[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82208-82212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32844]
[[Page 82207]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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; Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of
Anadromous Fish; Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 /
Notices
[[Page 82208]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 life-
histories 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
[[Page 82209]]
sense recovery that would fulfill the expectations of Indian tribes
with treaty-reserved 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 bio-geographical 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
self-sustaining 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 bio-geographical 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 bio-geographical region,
the risk posed by non-native strays on the spawning grounds, and the
proportion of juveniles that emigrate as yearlings versus sub-
yearlings. 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 bio-geographical region, with
a score of 3
[[Page 82210]]
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 bio-geographical regions; (3) the
population is a stronghold and thus a source for re-colonizing vacant
habitat; (4) Chinook use the watershed extensively, in terms of miles;
and (5) the area is important in preserving or re-establishing the sub-
yearling 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
[lambda]) 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 bio-geographical regions that
contain only two populations: The North and South Nooksack populations
in the Georgia Strait bio-geographical region; the Mid-Hood 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 bio-geographical 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
[[Page 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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29DE10.026
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
[[Page 82212]]
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 [email protected], 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/Salmon-Recovery-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-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/Puget-Sound/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