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
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82213 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Puget Sound Treaty 

Tribes and the Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife submitted to 

NMFS, pursuant to the protective 

regulations promulgated for Puget 

Sound Chinook salmon under Limit 6 of 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 4(d) 

Rule for salmon and steelhead, a jointly 

developed Resource Management Plan 

(RMP). The RMP specifies the future 

management of commercial, 

recreational, subsistence and tribal 

salmon fisheries potentially affecting 

listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon 

from May 1, 2010, through April 30, 

2015. This document serves to notify 

the public of the availability for 

comment of the proposed evaluation of 

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

as to how the RMP addresses the criteria 

in Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

Secretary’s proposed evaluation must be 

received at the appropriate address or 

fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later 

than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Daylight 

Time on January 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for 

copies of the proposed evaluation 

should be addressed to Susan Bishop, 

Salmon Management Division, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand 

Point Way, NE., Seattle, Washington 

98115–0070, or faxed to (206) 526–6736. 

Comments on this proposed evaluation 

may be submitted by e-mail. The 

mailbox address for providing e-mail 

comments is 

2010PSCHNKHARVEST.nwr@noaa.gov. 

Include in the subject line the following 

document identifier: ‘‘2010 CHNK 

PSHARVEST proposed evaluation.’’ The 

document is also available on the 

Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ 

Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/StateTribal-Management/PS–ChinookRMPs.cfm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Bishop at phone number: (206) 

526–4587, Puget Sound Harvest Team 

Leader or e-mail: 

susan.bishop@noaa.gov regarding the 

RMP. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is relevant to the Puget Sound 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) Evolutionarily Significant 

Unit (ESU). 

Electronic Access 

The full texts of NMFS’ proposed 

evaluation and proposed determination 

are available on the Internet at the 

NMFS, Salmon Management Division 

Web site at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ 

Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/StateTribal-Management/PS-ChinookRMPs.cfm. 

Background 

In April, 2010, the Puget Sound 

Treaty Tribes and the WDFW (comanagers) provided a jointly developed 

RMP that encompasses Strait of Juan de 

Fuca and Puget Sound salmon fisheries 

affecting the Puget Sound Chinook 

salmon ESU. The RMP encompasses 

salmon and steelhead fisheries within 

the area defined by the Puget Sound 

Chinook salmon ESU, as well as the 

western Strait of Juan de Fuca, which is 

not within the ESU. The RMP is 

effective from May 1, 2010, through 

April 30, 2015. Harvest objectives 

specified in the RMP account for 

fisheries-related mortality of Puget 

Sound Chinook throughout its migratory 

range, from Oregon and Washington to 

southeast Alaska. The RMP also 

includes implementation, monitoring 

and evaluation procedures designed to 

ensure fisheries are consistent with 

these objectives. 

On July 10, 2000, NMFS issued a rule 

under section 4(d) of the ESA (referred 

hereafter as the 4(d) Rule), establishing 

take prohibitions for 14 salmon and 

steelhead ESUs, including the Puget 

Sound Chinook salmon ESU (50 CFR 

223.203(b)(6); July 10, 2000, 65 FR 

42422). In 2005, as part of the final 

listing determinations for sixteen ESUs 

of West Coast salmon, NMFS amended 

and streamlined the previously 

promulgated 4(d) protective regulations 

for threatened salmon and steelhead (70 

FR 37160, June 28, 2005). Under these 

regulations, the same set of fourteen 

limits was applied to all threatened 

Pacific salmon and steelhead ESUs or 

Distinct Population Segments (DPS). As 

required by § 223.203(b)(6) of the ESA 

4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203), the Secretary 

must determine pursuant to 50 CFR 

223.209 (renumbered 50 CFR 223.204) 

and pursuant to the government to 

government processes therein whether 

the RMP for Puget Sound Chinook 

would appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival and recovery of 

the Puget Sound Chinook and other 

affected threatened ESUs. 

Authority 

Under section 4(d) of the ESA, 16 

U.S.C. 1533(d), NMFS, by delegated 

authority from the Secretary of 

Commerce, is required to adopt such 

regulations as it deems necessary and 

advisable for the conservation of the 

species listed as threatened. The ESA 

salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 

42422, July 10, 2000) specifies 

categories of activities that contribute to 

the conservation of listed salmonids or 

are governed by a program that 

adequately limits impacts on listed 

salmonids, and sets out the criteria for 

such activities. The rule further 

provides that the prohibitions of 

paragraph (a) of the rule do not apply to 

actions undertaken in compliance with 

a RMP developed jointly within the 

continuing jurisdiction of United States 

v. Washington by the State of 

Washington and the Tribes and 

determined by NMFS to be in 

accordance with the provisions of 50 

CFR 223.203(b)(6), (i.e., Limit 6 of the 

salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 

42422, July 10, 2000)). In 2005, as part 

of the final listing determinations for 

sixteen Evolutionarily Significant Units 

of West Coast salmon, NMFS amended 

and streamlined the previously 

promulgated 4(d) protective regulations 

for threatened salmon and steelhead (70 

FR 37160, June 28, 2005). Under these 

regulations, the same set of fourteen 

limits was applied to all threatened 

Pacific salmon and steelhead ESUs or 

DPSs. 

Dated: December 22, 2010. 

Susan Pultz, 

Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32845 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES3