Endangered and Threatened Species; Endangered Status for Umpqua River Cutthroat Trout in Oregon

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 .