82208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA111 

Notice of Availability of a Draft 

Framework for Ranking the Relative 

Importance of Puget Sound Chinook 

Salmon Populations and Watersheds 

for ESU Recovery and Delisting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), announce the 

availability of a draft technical 

framework for ranking recovery 

potential of populations of Puget Sound 

Chinook salmon and watersheds 

supporting them. The draft framework 

relies on the best available scientific 

information regarding the status and 

structure of Puget Sound Chinook 

salmon populations and their habitat. It 

builds on the work of the Puget Sound 

technical recovery team, which 

provided the technical foundation of the 

Puget Sound Chinook recovery plan 

(NMFS 2006). The technical recovery 

team identified the population structure 

of Puget Sound Chinook and 

recommended biological recovery 

criteria (Ruckelshaus et al. 2002; 2006). 

It did not advise, however, on the 

relative roles of the various populations 

in achieving recovery and no such roles 

were identified in the recovery plan 

completed for the species. In contrast, 

technical teams that developed recovery 

criteria for other species of salmon in 

the Northwest did recommend roles for 

individual populations in recovery. 

Following adoption of the Puget Sound 

Chinook salmon recovery plan, we 

convened an internal technical team to 

analyze the role each population should 

play in recovery. The draft technical 

framework described in this notice 

represents the internal technical team’s 

recommendations. This notice also 

describes potential management 

implications of the framework. 

DATES: Information and comments on 

the draft framework must be received at 

the appropriate address or fax number 

(see ADDRESSES), no later than 5 pm. on 

January 28, 2011. We encourage the 

public’s involvement in reviewing this 

framework. 

ADDRESSES: Information and comments 

on this draft framework should be 

submitted to Garth Griffin, Chief, 

Protected Resources Division, NMFS. 

Comments may also be sent via 

facsimile (fax) to (503) 230–5435 or by 

e-mail. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Babcock, NMFS, Northwest 

Region, (206) 526–4505. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Puget Sound Chinook salmon are 

listed as ‘‘threatened’’ under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (70 FR 

37160). The ESA defines species to 

include subspecies and ‘‘distinct 

population segments’’ (16 U.S.C. 1532). 

We have identified 52 distinct 

population segments of salmon and 

steelhead that spawn in California, 

Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. We 

have listed 28 of these as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. For Pacific 

salmon, we recognize distinct 

population segments based on 

evolutionarily significant units, or 

ESUs. Nearly all of the salmon ESUs we 

identified are comprised of multiple 

populations. An ESU with healthy 

populations distributed throughout the 

ESU’s range and exhibiting diverse life 

history characteristics will be resilient 

to natural variation and catastrophic 

events (McElhany et al. 2000). Thus, 

multiple populations contribute to ESU 

viability when they are healthy and are 

subject to non-correlated risks 

(McElhany et. al. 2000). 

While all populations in an ESU may 

contribute to ESU viability, some may 

contribute more than others. McElhany 

et al. (2000) recommended several 

characteristics of a viable ESU. They 

recommended that an ESU should 

contain multiple populations; that some 

populations in an ESU should be 

geographically widespread while some 

should be geographically close; that 

populations should not all share 

common catastrophic risks; that 

populations that display diverse lifehistories and phenotypes should be 

maintained; and that some populations 

should exceed the minimum viability 

guidelines. 

In 1999 we established technical 

recovery teams to develop scientific 

advice for salmon and steelhead 

recovery throughout the Pacific 

Northwest. The teams identified the 

historical and current spawning 

populations, and the population 

structure, for each listed species. 

Relying on the work of McElhany et al. 

(2000) and other conservation literature, 

they established the biological criteria 

necessary for each ESU to have a high 

probability of persistence over time 

(referred to here as ‘‘biological recovery 

criteria’’). Most of the teams also 

provided guidance on the role of each 

population in recovering the listed 

ESUs. For example, the team convened 

to provide advice on lower Columbia 

River salmon and steelhead determined 

the contribution of individual 

populations to ESU recovery and 

designated them as ‘‘primary, 

contributing, or sustaining’’ (McElhany, 

2004). 

The team we convened to provide 

scientific advice on Puget Sound 

Chinook identified the historical and 

current populations of the ESU and the 

population structure. The team 

identified 38 historical and 22 extant 

populations (Ruckelshaus et al. 2006). 

The team also advised on the biological 

recovery criteria for the ESU. The team 

did not, however, provide guidance on 

the relative role of individual 

populations in overall ESU recovery. In 

the recovery plan for Puget Sound 

Chinook (NMFS 2006), we accepted the 

biological recovery criteria as the 

applicable criteria for delisting the ESU. 

Although we identified certain of the 22 

populations that must be at low risk of 

extinction for delisting to occur (NMFS, 

2006), we did not attempt to otherwise 

supplement the team’s work with 

guidance on the relative role of each 

population in recovery. 

We explained in the recovery plan 

that we intended to continue working 

with states, tribes, and others to develop 

a process for identifying priority 

populations and watersheds. 

NMFS believes that a systematic 

approach is needed to identify those 

Chinook salmon populations that 

should receive the highest priority for 

recovery activities, with the overarching 

goal of meeting ESU delisting criteria. 

This position is based on the premise 

that not all of the 22 Puget Sound 

Chinook salmon populations or their 

watersheds have the same role in 

contributing to the recovery of the ESU. 

Key considerations are the uniqueness, 

status, and physical location of the 

population, the present condition of the 

population’s freshwater, estuarine and 

adjacent nearshore habitats, and the 

likelihood for preserving and restoring 

those habitats given present and likely 

future condition. 

In the case of other salmon and 

steelhead species, we have found that 

technical information on the relative 

recovery roles of populations helps 

inform decision-making under the ESA. 

We therefore convened an internal team 

of NMFS technical experts to advise the 

agency on this aspect of Puget Sound 

Chinook recovery. We are mindful that 

recovery of an ESU under the ESA is not 

necessarily equivalent to the broad 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82209 

sense recovery that would fulfill the 

expectations of Indian tribes with treatyreserved fishing rights. We remain fully 

committed to broad sense recovery of all 

populations contributing to treaty 

Indian fisheries but acknowledge that 

this level of recovery is not necessarily 

the same as recovery under the ESA. 

This framework addresses only recovery 

under the ESA. 

Biological Recovery Criteria 

The draft technical framework builds 

on the work of the technical recovery 

team (Ruckelshaus et al. 2002; 2006). 

The technical recovery team identified 

five major bio-geographical regions 

within the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, 

based on biological and geological 

characteristics of each watershed and 

the probability of catastrophic risk to 

populations in close proximity to one 

another. Their biological recovery 

criteria, which incorporate the concepts 

developed by McElhany et al. (2000), 

are: 

1. The viability status of all 

populations in the ESU is improved 

from current conditions. 

2. At least two and up to four Chinook 

salmon populations in each of five biogeographical regions within the ESU 

achieve viability, depending on the 

historical biological characteristics and 

acceptable risk levels for populations 

within each region. 

3. At least one population from each 

major genetic and life history group 

historically present within each of the 

five bio-geographical regions is viable. 

4. Tributaries to Puget Sound not 

identified as primary freshwater habitat 

for any of the 22 identified populations 

are functioning in a manner that is 

sufficient to support an ESU-wide 

recovery scenario. 

5. Production of Chinook salmon from 

tributaries to Puget Sound not identified 

as primary freshwater habitat for any of 

the 22 identified populations occurs in 

a manner consistent with an ESU 

recovery. 

6. Populations that do not meet the 

viability criteria for all VSP parameters 

(i.e. abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure and diversity) are sustained to 

provide ecological functions and 

preserve options for ESU recovery. 

Together, these six criteria describe 

the status of Chinook salmon 

populations and the habitat conditions 

that would result in a naturally selfsustaining ESU with a high likelihood of 

persistence. Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6 

describe the conditions of extant 

populations and their primary 

freshwater areas within the ESU that are 

consistent with recovery. Criteria 4 and 

5 describe the roles that habitat 

conditions and Chinook salmon 

juveniles and adults occurring in 

secondary habitat areas play in ESU 

viability. 

Draft Technical Framework—Methods 

The internal technical team 

developed an analytical approach that 

allowed it to assign an ESA recovery 

priority to each population based on the 

best available scientific information. 

Recognizing that biological populations 

are inseparable from their habitats, the 

team developed an approach that also 

allowed them to identify the relative 

importance of different habitat areas to 

Chinook recovery. The team first 

identified all watersheds in Puget 

Sound where Chinook salmon spawn, 

organized according to the Washington 

Department of Ecology classification 

system of water resource inventory 

areas. They identified the watersheds 

within each inventory area and the 

population occupying each watershed. 

For each population, the technical 

team identified its bio-geographical 

region (using Ruckelshaus et al. (2002)) 

and ‘‘stock category.’’ The stock 

categories were those that had been 

assigned to differentiate Puget Sound 

Chinook salmon in a separate process by 

state and tribal salmon managers. The 

managers assigned categories to stocks 

based on their origin (native or 

introduced) and whether the stock’s 

watershed of origin historically 

supported a self-sustaining Chinook 

salmon population. Category 1 stocks 

are indigenous, genetically unique 

populations that are native to the 

watersheds where they originate, 

Category 2 stocks are non-native stocks, 

introduced into watersheds capable of 

sustaining natural production but that 

no longer contain indigenous 

populations. Category 3 stocks originate 

from watersheds that historically did 

not support natural spawning by 

Chinook salmon. 

The team developed a rating scheme 

for each population and watershed that 

assigned scores of 0 to 3 for several 

indicators. For populations, the 

indicators were based on the criteria 

developed by McElhany et al. (2000) to 

describe a viable salmon population: 

Abundance, diversity, distribution, and 

productivity. For watersheds, the 

indicators were based on an existing 

analysis of habitat condition and value 

by Beecher et al. (1999), the relative 

value of adjacent estuaries to ESU 

populations, and NMFS’ critical habitat 

designation for Puget Sound Chinook. 

The team summed the scores for each 

indicator to arrive at a total score for 

each population and each watershed, 

reflecting the viability status and 

uniqueness of each population, 

immediacy of risk to the population, 

and the condition and relative recovery 

value of the watersheds the populations 

inhabit. 

The team next examined the 

relationship of each population to the 

six recovery criteria adopted in the 

recovery plan. The team assigned one 

point for each criterion met by the 

population. The team developed a rule 

set to determine whether a population 

met a specific criterion. Thus for this 

element a population could receive a 

score as high as 6. In the final step of 

its analysis, the team compared scores 

for the populations across all three 

categories (population viability, habitat 

status and use, and relationship to the 

recovery criteria). The team then 

divided populations into three 

categories, based on their relative total 

scores within their respective biogeographical regions, which the team 

called Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. 

The following discussion describes in 

more detail the method the team used 

to assign population viability scores and 

habitat status and use scores. 

(1) Population Viability Scores 

Abundance. The team considered the 

abundance of natural origin spawners 

and whether hatchery fish in the 

watershed were part of or separate from 

the ESU. The team rated the abundance 

of natural-origin spawners relative to 

the current carrying capacity of the 

habitat, factoring in the population’s 

stock category assignment. For example, 

indigenous (category 1) populations at 

critical status received a higher score 

than indigenous populations identified 

as meeting the current capacity of the 

habitat. Introduced (category 2) 

populations were assigned lower scores 

compared to indigenous stocks for a 

given abundance status. With respect to 

hatchery programs, the team indicated 

whether hatchery fish are present, 

whether they are considered in or out of 

the ESU, whether they are managed to 

be separate from or integrated with the 

natural origin population, and whether 

they are produced for conservation or 

harvest augmentation purposes. 

Diversity. To assess diversity the team 

considered the uniqueness of the 

population’s life history within its biogeographical region, the risk posed by 

non-native strays on the spawning 

grounds, and the proportion of juveniles 

that emigrate as yearlings versus subyearlings. The team relied on two 

indicators of uniqueness. First, the team 

assigned a score of 1 to 3 based on how 

many other populations of the same 

history type occurred within the biogeographical region, with a score of 3 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES3
82210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 

indicating the greatest uniqueness. 

Second, the team examined how much 

the genetic integrity of the natural 

population might be affected by the 

proportion of hatchery fish on the 

spawning grounds. To determine the 

‘‘proportion of natural influence,’’ the 

team relied on scores from an existing 

model (A. Appleby, unpublished 

WDFW data, 2005). The team assigned 

ratings, with a score of 3 indicating the 

greatest proportion of natural origin 

spawners and a score of 1 indicating the 

lowest. 

The team also considered the 

proportion of non-native hatchery strays 

on the spawning grounds as an aspect 

of diversity. As with the risk presented 

by a low proportion of natural origin 

spawners, the team gave a higher score 

to populations with fewer non-native 

hatchery strays on the spawning 

grounds. Finally, the team considered 

populations with a substantial 

proportion of juvenile fish that emigrate 

seaward as yearlings as a rare and 

diminishing component of Puget Sound 

Chinook diversity. The team rated 

populations from 1 to 3, with the higher 

scores going to populations with a 

higher percentage of yearling emigrants. 

Distribution. The team referred to this 

criterion as spatial structure. It 

identified five factors, each of which 

indicates some desirable aspect of 

population distribution. Some of the 

factors relate to the population, while 

others relate to the watershed. These 

factors are: (1) The watershed is in an 

area at the geographical boundary of the 

ESU; (2) the watershed bridges biogeographical regions; (3) the population 

is a stronghold and thus a source for recolonizing vacant habitat; (4) Chinook 

use the watershed extensively, in terms 

of miles; and (5) the area is important 

in preserving or re-establishing the subyearling life history type (as per Beechie 

et al. 2006). Populations meeting any 

one of the five factors received a rating 

of 3 while those meeting none of the 

five factors received a rating of 1. 

Productivity. The team identified 

growth rate (noted as lambda, or λ) as 

the best indicator of productivity. It 

relied on NMFS’ most recent status 

review (Good et al. 2005) as the best 

recent estimate of growth rates. To rate 

this indicator, the team considered 

whether the population’s growth rate 

was above 1.0 (indicating an increasing 

population), or below 1.0 (indicating a 

declining population). The team’s 

ratings also accounted for the 

population’s ‘‘stock category,’’ as 

described above under Diversity. The 

team reasoned that indigenous 

populations would be most important to 

recovery, while non-native populations 

would be of lesser value as they 

originate from relatively recent 

introductions that might feasibly be 

replaced with the same non-native stock 

through transfers. Thus Category 1 

(indigenous) stocks with a growth rate 

less than one received a rating of 3, 

while those with a growth rate equal to 

or greater than 1 received a 2. Category 

2 stocks (non-indigenous but part of the 

ESU) received a rating of 2 or 1, 

depending on whether the growth rate 

was above or below 1.0. Category 3 

stocks (non-native and not part of the 

ESU) received a 0, or ‘‘not applicable’’ 

rating. 

(2) Habitat Status and Use Scores 

In response to salmon declines, the 

Washington Governor’s natural resource 

cabinet convened a group of agency 

scientists to provide advice on statewide 

salmon recovery. The group produced a 

report that proposed a system for 

prioritizing watersheds for protection 

and restoration of wild salmon and 

steelhead (Beecher et al. 1999). The 

NMFS’ team relied on two indicators 

from Beecher et al. (1999) that best 

reflect habitat value—one indicating 

current condition and one indicating the 

extent to which the watershed would 

benefit from preservation and 

restoration. The NMFS’ team took the 

range of scores developed by Beecher et 

al. (1999) for each of these indicators 

and divided the range into 3 categories. 

This allowed the team to assign a score 

of 1 to 3 based on the scores from this 

larger range. 

The team also assigned ratings for a 

nearshore value indicator, based on the 

assessment of the number of Chinook 

salmon populations that may benefit 

from the watershed’s associated 

nearshore area for rearing and 

migration, given its geographic location 

relative to Chinook salmon population 

seaward migration routes. The highest 

score (3) was assigned for nearshore 

areas used by the greatest number of 

populations, with areas used by an 

intermediate number assigned a ‘‘2’’ and 

nearshore areas used by the least 

number scored a ‘‘1’’. The team also 

scored the watershed based on NMFS’ 

designation of critical habitat (70 FR 

52630). For freshwater areas, the team 

assigned a score of 2 if the area was 

designated as critical habitat and 0 if it 

was not. 

(3) Cumulative Scores and Tier 

Assignments 

After determining scores for the 

viability and habitat condition and use 

parameters, and considering each 

population’s relationship to the six 

viability criteria, the team created index 

scores for each population by comparing 

the parameter scores for the populations 

in each bio-geographical region to an 

ESU-wide mean score. This allowed the 

team to make relative comparisons 

among populations for each parameter 

(viability, habitat condition and use, 

and relationship to the six viability 

criteria). The team then summed the 

index scores to obtain a cumulative 

index score for each population in the 

ESU. 

The team then assigned each 

population to one of three recovery 

‘‘Tiers’’ using the following rule set. 

Regardless of score, if a population 

would have to be viable for the ESU as 

a whole to meet the Ruckelshaus et al. 

(2002) viability criteria, the team 

designated it as a Tier 1 population. 

Because Ruckelshaus et al. (2002) 

recommended at least two viable 

populations per bio-geographical region, 

in those bio-geographical regions that 

only have two populations, the team 

designated both as Tier 1 populations. 

In bio-geographical regions that have 

more than two populations, the team 

assigned populations to a tier based on 

a comparison of each population’s 

cumulative index score and relationship 

to the ESU mean. For those populations 

that were not assigned to Tier 1, the 

team compared individual population 

scores around a mean cumulative score 

for all populations in the ESU and 

assigned populations to Tier 2 and 3 

based on whether the populations were 

above or below the mean score (NMFS, 

2010). 

Draft Technical Framework—Results 

The individual and cumulative index 

scores for each category and tier 

rankings are shown in Table 1, below. 

Consistent with the rule set described 

above the team assigned to Tier 1 both 

populations in the three biogeographical regions that contain only 

two populations: The North and South 

Nooksack populations in the Georgia 

Strait bio-geographical region; the MidHood Canal and Skokomish populations 

in the Hood Canal bio-geographical 

region; and the Elwha and Dungeness 

populations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

bio-geographical region. In the Whidbey 

bio-geographical region, which has more 

than two populations, the team assigned 

to Tier 1 all populations with 

cumulative index scores above the ESU 

mean: Upper Skagit, Suiattle, Cascade, 

Upper Sauk, Lower Sauk, and Lower 

Skagit. In the Central/South Sound biogeographical region, there were not 

populations with cumulative index 

scores above the ESU mean. The team 

therefore assigned to Tier 1 the two 

populations with the highest cumulative 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82211 

index scores, the White and Nisqually 

Rivers. The team assigned the North and 

South Fork Stillaguamish and 

Skykomish populations to Tier 2 and the Snoqualmie, Sammamish, Cedar and 

Puyallup populations to Tier 3. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Management Implications 

We implement our authorities under 

the ESA in a variety of contexts. Under 

section 7(a)(2), all Federal agencies must 

ensure, in consultation with us, that 

their actions are not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of threatened 

Puget Sound Chinook or adversely 

modify their critical habitat. Under 

section 4(d) of the ESA, we have 

prohibited unauthorized take of Puget 

Sound Chinook. We may authorize take 

through various mechanisms, including 

approval under the 4(d) rule or under 

sections 7 and 10 of the ESA. Each of 

our authorities has specific standards 

and requires specific analysis, but all 

are subject to the ultimate section 7 

requirement to avoid jeopardy to the 

species and destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. We 

define jeopardy to mean actions that are 

reasonably expected to directly or 

indirectly appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival and recovery of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES3EN29DE10.026</GPH>
82212 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 

the species (50 CFR 402.02). We have an 

analytical framework for determining 

whether actions will result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat (NMFS, 2005). 

When we analyze a proposed action 

(e.g., timber or fisheries harvest, dock 

construction, roadway development) 

under one of our ESA authorities, we 

consider which populations and habitat 

areas are affected by the action. Not all 

populations and habitats have equal 

value for the survival and recovery of an 

ESU. In evaluating a proposed action, 

we therefore consider the impacts on 

each affected population and habitat 

area, and how those impacts affect the 

overall viability of the population or 

conservation value of the habitat. 

The population rankings in Table 1 

reflect the team’s determination of each 

population’s relative role in recovery of 

the listed ESU. The recovery rankings 

proposed in the framework will inform 

our assessment of the effects of 

proposed actions on overall viability 

and conservation value under the ESA. 

In general, we expect actions that harm 

high-value populations would be more 

likely to reduce the chances of species 

survival and recovery than actions that 

harm low-value populations. A similar 

logic would apply to actions that harm 

high-value habitat areas and those that 

do not. We emphasize that these 

concepts only apply when we exercise 

our authority under the ESA. In other 

contexts we will emphasize the 

importance of achieving broad sense 

recovery of all populations in Puget 

Sound and Washington’s coast, to 

satisfy tribal treaty rights and 

recreational and commercial fishing 

goals. NMFS acknowledges that 

consultations among fisheries managers 

and persons interested in the PRA will 

be ongoing, particularly about its 

applicability to ESA determinations 

regarding habitat actions that affect long 

term productivity of populations. It is 

not the intent of the PRA to allow 

actions that preclude the future 

productivity of a population or the 

ability to change its future status. 

Public Comment and Availability of 

Final Framework 

We seek comments from the public on 

the draft framework through the end of 

the comment period. We will consider 

all comments received by the end of the 

comment period in formulating a final 

framework. The full document 

describing the framework and the 

technical team’s work is available on 

our Web site and by mail upon request. 

We will make the final framework 

available on our Northwest Regional 

Office Web site and by mail upon 

request following consideration of 

comments received. We are specifically 

interested in comments and information 

regarding (1) technical documentation 

upon which the framework is based and 

(2) the population ranking methods the 

technical team applied in the 

framework. 

Persons wishing to read the full 

technical document can obtain an 

electronic copy (i.e., CD–ROM) by 

calling (503) 231–5400, or by e-mailing 

a request to Joanna.Donnor@noaa.gov, 

with the subject line ‘‘CD–ROM Request 

for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

Population Framework’’, Electronic 

copies of this document are also 

available online via the NMFS’ Web 

site, http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonRecovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/ 

Puget-Sound/PS-Chinook-Plan.cfm. 

References 

Federal Register Notices: 

70 FR 37160. June 28, 2005. Final ESA listing 

determinations for 16 ESUs of West 

Coast salmon, and final 4(d) protective 

regulations for threatened salmonid 

ESUs. 

70 FR 52630. September 2, 2005. Critical 

habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant 

Units (ESUs) of salmon and Steelhead 

(Onchorhynchus spp.) in Washington, 

Oregon and Idaho. 

Literature Cited 

16 U.S.C. 1532 Federal Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 as amended. 

50 CFR 402.02. Code of Federal Regulations. 

Title 50—Wildlife and Fisheries. Part 

402—Interagency Cooperation— 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, As 

Amended. 

Appleby, A., 2005, Washington Department 

of Wildlife, Unpublished data. 

Beechie, T., E. Buhle, M. Ruckelshaus, A. 

Fullerton, and L. Holsinger. 2006. 

Hydrologic regime and the conservation 

of salmon life history diversity. 

Conservation:Volume 130, Issue 4, pages 

560–572. 

Beecher and 14 others. 1999. A system for 

prioritizing water resource inventory 

areas in western Washington for 

protection and restoration of wild 

salmonids. Interagency Science Advisory 

Team (ISAT) Report to the Washington 

State Joint Natural Resources Cabinet. 

Office of the Governor, State of 

Washington. Olympia, Washington. 

103 p. 

Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams 

(editors). 2005. Updated status of 

federally listed ESUs of West Coast 

salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. 

Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS– 

NWFSC–66, 598 p. 

McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, 

T. C. Wainwright. 2000. Viable salmonid 

populations and the recovery of 

evolutionarily significant units. U.S. 

Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., 

NMFS–NWFSC–42, 156 p. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

2004. Salmon Hatchery Inventory and 

Evaluation Report (SHIER) for Chinook 

salmon hatchery programs within the 

geographic boundaries of the Puget 

Sound Chinook salmon ESU. Hatcheries 

and Inland Fisheries Branch. Salmon 

Recovery Division. NOAA Fisheries 

Service. Lacey, Washington. 102 p. 

NMFS. 2005. Memorandum from William T. 

Hogarth, Ph.D. (NMFS) to NMFS 

Regional Administrators regarding 

Application of the ‘‘Destruction or 

Adverse Modification’’ Standard under 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act. November 7, 2005. 

Available from NMFS Protected 

Resources Division, 1201 NE. Lloyd 

Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR, 97232. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

2006. Final Supplement to the Shared 

Strategy’s Puget Sound Salmon Recovery 

Plan. NMFS Northwest Region. 

November 17, 2006. 47 p. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

2010. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

Population Recovery Approach (PRA), 

NMFS Northwest Region Approach for 

Distinguishing Among Individual Puget 

Sound Chinook Salmon ESU Populations 

and Watersheds for ESA Consultation 

and Recovery Planning Purposes. 

November XX, 2010. XX p. Available on 

the NMFS Web site at: 

www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/Recovery-Domains/PugetSound/PS-Chinook-Plan.cfm. 

Ruckelshaus, M.H., K. Currens, R. 

Fuerstenberg, W. Graeber, K. Rawson, N. 

Sands, and J. Scott. 2002. Planning 

ranges and preliminary guidelines for the 

delisting and recovery of the Puget 

Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit. Puget Sound Technical 

Recovery Team. April 30, 2002. 19 p. 

Available on the Internet at: http:// 

research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/ 

trtpopESU.pdf. 

Ruckelshaus, M.H., K.P. Currens, W.H. 

Graeber, R.R. Fuerstenberg, K. Rawson, 

N.J. Sands, and J.B. Scott. 2006. 

Independent populations of Chinook 

salmon in Puget Sound. U.S. Dept. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS– 

NWFSC–78, 125 p. 

Dated: December 22, 2010. 

Susan Pultz, 

Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32844 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA110 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Take of Anadromous Fish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES3