[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 155 (Friday, August 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41514-41522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20029]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 222
[Docket No. 960723205-6205-01; I.D. 040694C]
Endangered and Threatened Species; Endangered Status for Umpqua
River Cutthroat Trout in Oregon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing a final determination that the Umpqua River
cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) is a ``species'' under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) and will be listed as
endangered. Extremely low, and declining, numbers of adult cutthroat
trout counted at Winchester Dam on the North Umpqua River signal a high
risk of extinction for the species. Habitat degradation, recreational
fishing, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms are factors that have
contributed to the species' decline. Habitat degradation and inadequate
regulatory mechanisms continue to represent a potential threat to the
Umpqua River cutthroat trout's existence.
NMFS will reconsider this determination in 2 years (or as new
scientific information becomes available) and will continue to assess
the degree to which ongoing Federal, state, and local conservation
initiatives reduce the risks faced by Umpqua River cutthroat trout.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Environmental and Technical Services
Division, 525 NE Oregon St.--Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737,
telephone (503/231-2005); or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone
(301/713-1401).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, telephone (503/231-
2005), or Marta Nammack, telephone (301/713-1401).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Umpqua River cutthroat trout is a ``distinct population
segment'' under the ESA (hereinafter referred to as an Evolutionarily
Significant Unit or ESU (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991)) of the
coastal cutthroat trout
[[Page 41515]]
(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki). The coastal cutthroat trout subspecies is
native to western North America and is found in the coastal temperate
rainforests from southeast Alaska to northern California (Trotter
1989). The Umpqua River cutthroat trout ESU inhabits a large coastal
basin (drainage area over 12,200 km2) in the southwestern Oregon coast.
Spawning sites are located in the North and South Umpqua Rivers and
their tributaries, of which Smith River and Calapooya, Elk, and
Scholfield Creeks are major tributaries. The estuary of the Umpqua
River is one of the largest on the Oregon coast.
Coastal cutthroat trout differ from all other trout by their
profusion of small to medium-size spots of irregular shape (Behnke
1992). In addition, they do not develop the brilliant colors associated
with inland cutthroat trout (a separate subspecies). In the sea-run
(anadromous) form of the coastal cutthroat trout, spots and colors are
further obscured by the silvery skin deposit common to anadromous
salmonids. Non-anadromous (resident) fish tend to be darker, with a
``coppery or brassy'' sheen (Behnke 1992).
The life history of this subspecies is probably the most complex
and flexible of any Pacific salmonid. Unlike other anadromous
salmonids, sea-run forms of the coastal cutthroat trout do not
overwinter in the ocean and only rarely make long extended migrations
across large bodies of water. They migrate in the nearshore marine
habitat and usually remain within 10 km of land (Giger 1972; Sumner
1972; Jones 1976; Johnston 1981). While most anadromous cutthroat trout
enter seawater as 2- or 3-year olds, some may remain in fresh water up
to 5 years before entering the sea (Giger 1972; Sumner 1972). Other
cutthroat trout may never outmigrate at all, but remain as residents of
small headwater tributaries. Still other cutthroat trout may migrate
only into rivers and lakes (Nicholas 1978; Tommasson 1978; Moring et
al. 1986; Trotter 1989), even when they have access to the ocean
(Tomasson 1978). In the Umpqua River, anadromous, resident, and
potamodromous (river-migrating) life-history forms have been reported
(Trotter 1989; Loomis and Anglin 1992; Loomis et al. 1993). Details of
the coastal cutthroat trout life history and ecology, including aspects
particular to the various life forms, can be found in published reviews
by Pauley et al. (1989), Trotter (1989), Behnke (1992), and Johnson et
al. (1994).
Previous Federal Action
On April 1, 1993, the Secretary of Commerce received a petition
from the Oregon Natural Resources Council, Umpqua Valley Audubon
Society, and the Wilderness Society to list Umpqua River cutthroat
trout as threatened or endangered, and to designate critical habitat
under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On July 19, 1993, NMFS
published a notice indicating its intent to conduct a status review of
Umpqua River cutthroat trout (58 FR 38554). To ensure a comprehensive
review, NMFS solicited information and data regarding the present and
historic status of Umpqua River cutthroat trout and whether this stock
qualifies as a ``species'' under the ESA. NMFS also requested
information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat for Umpqua
River cutthroat trout.
On August 19, 1993, NMFS received a petition from the Oregon
Natural Resources Council and the Steamboaters for an emergency listing
of Umpqua River cutthroat trout. On December 17, 1993, NMFS published a
notice that an emergency listing was not warranted at that time (58 FR
65961).
In June 1994, NMFS published a technical paper entitled ``Status
Review for Oregon's Umpqua River Sea-run Cutthroat Trout'' (Johnson et
al. 1994), and subsequently published a proposed rule on July 8, 1994
(59 FR 35089) to list Umpqua River cutthroat trout as an endangered
species. NMFS cited the precarious status of the remaining anadromous
cutthroat trout in the Umpqua River Basin (and possibly other life
forms), which have demonstrated a steady decline since at least the
mid-1970s. In this finding, NMFS proposed that all cutthroat trout life
forms (i.e., resident, anadromous, potamodromous) should be included in
the listed Umpqua River cutthroat trout ESU. On September 2, 1994, NMFS
published a notice of public hearing and an extension of public comment
period (59 FR 45661); a public hearing on the proposed rule was held on
September 29, 1994, in Roseburg, OR.
Pursuant to a joint policy issued by NMFS and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) on July 1, 1994, regarding implementation of
the ESA, state government co-managers were involved in the preparation
of this final rule.
Summary of Comments
Twenty-two individuals presented testimony at the NMFS public
hearing on the proposed rule. During the 90-day public comment period,
NMFS received seventeen written comments on the proposed rule from
government agencies, non-government organizations, the scientific
community, and other individuals. The majority of comments opposed
listing Umpqua River cutthroat trout under the ESA. Opposition to the
proposed rule was primarily focused on the amount and quality of
information on which the proposed rule was based. This final rule takes
into account comments received during the public comment period and
public hearing. A summary of major comments received during the public
comment period and public hearing is presented below.
Issue 1: Sufficiency of Scientific Information
Many individuals commented that there is a general lack of data
concerning a variety of factors pertaining to the Umpqua River
cutthroat trout (e.g., minimum viable population size, age structure,
absolute abundance of juveniles or adults, distribution, redd counts,
average time of spawning, genetic evidence of distinctness). Some
commenters recommended that listing be delayed until more information
can be developed to better support a listing decision.
NMFS recognizes that available information regarding the Umpqua
River cutthroat trout is limited. However, the ESA requires that a
listing determination be made based ``solely on the basis of the best
available commercial and scientific data (16 USC 1533(b)(1); 50 CFR
424.11(b)).'' Such a determination must be made in accordance with the
time frames set forth in the ESA. The status review reflects the best
scientific information presently available regarding cutthroat trout in
the Umpqua River Basin, and indicates that Umpqua River cutthroat trout
is an ESU that is endangered. NMFS believes that it would not be
prudent to delay listing and risk possible extinction of this species
due to the lack of more complete information. Therefore, in accordance
with the ESA, NMFS finds it appropriate to make a listing determination
at this time. As new scientific information becomes available, NMFS
will reconsider the listing status of Umpqua River cutthroat trout.
Issue 2: Life History and Distribution
Several commenters stated that the literature indicates that
cutthroat trout exhibit a variety of migratory behaviors: Anadromy,
potamodromy, and residency. Other comments suggested that the existence
of multiple life forms in the Umpqua River Basin warrants
[[Page 41516]]
further study before concluding that listing is warranted.
NMFS concurs that three life forms presently exist in the Umpqua
River. Anadromy, a life history characteristic common to Pacific
salmonids, is exemplified by a species that migrates from fresh water
to the ocean, then returns to fresh water as an adult to spawn.
Potamodromy, a relatively uncommon life history trait, is exemplified
by a species that undertakes freshwater migrations of varying length
without entering the ocean. Residency, a relatively common life history
trait, is exemplified by a species that remains within a relatively
small freshwater range throughout its entire life cycle. The Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) stated that recent radio tagging
evidence verifies the existence of a potamodromous life form of Umpqua
River cutthroat trout.
NMFS believes that recent studies conducted by ODFW represent
substantial progress in documenting the life history of cutthroat trout
in the Umpqua River Basin and strongly indicate that some cutthroat
trout do exhibit the potamodrous life history trait. Although the
relationship between the various life forms is currently not well-
defined, and further research will be needed to clarify this issue, the
best available scientific data indicate that it is unlikely that these
life forms are completely isolated reproductively. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that all cutthroat trout life forms (i.e., resident,
anadromous, potamodromous) should be included in the listed Umpqua
River cutthroat trout ESU.
One commenter indicated that the historical range of anadromous
fish, including cutthroat trout, extended up to Toketee Falls on the
North Umpqua River, not merely to the Soda Springs dam site as
indicated in the status review. NMFS agrees with this comment and notes
that a more detailed analysis of migrational barriers will be conducted
during the designation of critical habitat for Umpqua River cutthroat
trout.
Although the NMFS status review reports that historical cutthroat
trout runs (upstream migrations) extended from June through January,
one comment stated that currently migration is only possible during
late July and August. This commenter expressed concern that this was
detrimental to the trout because it is the period of highest water
temperatures in the Umpqua River, and that the status review does not
adequately address this restriction in run timing. NMFS agrees that
adult cutthroat trout experience delays during the spawning migration
from the lower Umpqua River estuary to the North and South Umpqua
Rivers and concurs with the commenter that elevated water temperatures
in the mainstem Umpqua River in late July and August may have had a
significant impact on the survival and time of arrival of cutthroat
trout at Winchester Dam. Ongoing ODFW radio-tagging studies are
expected to provide more insight into this problem.
Issue 3: Status of the Umpqua River Cutthroat Trout
Some commenters stated that cutthroat trout are a good indicator of
habitat quality and that their existence in areas of the Umpqua River
Basin considered to be severely degraded suggests that habitat
alterations are not significant risk factors.
While it is possible that cutthroat trout may be ``an indicator of
habitat quality,'' NMFS has found no published studies to support this
characterization. Although exceptions may exist, NMFS believes that
available research has established that cutthroat trout and other
salmonids have declined throughout their range due to logging and other
forest and rangeland management practices (for an extensive treatment,
see Meehan 1991). For example, Connolly and Hall (1994) found that the
abundance of cutthroat trout in logged areas of coastal Oregon streams
varied considerably based upon differences in scour and cover afforded
by large woody debris and by the differences in light and nutrient
inputs afforded by deciduous versus conifer trees in the riparian zone.
These authors found that woody debris left in streams in logged areas
often resulted in significant increases in resident cutthroat trout
abundance for up to 30 years. However, because prospects for future
recruitment of large woody debris decrease after this period, the
period between 40 to 60 years after logging appears to be a time during
which cutthroat trout abundances are likely to decline as a result of
degraded habitat conditions. Therefore, short-term increases in
cutthroat trout abundance may be expected after logging because of
associated increases in large woody debris (if the increases are not
offset by other impacts such as siltation, scouring, high water
temperatures). However, over the long-term, logging would likely lead
to cutthroat trout population declines.
Several commenters stated that Winchester Dam counts are not
representative of the status of migrating Umpqua River cutthroat trout,
because they only account for those fish entering the North Umpqua
River and ignore fish in the South and mainstem Umpqua River. In
contrast, one commenter stated that the abundance trend information
provided by Winchester Dam counts is probably as good as any
information available on the West Coast for cutthroat trout.
NMFS has determined that Winchester Dam counts are currently the
best quantitative measures of cutthroat trout abundance in the Umpqua
River Basin. Although the dam is located on the North Umpqua River,
there are several reasons to believe that the North Umpqua River has
larger and healthier populations of cutthroat trout than the South
Umpqua River.
For example, while no long-term surveys of cutthroat trout were
conducted in the South Umpqua River prior to 1993, a U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) report states that ``a very small, wild cutthroat trout
population probably exists in the South Umpqua River system'' and that
this run was once ``widespread'' and ``dramatically larger than at
present'' (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1992).
Several factors have tended to make the South Umpqua River less
conducive to cutthroat trout production than the North Umpqua River.
The North Umpqua River begins farther inland and flows for a
substantial distance at a higher elevation than most other Oregon
coastal rivers, including the South Umpqua River. As a result, the
North Umpqua River has historically had cooler water temperatures and
larger summer water flows than other local rivers. Although the South
Umpqua River also begins at a relatively high altitude, it rapidly
drops in elevation; consequently, it tends to exhibit higher water
temperatures and lower summer flows compared to the North Umpqua River.
In addition to the geomorphological differences in the North and
South Umpqua Rivers, different levels of riparian habitat loss have
also contributed to temperature differences in these rivers. Beginning
in the mid-1950's, summer water temperatures and the frequency of
winter flooding increased in the Umpqua River watershed, presumably as
a result of poor logging practices. Summer water temperatures were
often above the preferred range for cutthroat trout and other salmonid
populations (about 7 to 16 deg.C) in portions of the river (Bell 1986).
In recent years, the riparian forest canopy has begun to recover in the
North Umpqua River watershed, but maximum water temperatures are still
higher than those preferred by cutthroat trout. This recovery has been
slower in the South Umpqua River watershed and
[[Page 41517]]
conditions for cutthroat trout have remained poorer than in the North
Umpqua River.
Based on these factors, NMFS believes that historically, the South
Umpqua River has been less conducive to cold-water dependent species
such as cutthroat trout, relative to the North Umpqua River. In
addition, NMFS believes that present conditions in the North Umpqua
River are more favorable for cutthroat trout production than those
found in the South Umpqua River.
Several commenters stated that resident (nonmigratory) populations
of cutthroat trout are healthy in the Umpqua River, and recommended
that the condition of these populations be taken into account when
determining whether to list the species. ODFW stated that ``resident
cutthroat trout populations above natural barriers (e.g., high
waterfalls) are in relatively healthy condition and do not warrant an
endangered listing (ODFW 1994).''
NMFS notes that there have been no recently published population
surveys of cutthroat trout in the Umpqua River Basin. Furthermore,
there have been no published population surveys of cutthroat trout
above natural barriers to confirm the assertion that resident cutthroat
trout populations above natural barriers are healthy. However, Kostow
(1995) states that available information has ``raised concerns that
anadromous populations in Oregon may be experiencing a widespread
decline'' and that resident cutthroat appear to ``remain relatively
abundant, even in streams where the abundance of searun fish has
sharply declined.''
Anecdotal information suggests that the resident component of the
cutthroat trout ESU may be relatively healthy; however, few published
scientific data exist to support this conclusion. Furthermore, ladder
counts from Winchester Dam indicate that the anadromous component of
this ESU has declined to precipitously low levels. These ladder counts
represent one of the best long-term data sets for cutthroat trout on
the West Coast. Anadromy is considered an important component in the
evolutionary legacy of O. clarki clarki, therefore inclusion of both
the anadromous and resident life history forms in the ESU is warranted
(61 FR 2639), based on the present status of the anadromous cutthroat
trout life form and the fact that listing of the resident form may
increase the anadromous form's chances of survival.
In addition to stating that resident populations of cutthroat trout
above natural barriers are healthy, ODFW also stated that ``natural
barriers form gene flow barriers,'' resulting in a distinction between
resident cutthroat trout populations above natural barriers and
migrating populations below such barriers (ODFW 1994). Recent research
indicates that some gene flow may occur from cutthroat trout above
barriers to below-barrier populations; however, the amount and role of
this contribution is presently unknown (Johnston 1981; Behnke 1979;
Griswold 1996).
In most cases, genetic flow between cutthroat trout populations
above and below barriers would be limited to a one-way flow (fish
traveling downstream over falls). The genetic contribution of this flow
is not thought to be an important factor for populations separated by
long-standing natural barriers, since there would likely be strong
selection in the resident populations above barriers against
individuals with a tendency to migrate downstream. Therefore, based on
available data, NMFS concludes that resident populations of Umpqua
River cutthroat trout residing above natural impassable barriers for
long periods of time (several hundreds or thousands of years) are not
included in the cutthroat trout ESU presently being listed under the
ESA.
With respect to manmade impassable barriers, NMFS believes that
historically, anadromous cutthroat trout populations inhabited areas
above both Soda Springs and Galesville Dams (completed in 1952 and
1987, respectively). While the construction of these dams has resulted
in the isolation of cutthroat trout populations for the past several
decades, recent studies with sockeye salmon (another salmonid with
resident and anadromous life forms) suggest that the anadromous life
history trait can be retained by populations above barriers after
decades of isolation (Kaeriyama et al. 1992). Based on this, NMFS
believes that cutthroat trout species residing above artificial
barriers for a period of decades have probably remained genetically
similar to those species residing below such barriers. Therefore, NMFS
has determined that cutthroat trout populations residing above
Galesville and Soda Springs Dams are included in the Umpqua River
cutthroat trout ESU and are thus being listed at this time.
Issue 4: Factors Contributing to the Decline of Umpqua River Cutthroat
Trout
Many commenters recommended that NMFS consider other factors for
decline in addition to those identified in the proposed rule, i.e.,
recreational fishing and habitat degradation as a result of logging.
Additional factors identified by commenters include the following:
Predation by marine mammals, birds, and native and non-native fish
species; adverse environmental conditions resulting from natural
factors such as droughts, floods, and poor ocean conditions; non-point
and point source pollution caused by agriculture and urban development;
disease outbreaks caused by hatchery introductions and warm water
temperatures; mortality resulting from unscreened irrigation inlets;
competition in estuaries between native and hatchery cutthroat trout;
cumulative loss and alteration of estuarine areas; and loss of habitat
caused by the construction of dams.
NMFS acknowledges that there are many factors in addition to
logging and recreational fishing that have contributed to the decline
of Umpqua River cutthroat trout. However, extensive scientific
literature exists regarding the adverse effects of these two activities
on anadromous fish populations and their habitat (see references).
Further, it is well documented that both of these activities have
historically occurred extensively throughout the Umpqua River Basin.
Based on available information, NMFS believes that these two activities
have significantly contributed to the decline of the cutthroat trout in
the Umpqua River Basin. Furthermore, recent legislation, i.e., the
``salvage timber rider'' provisions of the July 1995 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act; Sec. 20010 et seq. of Public Law 104-
19, which suspended certain logging restrictions on Federal lands, has
resulted in increased timber harvest in the Umpqua River watershed.
NMFS will address these and other factors for decline during the
development of a cutthroat trout recovery plan.
Several commenters specifically stated that poor ocean conditions
(for example, conditions resulting in reduced marine forage or
increased predation) associated with El Nino events may have
contributed to the decline of this species. Although available
literature is limited regarding the importance of the marine component
of cutthroat trout, it appears that this species spends a limited
amount of time in the marine environment, spending only 2 to 5 months
in salt water before returning to fresh water (Behnke 1992). While in
the marine environment, cutthroat trout typically stay close to shore,
near bays, estuaries and beaches (Pauley et al. 1989; Behnke 1992);
however, they have been found as far as 31 km offshore (Loch and Miller
1988).
Based on these estuarine and marine life history characteristics,
ocean
[[Page 41518]]
conditions would likely have a lesser impact on cutthroat trout than on
salmon species that spend more time at sea. However, this is not to say
that cutthroat trout do not receive important benefits from marine
residence. Poor ocean conditions are likely to impact cutthroat trout
abundance; however, during periods of low ocean productivity, the
availability of productive freshwater habitat becomes increasingly
important to buffer such ocean conditions.
Several commenters stated that current logging practices have
dramatically improved over those of the past, decreasing the impact of
present-day logging on habitat. Present-day logging practices have
improved over those of the past; however, timber harvest is still a
major land use in the Umpqua River Basin (currently comprising nearly
70 percent Federal, state, or private timber land) and fish habitat is
still recovering from past logging practices. In addition, the
incremental impacts of present-day land management practices, when
added to impacts of past land management practices and other risk
factors, continue to pose a serious threat to Umpqua River cutthroat
trout.
One commenter provided data indicating that pH levels in various
tributaries of the Umpqua River Basin exceed the State of Oregon's
water quality standards and argued that these pH levels can be
attributed to the effects of logging. Although limited in scope, these
water quality results suggest a possible factor in the decline of
cutthroat trout in the Umpqua River Basin. These data warrant further
consideration during recovery planning.
Several commenters stated that recreational fishing has had a
minimal impact on naturally spawning cutthroat trout stocks and that no
basis exists for the statement that recreational fishing has likely
contributed to the general decline in Umpqua River cutthroat trout
populations. One commenter stated that the scientific literature is
replete with studies documenting recreational fishing as having great
potential for impacts on native fish stocks.
NMFS agrees that there is no specific documentation that indicates
recreational fishing has contributed to the decline of cutthroat trout
populations in the Umpqua River Basin. However, there has been a long-
standing fishery in the lower mainstem Umpqua River aimed at plants of
``catchable'' Alsea River hatchery-reared cutthroat trout. While there
are no studies on the possible impact of these hatchery fish or the
fishery for them on native cutthroat trout, there is considerable
literature on the susceptibility of cutthroat trout to angling and the
potential impacts of recreational fishing on native fish stocks (Behnke
1992; Pauley et al. 1989; Trotter 1989). Furthermore, ODFW has
recognized the potential adverse impacts of harvest on this species and
closed the Umpqua River to cutthroat trout fishing effective January 1,
1995 (ODFW 1994). NMFS expects that this action will greatly facilitate
the species' recovery.
One commenter stated that cutthroat trout are known to interbreed
with hatchery rainbow trout and, as a result, introgression has been
the major cause of decline of cutthroat trout throughout the western
United States. NMFS reviewed information from Behnke (1992), which
noted that mass hybridization has occurred in interior portions of the
cutthroat trout range (where the species evolved in isolation from
other salmonids) following the introduction of rainbow trout. However,
meristic and phenotypic assessments suggest that the coastal subspecies
of cutthroat trout (which includes Umpqua River cutthroat trout) is far
more resistant to hybridization than the interior cutthroat trout
subspecies (Behnke 1992). Hence, NMFS does not believe that
hybridization has been the major cause of decline of Umpqua River
cutthroat trout. Nonetheless, hatchery practices should be reviewed
during recovery planning to ensure that there are no adverse effects on
cutthroat trout in the future.
One commenter stated that, since cutthroat trout in the Umpqua
River Basin are at the southern end of their range, there may be a
greater tendency for natural fluctuations in population abundance
compared with species at the center of their range. While Umpqua River
cutthroat trout are in the southern portion of this species' historic
range, cutthroat trout populations have historically occurred as far
south as the Eel River in California (Behnke 1992; Trotter 1987).
Therefore, NMFS believes Umpqua River cutthroat trout populations are
well within the species' range and would not tend to exhibit natural
population fluctuations often associated with ``fringe'' populations.
Issue 5: Consideration of Umpqua River Cutthroat Trout as a Species
Several commenters indicated that the historical introduction of
Alsea River hatchery-reared cutthroat trout may have resulted in the
loss of the native component of cutthroat trout in the Umpqua River.
The effect of Alsea River cutthroat trout hatchery releases from
1961 to 1975 on native cutthroat trout in the Umpqua River is unknown.
Counts of adult cutthroat trout crossing Winchester Dam show that the
number of fish declined to nearly zero in the mid-1950's, increased
dramatically from about 1961 to 1975, and rapidly declined again after
about 1976. The period of increase coincides almost exactly with
releases of cutthroat trout from the Alsea River Hatchery into the
Umpqua River. Although other explanations are possible, the most
parsimonious is that the cutthroat trout increases during 1961-75
represent predominantly Alsea River hatchery fish straying to areas
above Winchester Dam. Alsea River fish have a slightly later run-timing
than the Umpqua River fish, and a shift toward later run-timing can be
detected in fish returning to Winchester Dam after 1960. However, there
is also evidence of a shift back toward the original run-timing after
cessation of the hatchery program.
Although the pattern of abundance and tag-recovery data during this
period of supplementation indicate that Alsea River hatchery fish
returned as adults to Winchester Dam in some numbers, it is apparent
that 15 years of hatchery releases did not result in a viable, self-
sustaining population of naturally spawning fish. One possible
explanation of this result is that Alsea River hatchery fish are poorly
adapted to conditions in the North Umpqua River. This explanation
supports NMFS' conclusion of a cutthroat trout ESU in the Umpqua River.
Other possible explanations include: (1) The effects of hatchery
rearing, rather than poor adaptation, are responsible for the lack of
long-term survival of Alsea River hatchery fish, and (2) the decline in
Winchester Dam counts following the end of the hatchery program merely
reflect deteriorating conditions for cutthroat trout in the North
Umpqua River. The relationship of the existing cutthroat trout
population to the original population and the introduced hatchery fish
is uncertain; however, available evidence from population abundance and
run-timing data suggests that a component of the native run persists.
One commenter stated that since cutthroat trout co-evolved with
other salmonid species, there should be similarity in the organization
of their ESU's. NMFS believes that each salmonid species has had a
unique evolutionary history and utilizes ecological niches different
from all other species. While there may be similarities across species
in salmonid ESU's, there is no reason that this will always be the
case. This may be especially true for cutthroat trout, which have a
more
[[Page 41519]]
complex life history than most Pacific salmonids.
One commenter stated that the amount of straying in cutthroat trout
may suggest a greater degree of genetic exchange in coastal
populations, thus potentially widening the ESU. While little
information is available on straying rates of cutthroat trout, that
which is available suggests that most movement of fish into non-natal
streams occurs with immature fish. NMFS is not aware of any evidence to
suggest that sexually mature, native cutthroat trout wander or stray at
a level higher than is typical of native populations of other species
of Pacific salmonids.
In reviewing cutthroat trout life history, Pauley et al. (1989)
reported that ``homing of native cutthroat trout is extremely precise
(Campton and Utter 1987), although hatchery planted fish may stray as
much as 30 percent, making survival rates impossible to determine
(Johnston and Mercer 1976).'' Giger (1972) found that tagged native
fish from streams in the Alsea River did not stray and were recaptured
only in their natal streams. However, Giger (1972) also found that over
30 percent of the tagged hatchery fish entered streams up to 133 km
from the release stream. Therefore, based on available data, straying
is not thought to affect the genetic distinctiveness of the native,
naturally spawning fish identified in this ESU.
One commenter stated that coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarki clarki), the anadromous component of the cutthroat trout
species, is morphologically similar throughout its range and shows no
evidence of clinal variation. As reported by Behnke (1992), cutthroat
trout populations with direct access to the sea are morphologically
similar throughout their range. However, the few genetic studies that
have been conducted on cutthroat trout (e.g., Campton and Utter 1987;
Currens et al. 1992) show that there can be substantial genetic
differentiation even among local populations.
Issue 6: Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Several commenters maintained that existing regulatory mechanisms
and management initiatives (e.g., the Oregon Forest Practices Act and
the Umpqua River Basin Fisheries Restoration Initiative) are sufficient
for the protection of Umpqua River cutthroat trout. Two commenters
stated that existing management initiatives are unproven and lack
technical support.
Although several commenters describe the Oregon Forest Practices
Act (OFPA) as being capable of protecting cutthroat trout, maintaining
fish populations, and preventing the take of any fish, there is little
evidence to support these claims. While the OFPA presently endorses
fish habitat protection (Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) 1994),
NMFS is concerned that the level of habitat protection may be
insufficient to conserve Umpqua River cutthroat trout. However, the
OFPA itself provides a process ``to adopt additional basin-specific
protection rules for water quality-limited streams or streams with
threatened or endangered aquatic species'' (ODF 1994). This process
could be employed to great effect in the Umpqua River Basin, which
presently has more than 80 river reaches (many spanning from river
mouth to headwaters) currently designated as water-quality limited by
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality 1995). Therefore, in response to the listing of
cutthroat trout, the Oregon Department of Forestry, in cooperation with
Federal land management agencies, could provide special emphasis to
habitat areas containing listed cutthroat trout to promote their
recovery.
The Umpqua River Basin Fisheries Restoration Initiative (UBFRI)
referenced by several commenters is also described as a measure which
will aid in the recovery of cutthroat trout. In 1993 the Douglas County
Board of Commissioners chartered this initiative to address restoration
projects in the Umpqua River Basin. Members of the initiative include
county, state, and Federal government, and private industry. Since its
inception, the initiative has sponsored extensive habitat surveys in
the watershed. Restoration efforts have focused primarily on
construction and placement of instream habitat structures. NMFS
believes that the UBFRI is a good example of how local groups can work
together to restore Pacific salmon. The initiative has made great
strides in assessing habitat conditions in the basin. This information
will be extremely useful in formulating a recovery plan for this
species.
NMFS is also encouraged by Oregon's recent development of a Coastal
Salmon Restoration Initiative (CSRI). If successful, this ambitious
initiative could provide all stakeholders with a better means by which
to achieve the purposes of the ESA; protecting and restoring native
fish populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. While the
CSRI is initially focusing on the needs of coastal coho salmon
populations (currently proposed as threatened), NMFS expects that
significant benefits could also accrue to other salmonids, including
Umpqua River cutthroat trout. NMFS encourages the continuation of this
and local initiatives as important components of recovery planning for
this species.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 2(a)(1) of the ESA states that various species of fish,
wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as
a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate
concern and conservation. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS listing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for listing species.
The Secretary of Commerce 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
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made
factors affecting its continued existence.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
In general, land use practices have reduced salmonid production in
Oregon by decreasing habitat diversity and complexity, and accelerating
the frequency and magnitude of natural events such as flooding and
drought (Bottom et al. 1985). Extensive documentation regarding the
impacts of land use practices on the Umpqua River cutthroat trout is
not presently available. However, a recent report from the USFS
identifies a close relationship between various fish habitat parameters
and the land management history of streams in the Umpqua National
Forest (USDA 1995). The report summarizes habitat quality in 28 streams
used by anadromous salmonids; 17 streams were rated as having ``low''
or ``very low'' habitat quality. It noted that ``a habitat rating of
`good' or `very good' is found primarily in drainages that have had
relatively little or no history of timber harvest and road
construction. Conversely, habitat ratings of `low' or `very low' are
found in moderately to heavily roaded and harvested watershed.'' Major
factors contributing to the latter habitat ratings include a variety of
land management-related conditions, such as increased peak flows during
storm events, increased
[[Page 41520]]
debris torrents, and impacts from valley bottom roads.
These findings, coupled with the fact that silviculture is the
predominant land use in the basin (approximately 70 percent of the
area) and more than 80 of the basin's river reaches are designated as
water quality limited, strongly suggest that silviculture and related
activities have degraded water quality and have, therefore, likely
contributed to the decline of Umpqua River cutthroat trout. This
conclusion is strengthened by reasonable inferences from an array of
other scientific studies, including research in other Oregon basins.
(For an extensive review, see Meehan 1991).
Removal of forest canopy can cause an increase in both the maximum
and the diurnal fluctuation of water temperatures, leading to disease
outbreaks, altered timing of migration, and accelerated maturation. The
removal of streamside vegetation can deplete the bank area of potential
new woody debris that provides cover for cutthroat trout. In addition,
loss of riparian areas can result in decreased invertebrate production
and detritus sources, both of which are key components of the species'
food chain. Siltation is another result of some logging practices, is
known to hinder fry emergence from the gravel, and may limit production
of benthic invertebrates. Dissolved oxygen content of both surface and
intragravel water can decrease as a result of logging operations.
Logging can also cause changes in stream flow regimes, resulting in
potentially adverse water velocity and depth characteristics.
Degradation of estuarine habitats has likely also contributed to
the decline of this species. Estuarine areas are highly productive
habitats and play a role in the life cycle of cutthroat trout (Trotter
1989). Dredging, filling, and diking of estuarine areas for
agricultural, commercial, or municipal uses have resulted in the loss
of many estuarine habitats.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Cutthroat trout are not harvested commercially, and scientific and
educational programs have probably had little or no impact on Umpqua
River cutthroat trout populations. However, the cutthroat trout is a
popular gamefish throughout the Pacific Northwest and available
information indicates that recreational fishing has likely contributed
to the general decline in Umpqua River cutthroat trout populations.
Given the susceptibility of cutthroat trout to angling and the
potential impacts of recreational fishing to native fish stocks (Behnke
1992; Pauley et al. 1989; Trotter 1989), it is likely that a long
standing fishery in the lower mainstem Umpqua River aimed at hatchery-
reared cutthroat trout also promoted an incidental harvest of native
Umpqua River cutthroat trout. In response to NMFS' concern regarding
harvest mortalities, ODFW has closed the Umpqua River to cutthroat
trout fishing effective January 1, 1995 (ODFW 1994). However,
undocumented illegal harvest is believed to occur on Umpqua River
cutthroat trout. While the severity of this source of mortality is
unclear, it may pose a significant threat to depressed populations of
cutthroat trout in the Umpqua River. Continued enforcement of existing
harvest regulations and increased public outreach and awareness should
substantially reduce this threat.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease is not believed to be a factor contributing to the decline
of cutthroat trout populations in the Umpqua River. Several non-native
fish species introduced to the Umpqua River are known to prey on or
compete with salmonids; however, there is no specific information
regarding predation impacts by these or native fishes on Umpqua River
cutthroat trout.
Abundance of pinnipeds, especially harbor seals and California sea
lions, is increasing on the West Coast. However, the extent to which
predation is a factor causing the decline of Umpqua River cutthroat
trout is unknown.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The significant decline in numbers of cutthroat trout passing
Winchester Dam suggests that management plans and practices followed by
various state and Federal agencies have not provided adequate
protection for this species. Although the State of Oregon listed the
Umpqua River cutthroat trout as a sensitive species in 1990, the
decline of this species has not been reversed since the designation.
Furthermore, the designation has not resulted in protections from
adverse effects on the species resulting from Federal actions.
A Federal interagency cooperative program, the Record of Decision
for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning
Documents Within the Range of the Spotted Owl (the Northwest Forest
Plan, April 1994) has recently been implemented to provide a
coordinated management direction for the lands administered by USFS and
the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Northwest Forest Plan's
region-wide management direction amends existing management plans,
including regional guides, forest plans, and resource management plans
for lands within the range of the northern spotted owl (including the
Umpqua River Basin). As part of the Northwest Forest Plan,
implementation of an aquatic conservation strategy is intended to
ultimately reverse the trend of aquatic ecosystem degradation and
contribute toward recovery of fish habitat; however, this result has
yet to be demonstrated. NMFS encourages a continued strong commitment
among the action agencies to thoroughly implement the Aquatic
Conservation Strategy in order to improve spawning and rearing habitat
conditions for listed Umpqua River cutthroat trout. Furthermore, NMFS
continues to encourage USFS and BLM to work toward avoiding identified
cumulative effects of timber sales sold or awarded prior to
implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan.
Recent increased timber harvest on Federal land heightens NMFS'
concern regarding the health of aquatic resources in the Umpqua River
Basin. The ``emergency salvage timber sale'' provisions of a 1995
appropriations act, P.L. 104-19, have resulted in harvest of at least
seven timber sales in the Umpqua River Basin. Prior to this
legislation, these sales were unawarded or withdrawn for a variety of
reasons. While efforts were made to reduce the direct adverse impacts
of these timber sales, NMFS remains concerned about cumulative effects
and their impact on baseline environmental quality in the Umpqua River
Basin. The impacts of such sales are especially great in the South
Umpqua River Basin since existing habitat and water quality conditions
are recognized as poor in this area.
NMFS recognizes that the impacts of this legislation have been
reduced in some instances by the land management agencies' ability to
find replacement timber volume for sales such as these. Furthermore,
NMFS recognizes the willingness of some purchasers to accept such
replacement harvest in lieu of previously designated sales and
encourages USFS, BLM, and private industry to continue these efforts to
avoid adverse impacts on native salmonid species. An Inter-agency
Recissions Act Team has been convened to study the effects of timber
sales in the Basin.
Current ODFW hatchery practices may also play a role in the decline
of native cutthroat trout. Extensive releases
[[Page 41521]]
of Alsea River hatchery-reared cutthroat trout have occurred near the
Umpqua River estuary in the Smith River from 1975 to 1994, and in
Scholfield Creek from 1983 to present. Until recently, approximately
12,000 hatchery-reared cutthroat trout per year have been released into
the Smith River. Releases of approximately 4,000 hatchery-reared
cutthroat trout per year continue to occur into Scholfield Creek.
According to ODFW, these fish are released as smolts and as legal-
sized, catchable cutthroat trout prior to or during the fishing season.
ODFW has suggested that the majority of these fish are caught by
anglers, but no data are available to confirm this hypothesis. There is
also no information on the possible impact of these fish (or the
fishery for them) on native cutthroat trout from the North and South
Umpqua Rivers. However, considering the life history of cutthroat
trout, their susceptibility to angling (Pauley et al. 1989), and their
extensive use of estuaries, the impact of these releases could be
substantial.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence
Drought is the principal natural condition that may have
contributed to reduced Umpqua River cutthroat trout production. Drought
conditions have prevailed in Oregon for the 7 years prior to 1996,
leading to decreased streamflows and increased water temperatures
during the summer months.
Determination
Based on its assessment of available scientific and commercial
information, NMFS is issuing a final determination that the Umpqua
River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) constitute a
``species'' under the ESA and should be listed as endangered. The
listed ESU for Umpqua River cutthroat trout is defined as all naturally
spawning population(s) of cutthroat trout in the mainstem Umpqua River,
the North Umpqua River, and the South Umpqua River, and their
respective tributaries, residing below long-term, naturally impassable
barriers (e.g., natural waterfalls in existence for hundreds or
thousands of years). The natural population consists of all fish that
are progeny of naturally spawning fish. The offspring of all fish taken
from the natural population after the date of listing (for example, for
research or enhancement purposes) are also part of the listed ESU.
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include recognition, recovery actions, Federal
agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on taking.
Recognition through listing promotes public awareness and conservation
actions by Federal, state, and local agencies, private organizations,
and individuals.
Several recovery efforts are underway that may slow or reverse the
decline of Umpqua River cutthroat trout. These include the Northwest
Forest Plan, Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative, and Umpqua River
Basin Fisheries Restoration Initiative (all described previously in
this document). NMFS is encouraged by these significant efforts, which
could provide all stakeholders with a better means by which to achieve
the purposes of the ESA by protecting and restoring native fish
populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. NMFS will
continue to encourage and support these initiatives as important
components of recovery planning for this species and other salmonids in
the Umpqua River Basin.
NMFS will reconsider this determination in 2 years (or as new
scientific information becomes available) and will continue to assess
the degree to which ongoing Federal, state, and local conservation
initiatives reduce the risks faced by Umpqua River cutthroat trout. If
these or future initiatives clearly ameliorate risk factors and
demonstrate that the species is recovering, NMFS will reconsider the
listing status of Umpqua River cutthroat trout. Information regarding
the efficacy of conservation efforts and any new scientific data
regarding Umpqua cutthroat trout should be submitted to NMFS (see
ADDRESSES).
For listed species, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action could affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with NMFS.
Examples of Federal actions most likely to affect Umpqua River
cutthroat trout include authorized land management activities of the
USFS and BLM, as well as authorized purposes of Umpqua River
hydroelectric and storage projects. Such authorized activities include
timber sales and harvest, hydroelectric power generation, and flood
control. Federal actions, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) section 404 permitting activities under the Clean Water Act, COE
permitting activities under the River and Harbors Act and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission licenses for non-Federal development and
operation of hydropower, may also require consultation.
NMFS is aware that there are likely to be Federal actions ongoing
in the range of the Umpqua River cutthroat trout at the time that this
listing becomes effective. Consequently, NMFS is currently reviewing
with the Federal agencies all ongoing actions that may affect the
listed species, and for which consultation has been requested, and will
complete formal or informal consultations for such actions as
appropriate, pursuant to ESA section 7(a)(2). Furthermore, NMFS, in
conjunction with USFS, BLM and USFWS, plans to complete a programmatic
consultation on the Federal Land and Resource Management Plans within
the range of the Umpqua River cutthroat trout prior to the listing's
effective date.
Section 9(a) of the ESA contains specific prohibitions that apply
to all endangered fish and wildlife. With respect to the Umpqua River
cutthroat trout, these prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to ``take''
(including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, collect, or attempt any such conduct), import or export,
transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce
any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver,
carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of NMFS and state
conservation agencies.
Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with
authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions.
Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be
issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that
involves a directed take of listed species. A directed take refers to
the intentional take of listed species. NMFS has issued section
10(a)(1)(A) research/enhancement permits for other listed species
(e.g., Snake River chinook salmon) 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. NMFS is
aware of several trapping efforts currently underway in the Umpqua
River Basin where juvenile cuttthroat trout are being
[[Page 41522]]
collected for population inventory. Since little scientific research
has been conducted on this species, these and other research efforts
could provide critical information regarding cutthroat trout life
history and population abundance.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-
Federal entities performing activities that may incidentally take
listed species. 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 operated and funded hatcheries,
state or university research not receiving Federal authorization or
funding, and the implementation of state fishing regulations.
NMFS requires several months to review permit applications
(including a 30-day public comment period) and assess the issuance of
section 10 permits. In the fall of 1996, NMFS will hold a workshop to
explain the application process for section 10 permits. Prospective
applicants should submit permit applications to NMFS at least 120 days
prior to the expected start date of their activities. If there are
research activities whose interruption would harm efforts to conserve
the species, NMFS will consider issuing a permit under the emergency
procedure (50 CFR 222.24(e)). Regulations regarding application,
issuance and administration of permits are found at 50 CFR parts 217-
222.
It is the policy of NMFS and the USFWS, published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to 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, based on the best available information, the
following actions will not result in a violation of section 9:
(1) Possession of Umpqua River cutthroat trout 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 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 consultation has been completed, and when such
activity is conducted in accordance with any terms and conditions given
by NMFS in an incidental take statement accompanied by a biological
opinion.
Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm the Umpqua
River cutthroat trout and result in ``take'', include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of the species. Permits to
conduct these activities are available for purposes of scientific
research or to enhance the propagation or survival of the species.
(2) Unauthorized destruction/alteration of the species' habitat
such as removal of large woody debris 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
(i.e., sewage, oil and gasoline) into waters or riparian areas
supporting the species.
(4) Violation of discharge permits.
(5) Pesticide applications in violation of label restrictions.
(6) Interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across State lines
and international boundaries) and import/export without prior
obtainment of an endangered species permit.
This list is not exhaustive. It is provided to give the reader some
examples of the types of activities that would be considered by the
NMFS as constituting a ``take'' of Umpqua River cutthroat trout under
the ESA and regulations. Questions regarding whether specific
activities will constitute a violation of section 9, 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 extent prudent
and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the
listing of a species. At the present time, NMFS is placing a higher
priority on listings than on critical habitat designations due to
staffing and workload constraints resulting from the lifting of the
recent listing moratorium. In most cases the substantive protections of
critical habitat designations are duplicative of those of listings,
however, in cases in which critical habitat designation is deemed
essential to the conservation of the species, such a designation could
warrant a higher priority. It is NMFS' intention to develop and publish
a critical habitat designation for Umpqua River cutthroat trout as time
and workload permit.
Classification
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 categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from
environmental assessment requirements of NEPA (48 FR 4413; February 6,
1984).
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic considerations have no relevance to determinations
regarding the status of the species. Therefore, the economic analysis
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to
the listing process. Similarly, this final rule is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
References
The complete citations for the references used in this document can
be obtained by contacting Garth Griffin, NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 222
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and record keeping requirements,
Transportation.
Dated: July 29, 1996.
Charles Karnella,
Acting Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 222 is amended
as follows:
PART 222--ENDANGERED FISH OR WILDLIFE
1. The authority citation of part 222 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 et seq.
Sec. 222.23 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 222.23, paragraph (a), the second sentence is amended by
adding the phrase ``Umpqua River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki
clarki);'' immediately after the phrase ``Snake River sockeye salmon
(Oncorhynchus nerka),''.
[FR Doc. 96-20029 Filed 8-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F .
