and restoration actions are assigned to specific parties and 
attainment schedules are promulgated.
    In coastal watersheds of northern California, 38 water body 
segments have been identified as impaired and have been scheduled for 
development of TMDLs. The schedule for development of TMDLs in northern 
California extends to the year 2011 (Russian River and Lake Pillsbury). 
However, the schedule in this area is driven in part by a consent 
decree (Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, et al. v. 
Marcus, No. 95-4474 MHP, March 11, 1997). Under this consent decree, 
EPA agreed to oversee the development of TMDLs on eighteen rivers on 
the north coast of California. Twelve of these river basins are located 
within the northern California steelhead ESU. The consent decree 
establishes a schedule for developing TMDL criteria for listed rivers. 
Under this schedule, seven river basins in the northern California ESU 
would have TMDLs developed within the next two years, with the 
remaining rivers having TMDLs developed by 2002. This legally-binding 
schedule is expected to result in significant progress on improving the 
beneficial uses of these watersheds, where the beneficial use has been 
identified as habitat for salmonids.
    On May 28, 1998, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control 
Board approved a TMDL for the Garcia River. The TMDL contains the 
following elements: (1) findings that the Garcia River is impaired due 
to sediment and temperature impacts resulting from land use practices, 
primarily timber operations and related activities, (2) adoption of the 
Water Quality Attainment Strategy as part of the Water Quality Control 
Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) that would eliminate 90 
percent of total controllable road-related sediment sources within 20 
years and 50 percent of controllable upslope sediment sources within 40 
years, (3) numeric targets including specified numerical values for 
percent fine sediments, frequency of pools in stream habitat profiles, 
and improving trends in large woody debris, (4) an implementation plan 
which specifies that either default prescriptions be observed or a 
site-specific plan be implemented that provides assurances that source 
reduction targets will be met, (5) assurances that sediment reduction 
or control goals are capable of being met and that the concept of site-
specific planning and implementation by landowners provides a flexible 
framework, (6) a monitoring plan to verify that conservation practices 
are implemented and to measure effectiveness.
    The TMDL process provides a flexible, adaptive management approach 
that relies on substantial public input and participation to set 
targets, identify protection measures and implement and monitor 
corrective practices. The completion of the Garcia River TMDL, and the 
initiation of TMDLs for the other listed rivers, represents a 
significant step forward in improving watershed health for steelhead 
and other salmonids on the north coast of California. In the long-term, 
the development and implementation of these TMDLs should be beneficial 
for steelhead; however, their development and implementation will be 
difficult and it will take many years to assess their efficacy in 
protecting steelhead habitat. Furthermore, it is essential that the EPA 
consults with NMFS on the formulation of TMDLs in waters that contain 
listed salmonids. Such consultations will help ensure TMDLs adequately 
address the needs of these species.
    5. State Hatchery and Harvest Management
    Hatchery Management. In an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat 
and enhance fishing opportunities, extensive hatchery programs have 
been implemented throughout the range of steelhead on the west coast. 
While some of these programs have succeeded in providing fishing 
opportunities, the impacts of these programs on native, naturally-
reproducing stocks are not well understood. Competition, genetic 
introgression and disease transmission resulting from hatchery 
introductions may significantly reduce the production and survival of 
native, naturally-reproducing steelhead (NMFS, 1996). Collection of 
native steelhead for hatchery broodstock purposes often harms small or 
dwindling natural populations. Artificial propagation can play an 
important role in steelhead recovery through carefully controlled 
supplementation programs.
    In the past, non-native steelhead stocks have been introduced as 
broodstock in hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal rivers 
and streams in California (Bryant, 1994; Busby et al., 1996; NMFS, 
1997a). Because of problems associated with this practice, DFG has 
developed and implemented a Salmon and Steelhead Stock Management 
Policy. This policy recognizes that mixing of non-native stocks with 
native stocks is detrimental, and seeks to maintain the genetic 
integrity of all identifiable stocks of salmon and steelhead in 
California, as well as to minimize interactions between hatchery and 
natural populations.
    NMFS's BRT identified the potentially adverse impacts of 
interactions between hatchery (Mad River hatchery) and wild steelhead 
as an important concern with regard to the northern California ESU 
(NMFS, 1997a). As part of its strategic management plan for this ESU, 
DFG has implemented several changes in its hatchery practices. In 
addition, DFG has implemented several additional measures pursuant to 
the 1998 NMFS/California MOA. These hatchery management measures 
include:(1) marking of all hatchery steelhead released from the Mad 
River hatchery and all cooperative rearing facilities in

[[Page 36089]]

the Northern California ESU; (2) continuation of long-standing hatchery 
management practices aimed at minimizing hatchery and wild steelhead 
interactions including prohibitions on stocking of resident trout in 
anadromous waters; (3) releasing hatchery steelhead only at times, 
sizes and places that minimize impacts on naturally produced fish; (4) 
only releasing hatchery fish that are determined to be healthy; (5) 
initiation of monitoring efforts intended to measure hatchery fish 
stray rates; and (6) a joint NMFS/DFG review of the Mad River hatchery 
including its stocking history, analysis of current broodstock, and its 
consistency with the strategic management plan for the northern 
California ESU.
    Fisheries Management. In conjunction with the improved hatchery 
management practices, in-river sport fisheries in the northern 
California ESU now focus on harvest of marked, hatchery-produced 
steelhead, and sport fishing regulations have been modified to protect 
wild adult and juvenile steelhead.

Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting Continued Existence of 
Steelhead

    Natural climatic conditions have exacerbated the problems 
associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats. 
Persistent drought conditions have reduced already limited spawning, 
rearing and migration habitat. Climatic conditions appear to have 
resulted in decreased ocean productivity which, during more productive 
periods, may help offset degraded freshwater habitat conditions (NMFS, 
1996).

Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Steelhead

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to 
make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific 
and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status 
of the species and after taking into account efforts being made to 
protect the species. Therefore, in making its listing determinations, 
NMFS first assesses the status of the species and identifies factors 
that have lead to the decline of the species. NMFS then assesses 
conservation measures to determine if they ameliorate risks to the 
species.
    In judging the efficacy of existing conservation efforts, NMFS 
considers the following: (1) the substantive, protective, and 
conservation elements of such efforts; (2) the degree of certainty such 
efforts will be reliably implemented; and (3) the presence of 
monitoring provisions that determine effectiveness and that permit 
adaptive management. In some cases, conservation efforts may be 
relatively new and may not have had time to demonstrate their 
biological benefit. In such cases, provisions for adequate monitoring 
and funding of conservation efforts are essential to ensure intended 
conservation benefits are realized.
    As part of its west coast steelhead status review, NMFS reviewed an 
array of protective efforts for steelhead and other salmonids, ranging 
in scope from regional strategies to local watershed initiatives. NMFS 
summarized some of the major efforts in a document entitled ``Steelhead 
Conservation Efforts: A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for 
West Coast Steelhead under the Endangered Species Act'' (NMFS, 1996c). 
NMFS also reviewed conservation measures being implemented by the State 
of California for steelhead at the time of its final listing 
determination for the northern California, Klamath Mountains Province, 
and Central Valley steelhead ESUs (63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998). The 
following sections update the current status of the State of 
California's conservation efforts for steelhead with particular 
emphasis on the northern California steelhead ESU.
    The state of California's conservation efforts that address 
steelhead in the northern California ESU include: (1) development of 
the State's Watershed Protection Program, which includes funding and 
implementation of an expanded watershed planning and habitat 
restoration program; (2) implementation of the DFG's strategic 
management plan for the northern California ESU and (3) implementation 
of the 1998 NMFS/California MOA which addresses management of coastal 
steelhead in northern California. The status of these conservation 
efforts is discussed in more detail below.

California Watershed Protection Program and Implementation of SB 271

    In July 1997, California's Governor created the State's Watershed 
Restoration and Protection Council (WPRC) for the purpose of: (1) 
overseeing all state activities aimed at watershed protection and 
enhancement, including the conservation and restoration of anadromous 
salmonids in California; and (2) directing the development of a 
California Watershed Protection Program that would provide for the 
conservation of anadromous salmonids in the state of California. A 
working group of the WPRC issued a detailed report in December, 1998 
entitled ``Protecting California's Anadromous Fisheries.'' The 
Executive Order that established this program expired in January, 1999; 
however, continued coordination of the program is occurring under the 
auspices of the California Biodiversity Council (CBC). NMFS is 
encouraged that the State initiated a comprehensive, watershed-based 
approach to salmon management and restoration; however, the California 
Watershed Protection Program is still under development and has not 
been implemented as originally envisioned.
    To support the Governor's WPRC and its efforts to develop a 
Watershed Protection Program, DFG implemented a $3 million Watershed 
Initiative in 1997-98 for coastal watershed projects north of San 
Francisco, through its Fishery Restoration Grants Program. These 
projects focused on watershed and riparian habitat restoration, 
instream habitat restoration; watershed evaluation, assessment, and 
planning; and restoration project maintenance and monitoring. Beginning 
in 1998-1999, DFG funded additional staff positions to assist in 
watershed planning efforts and grant proposal development.
    A key element of the State's Watershed Protection Program that is 
also specified in the 1998 NMFS/California MOA is DFG's implementation 
of an expanded habitat restoration program for coastal salmonids, 
including steelhead. In 1997, the California legislature enacted Senate 
Bill 271 which provided DFG with $43 million over six years for habitat 
restoration and watershed planning to benefit anadromous salmonids in 
coastal watersheds, including the geographic area which encompasses the 
northern California steelhead ESU. The program was initiated in 1997-98 
and has expanded since that time. Based on the SB 271 legislation, 
funding is expected to continue through at least 2002. Substantial 
funding from this program has been committed to habitat restoration, 
enhancement, and watershed planning efforts within the northern 
California steelhead ESU since 1997-98. Throughout Humboldt and 
Mendocino counties, which constitute much of the geographic area 
comprising the northern California steelhead ESU, DFG has funded over 
200 projects costing in excess of $7.5 million during the past three 
years (1997-98 through 1999-2000). NMFS participates as an ex-officio 
member of the Advisory Committee that reviews the distribution of SB 
271 grant funding to ensure that available funds are spent on projects 
that will contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids as well as 
north coast steelhead. In addition to the

[[Page 36090]]

expanded habitat restoration program funded by SB 271, DFG has added 
additional staff positions to assist in administering the program, 
provide technical support in the development of watershed plans and 
habitat restoration projects and implement a new steelhead monitoring 
and adaptive management program throughout coastal northern California.

Northern California Steelhead ESU Strategic Plan

    In February 1998, DFG completed its strategic management plan for 
steelhead stocks in the northern California ESU (DFG 1998). In March 
1998, the State and DFG formally committed to implement this plan as 
part of the NMFS/California MOA. The plan describes existing and new 
management measures for recreational steelhead angling, steelhead 
hatchery programs, and steelhead monitoring, assessment and adaptive 
management efforts in this ESU. In addition, the plan describes DFG's 
ongoing efforts to protect and enhance steelhead habitat within this 
ESU. These management measures were intended to provide immediate 
protection for steelhead populations in this ESU, while longer-term 
measures were implemented to protect anadromous fish habitat on non-
federal lands through the Watershed Protection Program and the SB 271 
habitat restoration program. The main elements of the northern 
California steelhead strategic management plan are briefly discussed 
here.
    1. Harvest Measures
    The strategic management plan includes several harvest management 
actions which are intended to reduce impacts on adult and juvenile 
steelhead in the Northern California ESU. These include: (1) no 
retention of unmarked (i.e., naturally produced) adult and juvenile 
steelhead in all rivers and streams; (2) fishing closures in steelhead 
rearing tributaries to protect juveniles; (3) expanded closures in 
mainstem rivers through May to protect outmigrating juvenile steelhead; 
and (4) various gear and bait restrictions designed to reduce mortality 
associated with incidental hooking of steelhead.
    In February and March 1998, the California Fish and Game Commission 
(Commission) adopted emergency changes to the State's inland fishing 
regulations which were intended to implement the harvest regulation 
changes contained in the northern California steelhead strategic 
management plan. In conjunction with the final listing determination 
for this ESU in March 1998 (63 FR 13347), NMFS reviewed these 
regulatory changes and concluded that they would substantially reduce 
impacts to adult and juvenile steelhead and also assist in the 
conservation of the ESU (NMFS, 1998). These emergency regulations were 
formally enacted by the Commission in June 1998 following public review 
and comment, and they currently remain in place. NMFS believes that 
these angling regulations continue to provide the reduction in impacts 
and conservation benefits that were expected at the time the decision 
was made not to list this ESU in March 1998.
    2. Hatchery Measures
    The strategic plan for the northern California ESU contains a wide 
range of existing and new hatchery management measures that are 
intended to reduce the impacts of hatchery steelhead programs on wild 
steelhead populations in this ESU. Measures incorporated into the plan 
include: (1) release strategies that require a minimum 6'' size and 
release at the hatchery rather than off-site; (2) marking of all 
hatchery-produced fish that are released and the implementation of 
spawner surveys to assess the extent to which hatchery fish stray into 
natural spawning areas; (3) a commitment to reduce hatchery releases or 
implement other changes in hatchery practices if significant straying 
of hatchery fish is found to occur; (4) a cap on hatchery production to 
current levels, regular health checks during each rearing cycle and the 
destruction of diseased fish that cannot be effectively treated; (5) a 
review of the existing operating procedures for all cooperative rearing 
facilities permitted by the State; and (6) adoption of a requirement 
that all cooperative facilities develop and submit five-year management 
plans to the State for approval. NMFS previously reviewed these 
existing and new hatchery management measures and concluded that they 
would substantially reduce potential impacts to wild steelhead (NMFS, 
1998d). Because of NMFS concerns regarding the operations of the the 
Mad River Hatchery which is located in this ESU, DFG also committed in 
the 1998 NMFS/California MOA to: (1) undertake a comprehensive review 
of the hatchery program, including its stocking history and genetic 
analysis of current broodstock; and (2) develop a plan to eliminate any 
adverse impacts of hatchery operations on northern California steelhead 
if necessary.
    The DFG implemented a statewide mass-marking program for its 
hatchery steelhead programs beginning in 1997 which includes the 
hatchery steelhead programs in the northern California steelhead ESU. 
DFG is also requiring all cooperative rearing programs that produce 
steelhead in this ESU to mark all released fish. This marking program 
has continued since its implementation in 1997 and DFG is committed to 
continuing this program into the future. The DFG and the NMFS have also 
initiated a comprehensive review of DFG's hatchery programs in this ESU 
(Mad River Hatchery and cooperative rearing programs), with the 
objective of ensuring that these programs are compatible with the 
conservation of naturally produced steelhead. This review is expected 
to be completed in 2000. Comprehensive monitoring of stray rates for 
hatchery produced fish has not been implemented in this ESU, but DFG 
expects to begin a north coast steelhead monitoring program in 2000.
    3. Steelhead Monitoring and Adaptive Management
    The strategic management plan for the northern California ESU 
identifies ongoing and expanded monitoring programs to assess steelhead 
abundance. A commitment to implement these programs is contained in the 
1998 NMFS/California MOA. A key element of this monitoring program was 
a commitment to establish a joint scientific and technical team 
including representatives from DFG and NMFS to design appropriate 
detailed monitoring programs for steelhead in this ESU. NMFS considered 
these monitoring efforts critically important given the uncertain 
status of steelhead populations in these ESUs, and indicated that 
adequate State funding was critical to implementing the program (63 FR 
13347, March 19, 1998). As part of the NMFS/California MOA, both DFG 
and NMFS committed to seek adequate funding for this program. The DFG 
has taken significant steps to implement this expanded steelhead 
monitoring program in the northern California steelhead ESU, but the 
full program has not been yet fully developed or implemented. The DFG 
has committed significant fiscal resources to hire and redirect 
existing staff resources to create a north coast steelhead monitoring 
team and program that will address the northern California steelhead 
ESU as well as areas further north in California, and has established a 
scientific and technical team to guide development of this effort. A 
set of comprehensive monitoring proposals have been developed which are 
under review by the scientific and technical team. NMFS expects the 
finalized monitoring program for this ESU to be implemented in early 
2000.

[[Page 36091]]

NMFS/California Memorandum of Agreement

    NMFS evaluated a wide range of conservation efforts that California 
had adopted or was in the process of developing in conjunction with 
NMFS' decision not to list the northern California steelhead ESU (63 FR 
13347, March 19, 1998). NMFS concluded that DFG's harvest and hatchery 
programs for this ESU would increase adult escapement, increase 
juvenile survival, and reduce adverse impacts of hatchery populations 
on wild fish. In the near-term, NMFS expected these measures would 
contribute to improved survival and population stability for steelhead. 
In addition, DFG's monitoring and adaptive management programs were 
expected to provide State and Federal managers with the ability to 
assess the status of steelhead populations and their response to 
harvest and hatchery management changes. However, NMFS was also 
concerned that California's habitat protection efforts, (e.g., 
development of a Watershed Protection Program and implementation of the 
expanded habitat restoration program established by SB 271), were not 
adequate to secure properly functioning habitat conditions for this ESU 
over the long-term. To address these concerns, NMFS entered into a MOA 
with the State (NMFS/California MOA, 1998).
    Under the terms of the NMFS/California MOA, the State committed to 
a broad range of measures including: (1) compliance with existing State 
regulations, with particular emphasis on the management measures 
contained in the strategic management plans for north coast steelhead; 
(2) implementation of harvest and hatchery management measures 
contained in the strategic management plan for northern California 
steelhead; (3) implementation of a monitoring evaluation and adaptive 
management program for steelhead, including those elements contained in 
the strategic management plan for northern California steelhead; (4) 
continued implementation of a California Watershed Protection Program, 
including the SB 271 watershed planning and habitat restoration program 
in coastal watersheds, and the joint review and revision of the State's 
forest practice rules (FPRs) in conjunction with a scientific review 
panel to ensure that the revised FPRs were adequate to conserve 
anadromous salmonids, including steelhead. As previously discussed, 
because of the preponderance of private timber lands and timber harvest 
activity in the northern California ESU, NMFS considered this to be a 
critically important provision in the MOA.
    Many of the provisions in the NMFS/California MOA relating to the 
northern California steelhead ESU have been or are being implemented by 
the State; however, critically important provisions related to revision 
of the FPRs have not been implemented. The current status of the 
State's effort to implement the MOA, with particular regard to the 
Northern California steelhead ESU, is discussed here.
    1. Compliance with existing State regulations
    In accordance with section 4 of the NMFS/California MOA, the DFG 
made recommendations to the Fish and Game Commission to implement 
detailed angling regulation changes contained in the strategic 
management plan for northern California steelhead. The Commission 
adopted these recommendations on an emergency basis in February 1998 
and permanent regulations became effective in August 1998. Within this 
ESU, these regulations specifically prohibit retention of naturally 
spawned adult steelhead, prohibit fishing for naturally produced 
juvenile steelhead in tributary streams, minimize the angling impacts 
on juvenile steelhead in mainstem rearing areas through gear/bait 
restrictions, prohibit retention of summer steelhead and prohibit 
fishing in their summer holding areas and provide for the retention of 
marked, hatchery-produced steelhead.
    2. Harvest and Hatchery Management
    In accordance with section 6 of the NMFS/California MOA, two 
provisions have been implemented. First, the DFG recommended and the 
Fish and Game Commission adopted permanent regulations that provide 
only for the retention of non-listed, hatchery-produced steelhead. 
Second, the DFG has implemented a state wide mass marking program for 
hatchery produced steelhead. This program was initiated with brood year 
1997 steelhead released in winter 1998, and the marking program has 
continued annually since that time. This program has resulted in 
complete marking of all steelhead produced at the Mad River Hatchery, 
which is located in this ESU. In addition, DFG is requiring that all 
cooperative rearing programs that produce steelhead mark them prior to 
release.
    Three additional provisions contained in section 6 of the NMFS/
California MOA have not yet been implemented, but are either in 
progress or will be initiated shortly. To date, DFG has not implemented 
a process for establishing recovery and strategic goals for north coast 
steelhead, including this ESU, nor has it initiated a monitoring 
program to measure stray rates of hatchery produced steelhead. However, 
the DFG has established a North Coast Steelhead Monitoring Program to 
develop and implement a monitoring program, which will include the 
northern California steelhead ESU, and a joint scientific and technical 
team to provide guidance to the program. DFG has developed a 
preliminary monitoring program and is consulting the joint scientific 
and technical team to refine the program and explore options for 
establishing recovery and strategic goals within this ESU. NMFS 
anticipates that this program will commence in 2000. Although the 
monitoring program specified in the NMFS/California MOA has not been 
fully implemented, DFG has continued to carry out several monitoring 
and research programs on the north coast, primarily in the Klamath 
Mountains Province ESU, which have provided data useful for the 
management of steelhead. Finally, NMFS and DFG have recently undertaken 
a state-wide review of the State's hatchery programs, including the Mad 
River Hatchery which is located in this ESU, as well as the State's 
cooperative rearing program which has a small number of projects within 
this ESU. This review is expected to be completed by June 2000.
    3. Monitoring Evaluation and Adaptive Management
    In accordance with section 7 of the NMFS/California MOA, the DFG 
has implemented, at least in part, two key provisions. First, the DFG 
has established a joint scientific and technical team to assist it with 
the development of a comprehensive monitoring program for steelhead on 
the north coast, including the northern California ESU. The NMFS/
California MOA called for this program to be developed by June 1998; 
however, as discussed in the preceding section, DFG has not yet 
completed development of the study plan or initiated a comprehensive 
monitoring program. Second, the DFG has secured the necessary funding 
to establish a north coast steelhead monitoring program, including the 
dedication of professional staff and the acquisition of necessary 
equipment and facilities. A preliminary monitoring program plan has 
been developed by the monitoring program staff, and this plan is 
currently under review by the joint scientific and technical team.
    4. California's Watershed Protection Program
    Section 9 of the NMFS/California MOA commits the State to continue

[[Page 36092]]

development of its Watershed Protection Program, with a specific 
element addressing salmonid conservation, and to coordinate with NMFS 
in establishing a scientific review panel that would advise the State 
in its development of this program. In addition, Section 9 commits the 
State to direct personnel and fiscal resources to implement an expanded 
habitat restoration program in coastal watersheds using SB 271 funds. 
Details of the State's Watershed Protection Program and DFG's efforts 
to implement expanded watershed planning and habitat restoration in 
coastal watersheds were described previously (see Efforts Being Made to 
Protect West Coast Steelhead).
    Section 9 of the NMFS/California MOA contains several measures 
relating to the review and revision of the State's FPRs because of 
NMFS's concerns regarding the effects of State-regulated timber harvest 
freshwater habitat conditions for anadromous salmonids, including 
steelhead in the Northern California ESU. Specifically, the NMFS/
California MOA calls for: (1) a joint review of the FPRs by NMFS and 
the State, including their implementation and enforcement, (2) the 
State to make appropriate changes in implementation and enforcement, if 
necessary, (3) the State, in consultation with NMFS, to make 
recommendations to the BOF for changes in the FPRs necessary to 
conserve anadromous salmonids, and (4) the BOF to complete action on 
the recommended changes in the FPRs by January 2000. Full 
implementation of these NMFS/California MOA provisions, including 
implementation of changes in the FPRs by January 1, 2000, was a 
critical factor in NMFS's decision to not list the northern California 
steelhead ESU. For details of the State's current FPRs, including the 
recently adopted interim FPR changes, see Inadequacy of Existing 
Regulatory Mechanisms.

Listing Determination

    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as any species 
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a threatened species as any species likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires 
that the listing determination be based solely on the best scientific 
and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status 
of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, 
being made to protect such species.
    In December 1997, the NMFS' steelhead BRT concluded that the 
Northern California steelhead ESU was likely to become endangered in 
the foreseeable future based on a review of the best available 
biological information (NMFS, 1997). Based on a review of updated 
abundance and trend information that was available for this ESU, NMFS's 
SWFSC (NMFS, 2000) concluded that the current biological status of the 
ESU has changed little since it was last evaluated in 1997. Updated 
abundance and trend data show small increases for winter and summer 
steelhead in the Eel River, but current abundance is well below 
estimates in the 1980s and even further reduced from levels in the 
1960s. Redwood Creek summer steelhead abundance remains very low. There 
are no new data suggesting substantial increases or decreases in 
populations since the last updated status review was completed. The Eel 
River winter and summer steelhead populations, which represent the best 
available data set for this ESU, are still severely reduced from pre-
1960s levels.
    As discussed elsewhere in this final rule, California has 
implemented several of the conservation measures that NMFS relied upon 
in making its decision not to list the northern California ESU. 
Specifically, the State has enacted substantial changes to the State's 
in-river angling regulations in 1998 to protect coastal steelhead 
populations including steelhead in this ESU. These regulations, with 
slight modification, remain in effect, and NMFS believes they continue 
to provide the substantial protection and conservation benefits that 
were expected to occur at the time of the decision not to list this 
ESU. The State has also implemented, or begun to implement, several 
other conservation measures for this ESU, including extensive watershed 
planning and/or habitat restoration through the SB 271 program, marking 
of hatchery produced steelhead and other improvements in hatchery 
practices, and steelhead monitoring. Although implementation of some of 
these measures has been delayed, as is the case for the steelhead 
monitoring program, NMFS continues to believe that these efforts will 
collectively benefit steelhead in this ESU and eventually contribute to 
an improved understanding of its status.
    Although these conservation efforts are expected to benefit 
steelhead in this ESU, NMFS continues to believe that improved habitat 
protection and restoration of properly functioning freshwater habitat 
conditions for spawning, rearing, and migration are essential to the 
long-term survival and recovery of this ESU. Because Federal land 
ownership is both fragmented and limited in this ESU (approximately 19 
percent of ESU), the key to achieving habitat protection and properly 
functioning habitat conditions in this ESU is the improvement of land 
management activities on non-Federal lands (approximately 81 percent of 
ESU). To ensure improved protection of habitat on non-Federal lands in 
this ESU, the NMFS/California MOA contained several provisions for the 
review and modification of the State's FPRs. Full implementation of 
these provisions, including implementation of changes in the FPRs by 
January 1, 2000, was a critical factor in NMFS's previous decision not 
to list this ESU. Because the State has not implemented changes in the 
FPRs necessary to protect steelhead in this ESU, NMFS believes that 
critically important conservation measures are not being implemented to 
reduce the threats to this ESU from timber harvest activities on non-
Federal lands. Consequently, NMFS concludes that existing State and 
Federal conservation measures collectively fail to provide for the 
attainment of properly functioning habitat conditions necessary to 
provide for the long-term protection and conservation of this ESU.
    Based on a review of the best available information, therefore, 
NMFS concludes that the Northern California steelhead ESU warrants 
listing as a threatened species at this time. In arriving at this 
determination, NMFS carefully considered the December 1997 scientific 
conclusions of the BRT regarding this ESU, the results of an updated 
status review for the ESU (NMFS, 2000), the status of State and Federal 
conservation efforts directed at protecting steelhead in this ESU, 
including implementation of provisions contained in the NMFS/California 
MOA.
    NMFS previously examined the relationship between hatchery and 
natural populations of steelhead in this ESU, and also assessed whether 
any hatchery populations are essential for their recovery. At this 
time, NMFS does not believe any specific hatchery populations in this 
ESU are essential for recovery and therefore none are listed. 
Accordingly, only naturally reproduced populations of steelhead and 
their progeny in this ESU are listed as a result of this determination.
    However, the determination that a hatchery stock is not essential 
for recovery at this time does not preclude it from playing a role in 
recovery in the future if such a conservation measure is warranted. Any 
hatchery population that is part of the ESU is potentially

[[Page 36093]]

available for use in recovery if circumstances warrant it. In this 
context, an essential hatchery population is one that is vital to 
incorporate into recovery efforts. If in the future any hatchery 
population in this ESU is determined to be essential for recovery and 
is integrated into recovery efforts, NMFS will consider taking the 
administrative action of listing that hatchery population.
    NMFS' ``Interim Policy on Artificial Propagation of Pacific Salmon 
Under the Endangered Species Act'' (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993) 
provides guidance on the treatment of hatchery stocks in the event of a 
listing. Under this policy, ``progeny of fish from the listed species 
that are propagated artificially are considered part of the listed 
species and are protected under the ESA.''
    For unlisted hatchery populations that are part of the Northern 
California ESU, NMFS believes it may be desirable to incorporate 
naturally spawned, listed fish into the broodstock to ensure that its 
genetic and life history characteristics do not diverge significantly 
from natural populations. Therefore, NMFS may allow the collection of 
broodstock for this use if it is consistent with an acceptable 
conservation plan (e.g., Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan) for the 
ESU. If listed fish are used as broodstock consistent with an 
acceptable conservation plan, NMFS may determine that it is not 
necessary to consider the progeny of intentional hatchery x listed 
crosses as listed fish (except in those cases where the hatchery 
population is listed as well). NMFS believes this is consistent with 
NMFS' interim policy and with the policy and purposes of the ESA.
    At this time, NMFS is only listing the anadromous life forms of O. 
mykiss.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

    Section 4(d) of the ESA requires NMFS to issue protective 
regulations it finds necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of threatened species. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits 
violations of protective regulations for threatened species promulgated 
under ESA section 4(d). The ESA 4(d) protective regulations may 
prohibit, with respect to the threatened species, some or all of the 
acts which section 9 of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered 
species. These ESA section 9 prohibitions and 4(d) regulations apply to 
all individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. 
jurisdiction. NMFS intends to develop and promulgate an ESA 4(d) 
protective regulation for the northern California steelhead ESU in a 
separate rulemaking. The process for completing the ESA 4(d) rule will 
provide the opportunity for public comment on the proposed protective 
regulations.
    In the case of threatened species, NMFS has flexibility under ESA 
section 4(d) to tailor the protective regulations to provide for the 
conservation of the species. Even though existing conservation efforts 
and plans are not sufficient to preclude the need for listing at this 
time, they are nevertheless valuable for improving watershed health and 
restoring fishery resources. In those cases where well-developed, 
reliable conservation plans exist, NMFS may choose to incorporate them 
into the recovery planning process, starting with the protective 
regulations. For example, the interim ESA 4(d) rule for the Southern 
Oregon/Northern California coho (62 FR 24588, May 7, 1997) does not 
prohibit habitat restoration activities conducted in accordance with 
approved plans or fisheries under an approved state management plan. 
NMFS recently proposed ESA 4(d) regulations for 14 ESUs of steelhead 
and salmon (64 FR 73479). Any future ESA 4(d) protective regulation for 
the Northern California steelhead ESU is likely to be comparable to the 
4(d) regulations proposed for steelhead, and therefore, contain 
limitations on the section 9 take prohibitions for activities such as 
recreational angling, artificial propagation, habitat restoration, 
scientific research and other activities when they are conducted in 
accordance with approved conservation plans.
    Sections 7(a)(2) and 7(a)(4) of the ESA require Federal agencies to 
consult with NMFS to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
conduct are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
listed species or a species proposed for listing, or adversely modify 
critical habitat or proposed critical habitat. Examples of Federal 
actions likely to affect steelhead in the Northern California ESU 
include authorized land management activities of the USFS and BLM, 
operation of hydroelectric and storage projects permitted by FERC, and 
activities permitted by the Corps of Engineers. Such activities may 
include timber sales and harvest, permitting livestock grazing, 
hydroelectric power generation, and flood control. Other Federal 
actions, including the Corps section 404 permitting activities under 
the CWA and section 10 permitting under the Rivers and Harbors Act, and 
FERC licenses for non-Federal development and operation of hydropower 
may also require consultation.
    Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with 
authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``take'' prohibitions. 
Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be 
issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) for scientific purposes or 
to enhance the propagation or survival of a listed species. NMFS has 
issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research/enhancement permits for listed 
chinook salmon and steelhead for a number of activities, including 
trapping and tagging, electroshocking to determine population presence 
and abundance, removal of fish from irrigation ditches and collection 
of adult fish for artificial propagation programs.
    Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-
Federal entities performing activities which may incidentally take 
listed species so long as the taking is incidental to, and not the 
purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. The types 
of activities potentially requiring a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental 
take permit include the operation and release of artificially 
propagated fish by state or privately operated and funded hatcheries, 
state or academic research not receiving Federal authorization or 
funding, logging, road building, grazing, and diverting water into 
private lands.

Take Guidance

    NMFS and the FWS published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34272), a policy that NMFS shall identify, to the maximum extent 
practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that 
would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The 
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of 
this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species' 
range. NMFS believes that the following actions are not likely to be 
prohibited in an ESA 4(d) rule and therefore will not result in a 
violation of section 9:
    1. Possession of steelhead from any steelhead ESU listed as 
threatened which are acquired lawfully by permit issued by NMFS 
pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the terms of an incidental 
take statement pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.
    2. Federally funded or approved projects that involve activities 
such as silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam 
construction and operation, discharge of fill material, stream 
channelization or diversion for which section 7 consultation has been 
completed, and when activities are conducted in accordance with any 
terms and conditions provided by NMFS in an incidental take statement 
accompanying a biological opinion.

[[Page 36094]]

    Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm steelhead in 
the northern California ESU and, therefore, may be prohibited in a 4(d) 
rule applying section 9 take prohibitions, include, but are not limited 
to:
    1. Land-use activities that adversely affect steelhead habitat in 
the proposed ESU (e.g., logging, grazing, farming, urban development, 
road construction in riparian areas and areas susceptible to mass 
wasting and surface erosion).
    2. Destruction/alteration of the steelhead habitat in the proposed 
ESU, such as removal of large woody debris and ``sinker logs'' or 
riparian shade canopy, dredging, discharge of fill material, draining, 
ditching, diverting, blocking, or altering stream channels or surface 
or ground water flow.
    3. Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants 
(e.g., sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas supporting 
steelhead in the proposed ESU.
    4. Violation of discharge permits.
    5. Pesticide applications.
    6. Interstate and foreign commerce of steelhead from the listed ESU 
and import/export of steelhead from any ESU without a threatened or 
endangered species permit.
    7. Collecting or handling of steelhead from the listed ESUs. 
Permits to conduct these activities are available for purposes of 
scientific research or to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species.
    8. Introduction of non-native species likely to prey on steelhead 
in the listed ESU or displace them from their habitat.
    These lists are not exhaustive. They are intended to provide some 
examples of the types of activities that might or might not be 
considered by NMFS as constituting a take of steelhead in the northern 
California ESU under the ESA and its regulations. Questions regarding 
whether specific activities will constitute a violation of the section 
9 take prohibitions, and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and 
permits, should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently 
with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened. 
Pursuant to 4(b)(6)(C)(ii), if critical habitat is not then 
determinable, however, NMFS may extend the designation for up to one 
year after the date of the final rule listing the species. While NMFS 
has completed its initial analysis of the biological status of 
steelhead in the Northern California ESU, it has not performed the full 
analysis necessary for designating critical habitat at this time. Since 
critical habitat is not now determinable for the Northern California 
ESU, NMFS intends to develop a critical habitat proposal for 
designation within the next year.

References

    A complete list of all cited references is available upon request 
(see ADDRESSES).

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 
1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to 
the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA). See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are not applicable to the listing 
process. In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under 
Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to 
provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual State 
and Federal interest, NMFS has conferred with State and local 
government agencies in the course of assessing the status of the 
Northern California steelhead ESU, and considered, among other things, 
state and local conservation measures. State and local governments have 
expressed support both for the conservation of the Northern California 
steelhead ESU and for activities that affect this ESU. The history and 
content of this dialogue, as well as the basis for this action, is 
described in the proposed rule, and in other Federal Register Documents 
preceding this action. (See 61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996; 62 FR 43974, 
August 18, 1997, and 63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998). NMFS staff have had 
numerous discussions with various governmental agency representatives 
regarding the status of this ESU, and have sought working relationships 
with agencies and others in order to promote salmonid restoration 
efforts. In addition, NMFS' staff have given presentations to 
interagency forums and other interested groups considering conservation 
measures. NMFS has engaged in informal and formal contacts with 
affected state, local or regional entities, giving careful 
consideration to all written or oral comments received. As one part of 
that process, NMFS held public hearings on the proposed action. NMFS 
also consulted with appropriate elected officials in the establishment 
of a final rule.
    At this time NMFS is not promulgating protective regulations 
pursuant to ESA section 4(d) or proposing to designate critical 
habitat. Prior to finalizing ESA 4(d) regulations for this ESU, or 
proposing to designate critical habitat, NMFS will comply with all 
relevant NEPA and RFA requirements.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine 
mammals, Transportation.

    Dated: May 31, 2000.
Penelope D. Dalton,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is 
amended as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

    1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Section 223.102 also 
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

    2. In Sec. 223.102, paragraph (a)(22) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 223.102  Enumeration of threatened species.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (22) Northern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Includes 
all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in 
coastal river basins ranging from Redwood Creek in Humboldt County, 
California to the Gualala River, inclusive, in Mendocino County, 
California.
[FR Doc. 00-14196 Filed 6-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F