192 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR and Plants due to recovery. A species is critical habitat comprising the lower 4.9 an ‘‘endangered species’’ for purposes of miles (mi) (7.8 kilometers (km)) of the Fish and Wildlife Service the Act if it is in danger of extinction Provo River in Utah County, Utah. throughout all or a significant portion of On November 13, 2001, we published 50 CFR Part 17 its range and is a ‘‘threatened species’’ in the Federal Register (66 FR 56840) a notice formally declaring our intention [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0026; if it is likely to become an endangered FXES11130900000–201–FF09E22000] species within the foreseeable future to participate in the multi-agency June throughout all or a significant portion of Sucker Recovery Implementation RIN 1018–BD48 its range. The Act does not define the Program (JSRIP) in partnership with the term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ However, we U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Endangered and Threatened Wildlife consider ‘‘foreseeable future’’ as that Utah Reclamation Mitigation and and Plants; Reclassification of the period of time within which a Conservation Commission (URMCC), Endangered June Sucker to reasonable prediction can be relied the Department of the Interior (DOI), Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule upon in making a determination about State of Utah Department of Natural AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, the future conservation status of a Resources (UDNR), the Central Utah Interior. species. We are reclassifying June Water Conservancy District (CUWCD), ACTION: Final rule. sucker from endangered to threatened Provo River Water Users Association, (i.e., ‘‘downlisting’’) because we have Provo Reservoir Water Users Company, SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and determined that the species is no longer and outdoor interest groups. The JSRIP Wildlife Service (Service), are in danger of extinction throughout all or was designed to implement recovery reclassifying the June sucker a significant portion of its range. actions for the June sucker and facilitate (Chasmistes liorus) from endangered to Downlisting a species can only be resolution of conflicts associated with threatened under the Endangered completed by issuing a rule. June sucker recovery in the Utah Lake Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), The basis for our action. Under the and Provo River basins in Utah. We due to substantial improvements in the Act, we can determine that a species is have participated in the JSRIP since this species’ overall status since its original an endangered or threatened species time and remain an active program listing as endangered in 1986. This based on any one or more of the member. action is based on a thorough review of following five factors or the cumulative On November 26, 2019, we published the best scientific and commercial data effects thereof: (A) The present or in the Federal Register (84 FR 65080) a available, which indicates that the June threatened destruction, modification, or proposed rule to reclassify June sucker sucker no longer meets the definition of curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) from ‘‘endangered’’ to ‘‘threatened’’ (i.e., an endangered species under the Act. overutilization for commercial, to ‘‘downlist’’ the species) on the List of The June sucker will remain protected recreational, scientific, or educational Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as a threatened species under the Act. purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) (List). Please refer to that proposed rule We are also finalizing a rule under the inadequacy of existing regulatory for a detailed description of the Federal section 4(d) of the Act that provides for mechanisms; or (E) other natural or actions concerning this species that the conservation of the June sucker. manmade factors affecting its continued occurred prior to November 26, 2019. DATES: This rule is effective February 3, existence. Based on an assessment of the Species Information 2021. best available information regarding the status of and threats to June sucker, we It is our intent to discuss only those ADDRESSES: This final rule, supporting have determined that the species no topics directly related to downlisting documents we used in preparing this longer meets the definition of June sucker in this rule. The citations rule, and public comments we received endangered under the Act, but does represent only the sources required to are available on the internet at http:// meet the definition of threatened. The support this action or to provide context www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 4(d) rule provides exceptions to take for it, and are not the sum total of all FWS–R6–ES–2019–0026. Persons who prohibitions for activities that will literature pertaining to the species. For use a telecommunications device for the further recovery of the species. more information on the description, deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay This final rule recognizes that based biology, ecology, and habitat of the Service at 800–877–8339. on the best available science, June species, please refer to the final listing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: sucker no longer meets the definition of rule published in the Federal Register Yvette Converse, Field Supervisor, an endangered species, but will remain on March 31, 1986 (51 FR 10851), and telephone: 801–975–3330. Direct all protected as a threatened species under the species’ recovery plan (Service questions or requests for additional the Act. This progress towards recovery 1999), as well as the materials cited in information to: JUNE SUCKER is a result of conservation efforts this rule. These documents will be QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife implemented by stakeholders. available as supporting materials on Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Collaborative conservation efforts have http://www.regulations.gov under Office, 2369 Orton Circle, Suite 50, West reduced the intensity of threats to the Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0026. Valley City, UT 84119. Persons who use species and improved its population In our analysis, we identify the a TDD may call the Federal Relay numbers. The 4(d) rule will species’ ecological requirements for Service at 800–877–8339. accommodate recovery activities such as survival and reproduction using the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: non-native control efforts, habitat concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and restoration, monitoring, research, representation (the 3Rs). Resiliency is Executive Summary stocking, and refuge maintenance. the ability of a species to withstand Why we need to publish a rule. Under environmental and demographic the Act, if a species is determined to no Previous Federal Actions stochastic events (the natural range of longer be an endangered or threatened On March 31, 1986, we published in favorable and unfavorable conditions). It species, we may reclassify the species or the Federal Register (51 FR 10851) the is associated with population size, remove it from the Federal Lists of final rule listing June sucker as an growth rate, and habitat quality. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife endangered species and designating Redundancy is the ability of a species to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 193

withstand catastrophic events for which suckers reach reproductive maturity at Shallow lakes, such as Utah Lake, are adaptation is unlikely. It is associated 5–10 years of age. They exhibit rapid typically characterized as having one of with the number, distribution, and growth for the first 3–5 years, with two ecological states: A clear water state resilience of individual populations intermediate growth rates between ages or a turbid water state (Scheffer 1998, p. throughout the current range of the 8–10, and a further reduced growth rate 10). The clear water state is often species. Representation is the ability of after age 10. Growth between sexes does dominated by rooted aquatic a species to adapt to novel changes in not differ within the first 10 years macrophytes (aquatic plants) that can its environment, as measured by its (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991, p. 9). greatly reduce turbidity by securing ecological and genetic diversity and its bottom sediments (Carpenter and Lodge Distribution and Habitat ability to disperse and colonize new 1986, p. 4; Madsen et al. 2001, p. 6) and areas. The June sucker is native and preventing excessive phytoplankton endemic to Utah Lake and its (algae) production through a suite of Taxonomy and Description tributaries, which are the primary mechanisms (Timms and Moss 1984, The June sucker, a unique lake sucker spawning habitat for the species. The pp. 3–5). Alternatively, a shallow lake named for the month in which it June sucker is not found outside of its in a turbid water state contains little or spawns, was first collected and native range except in two populations no aquatic vegetation to secure bottom described by David S. Jordan in 1878, in established for conservation purposes. A sediments (Madsen et al. 2001, p. 9). As Utah Lake, Utah County, Utah (Jordan refuge population was created as part of a result, fish movement and wave action 1878, entire). However, taxonomic the JSRIP stocking program to enhance can easily suspend lake-bottom questions regarding hybridization of the and secure the species’ population in sediments (Madsen et al. 2001, p. 9). In June sucker and co-occurring Utah Utah Lake at the Fisheries Experiment addition, fish can promote algal sucker (Catostomus ardens) ultimately Station (FES) hatchery in Logan, Utah production by recycling nutrients (both resulted in reclassification of the species (Service 2015, entire). An additional through feeding activity and excretion). as described below. population was established in Red Butte Fish can also suppress zooplankton The two species likely evolved Reservoir, Salt Lake County, Utah, in densities through predation, and the together in Utah Lake. During the 1930s, 2004 and is now self-sustaining (Utah zooplankton would otherwise suppress a severe drought stressed the sucker Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) algal abundance (Timms and Moss populations in Utah Lake, increasing the 2010, pp. 4–5). These additional 1984, p. 11; Brett and Goldman 1996, p. incidence of June and Utah sucker populations have aided in retaining 3). hybridization (Miller and Smith 1981, p. ecologic and genetic diversity in June Historically, Utah Lake existed in a 7). After this hybridization event, as sucker, which in turn aids the species clear water state dominated by rooted sucker populations increased in in adapting to changing environmental aquatic vegetation, as shown in abundance, the new genes that occurred conditions (i.e., increases sediment cores extracted from Utah in both the June sucker and Utah sucker representation) (JSRIP 2018, pp. 2–3). Lake (Macharia and Power 2011, p. 3). populations resulted in hybrid Utah Lake is a remnant of ancient Sediment cores reveal a shift in the state characteristics within both populations Lake Bonneville, and is one of the of the lake shortly after European (Evans 1997, p. 8). It is likely that the largest natural freshwater lakes in the settlement of Utah Valley to an algae- two species may have hybridized at western United States. It covers an area dominated, turbid condition, lacking multiple points in the past, in response of approximately 150 square miles (mi2) macrophytic vegetation that serves as to environmental bottlenecks (Evans (400 square kilometers (km2)) and is refugial habitat for June sucker (Brimhill 1997, pp. 9–12). As a result of the relatively shallow, averaging 9 feet (ft) and Merritt 1981, p. 16; Scheffer 1998, hybridization event in the 1930s, two (2.7 meters (m)) in depth (Brimhall and p. 6; Hickman and Thurin 2007, p. 8; subspecies of June sucker were Merritt 1981, pp. 2–3). The lake lies Macharia and Power 2011, p. 5). This originally identified—Chasmistes liorus west of Provo, Utah, and is the terminus shift is believed to be a result of liorus for sucker specimens collected in for several rivers and creeks, including excessive nutrient input, management- Utah Lake in the late 1800s, and the Provo, Spanish Fork, and American induced fluctuations in lake levels, and Chasmistes liorus mictus for specimens Fork Rivers, and Hobble and Battle the introduction of common carp collected after 1939, following the Creeks. The outflow of Utah Lake is the (Cyprinus carpio). The result of drought years (Miller and Smith 1981, Jordan River, which flows north into the compounded natural and human-caused p. 11). This classification was never Great Salt Lake, a terminal basin. effects is a present-day lake ecosystem corroborated, and because the June Utah Lake is located in a sedimentary that is dominated by algae, rather than sucker maintained its distinctiveness drainage basin dominated by erosive the clear water state in which June from other lake suckers despite soils with high salt concentrations. Utah sucker evolved. hybridization, we determined that it Lake had a sediment filling rate of about The extent of ideal riverine habitat should be listed as a distinct species 0.03 in (1 millimeter (mm)) per year available for spawning adults and under the name Chasmistes liorus (51 over the past 10,000 years; this rate developing larval June sucker was more FR 10851; March 31, 1986). more than doubled with the abundant historically than it is The June sucker has a large, robust urbanization of Utah Valley (Brimhall currently. Prior to settlement of Utah body; a wide, rounded head; and a and Merritt 1981, pp. 3–5). Faults under Valley, spawning tributaries, such as the hump on the snout (Scoppettone and the lake appear to be lowering the lake Provo, Spanish Fork, and American Vinyard 1991, p. 1). Adults are 17–24 bed at about the same rate as sediment Fork Rivers, and Hobble Creek, inches (in) (43.2–61.0 centimeters (cm)) is filling it (Brimhall and Merritt 1981, contained large deltas with braided, in length (Scoppettone and Vinyard pp. 10–11). Inputs of nutrient-rich slow, meandering channels and aquatic 1991, p. 1; Belk 1998, p. 2). Lake suckers sediments combined with the lake’s vegetation that provided suitable are mid-water planktivores (plankton high evaporation rate cause high levels spawning and larval rearing habitat feeders). The June sucker is a long-lived of sediment loading, high soluble salt (Olsen et al. 2002, p. 4). Multiple species, living to 40 years or more concentrations, and high nutrient levels spawning tributaries provided (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991, p. 3; as a baseline condition (Brimhall and redundancy for June sucker. The range Belk 1998, p. 6). In the wild, June Merritt 1981, p. 11). of diverse habitats historically present

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 194 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

within these tributaries was essential to Most spawning is completed within suckers were caught during their larval sucker survival and maintaining 5–8 days. Post-spawning suckers spawning runs and widely used as the species’ resiliency. Most congregate near the mouth of Provo Bay, fertilizer and food (Carter 1969, p. 7). importantly, slow water pool and marsh which could be a response to the high During this period, an estimated 1,653 habitats provided refuge from predation food productivity that remains in the tons (1,500 metric tons) of spawning by larger fishes. bay until the fall (Radant and Shirley suckers were killed when 2.1 mi (3.3 Since European colonization of Utah 1987, p. 13; Buelow 2006, p. 8). km) of the Provo River was dewatered Valley, changes to the tributaries have Zooplankton densities are greater in due to reduced water availability and decreased the available habitat for June Provo Bay than in other lake areas high demand (Carter 1969, p. 8). sucker spawning and rearing, although (Kreitzer et al. 2011, p. 9), providing Hundreds of tons of suckers also died recent restoration projects have abundant food to meet the energy when Utah Lake was nearly emptied improved conditions in the Provo River demands of post-spawn suckers, as well during a 1932–1935 drought (Tanner and Hobble Creek. The Provo River as an ideal location for the growth and 1936, p. 3). After the drought, June contains many natural characteristics survival of young-of-year June suckers sucker populations gradually increased that support the majority of the June recently emerged from the spawning again, but due to the combined impacts sucker spawning run and also play an tributaries (Kreitzer et al. 2011, p. 10). of ongoing drought, overexploitation, important role in contributing to the June sucker spawning habitat consists and habitat destruction, the population recovery of the species. The Provo River of moderately deep runs and riffles in did not return to its historical level is the largest tributary to the lake in slow to moderate current with a (Heckmann et al. 1981, p. 9). June terms of annual flow, width, and substrate composed of 4–8 in (100–200 suckers were rare in monitoring surveys watershed area (Stamp et al. 2002, p. mm) coarse gravel or small cobble that during the 1950s through the 1970s 19). All of these characteristics is free of silt and algae. Deeper pools (Heckmann et al. 1981, p. 11; Radant contribute to higher numbers of adjacent to spawning areas may provide and Sakaguchi 1981, p. 5). spawning June suckers using the Provo important resting or staging areas By the time the species was listed River than the other Utah Lake (Stamp et al. 2002, p. 5). under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) tributaries. These characteristics also Under natural conditions, June sucker in 1986, the June sucker had an best support the proper timing of the larvae drift downstream and rear in estimated wild spawning population of June sucker’s spawning period and help shallow vegetated habitats near tributary fewer than 1,000 individuals. In 1999, protect against further hybridization mouths in Utah Lake (Modde and we estimated the wild spawning with Utah sucker. Continued increase Muirhead 1990, pp. 7–8; Crowl and population to be approximately 300 and improvement of available larval Thomas 1997, p. 11; Keleher et al. 1998, individuals, with no evidence of wild rearing habitat in the Provo River is p. 47). Juvenile June suckers then recruitment (Keleher et al. 1998, pp. 12, necessary for recovery of the species. migrate into Utah Lake and use littoral 53; Service 1999, p. 5). aquatic vegetation as cover and refuge Due to the immediate threat of June Biology and Ecology (Crowl and Thomas 1997, p. 11). June sucker extinction at the time of listing, June suckers are highly mobile and sucker juveniles form schools near the the UDWR began raising populations in can cover large portions of their range water surface, presumably feeding on hatcheries and at secure refuge sites. in a short period of time (Radant and zooplankton in the shallows. Young-of- These efforts resulted in the stocking of Sakaguchi 1981, p. 7; Buelow 2006, p. year suckers form shoals (aggregations June suckers into Utah Lake to boost 4; Landom et al. 2006, p. 13). Adult June of hundreds of fish) near the surface population numbers beginning in the suckers exhibit lake-wide distributional under the cover of aquatic vegetation 1990s and continuing through the behavior throughout most of the year (Billman 2008, p. 3). present day (UDWR 2018b, p. 3). As of (Buelow 2006). However, in the fall, However, effects from nonnative 2017, more than 800,000 captive-bred June suckers congregate along the common carp, altered tributary flows, June suckers have been stocked in Utah western lakeshore, and in the winter, lake water level management, nutrient Lake (UDWR 2017b, p. 6). Stocking is move to the eastern areas. One loading, poor water quality, and river planned to continue until the wild explanation for the easterly orientation channelization have reduced the population is self-sustaining, which will in the winter may be the presence of amount of shallow, warm, and complex be determined by population viability relatively warm fresh-water springs vegetated aquatic habitat for rearing at analysis (JSRIP 2018, p. 10). along the eastern shore of Utah Lake the tributary mouths and Utah Lake Approximately 3,500 June suckers (SWCA 2002, p. 14). interface. This reduction in rearing were spawning annually in Utah Lake During pre-spawn staging, in April habitat has reduced survival of June tributaries as of 2016 (Conner and and May, June suckers congregate in suckers during the early life stages Landom 2018, p. 2). This represents at large numbers near the mouths of the (Modde and Muirhead 1990, p. 9; Olsen least a ten-fold increase in spawning Provo River, Hobble Creek, Spanish et al. 2002, p. 6), resulting in reduced fish from when the recovery plan was Fork River, and American Fork River population viability and resiliency. As finalized in 1999 (Conner and Landom (Radant and Hickman 1984, p. 3; June suckers reach the subadult stage, 2018, p. 2). The vast majority of fish Buelow et al. 2006, p. 4; Hines 2011, p. they begin to move offshore (Billman detected spawning in Utah Lake 8). June suckers generally initiate a 2005, p. 16). tributaries are stocked fish that have spawning migration into Utah Lake become naturalized (survived for tributaries (primarily the Provo River, Species Abundance and Trends multiple years until reaching breeding but also Hobble Creek and, to a lesser Early accounts indicate that Utah age) (UDWR 2018c, p. 7). For all extent, Spanish Fork River and Lake supported an enormous population spawning tributaries combined, the American Fork River) during the second of June suckers (Heckmann et al. 1981, spawning population size for both sexes and third weeks of May (Radant and p. 8), and was proclaimed ‘‘the greatest substantially increased from 2008 to Hickman 1984, p. 7). Provo Bay is likely sucker pond in the universe’’ (Jordan 2016, and the total known spawning one of their primary pre-spawn and 1878, p. 2). The first major reductions in population size grew by 22 percent. post-spawn congregation areas (Buelow the number of June suckers were in the These figures represent a minimum 2006, p. 4). late 1800s. Through the mid-1900s, June number of confirmed spawning June

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 195

suckers, not a population estimate. They smallest June suckers, those stocked at the wild population. In 2020–2021, a do not include subadult or juvenile under 7.9 in (200 mm), had a survival study is underway to improve our individuals, non-spawning adults, rate into the next year of only 2 percent understanding of the degree of natural untagged fish, or tagged fish that were (Goldsmith et al. 2016, p. 14). recruitment of June sucker in Utah Lake not detected via the monitoring Year-to-year survival rates for and the origin of untagged June suckers. antennae. spawning June suckers ranged from 65 This information will, combined with The actual population of wild June to 95 percent depending on the tributary future monitoring, yield a population suckers in Utah Lake is likely greater and the year (Goldsmith et al. 2016, p. estimate and help inform future than 3,500, because this number 3). Additionally, June suckers that were stocking rates and management represents only the spawning adults. stocked more than 10 years prior were decisions for the purposes of further However, we did not attempt to detected spawning on multiple bolstering the species’ representation, extrapolate a total population estimate occasions, indicating the capability for resiliency, and redundancy to achieve from the adult spawning data because long-term survival in Utah Lake (Conner full recovery. monitoring efforts in tributaries were and Landom 2018, p. 3). Between 2013 not consistent across all years, data were and 2016, June sucker showed a positive Recovery not available for one year due to high population trend with a combined Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to flows, and the percentage and origin of annual growth rate of 1.06 for females develop and implement recovery plans untagged fish in Utah Lake is not yet and 1.04 for males across three for the conservation and survival of clear (Conner and Landom 2018, p. 4). tributaries (Provo River, Spanish Fork, endangered and threatened species Stocked June suckers are tagged with a and Hobble Creek), with Provo River unless we determine that such a plan passive integrated transponder (PIT). having the highest population growth will not promote the conservation of the Untagged fish may be stocked fish that rate and Hobble Creek showing an species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), lost their PIT tag or the result of overall decline (Conner and Landom recovery plans must, to the maximum reproduction (i.e., recruitment) in the 2018, p. 3). However, nearly 50 percent extent practicable, include objective, wild (UDWR 2017, entire). of spawning June sucker detected in measurable criteria which, when met, Monitoring of June suckers in the Hobble Creek were of unknown origin. would result in a determination, in lower Provo River during the 2018 Therefore, a decline in detected accordance with the provisions of spawning period captured a significant spawners in this tributary does not section 4 of the Act, that the species be portion of fish that were not PIT tagged necessarily mean fewer fish overall are removed from the List. (UDWR 2018, p. 3). The natural using the tributary. Naturally recruited Recovery plans provide a roadmap for geochemical markers (signatures) in the fish that have never been tagged would us and our partners on methods of otoliths (ear bones) and fin rays of not be detected by the remote electronic enhancing conservation and minimizing collected, unmarked June suckers show methods used to collect June sucker threats to listed species, as well as that 39 percent (12 of 31) of these fish presence information at spawning measurable criteria against which to likely originated from the FES hatchery; locations. evaluate progress towards recovery and 42 percent from Red Butte reservoir, In summary, the viability of June assess the species’ likely future other rearing facilities, or inconclusive; sucker in its native range––as indicated condition. However, they are not and 19 percent (6 of 31) had signatures by its representation, resiliency, and regulatory documents and do not indicating they originated in Utah Lake redundancy—has improved substitute for the determinations and (Wolff and Johnson 2013, p. 9), meaning significantly since the time of listing, promulgation of regulations required they were likely recruited naturally into largely due to the efforts of the JSRIP under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A Utah Lake. These results indicate that (see Recovery, below). Stocking of June decision to revise the status of a species, successful natural reproduction and suckers, a program designed to or to delist a species, is ultimately based recruitment are occurring, although the maximize representation through on an analysis of the best scientific and exact location and conditions that genetic diversity, has been very commercial data available to determine contributed to this successful natural successful at increasing the number of whether a species is no longer an recruitment are not known. Additional fish in Utah Lake. Stocked individuals endangered species or a threatened analysis of June suckers of unknown are behaving as wild fish by migrating species, regardless of whether that origin is planned within the next several to new habitats, surviving many years, information differs from the recovery years to determine the level of natural and participating in spawning activities. plan. recruitment occurring in Utah Lake. The JSRIP stocking program is planning There are many paths to Regardless of origin, capture of untagged to continue until the June sucker accomplishing recovery of a species, fish indicates there is an unknown reaches self-sustaining population and recovery may be achieved without number of spawning June suckers that levels, with a focus on stocking 2-year- all of the criteria in a recovery plan were not accounted for in the spawning old fish over 12 in (300 mm) long to being fully met. For example, one or population estimate. increase their chances of survival. The more criteria may be exceeded while The year-to-year survival rate of fish spawning population has increased at other criteria may not yet be stocked into Utah Lake varies least ten-fold since 1999; there is accomplished. In that instance, we may significantly depending on a number of evidence of high year-to-year survival determine that the threats are factors, including length of fish at stock rates and long-term survival for minimized sufficiently and that the (which correlates to age) and time of spawning individuals; and the species is robust enough that it no year stocked (Goldsmith et al. 2016, p. spawning population is increasing at a longer meets the definition of an 5). June suckers stocked in early high rate, improving the resiliency of endangered species or a threatened summer that were 11.6 in (296 mm) in the wild population. The stocking species. In other cases, we may discover length or more (usually representing an program and maintenance of two new recovery opportunities after having individual that was 2 years old) had a additional populations (the refuge finalized the recovery plan. Parties survival rate of 83 percent. June suckers population at FES hatchery and the seeking to conserve the species may use stocked at age 1 had survival rates introduced population at Red Butte these opportunities instead of methods ranging from 0 to 67 percent. The Reservoir) also provide redundancy to identified in the recovery plan.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 196 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Likewise, we may learn new may be used to supplement Provo river 2008, an ecosystem-based flow regime information about the species after we flows as needed in any given year recommendation was finalized for the finalize the recovery plan. The new (USBR 2017, pp. 3–5). These protected lower Provo River (Stamp et al. 2008, p. information may change the extent to water sources, when delivered as 13). This year-round flow which existing criteria are appropriate additional water, provide added recommendation refined the operational for identifying recovery of the species. resiliency by improving habitat quality scenarios identified in 2004, through the The recovery of a species is a dynamic for the species, and operational incorporation of relevant ecological process requiring adaptive management flexibility to address fluctuating annual functions into the in-stream flow that may, or may not, follow all of the precipitation scenarios in a timely analysis. Hydrologic variability, guidance provided in a recovery plan. manner. geomorphology, water quality, aquatic We finalized a recovery plan for June The amount of water delivered to biology, and riparian biology were sucker in 1999, which included supplement flows in the Provo River considered as aspects of flow recovery actions and recovery criteria and Hobble Creek and the timing of recommendations. The year-round flow for downlisting and delisting of June those deliveries are determined recommendations are adaptive, with sucker. These criteria lack specific annually through a cooperative process consideration of the variability within metrics and will be updated in a involving multiple agencies. In 1996, and among each water year. These forthcoming revised recovery plan for the June Sucker Flow Work Group include recommendations for a baseline the species. However, they are still (Flow Work Group) was formed by the flow, a spring runoff flow, and the relevant to the evaluation of recovery, USBR, DOI Central Utah Project duration of the rising and receding flow and we discuss them in this document Completion Act (CUPCA) Office, Provo periods before and after runoff. As more as one way to evaluate the change in River Water Users Association, Provo is learned about the associations status of June sucker. River Water Commissioner, CUWCD, between flow and river functions, the Since 2002, the JSRIP has funded, UDWR, the Service, Provo City Public recommendations can be adjusted implemented, and overseen recovery Works, and the URMCC. These agencies (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 10). In 2015, the actions for the conservation of June initially worked together to adjust JSRIP passed a resolution affirming this sucker in accordance with the guidance reservoir releases to mimic a Provo process, which further defined how provided by the recovery plan, River spring runoff hydrograph and flows in the Provo River should be including using adaptive management improve June sucker spawning success. prioritized for the benefit of the June techniques to address new stressors as Since 2002, this process has been sucker, and defined the roles of partners they arose. These recovery actions overseen by the JSRIP. in supporting the water needs of June include: (1) Acquiring and managing As recovery-specific water was sucker in the Provo River (JSRIP 2015, water flows, (2) restoring habitat, (3) acquired, the role of the Flow Work entire). removing carp, and (4) augmenting the Group expanded to provide a forum for In 2009, ecosystem-based flow wild June sucker population. These determining the optimal delivery recommendations were developed for efforts, and how they relate to the pattern of supplemental flows. Based on Hobble Creek in the Lower Hobble recovery criteria, are described in the existing conditions for a given year (e.g., Creek Ecosystem Flow following paragraphs. snow pack and reservoir storage), the Recommendations Report (Stamp et al. multi-disciplinary work group uses Acquisition and Management of Water 2009, pp. 11–12). These operational flexibility for reservoir Flows recommendations were adopted by the water delivery and runoff timing to JSRIP, included in the East Hobble The first downlisting criterion evaluate and operate the system to Creek Restoration Project Environmental requires that Provo River flows essential deliver year-round flows to benefit June Analysis (JSRIP 2009, p. 5), and are for June sucker spawning and sucker recovery. Based on currently considered each April when recruitment are protected (Service 2011, recommendations of the Flow Work determining the annual p. 5). We consider this criterion to have Group, the JSRIP makes annual recommendations for delivery of flows been met. The JSRIP provides annual recommendations for flow deliveries to to Hobble Creek (DOI et al. 2013, p. 41). recommendations for river flows to the Provo River and Hobble Creek, Similar to the Provo River, these support June suckers on the Provo River adjusted for the available water recommendations are intended to be and Hobble Creek based on the known conditions. Water managers (including adaptive. In 2012, the JSRIP passed a biology of the species and the historical USBR, CUPCA, Provo River Water Users resolution affirming this process, which flow levels to the CUWCD and other Association, the Provo River Water further defines how flows in Hobble water-managing bodies. The JSRIP has Commissioner, CUWCD, and Provo City Creek should be prioritized for the also acquired water totaling over 21,000 Public Works) then work to deliver benefit of June sucker, and defines the acre-ft (25,903,080 cubic m (m3)) per water to meet that specific annual roles of partners in supporting the water year to enhance flows during the recommendation and have been needs of June sucker in Hobble Creek spawning season on the Provo River and successful in meeting the hydrograph (JSRIP 2012, entire). to supplement base flows through the scenarios agreed to by the Flow Work summer for the benefit of larval June Group on an annual basis since 2004. Habitat Restoration sucker. Approximately 13,000 acre-ft In 2004, the CUWCD, in cooperation The second downlisting criterion for (16,035,240 m3) of this water is with the Service and other members of June sucker requires that spawning and permanently allocated, and the the Flow Work Group, agreed on brood-rearing habitat in the Provo River remainder is allocated through 2021. operational scenarios that mimic dry, and Utah Lake be enhanced or The JSRIP is pursuing additional water, moderate, and wet year flow patterns for established to provide for the continued permanent and temporary, to bolster the Provo River (CUWCD et al. 2004, p. existence of all life stages (Service 1999, June sucker allocations after 2021 (JSRIP 17). The Flow Work Group applied p. 4). We consider this criterion to have 2018, p. 5). Additionally, the JSRIP has these operational scenarios in been met. Habitat restoration projects acquired 8,500 acre-ft (10,485,000 m3) of determining the spawning season flow occurred on the Provo River and Hobble permanent water for Hobble Creek, up pattern for the Provo River with the goal Creek, and habitat quality was enhanced to 4,500 acre-ft (5,550,660 m3) of which of benefiting June sucker recovery. In in Utah Lake as a result of nonnative

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 197

species removal (see Carp Removal, due to changing lake levels and water suckers are using this area for rearing below). availability. Therefore, we determined (Fonken 2018, pers. comm.). Modifications of the Fort Field that an additional, reliably available Improving water quality in Utah Lake diversion structure on the Provo River, (i.e., available every year) spawning run is also an important part of enhancing located within critical habitat, were would improve redundancy for the June sucker habitat. In the interest of completed in October 2009. This species by providing security in the supporting June sucker recovery modification made an additional 1.2 mi event that a catastrophic event through increased water quality, the (1.9 km) of spawning habitat available eliminated the Provo River spawning Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) for the June sucker, permitting fish habitat. Hobble Creek provides the best became a member of the JSRIP in 2017 passage farther upstream in the opportunity of the available spawning (JSRIP 2017). As part of the State’s historical range (URMCC 2009, pp. 8–9; tributaries for establishing a second commitment to water quality JSRIP 2008, p. 12). During the 2010 consistent spawning run (Stamp et al. management and improvement in Utah spawning season, June suckers were 2002, p. 13). Hobble Creek is more Lake, UDWQ formed a science panel observed in the Provo River upstream of frequently available to fish in low water composed of independent experts and the modified Fort Field Diversion years compared to other tributaries. representatives of all stakeholder structure (UDWR 2011, pp. 7–8). In However, Hobble Creek would still agencies for the express purpose of cooperation with the JSRIP, the CUWCD require habitat enhancements to make it furthering scientific understanding of and URMCC are working with other suitable for consistent, annual June the conditions in Utah Lake and diverters on the Provo River to evaluate sucker spawning runs and allow for the creating a comprehensive plan for further diversion structure removal or development of quality rearing habitat improvement. This plan will support modification. for young suckers (Stamp et al. 2002, p. June sucker recovery by including The JSRIP is also implementing a 13). recommendations for actions and large-scale stream channel and delta In 2008, the lower 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of threshold limits of nutrients and other restoration project for the lower Provo Hobble Creek was relocated and anthropogenic inputs for the benefit of River and its interface with Utah Lake, reconstructed on land purchased by the June sucker specifically and the Utah called the Provo River Delta Restoration JSRIP to provide June sucker spawning Lake ecosystem as a whole (UDWQ Project (PRDRP). This project will habitat, a more naturally functioning 2017, entire). restore, enhance, and create habitat stream channel, and suitable nursery conditions in the lower Provo River for Carp Removal habitat for young suckers. The JSRIP spawning, hatching, larval transport, The third downlisting criterion partnered with the Utah Transit rearing, and recruitment of the June requires that nonnative species that Authority to implement the habitat sucker to the adult life stage, thus present a threat to the continued increasing the species’ resiliency (Olson restoration project on the purchased existence of June sucker are reduced or et al. 2002, p. 15; BIO–WEST 2010, p. property (DOI 2008, p. 14). The project eliminated from Utah Lake. We consider 3). The PRDRP will reestablish some of re-created a functioning delta at the this criterion met, but ongoing. The the historical delta conditions in the interface between Hobble Creek and common carp was identified as the Provo River, thereby increasing habitat Utah Lake, and allowed the nonnative species having the greatest complexity and providing appropriate reestablishment of a June sucker adverse impact on June sucker habitat physical and biological conditions spawning run. The restoration resulted and resiliency, due to the large-scale necessary for egg hatching, larval in more active river processes and changes in water quality and development, growth, young-of-year includes numerous seasonally macrophytic vegetation caused by these survival, and recruitment of young fish inundated off-channel ponds, which fish (see Distribution and Habitat, into the adult population. A final serve as larval nursery and rearing above). environmental impact statement (EIS) habitat to increase larval fish growth In 2009, a mechanical removal for the PRDRP was released in April and survival (DOI 2008, p. 22). program was instituted to remove 2015, with a record of decision signed In 2009, June suckers spawned in the common carp from Utah Lake. Between in May 2015. Federal agencies have restored Hobble Creek, with verified 2009 and 2017, over 13,000 tons (11,750 acquired lands needed for the PRDRP larval production (Landom and Crowl metric tons) of common carp were and developed a detailed design to 2010, pp. 1–12), and in 2010, juvenile removed from the lake (UDWR 2017c, p. provide optimal rearing habitat for June June suckers (from 2009 spawning) were 2). This removal resulted in a decline of sucker (PRDRP 2017, entire). Work found in ponds within the Hobble Creek the common carp population. Catch-per- began spring of 2020, and is expected to restoration area (Landress 2011, p. 4). unit effort of common carp has be completed in 2024 (Stamp 2020, Due to the success of the restoration, decreased over the past 4 years, while pers. comm.). additional reaches of Hobble Creek have average weight of individual common Shortly after formation of the JSRIP, been selected for habitat enhancements carp has increased, thus indicating a and based on delisting criteria identified to increase the amount of available trend of reduction in common carp in the 1999 June Sucker Recovery Plan spawning habitat. For example, density in Utah Lake (Gaeta and (Service 1999, pp. 5–6), several Utah approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) upstream Landom 2017, p. 7). Lake tributaries were evaluated for the of the lower Hobble Creek restoration In 2015, after 6 years of common carp purpose of establishing a second area, the East Hobble Creek Restoration removal, native macrophytes were spawning run of June sucker in addition Project was completed to enhance the observed in Utah Lake vegetation to the Provo River spawning run (Stamp stream channel by increasing floodplain monitoring studies for the first time et al. 2002, p. 13). Depending on the width, sinuosity, and floodplain (Landom 2016, pers. comm.). As of availability of water in any given year, connectivity; modify or remove 2017, multiple sites in the lake have June suckers will use multiple other diversion structures; and provide native littoral vegetation, including sites tributaries for spawning, including additional stream flows for Hobble with increasing complexity supporting Spanish Fork, American Fork, and Creek (JSRIP 2016b, p. 17). An age-1 more than four native macrophytic Current Creek. However, not all June sucker was observed in this area in species at one site (Dillingham 2018, tributaries are available in every year, January 2018, indicating that June entire). Sites with more complex

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 198 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

vegetation support a higher diversity of representation, support downlisting the the species, as well as other actions or macroinvertebrates, which provide species. The criterion of an increasing, conditions that may ameliorate any additional food for June sucker, provide self-sustaining spawning run of wild negative effects or may have positive greater opportunities for June sucker to June sucker resulting in significant effects. shelter from predators, and indicate recruitment over 10 years is more We must consider these same five improved water quality in the lake suitable as a delisting criterion and factors in downlisting a species from (Dillingham 2018, entire). indicative of full recovery. endangered to threatened. Under our The common carp removal program in Overall, recovery actions have regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(c)-(e), we Utah Lake has a positive impact on addressed many of the threats and may downlist a species if, after a review habitat quality, which may be stressors affecting the June sucker. The of the species’ status, the best available contributing to natural recruitment and JSRIP has been effective in collaborating scientific and commercial data indicate survival rates for the June sucker (Gaeta to implement a stocking program, that the species no longer meets the and Landom 2017, p. 8; see Species increase June sucker spawning definition of an endangered species, but Abundance and Trends, above). locations, acquire and manage water that it meets the definition of a Ongoing research by Utah State flows, remove nonnative common carp, threatened species. University continues to assess the and develop and conduct habitat For the purposes of this analysis, we relationship between common carp restorations that target all life stages of evaluate whether or not the June sucker removal, habitat improvement, and June June sucker. Studies are planned to meets the Act’s definition of an sucker population response as well as improve understanding of the effects of ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened develop long-term recommendations for other threats and stressors, including species,’’ based on the best scientific sustainable common carp management lake water quality and the impact of and commercial information available. (Gaeta et al. 2018, entire). The JSRIP other invasive species on the June We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in prioritizes continued suppression of the sucker. The JSRIP continues to be active general to actions or conditions that are common carp population via and committed to full recovery of the known to or are reasonably likely to mechanical removal, as well as research June sucker. negatively affect individuals of a into genetically modified sterile (YY) species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes male technology that has the potential Summary of Factors Affecting the actions or conditions that directly affect to reduce or eliminate carp from Utah Species individuals (direct impacts), as well as Lake in the future (JSRIP 2018, p. 2). Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required Population Augmentation and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures resources (stressors). The term ‘‘threat’’ The fourth and final downlisting for listing species, reclassifying species, may encompass—either together or criterion in the June sucker recovery or removing species from listed status. separately—the source of the action or plan is that an increasing, self- ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as condition or the action or condition sustaining spawning run of wild June including any species or subspecies of itself. sucker resulting in significant fish or wildlife or plants, and any However, the mere identification of recruitment over 10 years has been distinct vertebrate population segment any threat(s) does not necessarily mean reestablished in the Provo River. We of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when that the species meets the statutory consider this criterion to be ongoing. mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or This criterion does not define defines an endangered species as a a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining ‘‘significant’’ recruitment. Although the species that is ‘‘in danger of extinction whether a species meets either spawning population of June sucker is throughout all or a significant portion of definition, we must evaluate all increasing, annual stocking continues in its range,’’ and a threatened species as identified threats by considering the order to maintain the population. An a species that is ‘‘likely to become an species’ expected response and the augmentation plan for the June sucker endangered species within the effects of the threats—with regard to set a goal, for the purposes of meeting foreseeable future throughout all or a those actions and conditions that will the recovery criterion of a self- significant portion of its range.’’ ameliorate the threats—on an sustaining population, of stocking 2.8 The Act requires that we determine individual, population, and species million individuals into Utah Lake whether any species is an ‘‘endangered level. We evaluate each threat and its (Service and URMCC 1998, entire). The species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ expected effects on the species and then goal was based on early studies of June because of any of the following factors: analyze the cumulative effect of all of sucker survival and the production (A) The present or threatened the threats on the species as a whole. capabilities of the facilities. As of 2017, destruction, modification, or We also consider the cumulative effect more than 800,000 captive-bred June curtailment of its habitat or range; of the threats with regard to those sucker have been stocked in Utah Lake (B) Overutilization for commercial, actions and conditions that will have from the various rearing locations, and recreational, scientific, or educational positive effects on the species—such as a long-term, continued stocking strategy purposes; any existing regulatory mechanisms or based on the most up-to-date research (C) Disease or predation; conservation efforts. The Secretary on stocking success and survival rates is (D) The inadequacy of existing determines whether the species meets under development (JSRIP 2008, p. 8; regulatory mechanisms; or the Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered UDWR 2017b, p. 6). (E) Other natural or manmade factors species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only Although the June sucker has not yet affecting its continued existence. after conducting this cumulative met this downlisting criterion identified These factors represent broad analysis and describing the expected in the 1999 recovery plan, we find that categories of natural or human-caused effect on the species now and in the the population increases and trends actions or conditions that could have an foreseeable future. achieved thus far (see Species effect on a species’ continued existence. The Act does not define the term Abundance and Trends, above), along In evaluating these actions and ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in with the addition of refuge populations conditions, we look for those that may the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened to increase redundancy and genetic have a negative effect on individuals of species.’’ Our implementing regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 199

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a Water Development and Habitat one of the possible factors that framework for evaluating the foreseeable Modification contributed to the marked degradation future on a case-by-case basis. The term Water development and substantial of shoreline habitat and aquatic foreseeable future extends only so far habitat modifications have occurred in vegetation in the lake and to a decline into the future as we can reasonably the Utah Lake drainage since the mid- in June sucker refugial habitat from determine that both the future threats 1800s. These changes include the predators (Hickman and Thurin 2007, p. and the species’ responses to those reduction in riverine flows (including 23). threats are likely. In other words, the the Provo River) from numerous water The long history of water management foreseeable future is the period of time diversions, various water storage in the Provo River, including river in which we can make reliable projects, channelization, and additional alterations, dredging, and predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean lake and in-stream alterations (Radant et channelization efforts, has modified the ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide al. 1987, p. 13; UDWR and UDNR 1997, historical braided and complex delta a reasonable degree of confidence in the p. 11; Andersen et al. 2007, p. 8). Many into a single trapezoidal channel prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable of these modifications and water (Radant et al. 1987, p. 15; Olsen et al. if it is reasonable to depend on it when depletions remain today, and continue 2002, p. 11). The current channel lacks making decisions. to hinder the quantity and quality of vegetative cover, habitat complexity, It is not always possible or necessary June sucker rearing and spawning and the food sources necessary to to define foreseeable future as a habitat, which in turn impacts species sustain larval fishes rearing in the lower particular number of years. Analysis of resiliency. Provo River (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 20). the foreseeable future uses the best In 1849, settlers founded Fort Utah Additionally, the lower 2 mi (3.2 km) of scientific and commercial data available along the Provo River and began the Provo River experience a backwater and should consider the timeframes modifying the waters of Utah Lake and effect, where the velocity stalls under applicable to the relevant threats and to its main tributaries (USBR 1989, p. 3). low-flow scenarios and a high seasonal the species’ likely responses to those In 1872, a low dam was placed across lake level causes the water to back up threats in view of its life-history the lake outflow to the Jordan River, from the lake into the Provo River characteristics. Data that are typically changing the function of Utah Lake into (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 20). The slack relevant to assessing the species’ a storage reservoir (CUWCD 2004, p. 2). water substantially reduces the number biological response include species- By the early 1900s, a pumping plant was of larvae drifting into the lake. As a specific factors such as lifespan, constructed at the outflow to allow the result of their poorly developed reproductive rates or productivity, lake to be lowered below the outlet swimming abilities, the larvae either certain behaviors, and other elevation; this structure has since been starve or are consumed by predators in demographic factors. modified and enlarged (Andersen et al. this lower stretch of river (Ellsworth et al. 2010, p. 9). Because of the extensive In our determination, we correlate the 2007, p. 5). The present capacity of the pumping plant is 1,050 cubic feet per modification of the lower Provo River, threats acting on the species to the in the past, most June sucker larvae factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. second (cfs) (29.7 cubic meters per second (cms)), and it can lower the lake have not survived longer than 20 days The following analysis examines level 8–10 ft (2.4–3.0 m) below the after hatching (Ellsworth et al. 2010, pp. factors currently affecting the June compromise elevation of 4,489 ft (1,368 9–10). The upcoming PRDRP is sucker or that are likely to affect it m) (Andersen et al. 2007, p. 5). The designed to increase survival of larvae within the foreseeable future. For each compromise elevation is a managed lake by providing additional rearing habitat factor, we examine the threats at the elevation target that the responsible along the Provo River (PRDRP 2017, time of listing in 1986 (or if not present water authorities have agreed not to entire). at the time of listing, the status of the exceed through the active storage of Similar to the Provo River, Hobble threat when first detected), the water. This compromise elevation was Creek and other tributaries of downlisting criterion pertinent to the intended to balance the threat of significance (Spanish Fork River and threat, what conservation actions have flooding among lands adjacent to Utah American Fork River) have been been taken to meet the downlisting Lake and those downstream along the extensively modified by human criteria or otherwise mitigate the threat, Jordan River (CUWCD 2004, p. 7). activities. The hydrological regimes are the current status of the threat, and its As a storage reservoir, the surface altered by multiple dams and likely future impact on June sucker. We elevation of Utah Lake fluctuates diversions, and the stream channels also consider stressors not originally widely. Prior to the influence of water have been straightened and dredged into considered at the time of listing, most development projects, annual incised trapezoidal canals (Stamp et al. notably climate change. fluctuations averaged 2.1 ft (0.6 m) per 2002, p. 5). These alterations resulted in Habitat Destruction and Modification year. For approximately 50 years, under the streams becoming isolated from the influence of water development their historical floodplains and having Loss and alteration of spawning and projects, water levels fluctuated an modified flow velocities and pool-riffle rearing habitat were major factors average of 3.5 ft (1.0 m) annually prior sequences (Stamp et al. 2002, p. 6). leading to the listing of the June sucker to the completion of the Central Utah Until recent restoration efforts were (51 FR 10851; March 31, 1986) and Project. The Central Utah Project was implemented, the Hobble Creek channel continue to pose a threat to the species’ the largest water resources development had almost no gradient and ended overall resiliency and its recovery. program in Utah, distributing portions without a defined connection to the lake Suitable spawning and rearing habitat in of Utah’s share of Colorado River water. interface in Provo Bay due to diversion Utah Lake and its tributaries declined After its completion, annual lake structures and dredging. In the past, the due to water development, habitat fluctuations averaged 2.5 ft (0.8 m) channel was blocked by debris that modification, introduction of common (Hickman and Thurin 2007, p. 20). created barriers to fish migration, carp, and urbanization, but has Fluctuation in surface elevation of Utah preventing adult June suckers from improved since listing due to recovery Lake (particularly while the Central accessing the main stem of Hobble actions taken by the JSRIP. Utah Project was under construction) is Creek.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 200 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Located south of Provo Bay, the (SWCA 2002, p. 19). However, the to improve water quality and address Spanish Fork River is the second largest previously described carp removal impacts of urbanization and other stream inflow to Utah Lake, but the program reduced carp populations and factors that may negatively impact majority of the discharge is diverted increased macrophytic vegetation in the future water quality (UDWQ 2017, during the irrigation season (June lake, improving resiliency of the June entire). through September; Psomas 2007, p. sucker (see Recovery, above). Lake Water Quality 12). Adult and larval June suckers occur Urbanization in the Spanish Fork River (UDWR 2006, Utah Lake is hypereutrophic, p. 2; 2007, p. 2; 2008a, p. 3; 2009a, p. Rapid urbanization on the floodplains characterized by frequent algal blooms 4; 2010b, p. 2); however, the seasonally of Utah Lake tributaries stimulated and high turbidity (Merritt 2004, p. 14; inadequate flows, poor June sucker extensive flood and erosion control Psomas 2007, p. 12). The increased rearing habitat at the Utah Lake activities in lake tributaries and reduced turbidity, decreased water quality, and interface, low water clarity, diversion available land for the natural historical change in the plant structures, and miles of levees along the meandering of the historical river community from macrophyte- channel are obstacles to successful channels (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 4). dominated to algae-dominated (see recruitment (Stamp et al. 2002, p. 5). Channelization for flood control and Habitat Restoration, above) affect the Adult spawning habitat is limited to the additional channel manipulation for fishes of Utah Lake, including the June lower 2.7 mi (4.3 km) of the Spanish erosion control further reduced riverine sucker. Fork River, where it is of poor quality. habitat complexity and reduced the total High turbidity decreases the feeding Other tributaries where spawning may length of tributary rivers for spawning ability of many species of planktivorous occur under favorable conditions and early-life-stage use (Stamp et al. fish (Brett and Groot 1963, pp. 5–6; include the American Fork River and 2008, pp. 12–13). It is anticipated that Vinyard and O’Brien 1976, p. 3), and Battle Creek, but streamflow to Utah further urban infrastructure can result in a lack of access to Lake in these tributaries is not available development is likely, as the sufficient food for rearing juveniles. most years; therefore, they are not found populations of cities bordering Utah Thus, elevated turbidity levels may to comprise a significant portion of June Lake and its tributaries continue to decrease feeding efficiency of June sucker spawning habitat. increase. suckers by limiting their ability to Recovery actions for the June sucker Among the potential impacts from visually prey on preferred plankton food to address impacts from water continued urbanization near Utah Lake types. development and habitat modification is the potential for the construction of Utah Lake is listed on Utah’s 2016 have included water acquisition, water bridges or other transportation section 303(d) list for exceedance of flow management, and habitat crossings. One example is the Utah State criteria for total phosphorus and restoration (see Recovery, above). The Crossing project, a causeway across TDS concentrations (UDWQ 2018, p. 3– availability of quality spawning habitat Utah Lake proposed in 2009 (Service 7). The majority of the total phosphorus will improve species resiliency, and 2009, entire). An updated application load to Utah Lake is from point sources. multiple spawning tributaries will for the project to proceed has not been Although Utah Lake has naturally improve species redundancy. The filed with Utah’s Department of elevated salinity levels compared to positive trend in spawning population Transportation; however, as other intermountain freshwater lakes, numbers, increased number of June development continues on the western the concentrations are substantially suckers, and observations of young-of- side of Utah Lake, the potential need for higher today than they were before year and age-1 June suckers in the wild some type of crossing may increase. human development (Psomas 2007, p. indicate that water acquisition, water A large-scale project to dredge Utah 8). Within Utah Lake, natural salinity flow management, and habitat Lake, remove invasive species, and levels are due in part to high restoration have had a positive impact build habitable islands for private evaporation rates, which are a function on June sucker reproduction (JSRIP development was proposed in 2017, and of the lake’s large surface-area-to-depth 2018, p. 1; see Species Abundance and is under early stages of planning and ratio and drainage basin characteristics. Trends, above). review at the State level (ULRP 2018, Evaporation naturally removes about 50 entire). This project has not received percent of the total volume of water that Introduction of Common Carp any approval or necessary permits at the flows into the lake, resulting in a Historically, Utah Lake had a rich State or Federal level. We do not expect doubling of the mean salt concentration array of rooted aquatic vegetation, this Utah Lake Restoration Project or the in water passing through the lake which provided nursery and rearing Utah Crossing project to move forward (Fuhriman et al. 1981, p. 7). habitat for young June suckers or impact the June sucker in the next 5– In addition, several natural mineral (Heckmann et al. 1981, p. 2; Ellsworth 10 years. All development projects on springs near the shores of Utah Lake et al. 2010, p. 9). However, with the Utah Lake are subject to Federal and contribute dissolved salts, although the introduction of common carp around State laws, and require consultation magnitude and effect of these sources the 1880s (Sigler and Sigler 1996, pp. 5– with the Service prior to beginning has not been quantitatively evaluated 6), this refugial habitat largely work. However, such projects could (Hatton 1932, p. 2). Evaporative losses disappeared. Common carp physically potentially impact the June sucker by continue to be the main driver of uproot and consume macrophytes and increasing habitat for predatory fish and salinity concentrations in Utah Lake. disturb sediments, increasing turbidity restricting June sucker movement in However, settlement and development and decreasing light penetration, which Utah Lake (Service 2009, entire). of the Utah Lake basin since the 1800s inhibits macrophyte establishment Additional impacts to water quality due led to increases in irrigation return (Crowl and Miller 2004, pp. 11–12). to the runoff from new structures could flows containing dissolved salts, which Although not specifically identified at also pose a threat to the June sucker likely exacerbated natural salinity the time of listing in 1986, the (Service 2009, entire). The UDWQ is concentrations within Utah Lake successful establishment of common partnering with the Utah Lake (Sanchez 1904, p. 1). Despite the human carp and their effects on the Utah Lake Commission and other stakeholders to influences on inflows, in recent years, ecosystem are a threat to the June sucker research and provide recommendations salinity levels in Utah Lake have not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 201

increased markedly (Psomas 2007, p. noted that, during algal blooms, fish significant runoff from agricultural and 13). The UDWQ continues to monitor movement decreased measurably municipal properties occurs during low Utah Lake for any changes in salinity (Goldsmith et al. 2017, p. 13). flow periods. Furthermore, heavy algal concentrations. The average Utah Lake TDS growth can cause the armoring of The effects of increased salinity concentration is about 900 parts per spawning gravels and aid in the concentrations on the various life stages million (ppm)/milligrams per liter (mg/ accumulation of fine sediments that of June suckers are unknown. Egg size, L), but large variations occur, depending degrade spawning habitat quality hatching success, and mean total length on the water year (Hickman and Thurin (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 32). of larvae decreased as salinity levels 2007, p. 9). There is no evidence of The Provo River is listed on Utah’s increased for another lake sucker that direct mortality to June suckers due to 2016 section 303(d) list for impairments occurs in Nevada, the cui-ui higher salinity levels, but it is possible harmful to cold-water aquatic life. (Chasmistes cujus; Chatto 1979, p. 7). that increased salinity, when combined Additionally, water quality is poor in However, salinity concentrations were with increased nutrient input and the river’s lower reaches during summer much higher in the cui-ui habitat than turbidity, may negatively affect June low-flow periods due to low dissolved any recorded concentrations in Utah suckers by reducing zooplankton and oxygen levels and elevated temperatures Lake. refugial habitat abundance as described (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 34). It is likely that Natural nutrient loading to the lake is above. Further study of June sucker the recent supplementation of flows for high due to the nutrient- and sediment- responses during high salinity events is June sucker recovery in the Provo River rich watershed surrounding the lake needed to better understand this are minimizing the risk of lethal (Fuhriman et al. 1981, p. 12). relationship. temperatures and dissolved oxygen Additionally, human development in Water quality concerns in Utah Lake fluctuations by providing water during the drainage increased the naturally are being addressed through a large- critical periods and maintaining base high inflow of sediments and nutrients scale study and the formation of a flows throughout the summer while to the lake (Fuhriman et al. 1981, p. 12). steering committee and science panel to larvae are developing. The planned Sewage effluent entering the lake develop recommendations for Utah Lake PRDRP will provide additional water accounts for 50, 76, and 80 percent of water quality for the benefit of June storage and refugial habitat (see all nitrogen, total phosphorous, and sucker (UDWQ 2017, entire). Recovery, above). ortho-phosphate, respectively (Psomas Hobble Creek is not on the Utah Riverine Water Quality 2007, p. 12). Phosphorus inputs to the section 303(d) list as an impaired lake (297.6 tons (270.0 metric tons) per Prior to 1986, the year in which we waterbody. However, there are year) exceed exports (83.5 tons (75.7 listed the June sucker, riverine water indications that total phosphorus and metric tons) per year) during all months quality was heavily impacted by water temperature may be problematic in of the year. Thus, the lake acts as a withdrawal, agricultural and municipal Hobble Creek during certain times of the phosphorus sink, accumulating effluents, and habitat modification. The year (Stamp et al. 2009, pp. 22–23). approximately 214 tons (194.1 metric water withdrawals reduced the ability of Average total phosphorous tons) annually (Psomas 2007, p. 15). the rivers to effectively transport concentration is 0.06 ppm/mg/L, which These high nutrient loads increase the sediments and other materials from the exceeds the Utah indicator value of 0.05 frequency and extent of large blue-green river channel. Furthermore, ppm/mg/L (Stamp et al. 2009, p. 24). In algal blooms, which greatly affect withdrawals influenced temperature, addition, creek temperatures exceed overall food web dynamics in Utah Lake dissolved oxygen, and pollutant and 68 °F (20 °C), which is the State cold- (Crowl et al. 1998b, p. 13). Blue-green nutrient concentrations (Stamp et al. water fishery standard; this temperature algae is inedible to many zooplankton 2008, p. 18). Diverted streams with increase typically occurs during species, which decreases zooplankton reduced, shallow summertime base summer days when air temperatures are abundance and its availability as a food flows are very susceptible to solar high and flow in the channel is low source for the June sucker (Landom et heating and can experience lethally (Stamp et al. 2009, p. 26). Similar to the al. 2010, p. 19). Reductions in feeding warm water temperatures (above 80 Provo River, the augmentation of stream rates translate into long-term effects degrees Fahrenheit (°F) or 27 degrees flows in Hobble Creek has likely such as decreased condition, growth Celsius (°C), depending on life stage). minimized the risk of lethal rates, and fish survival (Sigler et al. High water temperature, especially if temperatures by providing flows during 1984, p. 7; Hayes et al. 1992, p. 9). combined with stagnant flow velocities, critical periods. Furthermore, the increased algal can lead to low dissolved oxygen levels biomass limits available light for in streams where flows have been Effects of Climate Change submergent vegetation (Scheffer 1998, p. reduced (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 19). The predicted increase in global 19), thus reducing refugial habitat for Artificially high temperatures may average temperatures is expected to early life stages of June sucker. The also occur in streams where flow regime negatively affect water quality in frequency and size of algal blooms may alterations and channelization have shallow lakes (Mooij et al. 2007, p. 2). be increasing based on large-scale algal limited the recruitment of woody Turbid shallow lakes such as Utah Lake blooms that occurred in 2016 and 2017 riparian vegetation, thereby reducing are likely to have higher summer (UDWQ 2017, p. 3). the amount of streamside shading chlorophyll-a concentrations with a Although there is a significant amount (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 19). Subsequently, stronger dominance of blue-green algae of research indicating that algal blooms extensive colonization by filamentous and reduced zooplankton abundance can be harmful to many types of fish, we algae can occur in warmer temperatures, from the effects of climate change do not have direct evidence regarding creating extreme daily dissolved oxygen (Mooij et al. 2007, p. 5). This could the degree or manner in which they fluctuations that are harmful to June affect June sucker food resources since impact June suckers in Utah Lake sucker (Service 1994, p. 12). zooplankton are the primary food source (Psomas 2007, p. 14; Crowl 2015, Agricultural and municipal effluents for the species. entire). No fish kills were documented enrich production of algae, further In Utah, an increase in the intensity during recent bloom events, but post- impacting daily dissolved oxygen levels. of naturally occurring future droughts stocking monitoring of June sucker has These effluents can cause fish kills if and unprecedented warming are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 202 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

expected (Frankson et al. 2017, p. 2). these threats has decreased since the (Morone chrysops), walleye (Sander Projected changes in winter time of listing; adaptive management of vitreus), largemouth bass (Micropterus precipitation include an increase in the these threats is ongoing, and increased salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis fractions falling as rain, rather than resiliency and redundancy are evident nigromaculatus), black bullhead snow, and potentially decreasing as indicated by increasing survival rates (Ameiurus melas), northern pike (Esox snowpack water storage (Frankson et al. and overall population numbers. lucius), and channel catfish (Ictalurus 2017, p. 2). These changes in timing and punctatus). Commercial Fishing amount of flow could affect June sucker Predation by nonnative fishes spawning, because the spawning cues of Commercial fishing, including fishing primarily targets the early life stages of increased runoff and water temperature, for June suckers, was historically an June suckers. Adult June suckers are on which the June sucker relies to important use of Utah Lake (Heckman et larger than the gape size of the average determine spawning time, would al. 1981, p. 9). Some commercial fishing predatory fish and, therefore, are potentially occur earlier in the year. for June suckers occurred through the significantly less vulnerable. At the time As changes to water availability and 1970s, but on a very limited basis. of listing, the effects of predation were timing occur in the future, the JSRIP Shortly thereafter, commercial harvest exacerbated by the lack of vegetated will need to coordinate reservoir for the species largely stopped due to refuge habitat within Utah Lake. operations to ensure timely releases. If the limited population size. Currently, White bass may have the highest runoff and upstream reservoir volumes the June sucker is a prohibited species potential to limit recruitment of young are insufficient, peak and base flows and cannot be harvested (Utah suckers into the spawning adult desired in spawning tributaries will be Administrative Code R657–14–8). population (SWCA 2002, p. 132; reduced. This, in turn, would negatively Consequently, commercial or Landom et al. 2010, p. 18). White bass impact the early season attractant flows recreational fishing is no longer become piscivorous at age-0 in Utah needed by spawning adults, and considered a threat to the species. Lake (Radant and Sakaguchi 1981, p. 12; potentially limit flows needed by larval Regulated collections of June suckers for Landom et al. 2010, pp. 11–12) and are suckers to move into downstream scientific purposes occur at a very the most abundant piscivore (UDWR rearing habitats. As previously limited level, but do not pose a threat 2010, p. 9). The white bass population described, the JSRIP partnership has to the species at the population level. in Utah Lake could consume as many as 3 550 million fish of various species acquired 13,000 acre-ft (16,035,240 m ) Disease of permanent water for the Provo River throughout the course of 1 year and 8,500 acre-ft (10,485,000 m3) for Neither disease nor the presence of (Landom et al. 2010, pp. 8–10). Hobble Creek. Flows in both systems are parasites were considered threats to the However, it appears that restored habitat intensively managed with consideration June sucker at the time of listing (51 FR with complex aquatic vegetation for the June sucker. Still, additional 10851; March 31, 1986). Although provides the June sucker with effective permanent water acquisitions may parasites likely exist in June sucker refuge from white bass. Thus, habitat become necessary to secure water that habitat, there is no evidence that June restoration is likely paramount to can be used to supplement flows during suckers at the individual or population young-of-year June sucker resiliency critical spawning and rearing periods as levels are compromised by the presence and survival (see Recovery, above). the climate shifts. of parasites. Fish health inspections are The recent illegal introduction of regularly conducted on June suckers at northern pike in Utah Lake raises Summary of Habitat-Based Threats the FES hatchery and in Red Butte concerns similar to white bass. Northern Water development and habitat Reservoir, and no known pathogens pike predominantly feed on juvenile modification, common carp, have been detected (JSRIP 2018c, fish; predation on adults is less than 1 urbanization, and water quality are entire). At this time, the best available percent (Reynolds and Gaeta 2017, p. threats to the June sucker. Additionally, information does not indicate that the 12). Thus far, the number of northern potential increased temperatures and presence of parasites or disease pike in the lake has not measurably decreased precipitation caused by negatively affects the June sucker. increased, and active removal efforts climate change may impact water continue to suppress populations quality. However, since the time of Predation by Nonnative Fishes (Reynolds and Gaeta 2017, p. 13). listing in 1986, the JSRIP partnership Predation by nonnative fishes poses a However, a northern pike population has implemented the following recovery threat to the successful recruitment of model shows potential for a high degree actions: (1) 13,000 acre-ft of permanent young suckers into the spawning adult of population increase with potential for water for instream flows are secured to life stage (Radant and Hickman 1984, p. a high negative impact on the June benefit the June sucker; (2) a mechanism 6) and was a major factor for listing the sucker population by the year 2040 for annually recommending and June sucker as endangered (51 FR (Gaeta et al. 2018, entire). Despite these providing flows for June sucker 10851; March 31, 1986). The modeling results, unique factors spawning was implemented; (3) the introduction of predatory nonnative impacting northern pike population common carp population was fishes significantly altered the native dynamics in Utah Lake are still not suppressed, resulting in measurable Utah Lake fish assemblage. Historically, understood. Recent habitat habitat improvement in Utah Lake; (4) Bonneville cutthroat trout improvements in the lake from common the impacts of urbanization are being (Oncorhynchus clarkii) was the top- carp removal (see Recovery, above) may considered through active research and level piscivore (fish-eating predator) in help mitigate northern pike predation planning; (5) a landscape-scale stream Utah Lake; however, 30 fish species by providing refugia for June suckers. channel and delta restoration for the have been introduced since the late Additionally, high levels of total Provo River is being implemented; and 1800s. Twelve nonnative fish species dissolved solids (TDS), such as those (6) future water quality and availability have established self-sustaining found in Utah Lake, may suppress are actively being studied and populations, and seven of these are northern pike spawning and prioritized by the JSRIP, UDWQ, and the piscivorous (SWCA 2002, p. 14). As a development (Scannell and Jacobs 2001, Utah Lake Commission (see Recovery, result, June suckers face an array of entire; Koel 2011, p. 7). The JSRIP is above). We find that the severity of predator species, including white bass funding research to clarify this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 203

relationship and to determine a course species or result in the destruction or impact the June sucker and works in of action to prevent northern pike from adverse modification of habitat of such concert with other regulatory becoming a greater threat to June sucker species that is determined by the mechanisms. in the future. Secretary, after soliciting comments Section 101(a) of the Federal Water While predation from nonnative from affected States, counties, and Pollution Control Act (i.e., Clean Water species remains a threat, spawning equivalent jurisdictions, to be critical. Act; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) states that populations of June suckers and the Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides the objective of this law is to restore and number of untagged fish (e.g., possibly a mechanism for research and maintain the chemical, physical, and natural recruitment) are increasing. propagation of listed species for biological integrity of the Nation’s Adaptive management of nonnative fish recovery purposes through a permitting is ongoing. system that allows incidental take of a waters and provide the means to assure In addition to nonnative predatory listed species in the course of scientific protection of fish and wildlife. This fishes, avian predation on June suckers projects that will benefit the species as statute contributes to the protection of has been documented and primarily a whole. For non-Federal actions, the June sucker through provisions for occurs when stocked June suckers are section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes water quality standards, protection from first released into the lake (Goldsmith et the Service to issue a permit allowing the discharge of harmful pollutants and al., p. 12). Predation is primarily from take of species provided that the taking contaminants (sections 303(c), 304(a), pelicans, and the amount varies based is incidental to, and not the purpose of, and 402), and protection from the on location of release, time of year, and the carrying out of an otherwise lawful discharge of dredged or fill material into time of day of the June sucker release activity. Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act all waters, including certain wetlands (Goldsmith et al., p. 12). When possible, requires that a conservation plan, which (section 404). staff releasing stocked fish into Utah is part of an application for an The Clean Water Act requires every Lake drive off waiting pelicans, and do incidental take permit, describe the State to establish and maintain water releases in the fall and at night, when impact of the taking and identify steps quality standards designed to protect, predation is lowest (UDWR 2017, p. 3). to minimize and mitigate the impacts. restore, and preserve water quality in The best available information does not The Act will continue to provide the State. However, Utah Lake has failed indicate that pelicans or other avian protection to the June sucker after to meet water quality standards due to predators are a threat to June suckers downlisting to threatened status, for as exceedance of total phosphorus and once the fish are established in Utah long as it remains on the List. The June TDS concentrations (Psomas 2007, p. Lake. sucker and its habitat will also continue 11), and it is listed as a section 303(d) Existing Regulatory Mechanisms to receive consideration and protection through the other regulatory ‘‘impaired’’ water (Utah Lake Under this factor, we examine the mechanisms discussed below. Commission 2018, p. 7). Poor water stressors identified within the other The NEPA requires Federal agencies quality in Utah Lake could alter food factors as ameliorated or exacerbated by to evaluate the potential effects of their availability for the June sucker and any existing regulatory mechanisms or proposed actions on the quality of the contribute to increases in harmful algal conservation efforts. Section 4(b)(1)(A) human environment and requires the bloom events and toxin concentrations of the Act requires that the Service take preparation of an EIS whenever projects from those events, which could increase into account those efforts, if any, being may result in significant impacts. the risk of large-scale June sucker made by any State or foreign nation, or Federal agencies must identify adverse mortality events. To meet Clean Water any political subdivision of a State or environmental impacts of their Act requirements, the UDWQ and the foreign nation, to protect endangered or proposed actions and develop Utah Lake Commission are studying threatened species. We consider alternatives that undergo the scrutiny of water quality in Utah Lake. They have relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, other public and private organizations a steering committee and science panel regulations, and other such binding as a part of their decision-making for the purposes of providing legal mechanisms that may ameliorate process. However, impacts may still recommendations to improve water or exacerbate any of the threats we occur under NEPA, and the quality standards in Utah Lake (Utah describe in threat analyses under the implementation of conservation Lake Commission 2018, entire). other four factors or otherwise enhance measures is largely voluntary. Actions June suckers receive some protections the species’ conservation. Our evaluated under NEPA only affect the at the State level. Under Utah consideration of these mechanisms is June sucker if they address potential Administrative Code R657–14–8, June described below. impacts to the species or its habitat. suckers may not be harvested, and if As a listed species, the primary The Fish and Wildlife Coordination caught must be immediately returned regulatory mechanism for protection of Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) requires that alive and unharmed to the water from the June sucker is through section 9(a) Federal agencies sponsoring, funding, or which they were taken. of the Act, as administered by the permitting activities related to water Service, which broadly prohibits resource development projects request When this rule is effective (see DATES, import, export, take (e.g., to harm, review of these actions by the Service above), the June sucker will continue to harass, kill, capture), and possession of and the State natural resources receive protection under the Act as a the species. Additional regulatory management agency. Similar to caveats threatened species. The June sucker will mechanisms are provided through noted for NEPA, actions considered also continue to receive protection section 7(a)(2) of the Act, which states under the Fish and Wildlife under the other aforementioned that each Federal agency shall, in Coordination Act are only relevant if regulatory mechanisms. Despite these consultation with and with the they potentially impact the species or its existing regulatory mechanisms, the assistance of the Secretary, insure that habitat. The Fish and Wildlife threats discussed under the other factors any action authorized, funded, or Coordination Act does not provide continue to affect the June sucker such carried out by the agency is not likely strong or broad protections for listed that it now meets the definition of a to jeopardize the continued existence of species, but it provides an additional threatened species rather than an any endangered species or threatened layer of review for projects likely to endangered species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 204 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Cumulative Threats Summary of Comments and (1) Comment: The reviewer suggested Recommendations that there may be additional information The June sucker faces threats that could contribute to the accuracy primarily from degraded habitat and In the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on November 26, 2019 and completeness of our description water quality, water availability, and analysis of the biology, habitat, predation from nonnative species, and (84 FR 65080), we requested that all interested parties submit written population trends, and historical and urbanization. Furthermore, existing comments on our proposal to downlist current distribution of the June sucker. regulatory mechanisms do not the June sucker by January 27, 2020. We The reviewer stated there is quantitative adequately address these threats. The also contacted appropriate Federal and information on population dynamics June sucker also faces a future threat of and trends that was not considered in State agencies, scientific experts and climate change, which may exacerbate the proposed rule. organizations, and other interested other existing threats. These factors may Our Response: The reviewer did not parties and invited them to comment on specify what information may be act cumulatively on the species. For the proposal. Newspaper notices example, urbanization can result in missing from the rule or provide inviting general public comment were information on population dynamics increased pressure on existing water published in the Salt Tribune (Salt Lake resources as well as degraded water and trends that we failed to consider. City) and Daily Herald (Provo). We did We were unable to find additional quality, which, when combined with not receive any requests for a public rising temperatures and decreased population or biological information hearing. All substantive information about the June sucker that we had not rainfall, can result in less available provided during the comment period is water, increased water temperatures, reviewed when the proposed rule was either incorporated directly into this published. Some additional information and decreased habitat quality. These final rule or is addressed below. factors can cause reduced availability of has become available since publication food for the June sucker, decreased Peer Reviewer Comments of the proposed rule, and it is included in the text of this rule where relevant. reproductive success, and increased In accordance with our joint policy on (2) Comment: The reviewer mortality. peer review published on July 1, 1994 commented that we referred the reader However, since the time of listing (51 (59 FR 34270) and our August 22, 2016, to the final listing rule and recovery FR 10851; March 31, 1986), all of the memorandum (USFWS 2016, entire) plan, respectively published in 1986 identified threats to the June sucker updating and clarifying the role of peer and 1999, but that these documents are have either improved measurably or are review of listing actions under the Act, relatively old, and substantial new being adaptively managed according to we solicited expert opinion from three information has accrued since their the best available scientific information knowledgeable individuals with appearance, which we reference later. for the benefit of the June sucker (see scientific expertise and familiarity with Our Response: The final listing rule Recovery, above). Conservation the June sucker, its habitat, its biological (51 FR 10851; March 31, 1986) and the measures, including establishing refuge needs and potential threats, or recovery plan (Service 1999) represent populations, stocking of June suckers in principles of conservation biology. The the only two Service-published Utah Lake, habitat restoration projects purpose of peer review is to ensure that documents with significant information on spawning tributaries, and nonnative our listing and reclassification on the biology and habitat of the June fish removal, have resulted in increased determinations are based on sucker, until the proposed rule was numbers of June suckers in the lake, scientifically sound data, assumptions, published in 2019 (84 FR 65080; evidence of wild reproduction, and and analyses. We received responses November 26, 2019). We referenced the improved habitat within the lake and its from two peer reviewers. older documents in the proposed rule tributaries. As a result, resiliency, We reviewed all comments we because the proposed rule itself also received from the peer reviewers for redundancy, and representation have all served as the 5-year review and our substantive issues and new information improved. Continued research and most recent update to those documents. regarding the proposed downlisting of monitoring provide an avenue to As the reviewer notes, many other and the June sucker. The peer reviewers respond to new and evolving threats, more recent references are available for provided additional information, such as the effects of climate change, to additional information and are cited in clarifications, and suggestions to recovery progress. The existence of the text of both the proposed and final improve the final rule, which we refuge populations ensures that, should rules. include in this rule or address in the (3) Comment: The reviewer stated that a stochastic event or extreme responses to comments below. One peer we did not adequately consider some of combination of existing threats greatly reviewer favored the downlisting of the the threats to June sucker in our impact the population in Utah Lake, the June sucker and provided only small, analysis, particularly predation by white June sucker would not become extinct. technical edits to the document. The bass on juvenile June suckers, avian This resilience to the cumulative other peer reviewer also provided predation, and the reliance on hatchery- threats is due largely to the actions of an technical edits and suggestions. This produced fish to maintain the active, committed, and well-funded reviewer also expressed concern that population, as natural reproduction and recovery partnership. The JSRIP is the there was not enough detail in the recruitment are not sufficient. The driving force behind the reduction in proposed rule to determine whether reviewer did not provide any additional threats, habitat improvement, and June sucker meets the definition of a information to support these comments. population augmentation, and the JSRIP threatened species, and stated that many Our Response: The November 26, is able to adaptively manage new of the known threats should be more 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 65080), as stressors as they arise. The improvement thoroughly mitigated before downlisting well as this final rule, recognize that the of conditions and success of the JSRIP should be considered. Substantive June sucker currently relies on stocking can be measured via the increased comments from this reviewer are to maintain the population in Utah number of spawning June suckers, the addressed below, and minor editorial Lake. We do not find this reliance to be positive population trend, and the high comments were resolved in the text of in conflict with a ‘‘threatened’’ status level of year-to-year survival. the rule itself. determination, as we have reasonable

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 205

certainty based on partner agreements legally assured flows for spawning, existing piece of literature on the that stocking will continue until the increased habitat, and a permanent species, but limited our citations to the Utah Lake population can be shown to continuous plan to remove carp and best scientific and commercial be self-sustaining. Continued and combat future novel predators that may information available regarding the planned recovery actions, such as be introduced. status of, and threats to, the June sucker. habitat restoration and removal of Our Response: The Recovery However, no piece of literature that we nonnative species, are likely to continue discussion in the proposed rule (84 FR found might have bearing on our to have a positive effect on 65080, November 26, 2019, pp. 84 FR analysis, either positively or negatively, reproduction, recruitment, and survival, 65084–65087), as well as in this final was excluded from our review, and the system is monitored intensely to rule (above), goes into detail regarding including the citations provided by the detect any rising threats or reversal of the existing downlisting criteria and commenter. recovery progress. As we discuss above how they have been met (if they have) in this final rule, the best available or why they are outdated or irrelevant. Public Comments information does not indicate that white The legal standard for downlisting is We received 19 letters from the public bass or avian predation constitute a whether the species meets the definition that provided comments on our threat to the June sucker in Utah Lake of a ‘‘threatened species’’ that is, it is November 26, 2019, proposed rule (84 under current conditions (which likely to become an endangered species FR 65080). Twelve of the commenters include ongoing recovery actions, like within the foreseeable future throughout expressed their explicit support for the stocking and nonnative fish removal). all or a significant portion of its range. proposed downlisting, and three Some predation does occur, and we Due to an exceptional track record and expressed their opposition to it. Four have added text regarding methods used proven recovery measures, we are commenters either did not explicitly to reduce pelican predation on June assured that the commitment of our state their position or expressed general suckers while they are being stocked, as partners and the JSRIP will continue, concerns that threats should be that is the time the largest number of recovery actions and responses to addressed if the June sucker is to be fish are vulnerable to avian predation. threats will be implemented, and the downlisted. Relevant and substantive If, in the future, these factors are shown existing agreements mean that June public comments that have not been to prevent the June sucker population in sucker is no longer currently in danger addressed through changes to the text Utah Lake from being self-sustaining, of extinction through all or a significant are addressed in the following they will need to be addressed before portion of its range. The reviewer’s summary. comments regarding downlisting criteria we can achieve full recovery. (1) Comment: One commenter (4) Comment: The reviewer stated that more closely represent the definition of objected to the proposed downlisting on we assume that capture of untagged fish full recovery and delisting than for the basis that too many threats to the or fish of ‘‘unknown origin’’ results in downlisting the species to threatened species (including climate change and population estimates and other status. carp) still exist to justify reduced demographic parameters that are (6) Comment: The reviewer protections, and stated that increased incorrect (low), but adds that a commented that we did not include all human development inevitably results population estimate does not depend on necessary and pertinent information to in death or extinction of animals in the tagged fish only and the estimate should support our arguments, and they area. include the total number of fish, tagged identified a number of references for and untagged. June sucker that we did not cite in our Our Response: We agree that a Our Response: The reviewer is proposed rule that were found through number of threats still impact the June correct. The number we present as the an internet search. The reviewer did not sucker and need to be continually known spawning population is not state that these particular references had managed for the species’ protection and meant to represent a population information that would impact our recovery. This rule analyzes adaptive estimate, but to provide the number of status evaluation; in fact, the reviewer measures for all known threats, recorded individual June sucker said that they had not read them. The including water management plans and spawners detected using PIT tags and reviewer only stated that they believed habitat restoration to mitigate the effects antennae. That number is the minimum the fact that they could find references of climate change; long-term number of spawning adults we can be we did not cite meant we had not been management plans for carp and other certain are surviving in the lake, and it thorough in our analysis. nonnative, invasive species; and does not account for fish that did not Our Response: The literature cited in protections that prevent future spawn in the years analyzed, fish the proposed rule (84 FR 65080; development from increasing the June without tags, or tagged fish that were November 26, 2019) constitutes the best sucker’s risk of becoming endangered not recorded by monitoring equipment. scientific and commercial information again. All exceptions from take Due to the lack of information regarding available regarding the downlisting of restrictions included in the 4(d) rule, as untagged fish or Utah Lake fish that are the June sucker. Additional literature, described below under Provisions of the not spawning, and the various ways the including all of the citations provided 4(d) Rule, are tied directly to the benefit data have been collected, we do not by the reviewer, were previously of June sucker recovery and the health attempt to extrapolate the number of evaluated as part of the rule of its native habitat. We are confident in recorded spawning June suckers into a development, and they remain on file as the JSRIP’s and our partners’ full population estimate. We have part of the record. A significant amount commitment to following through with removed all references to a population of literature on the June sucker and Utah existing plans and continuing to manage estimate in this document and clarified Lake exists, some of which is outdated the June sucker in accordance with the nature of the numbers provided. or redundant. Some was not necessary recovery objectives, as they have for the (5) Comment: The reviewer stated that to include, as it provides a level of last 18 years. Should threats to the June we have not shown adequately that detail on aspects of June sucker biology sucker increase to the point where there recovery criteria are met in order to that was superfluous to reaching a status is an increased risk of extinction, the allow for a downlisting, and cited the determination. For the sake of clarity Service can and will reevaluate its need for actions such as permanent, and brevity, we did not cite every status and protections accordingly.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 206 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Comment: One commenter and by our recovery partners at JSRIP increase in the wild spawning suggested removing all June suckers and meetings. population of at least ten-fold, a positive other desirable native fishes from Utah Additionally, in response to a peer- population trend, and increases in both Lake to a safe holding facility, review comment, in this final rule, we the quality and quantity of habitat. We exterminating the nonnative species, do not attempt to extrapolate the project that these conditions will and then reintroducing native species number of recorded spawning June continue to improve based on plans to back into the lake. suckers into a full population estimate; continue successful management Our Response: This comment does we have removed all references to a actions and implement new projects, not relate to the status of June sucker population estimate in this document such as the PRDRP and the Utah Water now, but to potential ways to continue and clarified the nature of the numbers Quality Study. Redundancy in June recovery in the future. However, due to provided. We also cite more recent sucker is assured by the existence of two the size of Utah Lake and unique information (published since the new populations, including the refuge hydrological factors, removal of all November 26, 2019, publication of the population maintained at FES hatchery nonnative fishes from the system, even proposed rule), where it is relevant, in and an additional naturally self- using strong piscicides, is not feasible. this final rule. sustaining population in Red Butte Mechanical removal is not able to Finally, we made nonsubstantive, Reservoir, as well as the presence of capture all nonnative fish at a rate that editorial changes, such as to explain a water flows in at least two spawning would prevent reestablishment, and cross-reference to other regulations, to tributaries each year (Provo River and suitable piscicides are not available in the text of the 4(d) rule to improve its Hobble Creek), with up to five spawning enough quantity to eradicate all clarity. tributaries available in good water years. nonnative fish from the lake, even if a Determination of June Sucker’s Status Prior to the June sucker’s listing, there practical and comprehensive were no refuge populations, and in low Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) water years, there might be no available application method could be found. and its implementing regulations (50 (3) Comment: One commenter spawning tributaries with water CFR part 424) set forth the procedures throughout the summer. Representation requested that we update the June for determining whether a species meets sucker recovery plan in order to specify for the June sucker exists in the form of the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ genetic diversity in the breeding and what needs to be done to reach full or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines recovery and delisting. stocking program, which has preserved an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species a high degree of genetic variation in the Our Response: An update of the June that is ‘‘in danger of extinction sucker recovery plan, including fish stocked in Utah Lake since listing. throughout all or a significant portion of Based on these elements, we find that quantitative delisting criteria, is its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as overall viability for the June sucker has underway, and a draft will be published a species that is ‘‘likely to become an improved since the time of listing. for public comment at a later date, after endangered species within the Factor B is not considered a threat to this rule goes into effect (see DATES, foreseeable future throughout all or a the June sucker due to the fact that above). significant portion of its range.’’ The Act harvest and collection of the species are (4) Comment: We received several requires that we determine whether a strictly regulated and very limited. June comments requesting that provisions be species meets the definition of suckers are affected by loss and added to the 4(d) rule regarding State ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened degradation of habitat (Factor A), management of recreational fisheries of species’’ because of any of the following predation (Factor C), and other effects of Utah Lake and for education and factors: (A) The present or threatened human activities, including climate outreach efforts for June sucker and destruction, modification, or change (Factor E). Existing regulatory Utah Lake. In addition to official public curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) mechanisms outside of the Act (Factor comments, both of these provisions overutilization for commercial, D) do not address all the identified were also informally requested by recreational, scientific, or educational threats to the June sucker, as indicated recovery partners at JSRIP meetings. purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) by the fact that these threats continue to Our Response: We have added the the inadequacy of existing regulatory affect the species throughout its range. requested provisions to the final 4(d) mechanisms; or (E) other natural or However, recovery actions have rule; both provisions will contribute to manmade factors affecting its continued significantly improved viability of the June sucker conservation. existence. June sucker and reduced the immediacy As required by the Act, we considered Summary of Changes From the of these threats. the five factors in assessing whether the Proposed Rule June sucker is an endangered or Status Throughout All of Its Range As explained above under Summary threatened species throughout all of its After evaluating threats to the species of Comments and Recommendations, range. We carefully examined the best and assessing the cumulative effects of we made several changes in this final scientific and commercial information the threats under the section 4(a)(1) rule in response to public comments we available regarding the past, present, factors, we find that the threats of loss received on our November 26, 2019, and future threats faced by the June and degradation of habitat (Factor A), proposed rule (84 FR 65080). The sucker. We reviewed the information predation (Factor C), and other effects of primary changes are to add exceptions available in our files and other available human activities including climate to the prohibitions on take in the 4(d) published and unpublished change (Factor E) are still acting on the rule for recreational fisheries information, and we consulted with June sucker. Existing regulatory management and for education and recognized experts and State agencies. mechanisms outside of the Act (Factor outreach. See ‘‘Recreational Fisheries We evaluated the changes in resiliency, D) do not address all the identified Management’’ and ‘‘Education and redundancy, and representation for the threats to the June sucker, as indicated Outreach,’’ under Provisions of the 4(d) June sucker since the time of listing (51 by the fact that these threats continue to Rule, below, for a description of these FR 10851; March 31, 1986). affect the species throughout its range, take exceptions. These changes address June sucker resiliency has improved although with less intensity than at the requests made both in public comments since the time of listing, with an time of listing (51 FR 10851; March 31,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 207

1986). However, given increases in still likely to become endangered within of the species’ range can provide a basis population numbers due to sustained the foreseeable future throughout all of for determining that the species is in recovery efforts by the JSRIP over the its range. danger of extinction in a significant last 18 years, we determine the June portion of its range, and we determine Status Throughout a Significant Portion sucker no longer meets the Act’s that the species is likely to become in of Its Range definition of an endangered species. We danger of extinction within the therefore proceed with determining Under the Act and our implementing foreseeable future throughout all of its whether the June sucker meets the Act’s regulations, a species may warrant range. This is consistent with the courts’ definition of a threatened species. listing if it is in danger of extinction or holdings in Desert Survivors v. Based solely on biological factors, we likely to become so in the foreseeable Department of the Interior, No. 16–cv– consider 25 years to be the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. future within which we can reasonably portion of its range. The court in Center Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for Biological determine that the future threats and the for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, June sucker’s response to those threats WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) 959 (D. Ariz. 2017). is likely. This time period includes (Center for Biological Diversity), vacated multiple generations of the species and the aspect of the Final Policy on Determination of Status allows adequate time for impacts from Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant Our review of the best available conservation efforts or changes in Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered scientific and commercial information threats to be indicated through Species Act’s Definitions of indicates that the June sucker does not population response. ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened meet the definition of an endangered The foreseeable future for the Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) species in accordance with sections 3(6) individual threats vary. Management that provided that the Services do not and 4(a)(1) of the Act, but does meet the and recovery progress of the population undertake an analysis of significant definition of a threatened species in and its threats are overseen by the portions of a species’ range if the accordance with sections 3(20) and JSRIP. The charter of this program states species warrants listing as threatened 4(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, we are that the purpose of the JSRIP is to throughout all of its range. Therefore, downlisting the June sucker in the List recover the June sucker to the point at we proceed to evaluating whether the of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife which it no longer requires protections species is endangered in a significant from endangered to threatened. under the Act, and to do so based on portion of its range—that is, whether It is our policy, as published in the recovery guidance provided by the there is any portion of the species’ range Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR Service using the best available for which both (1) the portion is 34272), to identify to the maximum scientific and biological information in significant; and, (2) the species is in extent practicable at the time a species an adaptive management approach. danger of extinction in that portion. is classified, those activities that would Because the JSRIP is committed to Depending on the case, it might be more or would not constitute a violation of achieving recovery and the partners efficient for us to address the section 9 of the Act. The intent of this have committed to continued funding, ‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ policy is to increase public awareness of threats to the June sucker will continue question first. We can choose to address the effect of a listing on proposed and to be adaptively managed by the JSRIP either question first. Regardless of ongoing activities within the range of until such time as we find it no longer which question we address first, if we the species being listed. Because we are requires protections under the Act. For reach a negative answer with respect to listing this species as a threatened at least as long as the species remains the first question that we address, we do species, the prohibitions in section 9 listed, the JSRIP will continue to not need to evaluate the other question would not apply directly. We are manage June sucker threats and for that portion of the species’ range. therefore putting into place below a set Following the court’s holding in population health and trends in an of regulations to provide for the Center for Biological Diversity, we now adaptive way, ensuring that the species conservation of the species in consider whether there are any is extremely unlikely to go extinct. The accordance with section 4(d), which significant portions of the species’ range Service will then rely on management also authorizes us to apply any of the where the species is in danger of actions that have been put in place by prohibitions in section 9 to a threatened extinction now (i.e., endangered). In the JSRIP, and other factors such as a species. The 4(d) rule, which includes a population viability analysis, habitat undertaking this analysis for the June description of the kinds of activities that improvements, and future long-term sucker, we choose to address the status would or would not constitute a agreements, when delisting is being question first—we consider information violation, complies with this policy. considered. This long-term management pertaining to the geographic distribution (e.g., permanent water acquisition, of both the species and the threats that Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of breeding program, stocking, and the species faces to identify any the Act nonnative fish removal) ensures portions of the range where the species Background continued stability in the absence of the is endangered. protections of the Act after the June The June sucker is a narrow endemic Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sucker reaches full recovery. that functions as a single, contiguous sentences. The first sentence states that Although population numbers have population and occurs within a small the ‘‘Secretary shall issue such increased and the intensity of the area that includes one lake and regulations as he deems necessary and identified threats have decreased, our associated tributaries. Thus, there is no advisable to provide for the analysis indicates that, because of the biologically meaningful way to break conservation’’ of species listed as remaining threats and stressors, the this limited range into portions, and the threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has species meets the Act’s definition of a threats that the species faces affect the noted that statutory language like threatened species. Thus, after assessing species throughout its entire range. This ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates the best available information, we means that no portions of the species’ a large degree of deference to the agency conclude that the June sucker is not range have a different status from its (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 currently in danger of extinction, but is rangewide status. Therefore, no portion (1988)). Conservation is defined in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 208 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Act to mean ‘‘the use of all methods and Affecting the Species, we conclude that purposes, to enhance propagation or procedures which are necessary to bring the June sucker is no longer at risk of survival, for economic hardship, for any endangered species or threatened extinction, but is still likely to become zoological exhibition, for educational species to the point at which the so in the foreseeable future, primarily purposes, for incidental taking, or for measures provided pursuant to [the Act] due to the identified threats of water special purposes consistent with the are no longer necessary.’’ Additionally, development, habitat degradation, and purposes of the Act. There are also the second sentence of section 4(d) of the introduction of nonnative species. certain statutory exemptions from the the Act states that the Secretary ‘‘may by The provisions of this 4(d) rule promote prohibitions, which are found in regulation prohibit with respect to any conservation of the June sucker by sections 9 and 10 of the Act. threatened species any act prohibited encouraging management of the Utah We recognize the special and unique under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish Lake system in ways that meet the relationship with our State natural or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case conservation needs of the June sucker resource agency partners in contributing of plants.’’ Thus, the combination of the while taking into consideration the to conservation of listed species. State two sentences of section 4(d) provides stakeholders’ needs. The provisions in agencies often possess scientific data the Secretary with wide latitude of this rule are some of many regulatory and valuable expertise on the status and discretion to select and promulgate tools that we will use to promote the distribution of endangered, threatened, appropriate regulations tailored to the conservation of the June sucker. and candidate species of wildlife and specific conservation needs of the plants. State agencies, because of their Provisions of the 4(d) Rule threatened species. The second sentence authorities and their close working grants particularly broad discretion to This 4(d) rule provides for the relationships with local governments us when adopting the prohibitions conservation of the June sucker by and landowners, are in a unique under section 9. prohibiting the following activities, with position to assist us in implementing all The courts have recognized the extent certain exceptions (discussed below): aspects of the Act. In this regard, section of the Secretary’s discretion under this Importing or exporting; possession and 6 of the Act provides that we shall standard to develop rules that are other acts with unlawfully taken cooperate to the maximum extent appropriate for the conservation of a specimens; delivering, receiving, practicable with the States in carrying species. For example, courts have transporting, or shipping in interstate or out programs authorized by the Act. upheld rules developed under section foreign commerce in the course of Therefore, any qualified employee or 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency commercial activity; and selling or agent of a State conservation agency that authority where they prohibited take of offering for sale in interstate or foreign is a party to a cooperative agreement threatened wildlife, or include a limited commerce. In addition, anyone taking, with us in accordance with section 6(c) taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley attempting to take, or otherwise of the Act, who is designated by his or Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. possessing a June sucker, or parts her agency for such purposes, will be Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); thereof, in violation of section 9 of the able to conduct activities designed to Washington Environmental Council v. Act will be subject to a penalty under conserve the June sucker that may result National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 section 11 of the Act, with certain in otherwise prohibited take without U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. exceptions (discussed below). Under additional authorization. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies As discussed above under Summary rules that do not address all of the must continue to ensure that any actions of Factors Affecting the Species, threats a species faces (see State of they authorize, fund, or carry out are not nonnative species, water development, Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th likely to jeopardize the continued and habitat degradation affect the status Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative existence of the June sucker. of the June sucker. A range of history when the Act was initially Under the Act, ‘‘take’’ means to conservation activities, therefore, have enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, the potential to benefit the June sucker, threatened list, the Secretary has an wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or including nonnative fish removal, almost infinite number of options to attempt to engage in any such habitat restoration projects, monitoring available to him with regard to the conduct. Some of these provisions have of June sucker, management of permitted activities for those species. He been further defined in regulations at 50 recreational fisheries, June sucker may, for example, permit taking, but not CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or research projects, educational and importation of such species, or he may otherwise, by direct and indirect outreach efforts, and maintenance of choose to forbid both taking and impacts, intentionally or incidentally. June sucker refuges and stocking importation but allow the transportation Allowing incidental and intentional programs. Accordingly, this 4(d) rule of such species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, take in certain cases, such as for the addresses activities to facilitate 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). purposes of scientific inquiry, conservation and management of the Exercising this authority under monitoring, or to improve habitat or June sucker where they currently occur section 4(d), we have developed a water availability and quality, would and may occur in the future by species-specific 4(d) rule that is help preserve a species’ remaining excepting them from the Act’s take designed to address the June sucker’s populations, slow their rate of decline, prohibition under certain specific specific threats and conservation needs. and decrease synergistic, negative conditions. These activities are intended Although the statute does not require us effects from other stressors. to increase management flexibility and to make a ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ We may issue permits to carry out encourage support for the conservation finding with respect to the adoption of otherwise prohibited activities, and habitat improvement of the June specific prohibitions under section 9, including those described above, sucker. Under this 4(d) rule, take will we find that this rule as a whole satisfies involving threatened wildlife under continue to be prohibited, except for the requirement in section 4(d) of the certain circumstances. Regulations actions allowed in this 4(d) rule, Act to issue regulations deemed governing permits are codified at 50 provided the actions are approved by necessary and advisable to provide for CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened the Service, in coordination with any the conservation of the June sucker. As wildlife, a permit may be issued for the existing designated recovery program discussed under Summary of Factors following purposes: For scientific (e.g., JSRIP), for the purpose of June

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 209

sucker conservation or recovery. Nonnative Fish Removal projects must be approved by the Approval must be in writing (by letter Incidental take is allowed where it Service in writing, in coordination with or email) from a Service biologist or results from activities intended to any existing designated recovery supervisor with authority over June reduce or eliminate nonnative fish, program, for that purpose. Examples of sucker decisions. Take is allowed under including, but not limited to, common planned or suggested projects where this 4(d) rule as follows, and is further carp, northern pike, and white bass, incidental take is allowed to occur described below: from Utah Lake or its tributaries. include the Provo River Delta • Incidental take resulting from Control of nonnative fish is vital for the Restoration Project and the removal of activities intended to reduce or continued recovery of June sucker. water diversion structures from the eliminate nonnative fish, including, but Provo River and Hobble Creek. Control of nonnative fish is primarily not limited to, common carp, northern conducted with mechanical removal via pike, and white bass, from Utah Lake or June Sucker Monitoring commercial seine netting and, to a its tributaries. This 4(d) rule allows incidental take • Incidental take resulting from limited extent, through angling (for associated with any method used to habitat restoration projects or projects northern pike). Other methods, detect June suckers in the wild for the that allow for the increase of instream including the use of genetically purposes of better understanding flows in Utah Lake tributaries, such as modified nonnative fish and population numbers, trends, or response diversion removals. electrofishing to reduce existing to stressors that is not intended to be • Incidental take resulting from populations, may be implemented in the destructive, but that may monitoring of June sucker in Utah Lake future. unintentionally cause harm or death. and its tributaries. This 4(d) rule defines nonnative fish Monitoring of June suckers is vital to • Incidental take resulting from removal as any action with the primary understanding the population monitoring and management of or secondary purpose (such as the dynamics, health, and trends; for recreational sportfish populations in introduction of genetically engineered measuring the success of the stocking Utah Lake and its tributaries. nonnative fish as part of an elimination program; for evaluating impacts from • Incidental and direct take resulting strategy) of removing nonnative fish threats; and for evaluating recovery from research projects to study factors from Utah Lake and its tributaries that actions that address threats to the affecting June sucker or its habitat for compete with, predate upon, or degrade species. With the use of PIT tag the purposes of providing management the habitat of the June sucker. These technology, monitoring is becoming less recommendations or improved removal methods must be approved by disruptive to the June sucker. However, condition of June sucker. the Service in writing (by letter or many monitoring methods, including • Incidental and direct take resulting email), in coordination with an existing the initial PIT tagging of individuals, from educational or outreach efforts to designated recovery program (e.g., may accidentally harm fish or result in increase public awareness, engagement, JSRIP) for that purpose. Such methods death. In addition to PIT tag readers, and support for June sucker recovery may include, but are not limited to, methods that may be used to detect June efforts. mechanical removal, chemical suckers in the wild include trammel • Incidental and direct take resulting treatments such as piscicides, or netting, spotlighting, minnow trapping, from maintaining June sucker refuges biological controls. All methods used trap netting, gill-netting, electrofishing, and stocking population, and from must be in compliance with State and and seining. Any monitoring activities moving June sucker for the purposes of Federal regulations. Whenever possible, not conducted by the State or under the stocking them in Utah Lake. June suckers that are caught alive as part State’s section 6 permit must be These forms of allowable take are of nonnative fish removal should be approved by the Service in writing and explained in more detail below. For all returned to their source as quickly as be conducted in coordination with any forms of allowable take, reasonable care possible. existing designated recovery program. must be practiced to minimize the impacts from the actions. Reasonable Habitat Restoration and Improvement of Recreational Fisheries Management care means limiting the impacts to June Instream Flows Recreational fisheries monitoring sucker individuals and populations by Incidental take resulting from habitat actions conducted by the State are complying with all applicable Federal, restoration projects or projects that allowed to cause incidental take of June State, and Tribal regulations for the increase instream flows in Utah Lake suckers through this 4(d) rule, provided activity in question; using methods and tributaries is allowed under this 4(d) that, whenever possible, June suckers techniques that result in the least harm, rule. Habitat restoration projects are that are caught alive as part of injury, or death, as feasible; undertaking needed to provide additional spawning recreational fisheries are returned to activities at the least impactful times and rearing habitat and refugia for June their source as quickly as possible. (e.g., conducting activities that might sucker. Improvements in the ability to These activities do not include fishing impact spawning habitat in a tributary obtain and deliver water to any of the or other recreational activities only after spawning is concluded for the known spawning tributaries will allow conducted by private individuals but year) and locations, as feasible; for improved spawning conditions, only those conducted by the State to procuring and implementing technical entrainment of June sucker larvae for manage fisheries in Utah Lake. Covered assistance from a qualified biologist on development, and periodic high flows activities are those that do not occur in projects regarding all methods prior to providing scouring of spawning June sucker spawning habitat during the the implementation of those methods; habitats. This 4(d) rule defines habitat season of use or rearing habitat at any ensuring the number of individuals restoration or water delivery time of year, and are designed to count removed or sampled minimally impacts improvement projects as any action or capture recreational sport fish only. the existing wild population; ensuring with the primary or secondary purpose According to the interagency ‘‘Policy for no disease or parasites are introduced of improving habitat conditions in Utah Conserving Species Listed or Proposed into the existing June sucker population; Lake and its tributaries or improving for Listing Under the Endangered and preserving the genetic diversity of water delivery and available instream Species Act While Providing and wild populations. flows in spawning tributaries. These Enhancing Recreational Fisheries

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 210 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Opportunities’’ published in the Federal allowed to cause take as any activity The process of breeding, rearing, Register on June 3, 1996 (61 FR 27978), undertaken for the purposes of growing, maintaining, and stocking June the Service will support management increasing public awareness of June suckers may result in take at all life practices that are consistent with sucker biology, ecology, or recovery stages, but the benefits to the species far recovery objectives and compatible with needs and their positive effects on Utah outweigh any losses. At the present existing recreational fisheries. Lake and its tributaries (e.g., a June time, one facility (FES hatchery) breeds Management of recreational fishing sucker rearing-and-release program for the June sucker for stocking in Utah opportunities undertaken by the State, high school students or a live June Lake; this facility also functions as the or its designated agent, on Utah Lake sucker display at an outreach event). designated refuge population for June and its tributaries require regular These activities must be approved by sucker. In addition to the hatchery, FES monitoring of sport fish populations. the Service in writing (by letter or uses offsite ponds as a grow-out facility Methods that may be used to monitor email), in coordination with any to allow fish to reach a larger size before sport fish populations include trammel existing designated recovery program they are stocked in Utah Lake because netting, spotlighting, trawling, minnow (e.g., JSRIP), as activities likely to this significantly increases survival trapping, trap netting, gill-netting, benefit June sucker conservation upon release (Burgad et al. 2016, p. 8). electrofishing, and seining. Use of these through increased public awareness and Another population of June suckers methods may inadvertently result in the engagement, which support June sucker exists in Red Butte Reservoir and is capture, and incidental take, of recovery. maintained, but not actively managed as individual June Sucker. Any activities Education and outreach are a vital a refuge, for stocking purposes. Red associated with recreational fisheries part of June sucker recovery progress. Butte Reservoir is a useful source management that are likely to Public awareness of June sucker biology population and may be used for significantly or repeatedly impact June and ecology helps foster support for the stocking more intensively in the future, suckers, such as those in spawning recovery program’s activities in and since fish from Red Butte Reservoir habitat during the season of use, those around Utah Lake. Increasing the consistently have the highest post- in the rearing habitat any time of year, prevailing understanding of how stocking success rates. or those that use methods not targeted recovery activities for June suckers Nothing in this 4(d) rule changes in to count or capture recreational sport improve the health, function, beauty, any way the recovery planning fish only, must be approved by the and quality of Utah Lake for sport provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the Service in writing (by letter or email) fishers, recreationists, and the consultation requirements under section and conducted in coordination with any surrounding community will strengthen 7 of the Act, or our ability to enter into existing recovery program in order to support for continued conservation of partnerships for the management and minimize effects on the population. the fish. It will also serve to counteract protection of the June sucker. However, common and incorrect narratives that Research interagency cooperation may be further the protection of the June sucker is streamlined through planned This 4(d) rule defines June sucker responsible for preventing positive programmatic consultations for the research allowed to cause take as any activities and development in and species between us and other Federal activity undertaken for the purposes of around Utah Lake. This is particularly agencies, where appropriate. increasing our understanding of June important during the upcoming PRDRP sucker biology, ecology, or recovery construction, in order to tie the recovery Required Determinations needs under the auspices of UDWR, a of the fish to meaningful improvements National Environmental Policy Act (42 recognized academic institution, or a in ecological conditions and amenities U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) qualified scientific contractor and for the public at Utah Lake. approved by the Service in writing, in We have determined that coordination with any existing Refuges and Stocking environmental assessments and EISs, as designated recovery program, as a This 4(d) rule defines June sucker defined under the authority of the necessary and productive study for June stocking and refuge maintenance as any National Environmental Policy Act sucker recovery. Additional research is activity undertaken for the long-term (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not needed on June sucker biology, ecology, maintenance of the June sucker at be prepared in connection with habitat needs, predators, and response facilities outside of Utah Lake and its determining a species’ listing status to threats in order to improve the tributaries or for the production of June under the Endangered Species Act. In species’ status and provide suckers for stocking in Utah Lake. Take an October 25, 1983, notice in the recommendations for population could occur from necessary facility Federal Register (48 FR 49244), we management, habitat improvement, and maintenance or water management, outlined our reasons for this threat reduction. Research may involve including at Red Butte Reservoir and its determination, which included a capture of June suckers using methods downstream drainages. Any breeding, compelling recommendation from the described above, or a variety of other stocking, or refuge program must be Council on Environmental Quality that activities to study water quality, approved by the Service in writing, in we cease preparing environmental nonnative fishes, lake and riverine coordination with any existing assessments or environmental impact ecosystems, tributary flows, habitat, or designated recovery program. Any June statements for listing decisions. sucker breeding program shall be in other factors affecting June suckers that Government-to-Government compliance with all applicable may impact individual fish Relationship With Tribes inadvertently. In some cases, lethal regulations and best hatchery and sampling of June suckers for research fishery management practices as In accordance with the President’s purposes may be necessary and described in the American Fisheries memorandum of April 29, 1994, appropriate. Society’s Fish Hatchery Management (Government-to-Government Relations (Wedemeyer 2002). with Native American Tribal Education and Outreach Maintaining refuge populations and Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive This 4(d) rule defines June sucker stocking the June sucker in Utah Lake is Order 13175 (Consultation and educational and outreach actions an integral part of June sucker recovery. Coordination with Indian Tribal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 211

Governments), and the Department of References Cited Regulation Promulgation the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we A complete list of all references cited Accordingly, we hereby amend part readily acknowledge our responsibility 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of to communicate meaningfully with in this final rule is available at http:// www.regulations.gov at Docket No. the Code of Federal Regulations, as recognized Federal Tribes on a follows: government-to-government basis. In FWS–R6–ES–2019–0026, or upon accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 request from the Utah Ecological PART 17—ENDANGERED AND of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust INFORMATION CONTACT). ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 Responsibilities, and the Endangered Authors Species Act), we readily acknowledge continues to read as follows: our responsibilities to work directly The primary authors of this final rule Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– with Tribes in developing programs for are staff members of the Service’s 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Regions 5 and 7 and the Utah Ecological noted. tribal lands are not subject to the same Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the controls as Federal public lands, to and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). entry for ‘‘Sucker, June (Chasmistes liorus)’’ under ‘‘FISHES’’ in the List of remain sensitive to Indian culture, and List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 to make information available to Tribes. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to We have determined that no Tribes will Endangered and threatened species, read as follows: be affected by this rule because there are Exports, Imports, Reporting and § 17.11 Endangered and threatened no Tribal lands or interests within or recordkeeping requirements, wildlife. adjacent to June sucker habitat. Transportation. * * * * * (h) * * *

Listing citations and applicable Common name Scientific name Where listed Status rules

******* FISHES

******* Sucker, June ...... Chasmistes liorus ...... Wherever found ...... T 51 FR 10851, 3/31/1986; 85 FR [insert Federal Register page where the document begins], 1/4/2021; 50 CFR 17.44(cc) 4d; 50 CFR 17.95(e).CH

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.44 by adding paragraph forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered a private consulting firm that has been (cc) to read as follows: wildlife. approved by the Service in writing (by (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth letter or email), the designated recovery § 17.44 Special rules—fishes. at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife. program (e.g., June Sucker Recovery * * * * * (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In Implementation Program), or the Utah (cc) June sucker (Chasmistes liorus). regard to this species, you may: Division of Wildlife Resources. (1) Prohibitions. The following (i) Conduct activities as authorized by (2) Reasonable care means limiting prohibitions that apply to endangered an existing permit under § 17.32. the impacts to June sucker individuals wildlife also apply to the June sucker. (ii) Conduct activities as authorized Except as provided under paragraph by a permit issued prior to February 3, and populations by complying with all (cc)(2) of this section and §§ 17.4 and 2021 under § 17.22 for the duration of applicable Federal, State, and Tribal 17.5, it is unlawful for any person the permit. regulations for the activity in question; subject to the jurisdiction of the United (iii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) using methods and techniques that States to commit, to attempt to commit, through (c)(4) for endangered wildlife. result in the least harm, injury, or death, to solicit another to commit, or cause to (iv) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b). as feasible; undertaking activities at the (v) Take June suckers while carrying be committed, any of the following acts least impactful times and locations, as out the following legally conducted in regard to this species: feasible; procuring and implementing activities in accordance with this (i) Import or export, as set forth at technical assistance from a qualified paragraph (cc)(2)(iv): biologist on projects regarding all § 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. (A) Definitions. For the purposes of methods prior to the implementation of (ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) this paragraph (cc)(2)(iv): for endangered wildlife. (1) Qualified biologist means a full- those methods; ensuring the number of (iii) Possession and other acts with time fish biologist or aquatic resources individuals removed or sampled unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth manager employed by Utah Division of minimally impacts the existing wild at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife. Wildlife Resources, a Department of the population; ensuring no disease or (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in Interior agency, or fish biologist or parasites are introduced into the the course of commercial activity, as set aquatic resource manager employed by existing June sucker population; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2 212 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

preserving the genetic diversity of wild of improving habitat conditions in Utah direct take resulting from such approved populations. Lake and its tributaries or improving research to benefit the June sucker is (B) Allowable forms of take of June water delivery and available in-stream allowed. suckers. Take of June suckers as a result flows in spawning tributaries is (6) Education and outreach. Take of of the following legally conducted allowed. June suckers as a result of any activity activities is allowed, provided that the (3) Monitoring. Take of June suckers undertaken under the auspices of the activity is approved by the Service in as a result of any method that is used designated recovery program for the writing (by letter or email), in to detect June suckers in the wild to purposes of increasing public awareness coordination with any existing better understand population numbers, of June sucker biology, ecology, or designated recovery program, for the trends, or response to stressors, and that recovery needs and June sucker purpose of the conservation or recovery is not intended to be destructive but that recovery benefits for Utah Lake, its of the June sucker, and that reasonable may unintentionally cause harm or tributaries, and the surrounding care is practiced to minimize the impact death, is allowed. communities is allowed. Incidental and of such activities. (4) Recreational fisheries (1) Nonnative fish removal. Take of management. Take of June suckers as a direct take resulting from such June suckers as a result of any action result of any activity by the State, or its educational or outreach efforts to benefit with the primary or secondary purpose designated agent, that is necessary to the June sucker is allowed. of removing from Utah Lake and its manage or monitor recreational fisheries (7) Refuges and stocking. Take of June tributaries nonnative fish that compete in Utah Lake and its tributaries is suckers as a result of activities with, predate upon, or degrade the allowed, provided the management undertaken for the long-term habitat of the June sucker is allowed. practices do not contradict June sucker maintenance of June suckers at Service- Allowable methods of removal may recovery objectives and that the approved facilities outside of Utah Lake include, but are not limited to, activities are not intended to cause harm and its tributaries or for the production mechanical removal, chemical or death to June suckers. of June suckers for stocking in Utah treatments, or biological controls. (5) Research. Take of June suckers as Lake is allowed. Whenever possible, June suckers that a result of any activity undertaken for (vi) Possess and engage in other acts are caught alive as part of nonnative fish the purposes of increasing scientific with unlawfully taken endangered removal should be returned to their understanding of June sucker biology, wildlife, as set forth at § 17.21(d)(2). source as quickly as possible. ecology, or recovery needs under the (2) Habitat restoration and auspices of the designated recovery Aurelia Skipwith improvement of instream flows. Take of program, a recognized academic Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. June suckers as a result of any action institution, or a qualified scientific [FR Doc. 2020–27833 Filed 12–31–20; 8:45 am] with the primary or secondary purpose contractor is allowed. Incidental and BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Dec 31, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04JAR2.SGM 04JAR2