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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0026; 

FXES11130900000–201–FF09E22000] 

RIN 1018–BD48 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassification of the 

Endangered June Sucker to 

Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

reclassifying the June sucker 

(Chasmistes liorus) from endangered to 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), 

due to substantial improvements in the 

species’ overall status since its original 

listing as endangered in 1986. This 

action is based on a thorough review of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available, which indicates that the June 

sucker no longer meets the definition of 

an endangered species under the Act. 

The June sucker will remain protected 

as a threatened species under the Act. 

We are also finalizing a rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act that provides for 

the conservation of the June sucker. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 3, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule, supporting 

documents we used in preparing this 

rule, and public comments we received 

are available on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2019–0026. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yvette Converse, Field Supervisor, 

telephone: 801–975–3330. Direct all 

questions or requests for additional 

information to: JUNE SUCKER 

QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Utah Ecological Services Field 

Office, 2369 Orton Circle, Suite 50, West 

Valley City, UT 84119. Persons who use 

a TDD may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, if a species is determined to no 

longer be an endangered or threatened 

species, we may reclassify the species or 

remove it from the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants due to recovery. A species is 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ for purposes of 

the Act if it is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range and is a ‘‘threatened species’’ 

if it is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act does not define the 

term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ However, we 

consider ‘‘foreseeable future’’ as that 

period of time within which a 

reasonable prediction can be relied 

upon in making a determination about 

the future conservation status of a 

species. We are reclassifying June 

sucker from endangered to threatened 

(i.e., ‘‘downlisting’’) because we have 

determined that the species is no longer 

in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. 

Downlisting a species can only be 

completed by issuing a rule. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we can determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

based on any one or more of the 

following five factors or the cumulative 

effects thereof: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Based on an assessment of the 

best available information regarding the 

status of and threats to June sucker, we 

have determined that the species no 

longer meets the definition of 

endangered under the Act, but does 

meet the definition of threatened. The 

4(d) rule provides exceptions to take 

prohibitions for activities that will 

further recovery of the species. 

This final rule recognizes that based 

on the best available science, June 

sucker no longer meets the definition of 

an endangered species, but will remain 

protected as a threatened species under 

the Act. This progress towards recovery 

is a result of conservation efforts 

implemented by stakeholders. 

Collaborative conservation efforts have 

reduced the intensity of threats to the 

species and improved its population 

numbers. The 4(d) rule will 

accommodate recovery activities such as 

non-native control efforts, habitat 

restoration, monitoring, research, 

stocking, and refuge maintenance. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On March 31, 1986, we published in 

the Federal Register (51 FR 10851) the 

final rule listing June sucker as an 

endangered species and designating 

critical habitat comprising the lower 4.9 

miles (mi) (7.8 kilometers (km)) of the 

Provo River in Utah County, Utah. 

On November 13, 2001, we published 

in the Federal Register (66 FR 56840) a 

notice formally declaring our intention 

to participate in the multi-agency June 

Sucker Recovery Implementation 

Program (JSRIP) in partnership with the 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), 

Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 

Conservation Commission (URMCC), 

the Department of the Interior (DOI), 

State of Utah Department of Natural 

Resources (UDNR), the Central Utah 

Water Conservancy District (CUWCD), 

Provo River Water Users Association, 

Provo Reservoir Water Users Company, 

and outdoor interest groups. The JSRIP 

was designed to implement recovery 

actions for the June sucker and facilitate 

resolution of conflicts associated with 

June sucker recovery in the Utah Lake 

and Provo River basins in Utah. We 

have participated in the JSRIP since this 

time and remain an active program 

member. 

On November 26, 2019, we published 

in the Federal Register (84 FR 65080) a 

proposed rule to reclassify June sucker 

from ‘‘endangered’’ to ‘‘threatened’’ (i.e., 

to ‘‘downlist’’ the species) on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(List). Please refer to that proposed rule 

for a detailed description of the Federal 

actions concerning this species that 

occurred prior to November 26, 2019. 

Species Information 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly related to downlisting 

June sucker in this rule. The citations 

represent only the sources required to 

support this action or to provide context 

for it, and are not the sum total of all 

literature pertaining to the species. For 

more information on the description, 

biology, ecology, and habitat of the 

species, please refer to the final listing 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on March 31, 1986 (51 FR 10851), and 

the species’ recovery plan (Service 

1999), as well as the materials cited in 

this rule. These documents will be 

available as supporting materials on 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0026. 

In our analysis, we identify the 

species’ ecological requirements for 

survival and reproduction using the 

concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (the 3Rs). Resiliency is 

the ability of a species to withstand 

environmental and demographic 

stochastic events (the natural range of 

favorable and unfavorable conditions). It 

is associated with population size, 

growth rate, and habitat quality. 

Redundancy is the ability of a species to 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 193 

withstand catastrophic events for which 

adaptation is unlikely. It is associated 

with the number, distribution, and 

resilience of individual populations 

throughout the current range of the 

species. Representation is the ability of 

a species to adapt to novel changes in 

its environment, as measured by its 

ecological and genetic diversity and its 

ability to disperse and colonize new 

areas. 

Taxonomy and Description 

The June sucker, a unique lake sucker 

named for the month in which it 

spawns, was first collected and 

described by David S. Jordan in 1878, in 

Utah Lake, Utah County, Utah (Jordan 

1878, entire). However, taxonomic 

questions regarding hybridization of the 

June sucker and co-occurring Utah 

sucker (Catostomus ardens) ultimately 

resulted in reclassification of the species 

as described below. 

The two species likely evolved 

together in Utah Lake. During the 1930s, 

a severe drought stressed the sucker 

populations in Utah Lake, increasing the 

incidence of June and Utah sucker 

hybridization (Miller and Smith 1981, p. 

7). After this hybridization event, as 

sucker populations increased in 

abundance, the new genes that occurred 

in both the June sucker and Utah sucker 

populations resulted in hybrid 

characteristics within both populations 

(Evans 1997, p. 8). It is likely that the 

two species may have hybridized at 

multiple points in the past, in response 

to environmental bottlenecks (Evans 

1997, pp. 9–12). As a result of the 

hybridization event in the 1930s, two 

subspecies of June sucker were 

originally identified—Chasmistes liorus 

liorus for sucker specimens collected in 

Utah Lake in the late 1800s, and 

Chasmistes liorus mictus for specimens 

collected after 1939, following the 

drought years (Miller and Smith 1981, 

p. 11). This classification was never 

corroborated, and because the June 

sucker maintained its distinctiveness 

from other lake suckers despite 

hybridization, we determined that it 

should be listed as a distinct species 

under the name Chasmistes liorus (51 

FR 10851; March 31, 1986). 

The June sucker has a large, robust 

body; a wide, rounded head; and a 

hump on the snout (Scoppettone and 

Vinyard 1991, p. 1). Adults are 17–24 

inches (in) (43.2–61.0 centimeters (cm)) 

in length (Scoppettone and Vinyard 

1991, p. 1; Belk 1998, p. 2). Lake suckers 

are mid-water planktivores (plankton 

feeders). The June sucker is a long-lived 

species, living to 40 years or more 

(Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991, p. 3; 

Belk 1998, p. 6). In the wild, June 

suckers reach reproductive maturity at 

5–10 years of age. They exhibit rapid 

growth for the first 3–5 years, with 

intermediate growth rates between ages 

8–10, and a further reduced growth rate 

after age 10. Growth between sexes does 

not differ within the first 10 years 

(Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991, p. 9). 

Distribution and Habitat 

The June sucker is native and 

endemic to Utah Lake and its 

tributaries, which are the primary 

spawning habitat for the species. The 

June sucker is not found outside of its 

native range except in two populations 

established for conservation purposes. A 

refuge population was created as part of 

the JSRIP stocking program to enhance 

and secure the species’ population in 

Utah Lake at the Fisheries Experiment 

Station (FES) hatchery in Logan, Utah 

(Service 2015, entire). An additional 

population was established in Red Butte 

Reservoir, Salt Lake County, Utah, in 

2004 and is now self-sustaining (Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) 

2010, pp. 4–5). These additional 

populations have aided in retaining 

ecologic and genetic diversity in June 

sucker, which in turn aids the species 

in adapting to changing environmental 

conditions (i.e., increases 

representation) (JSRIP 2018, pp. 2–3). 

Utah Lake is a remnant of ancient 

Lake Bonneville, and is one of the 

largest natural freshwater lakes in the 

western United States. It covers an area 

of approximately 150 square miles (mi2) 

(400 square kilometers (km2)) and is 

relatively shallow, averaging 9 feet (ft) 

(2.7 meters (m)) in depth (Brimhall and 

Merritt 1981, pp. 2–3). The lake lies 

west of Provo, Utah, and is the terminus 

for several rivers and creeks, including 

the Provo, Spanish Fork, and American 

Fork Rivers, and Hobble and Battle 

Creeks. The outflow of Utah Lake is the 

Jordan River, which flows north into the 

Great Salt Lake, a terminal basin. 

Utah Lake is located in a sedimentary 

drainage basin dominated by erosive 

soils with high salt concentrations. Utah 

Lake had a sediment filling rate of about 

0.03 in (1 millimeter (mm)) per year 

over the past 10,000 years; this rate 

more than doubled with the 

urbanization of Utah Valley (Brimhall 

and Merritt 1981, pp. 3–5). Faults under 

the lake appear to be lowering the lake 

bed at about the same rate as sediment 

is filling it (Brimhall and Merritt 1981, 

pp. 10–11). Inputs of nutrient-rich 

sediments combined with the lake’s 

high evaporation rate cause high levels 

of sediment loading, high soluble salt 

concentrations, and high nutrient levels 

as a baseline condition (Brimhall and 

Merritt 1981, p. 11). 

Shallow lakes, such as Utah Lake, are 

typically characterized as having one of 

two ecological states: A clear water state 

or a turbid water state (Scheffer 1998, p. 

10). The clear water state is often 

dominated by rooted aquatic 

macrophytes (aquatic plants) that can 

greatly reduce turbidity by securing 

bottom sediments (Carpenter and Lodge 

1986, p. 4; Madsen et al. 2001, p. 6) and 

preventing excessive phytoplankton 

(algae) production through a suite of 

mechanisms (Timms and Moss 1984, 

pp. 3–5). Alternatively, a shallow lake 

in a turbid water state contains little or 

no aquatic vegetation to secure bottom 

sediments (Madsen et al. 2001, p. 9). As 

a result, fish movement and wave action 

can easily suspend lake-bottom 

sediments (Madsen et al. 2001, p. 9). In 

addition, fish can promote algal 

production by recycling nutrients (both 

through feeding activity and excretion). 

Fish can also suppress zooplankton 

densities through predation, and the 

zooplankton would otherwise suppress 

algal abundance (Timms and Moss 

1984, p. 11; Brett and Goldman 1996, p. 

3). 

Historically, Utah Lake existed in a 

clear water state dominated by rooted 

aquatic vegetation, as shown in 

sediment cores extracted from Utah 

Lake (Macharia and Power 2011, p. 3). 

Sediment cores reveal a shift in the state 

of the lake shortly after European 

settlement of Utah Valley to an algaedominated, turbid condition, lacking 

macrophytic vegetation that serves as 

refugial habitat for June sucker (Brimhill 

and Merritt 1981, p. 16; Scheffer 1998, 

p. 6; Hickman and Thurin 2007, p. 8; 

Macharia and Power 2011, p. 5). This 

shift is believed to be a result of 

excessive nutrient input, managementinduced fluctuations in lake levels, and 

the introduction of common carp 

(Cyprinus carpio). The result of 

compounded natural and human-caused 

effects is a present-day lake ecosystem 

that is dominated by algae, rather than 

the clear water state in which June 

sucker evolved. 

The extent of ideal riverine habitat 

available for spawning adults and 

developing larval June sucker was more 

abundant historically than it is 

currently. Prior to settlement of Utah 

Valley, spawning tributaries, such as the 

Provo, Spanish Fork, and American 

Fork Rivers, and Hobble Creek, 

contained large deltas with braided, 

slow, meandering channels and aquatic 

vegetation that provided suitable 

spawning and larval rearing habitat 

(Olsen et al. 2002, p. 4). Multiple 

spawning tributaries provided 

redundancy for June sucker. The range 

of diverse habitats historically present 

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

within these tributaries was essential to 

larval sucker survival and maintaining 

the species’ resiliency. Most 

importantly, slow water pool and marsh 

habitats provided refuge from predation 

by larger fishes. 

Since European colonization of Utah 

Valley, changes to the tributaries have 

decreased the available habitat for June 

sucker spawning and rearing, although 

recent restoration projects have 

improved conditions in the Provo River 

and Hobble Creek. The Provo River 

contains many natural characteristics 

that support the majority of the June 

sucker spawning run and also play an 

important role in contributing to the 

recovery of the species. The Provo River 

is the largest tributary to the lake in 

terms of annual flow, width, and 

watershed area (Stamp et al. 2002, p. 

19). All of these characteristics 

contribute to higher numbers of 

spawning June suckers using the Provo 

River than the other Utah Lake 

tributaries. These characteristics also 

best support the proper timing of the 

June sucker’s spawning period and help 

protect against further hybridization 

with Utah sucker. Continued increase 

and improvement of available larval 

rearing habitat in the Provo River is 

necessary for recovery of the species. 

Biology and Ecology 

June suckers are highly mobile and 

can cover large portions of their range 

in a short period of time (Radant and 

Sakaguchi 1981, p. 7; Buelow 2006, p. 

4; Landom et al. 2006, p. 13). Adult June 

suckers exhibit lake-wide distributional 

behavior throughout most of the year 

(Buelow 2006). However, in the fall, 

June suckers congregate along the 

western lakeshore, and in the winter, 

move to the eastern areas. One 

explanation for the easterly orientation 

in the winter may be the presence of 

relatively warm fresh-water springs 

along the eastern shore of Utah Lake 

(SWCA 2002, p. 14). 

During pre-spawn staging, in April 

and May, June suckers congregate in 

large numbers near the mouths of the 

Provo River, Hobble Creek, Spanish 

Fork River, and American Fork River 

(Radant and Hickman 1984, p. 3; 

Buelow et al. 2006, p. 4; Hines 2011, p. 

8). June suckers generally initiate a 

spawning migration into Utah Lake 

tributaries (primarily the Provo River, 

but also Hobble Creek and, to a lesser 

extent, Spanish Fork River and 

American Fork River) during the second 

and third weeks of May (Radant and 

Hickman 1984, p. 7). Provo Bay is likely 

one of their primary pre-spawn and 

post-spawn congregation areas (Buelow 

2006, p. 4). 

Most spawning is completed within 

5–8 days. Post-spawning suckers 

congregate near the mouth of Provo Bay, 

which could be a response to the high 

food productivity that remains in the 

bay until the fall (Radant and Shirley 

1987, p. 13; Buelow 2006, p. 8). 

Zooplankton densities are greater in 

Provo Bay than in other lake areas 

(Kreitzer et al. 2011, p. 9), providing 

abundant food to meet the energy 

demands of post-spawn suckers, as well 

as an ideal location for the growth and 

survival of young-of-year June suckers 

recently emerged from the spawning 

tributaries (Kreitzer et al. 2011, p. 10). 

June sucker spawning habitat consists 

of moderately deep runs and riffles in 

slow to moderate current with a 

substrate composed of 4–8 in (100–200 

mm) coarse gravel or small cobble that 

is free of silt and algae. Deeper pools 

adjacent to spawning areas may provide 

important resting or staging areas 

(Stamp et al. 2002, p. 5). 

Under natural conditions, June sucker 

larvae drift downstream and rear in 

shallow vegetated habitats near tributary 

mouths in Utah Lake (Modde and 

Muirhead 1990, pp. 7–8; Crowl and 

Thomas 1997, p. 11; Keleher et al. 1998, 

p. 47). Juvenile June suckers then 

migrate into Utah Lake and use littoral 

aquatic vegetation as cover and refuge 

(Crowl and Thomas 1997, p. 11). June 

sucker juveniles form schools near the 

water surface, presumably feeding on 

zooplankton in the shallows. Young-ofyear suckers form shoals (aggregations 

of hundreds of fish) near the surface 

under the cover of aquatic vegetation 

(Billman 2008, p. 3). 

However, effects from nonnative 

common carp, altered tributary flows, 

lake water level management, nutrient 

loading, poor water quality, and river 

channelization have reduced the 

amount of shallow, warm, and complex 

vegetated aquatic habitat for rearing at 

the tributary mouths and Utah Lake 

interface. This reduction in rearing 

habitat has reduced survival of June 

suckers during the early life stages 

(Modde and Muirhead 1990, p. 9; Olsen 

et al. 2002, p. 6), resulting in reduced 

population viability and resiliency. As 

June suckers reach the subadult stage, 

they begin to move offshore (Billman 

2005, p. 16). 

Species Abundance and Trends 

Early accounts indicate that Utah 

Lake supported an enormous population 

of June suckers (Heckmann et al. 1981, 

p. 8), and was proclaimed ‘‘the greatest 

sucker pond in the universe’’ (Jordan 

1878, p. 2). The first major reductions in 

the number of June suckers were in the 

late 1800s. Through the mid-1900s, June 

suckers were caught during their 

spawning runs and widely used as 

fertilizer and food (Carter 1969, p. 7). 

During this period, an estimated 1,653 

tons (1,500 metric tons) of spawning 

suckers were killed when 2.1 mi (3.3 

km) of the Provo River was dewatered 

due to reduced water availability and 

high demand (Carter 1969, p. 8). 

Hundreds of tons of suckers also died 

when Utah Lake was nearly emptied 

during a 1932–1935 drought (Tanner 

1936, p. 3). After the drought, June 

sucker populations gradually increased 

again, but due to the combined impacts 

of ongoing drought, overexploitation, 

and habitat destruction, the population 

did not return to its historical level 

(Heckmann et al. 1981, p. 9). June 

suckers were rare in monitoring surveys 

during the 1950s through the 1970s 

(Heckmann et al. 1981, p. 11; Radant 

and Sakaguchi 1981, p. 5). 

By the time the species was listed 

under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

in 1986, the June sucker had an 

estimated wild spawning population of 

fewer than 1,000 individuals. In 1999, 

we estimated the wild spawning 

population to be approximately 300 

individuals, with no evidence of wild 

recruitment (Keleher et al. 1998, pp. 12, 

53; Service 1999, p. 5). 

Due to the immediate threat of June 

sucker extinction at the time of listing, 

the UDWR began raising populations in 

hatcheries and at secure refuge sites. 

These efforts resulted in the stocking of 

June suckers into Utah Lake to boost 

population numbers beginning in the 

1990s and continuing through the 

present day (UDWR 2018b, p. 3). As of 

2017, more than 800,000 captive-bred 

June suckers have been stocked in Utah 

Lake (UDWR 2017b, p. 6). Stocking is 

planned to continue until the wild 

population is self-sustaining, which will 

be determined by population viability 

analysis (JSRIP 2018, p. 10). 

Approximately 3,500 June suckers 

were spawning annually in Utah Lake 

tributaries as of 2016 (Conner and 

Landom 2018, p. 2). This represents at 

least a ten-fold increase in spawning 

fish from when the recovery plan was 

finalized in 1999 (Conner and Landom 

2018, p. 2). The vast majority of fish 

detected spawning in Utah Lake 

tributaries are stocked fish that have 

become naturalized (survived for 

multiple years until reaching breeding 

age) (UDWR 2018c, p. 7). For all 

spawning tributaries combined, the 

spawning population size for both sexes 

substantially increased from 2008 to 

2016, and the total known spawning 

population size grew by 22 percent. 

These figures represent a minimum 

number of confirmed spawning June 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 195 

suckers, not a population estimate. They 

do not include subadult or juvenile 

individuals, non-spawning adults, 

untagged fish, or tagged fish that were 

not detected via the monitoring 

antennae. 

The actual population of wild June 

suckers in Utah Lake is likely greater 

than 3,500, because this number 

represents only the spawning adults. 

However, we did not attempt to 

extrapolate a total population estimate 

from the adult spawning data because 

monitoring efforts in tributaries were 

not consistent across all years, data were 

not available for one year due to high 

flows, and the percentage and origin of 

untagged fish in Utah Lake is not yet 

clear (Conner and Landom 2018, p. 4). 

Stocked June suckers are tagged with a 

passive integrated transponder (PIT). 

Untagged fish may be stocked fish that 

lost their PIT tag or the result of 

reproduction (i.e., recruitment) in the 

wild (UDWR 2017, entire). 

Monitoring of June suckers in the 

lower Provo River during the 2018 

spawning period captured a significant 

portion of fish that were not PIT tagged 

(UDWR 2018, p. 3). The natural 

geochemical markers (signatures) in the 

otoliths (ear bones) and fin rays of 

collected, unmarked June suckers show 

that 39 percent (12 of 31) of these fish 

likely originated from the FES hatchery; 

42 percent from Red Butte reservoir, 

other rearing facilities, or inconclusive; 

and 19 percent (6 of 31) had signatures 

indicating they originated in Utah Lake 

(Wolff and Johnson 2013, p. 9), meaning 

they were likely recruited naturally into 

Utah Lake. These results indicate that 

successful natural reproduction and 

recruitment are occurring, although the 

exact location and conditions that 

contributed to this successful natural 

recruitment are not known. Additional 

analysis of June suckers of unknown 

origin is planned within the next several 

years to determine the level of natural 

recruitment occurring in Utah Lake. 

Regardless of origin, capture of untagged 

fish indicates there is an unknown 

number of spawning June suckers that 

were not accounted for in the spawning 

population estimate. 

The year-to-year survival rate of fish 

stocked into Utah Lake varies 

significantly depending on a number of 

factors, including length of fish at stock 

(which correlates to age) and time of 

year stocked (Goldsmith et al. 2016, p. 

5). June suckers stocked in early 

summer that were 11.6 in (296 mm) in 

length or more (usually representing an 

individual that was 2 years old) had a 

survival rate of 83 percent. June suckers 

stocked at age 1 had survival rates 

ranging from 0 to 67 percent. The 

smallest June suckers, those stocked at 

under 7.9 in (200 mm), had a survival 

rate into the next year of only 2 percent 

(Goldsmith et al. 2016, p. 14). 

Year-to-year survival rates for 

spawning June suckers ranged from 65 

to 95 percent depending on the tributary 

and the year (Goldsmith et al. 2016, p. 

3). Additionally, June suckers that were 

stocked more than 10 years prior were 

detected spawning on multiple 

occasions, indicating the capability for 

long-term survival in Utah Lake (Conner 

and Landom 2018, p. 3). Between 2013 

and 2016, June sucker showed a positive 

population trend with a combined 

annual growth rate of 1.06 for females 

and 1.04 for males across three 

tributaries (Provo River, Spanish Fork, 

and Hobble Creek), with Provo River 

having the highest population growth 

rate and Hobble Creek showing an 

overall decline (Conner and Landom 

2018, p. 3). However, nearly 50 percent 

of spawning June sucker detected in 

Hobble Creek were of unknown origin. 

Therefore, a decline in detected 

spawners in this tributary does not 

necessarily mean fewer fish overall are 

using the tributary. Naturally recruited 

fish that have never been tagged would 

not be detected by the remote electronic 

methods used to collect June sucker 

presence information at spawning 

locations. 

In summary, the viability of June 

sucker in its native range––as indicated 

by its representation, resiliency, and 

redundancy—has improved 

significantly since the time of listing, 

largely due to the efforts of the JSRIP 

(see Recovery, below). Stocking of June 

suckers, a program designed to 

maximize representation through 

genetic diversity, has been very 

successful at increasing the number of 

fish in Utah Lake. Stocked individuals 

are behaving as wild fish by migrating 

to new habitats, surviving many years, 

and participating in spawning activities. 

The JSRIP stocking program is planning 

to continue until the June sucker 

reaches self-sustaining population 

levels, with a focus on stocking 2-yearold fish over 12 in (300 mm) long to 

increase their chances of survival. The 

spawning population has increased at 

least ten-fold since 1999; there is 

evidence of high year-to-year survival 

rates and long-term survival for 

spawning individuals; and the 

spawning population is increasing at a 

high rate, improving the resiliency of 

the wild population. The stocking 

program and maintenance of two 

additional populations (the refuge 

population at FES hatchery and the 

introduced population at Red Butte 

Reservoir) also provide redundancy to 

the wild population. In 2020–2021, a 

study is underway to improve our 

understanding of the degree of natural 

recruitment of June sucker in Utah Lake 

and the origin of untagged June suckers. 

This information will, combined with 

future monitoring, yield a population 

estimate and help inform future 

stocking rates and management 

decisions for the purposes of further 

bolstering the species’ representation, 

resiliency, and redundancy to achieve 

full recovery. 

Recovery 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 

recovery plans must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, that the species be 

removed from the List. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A 

decision to revise the status of a species, 

or to delist a species, is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all of the criteria in a recovery plan 

being fully met. For example, one or 

more criteria may be exceeded while 

other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In other cases, we may discover 

new recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery plan. Parties 

seeking to conserve the species may use 

these opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

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

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, follow all of the 

guidance provided in a recovery plan. 

We finalized a recovery plan for June 

sucker in 1999, which included 

recovery actions and recovery criteria 

for downlisting and delisting of June 

sucker. These criteria lack specific 

metrics and will be updated in a 

forthcoming revised recovery plan for 

the species. However, they are still 

relevant to the evaluation of recovery, 

and we discuss them in this document 

as one way to evaluate the change in 

status of June sucker. 

Since 2002, the JSRIP has funded, 

implemented, and overseen recovery 

actions for the conservation of June 

sucker in accordance with the guidance 

provided by the recovery plan, 

including using adaptive management 

techniques to address new stressors as 

they arose. These recovery actions 

include: (1) Acquiring and managing 

water flows, (2) restoring habitat, (3) 

removing carp, and (4) augmenting the 

wild June sucker population. These 

efforts, and how they relate to the 

recovery criteria, are described in the 

following paragraphs. 

Acquisition and Management of Water 

Flows 

The first downlisting criterion 

requires that Provo River flows essential 

for June sucker spawning and 

recruitment are protected (Service 2011, 

p. 5). We consider this criterion to have 

been met. The JSRIP provides annual 

recommendations for river flows to 

support June suckers on the Provo River 

and Hobble Creek based on the known 

biology of the species and the historical 

flow levels to the CUWCD and other 

water-managing bodies. The JSRIP has 

also acquired water totaling over 21,000 

acre-ft (25,903,080 cubic m (m3)) per 

year to enhance flows during the 

spawning season on the Provo River and 

to supplement base flows through the 

summer for the benefit of larval June 

sucker. Approximately 13,000 acre-ft 

(16,035,240 m3) of this water is 

permanently allocated, and the 

remainder is allocated through 2021. 

The JSRIP is pursuing additional water, 

permanent and temporary, to bolster 

June sucker allocations after 2021 (JSRIP 

2018, p. 5). Additionally, the JSRIP has 

acquired 8,500 acre-ft (10,485,000 m3) of 

permanent water for Hobble Creek, up 

to 4,500 acre-ft (5,550,660 m3) of which 

may be used to supplement Provo river 

flows as needed in any given year 

(USBR 2017, pp. 3–5). These protected 

water sources, when delivered as 

additional water, provide added 

resiliency by improving habitat quality 

for the species, and operational 

flexibility to address fluctuating annual 

precipitation scenarios in a timely 

manner. 

The amount of water delivered to 

supplement flows in the Provo River 

and Hobble Creek and the timing of 

those deliveries are determined 

annually through a cooperative process 

involving multiple agencies. In 1996, 

the June Sucker Flow Work Group 

(Flow Work Group) was formed by the 

USBR, DOI Central Utah Project 

Completion Act (CUPCA) Office, Provo 

River Water Users Association, Provo 

River Water Commissioner, CUWCD, 

UDWR, the Service, Provo City Public 

Works, and the URMCC. These agencies 

initially worked together to adjust 

reservoir releases to mimic a Provo 

River spring runoff hydrograph and 

improve June sucker spawning success. 

Since 2002, this process has been 

overseen by the JSRIP. 

As recovery-specific water was 

acquired, the role of the Flow Work 

Group expanded to provide a forum for 

determining the optimal delivery 

pattern of supplemental flows. Based on 

existing conditions for a given year (e.g., 

snow pack and reservoir storage), the 

multi-disciplinary work group uses 

operational flexibility for reservoir 

water delivery and runoff timing to 

evaluate and operate the system to 

deliver year-round flows to benefit June 

sucker recovery. Based on 

recommendations of the Flow Work 

Group, the JSRIP makes annual 

recommendations for flow deliveries to 

the Provo River and Hobble Creek, 

adjusted for the available water 

conditions. Water managers (including 

USBR, CUPCA, Provo River Water Users 

Association, the Provo River Water 

Commissioner, CUWCD, and Provo City 

Public Works) then work to deliver 

water to meet that specific annual 

recommendation and have been 

successful in meeting the hydrograph 

scenarios agreed to by the Flow Work 

Group on an annual basis since 2004. 

In 2004, the CUWCD, in cooperation 

with the Service and other members of 

the Flow Work Group, agreed on 

operational scenarios that mimic dry, 

moderate, and wet year flow patterns for 

the Provo River (CUWCD et al. 2004, p. 

17). The Flow Work Group applied 

these operational scenarios in 

determining the spawning season flow 

pattern for the Provo River with the goal 

of benefiting June sucker recovery. In 

2008, an ecosystem-based flow regime 

recommendation was finalized for the 

lower Provo River (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 

13). This year-round flow 

recommendation refined the operational 

scenarios identified in 2004, through the 

incorporation of relevant ecological 

functions into the in-stream flow 

analysis. Hydrologic variability, 

geomorphology, water quality, aquatic 

biology, and riparian biology were 

considered as aspects of flow 

recommendations. The year-round flow 

recommendations are adaptive, with 

consideration of the variability within 

and among each water year. These 

include recommendations for a baseline 

flow, a spring runoff flow, and the 

duration of the rising and receding flow 

periods before and after runoff. As more 

is learned about the associations 

between flow and river functions, the 

recommendations can be adjusted 

(Stamp et al. 2008, p. 10). In 2015, the 

JSRIP passed a resolution affirming this 

process, which further defined how 

flows in the Provo River should be 

prioritized for the benefit of the June 

sucker, and defined the roles of partners 

in supporting the water needs of June 

sucker in the Provo River (JSRIP 2015, 

entire). 

In 2009, ecosystem-based flow 

recommendations were developed for 

Hobble Creek in the Lower Hobble 

Creek Ecosystem Flow 

Recommendations Report (Stamp et al. 

2009, pp. 11–12). These 

recommendations were adopted by the 

JSRIP, included in the East Hobble 

Creek Restoration Project Environmental 

Analysis (JSRIP 2009, p. 5), and are 

currently considered each April when 

determining the annual 

recommendations for delivery of flows 

to Hobble Creek (DOI et al. 2013, p. 41). 

Similar to the Provo River, these 

recommendations are intended to be 

adaptive. In 2012, the JSRIP passed a 

resolution affirming this process, which 

further defines how flows in Hobble 

Creek should be prioritized for the 

benefit of June sucker, and defines the 

roles of partners in supporting the water 

needs of June sucker in Hobble Creek 

(JSRIP 2012, entire). 

Habitat Restoration 

The second downlisting criterion for 

June sucker requires that spawning and 

brood-rearing habitat in the Provo River 

and Utah Lake be enhanced or 

established to provide for the continued 

existence of all life stages (Service 1999, 

p. 4). We consider this criterion to have 

been met. Habitat restoration projects 

occurred on the Provo River and Hobble 

Creek, and habitat quality was enhanced 

in Utah Lake as a result of nonnative 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 197 

species removal (see Carp Removal, 

below). 

Modifications of the Fort Field 

diversion structure on the Provo River, 

located within critical habitat, were 

completed in October 2009. This 

modification made an additional 1.2 mi 

(1.9 km) of spawning habitat available 

for the June sucker, permitting fish 

passage farther upstream in the 

historical range (URMCC 2009, pp. 8–9; 

JSRIP 2008, p. 12). During the 2010 

spawning season, June suckers were 

observed in the Provo River upstream of 

the modified Fort Field Diversion 

structure (UDWR 2011, pp. 7–8). In 

cooperation with the JSRIP, the CUWCD 

and URMCC are working with other 

diverters on the Provo River to evaluate 

further diversion structure removal or 

modification. 

The JSRIP is also implementing a 

large-scale stream channel and delta 

restoration project for the lower Provo 

River and its interface with Utah Lake, 

called the Provo River Delta Restoration 

Project (PRDRP). This project will 

restore, enhance, and create habitat 

conditions in the lower Provo River for 

spawning, hatching, larval transport, 

rearing, and recruitment of the June 

sucker to the adult life stage, thus 

increasing the species’ resiliency (Olson 

et al. 2002, p. 15; BIO–WEST 2010, p. 

3). The PRDRP will reestablish some of 

the historical delta conditions in the 

Provo River, thereby increasing habitat 

complexity and providing appropriate 

physical and biological conditions 

necessary for egg hatching, larval 

development, growth, young-of-year 

survival, and recruitment of young fish 

into the adult population. A final 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

for the PRDRP was released in April 

2015, with a record of decision signed 

in May 2015. Federal agencies have 

acquired lands needed for the PRDRP 

and developed a detailed design to 

provide optimal rearing habitat for June 

sucker (PRDRP 2017, entire). Work 

began spring of 2020, and is expected to 

be completed in 2024 (Stamp 2020, 

pers. comm.). 

Shortly after formation of the JSRIP, 

and based on delisting criteria identified 

in the 1999 June Sucker Recovery Plan 

(Service 1999, pp. 5–6), several Utah 

Lake tributaries were evaluated for the 

purpose of establishing a second 

spawning run of June sucker in addition 

to the Provo River spawning run (Stamp 

et al. 2002, p. 13). Depending on the 

availability of water in any given year, 

June suckers will use multiple other 

tributaries for spawning, including 

Spanish Fork, American Fork, and 

Current Creek. However, not all 

tributaries are available in every year, 

due to changing lake levels and water 

availability. Therefore, we determined 

that an additional, reliably available 

(i.e., available every year) spawning run 

would improve redundancy for the 

species by providing security in the 

event that a catastrophic event 

eliminated the Provo River spawning 

habitat. Hobble Creek provides the best 

opportunity of the available spawning 

tributaries for establishing a second 

consistent spawning run (Stamp et al. 

2002, p. 13). Hobble Creek is more 

frequently available to fish in low water 

years compared to other tributaries. 

However, Hobble Creek would still 

require habitat enhancements to make it 

suitable for consistent, annual June 

sucker spawning runs and allow for the 

development of quality rearing habitat 

for young suckers (Stamp et al. 2002, p. 

13). 

In 2008, the lower 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of 

Hobble Creek was relocated and 

reconstructed on land purchased by the 

JSRIP to provide June sucker spawning 

habitat, a more naturally functioning 

stream channel, and suitable nursery 

habitat for young suckers. The JSRIP 

partnered with the Utah Transit 

Authority to implement the habitat 

restoration project on the purchased 

property (DOI 2008, p. 14). The project 

re-created a functioning delta at the 

interface between Hobble Creek and 

Utah Lake, and allowed the 

reestablishment of a June sucker 

spawning run. The restoration resulted 

in more active river processes and 

includes numerous seasonally 

inundated off-channel ponds, which 

serve as larval nursery and rearing 

habitat to increase larval fish growth 

and survival (DOI 2008, p. 22). 

In 2009, June suckers spawned in the 

restored Hobble Creek, with verified 

larval production (Landom and Crowl 

2010, pp. 1–12), and in 2010, juvenile 

June suckers (from 2009 spawning) were 

found in ponds within the Hobble Creek 

restoration area (Landress 2011, p. 4). 

Due to the success of the restoration, 

additional reaches of Hobble Creek have 

been selected for habitat enhancements 

to increase the amount of available 

spawning habitat. For example, 

approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) upstream 

of the lower Hobble Creek restoration 

area, the East Hobble Creek Restoration 

Project was completed to enhance the 

stream channel by increasing floodplain 

width, sinuosity, and floodplain 

connectivity; modify or remove 

diversion structures; and provide 

additional stream flows for Hobble 

Creek (JSRIP 2016b, p. 17). An age-1 

June sucker was observed in this area in 

January 2018, indicating that June 

suckers are using this area for rearing 

(Fonken 2018, pers. comm.). 

Improving water quality in Utah Lake 

is also an important part of enhancing 

June sucker habitat. In the interest of 

supporting June sucker recovery 

through increased water quality, the 

Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) 

became a member of the JSRIP in 2017 

(JSRIP 2017). As part of the State’s 

commitment to water quality 

management and improvement in Utah 

Lake, UDWQ formed a science panel 

composed of independent experts and 

representatives of all stakeholder 

agencies for the express purpose of 

furthering scientific understanding of 

the conditions in Utah Lake and 

creating a comprehensive plan for 

improvement. This plan will support 

June sucker recovery by including 

recommendations for actions and 

threshold limits of nutrients and other 

anthropogenic inputs for the benefit of 

June sucker specifically and the Utah 

Lake ecosystem as a whole (UDWQ 

2017, entire). 

Carp Removal 

The third downlisting criterion 

requires that nonnative species that 

present a threat to the continued 

existence of June sucker are reduced or 

eliminated from Utah Lake. We consider 

this criterion met, but ongoing. The 

common carp was identified as the 

nonnative species having the greatest 

adverse impact on June sucker habitat 

and resiliency, due to the large-scale 

changes in water quality and 

macrophytic vegetation caused by these 

fish (see Distribution and Habitat, 

above). 

In 2009, a mechanical removal 

program was instituted to remove 

common carp from Utah Lake. Between 

2009 and 2017, over 13,000 tons (11,750 

metric tons) of common carp were 

removed from the lake (UDWR 2017c, p. 

2). This removal resulted in a decline of 

the common carp population. Catch-perunit effort of common carp has 

decreased over the past 4 years, while 

average weight of individual common 

carp has increased, thus indicating a 

trend of reduction in common carp 

density in Utah Lake (Gaeta and 

Landom 2017, p. 7). 

In 2015, after 6 years of common carp 

removal, native macrophytes were 

observed in Utah Lake vegetation 

monitoring studies for the first time 

(Landom 2016, pers. comm.). As of 

2017, multiple sites in the lake have 

native littoral vegetation, including sites 

with increasing complexity supporting 

more than four native macrophytic 

species at one site (Dillingham 2018, 

entire). Sites with more complex 

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

vegetation support a higher diversity of 

macroinvertebrates, which provide 

additional food for June sucker, provide 

greater opportunities for June sucker to 

shelter from predators, and indicate 

improved water quality in the lake 

(Dillingham 2018, entire). 

The common carp removal program in 

Utah Lake has a positive impact on 

habitat quality, which may be 

contributing to natural recruitment and 

survival rates for the June sucker (Gaeta 

and Landom 2017, p. 8; see Species 

Abundance and Trends, above). 

Ongoing research by Utah State 

University continues to assess the 

relationship between common carp 

removal, habitat improvement, and June 

sucker population response as well as 

develop long-term recommendations for 

sustainable common carp management 

(Gaeta et al. 2018, entire). The JSRIP 

prioritizes continued suppression of the 

common carp population via 

mechanical removal, as well as research 

into genetically modified sterile (YY) 

male technology that has the potential 

to reduce or eliminate carp from Utah 

Lake in the future (JSRIP 2018, p. 2). 

Population Augmentation 

The fourth and final downlisting 

criterion in the June sucker recovery 

plan is that an increasing, selfsustaining spawning run of wild June 

sucker resulting in significant 

recruitment over 10 years has been 

reestablished in the Provo River. We 

consider this criterion to be ongoing. 

This criterion does not define 

‘‘significant’’ recruitment. Although the 

spawning population of June sucker is 

increasing, annual stocking continues in 

order to maintain the population. An 

augmentation plan for the June sucker 

set a goal, for the purposes of meeting 

the recovery criterion of a selfsustaining population, of stocking 2.8 

million individuals into Utah Lake 

(Service and URMCC 1998, entire). The 

goal was based on early studies of June 

sucker survival and the production 

capabilities of the facilities. As of 2017, 

more than 800,000 captive-bred June 

sucker have been stocked in Utah Lake 

from the various rearing locations, and 

a long-term, continued stocking strategy 

based on the most up-to-date research 

on stocking success and survival rates is 

under development (JSRIP 2008, p. 8; 

UDWR 2017b, p. 6). 

Although the June sucker has not yet 

met this downlisting criterion identified 

in the 1999 recovery plan, we find that 

the population increases and trends 

achieved thus far (see Species 

Abundance and Trends, above), along 

with the addition of refuge populations 

to increase redundancy and genetic 

representation, support downlisting the 

species. The criterion of an increasing, 

self-sustaining spawning run of wild 

June sucker resulting in significant 

recruitment over 10 years is more 

suitable as a delisting criterion and 

indicative of full recovery. 

Overall, recovery actions have 

addressed many of the threats and 

stressors affecting the June sucker. The 

JSRIP has been effective in collaborating 

to implement a stocking program, 

increase June sucker spawning 

locations, acquire and manage water 

flows, remove nonnative common carp, 

and develop and conduct habitat 

restorations that target all life stages of 

June sucker. Studies are planned to 

improve understanding of the effects of 

other threats and stressors, including 

lake water quality and the impact of 

other invasive species on the June 

sucker. The JSRIP continues to be active 

and committed to full recovery of the 

June sucker. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for listing species, reclassifying species, 

or removing species from listed status. 

‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as 

including any species or subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct vertebrate population segment 

of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act 

defines an endangered species as a 

species that is ‘‘in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range,’’ and a threatened species as 

a species that is ‘‘likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ 

The Act requires that we determine 

whether any species is an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ 

because of any of the following factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We must consider these same five 

factors in downlisting a species from 

endangered to threatened. Under our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(c)-(e), we 

may downlist a species if, after a review 

of the species’ status, the best available 

scientific and commercial data indicate 

that the species no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered species, but 

that it meets the definition of a 

threatened species. 

For the purposes of this analysis, we 

evaluate whether or not the June sucker 

meets the Act’s definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species,’’ based on the best scientific 

and commercial information available. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that directly affect 

individuals (direct impacts), as well as 

those that affect individuals through 

alteration of their habitat or required 

resources (stressors). The term ‘‘threat’’ 

may encompass—either together or 

separately—the source of the action or 

condition or the action or condition 

itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—with regard to 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species and then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats with regard to those 

actions and conditions that will have 

positive effects on the species—such as 

any existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 199 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

foreseeable future extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

In our determination, we correlate the 

threats acting on the species to the 

factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

The following analysis examines 

factors currently affecting the June 

sucker or that are likely to affect it 

within the foreseeable future. For each 

factor, we examine the threats at the 

time of listing in 1986 (or if not present 

at the time of listing, the status of the 

threat when first detected), the 

downlisting criterion pertinent to the 

threat, what conservation actions have 

been taken to meet the downlisting 

criteria or otherwise mitigate the threat, 

the current status of the threat, and its 

likely future impact on June sucker. We 

also consider stressors not originally 

considered at the time of listing, most 

notably climate change. 

Habitat Destruction and Modification 

Loss and alteration of spawning and 

rearing habitat were major factors 

leading to the listing of the June sucker 

(51 FR 10851; March 31, 1986) and 

continue to pose a threat to the species’ 

overall resiliency and its recovery. 

Suitable spawning and rearing habitat in 

Utah Lake and its tributaries declined 

due to water development, habitat 

modification, introduction of common 

carp, and urbanization, but has 

improved since listing due to recovery 

actions taken by the JSRIP. 

Water Development and Habitat 

Modification 

Water development and substantial 

habitat modifications have occurred in 

the Utah Lake drainage since the mid1800s. These changes include the 

reduction in riverine flows (including 

the Provo River) from numerous water 

diversions, various water storage 

projects, channelization, and additional 

lake and in-stream alterations (Radant et 

al. 1987, p. 13; UDWR and UDNR 1997, 

p. 11; Andersen et al. 2007, p. 8). Many 

of these modifications and water 

depletions remain today, and continue 

to hinder the quantity and quality of 

June sucker rearing and spawning 

habitat, which in turn impacts species 

resiliency. 

In 1849, settlers founded Fort Utah 

along the Provo River and began 

modifying the waters of Utah Lake and 

its main tributaries (USBR 1989, p. 3). 

In 1872, a low dam was placed across 

the lake outflow to the Jordan River, 

changing the function of Utah Lake into 

a storage reservoir (CUWCD 2004, p. 2). 

By the early 1900s, a pumping plant was 

constructed at the outflow to allow the 

lake to be lowered below the outlet 

elevation; this structure has since been 

modified and enlarged (Andersen et al. 

2007, p. 5). The present capacity of the 

pumping plant is 1,050 cubic feet per 

second (cfs) (29.7 cubic meters per 

second (cms)), and it can lower the lake 

level 8–10 ft (2.4–3.0 m) below the 

compromise elevation of 4,489 ft (1,368 

m) (Andersen et al. 2007, p. 5). The 

compromise elevation is a managed lake 

elevation target that the responsible 

water authorities have agreed not to 

exceed through the active storage of 

water. This compromise elevation was 

intended to balance the threat of 

flooding among lands adjacent to Utah 

Lake and those downstream along the 

Jordan River (CUWCD 2004, p. 7). 

As a storage reservoir, the surface 

elevation of Utah Lake fluctuates 

widely. Prior to the influence of water 

development projects, annual 

fluctuations averaged 2.1 ft (0.6 m) per 

year. For approximately 50 years, under 

the influence of water development 

projects, water levels fluctuated an 

average of 3.5 ft (1.0 m) annually prior 

to the completion of the Central Utah 

Project. The Central Utah Project was 

the largest water resources development 

program in Utah, distributing portions 

of Utah’s share of Colorado River water. 

After its completion, annual lake 

fluctuations averaged 2.5 ft (0.8 m) 

(Hickman and Thurin 2007, p. 20). 

Fluctuation in surface elevation of Utah 

Lake (particularly while the Central 

Utah Project was under construction) is 

one of the possible factors that 

contributed to the marked degradation 

of shoreline habitat and aquatic 

vegetation in the lake and to a decline 

in June sucker refugial habitat from 

predators (Hickman and Thurin 2007, p. 

23). 

The long history of water management 

in the Provo River, including river 

alterations, dredging, and 

channelization efforts, has modified the 

historical braided and complex delta 

into a single trapezoidal channel 

(Radant et al. 1987, p. 15; Olsen et al. 

2002, p. 11). The current channel lacks 

vegetative cover, habitat complexity, 

and the food sources necessary to 

sustain larval fishes rearing in the lower 

Provo River (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 20). 

Additionally, the lower 2 mi (3.2 km) of 

the Provo River experience a backwater 

effect, where the velocity stalls under 

low-flow scenarios and a high seasonal 

lake level causes the water to back up 

from the lake into the Provo River 

(Stamp et al. 2008, p. 20). The slack 

water substantially reduces the number 

of larvae drifting into the lake. As a 

result of their poorly developed 

swimming abilities, the larvae either 

starve or are consumed by predators in 

this lower stretch of river (Ellsworth et 

al. 2010, p. 9). Because of the extensive 

modification of the lower Provo River, 

in the past, most June sucker larvae 

have not survived longer than 20 days 

after hatching (Ellsworth et al. 2010, pp. 

9–10). The upcoming PRDRP is 

designed to increase survival of larvae 

by providing additional rearing habitat 

along the Provo River (PRDRP 2017, 

entire). 

Similar to the Provo River, Hobble 

Creek and other tributaries of 

significance (Spanish Fork River and 

American Fork River) have been 

extensively modified by human 

activities. The hydrological regimes are 

altered by multiple dams and 

diversions, and the stream channels 

have been straightened and dredged into 

incised trapezoidal canals (Stamp et al. 

2002, p. 5). These alterations resulted in 

the streams becoming isolated from 

their historical floodplains and having 

modified flow velocities and pool-riffle 

sequences (Stamp et al. 2002, p. 6). 

Until recent restoration efforts were 

implemented, the Hobble Creek channel 

had almost no gradient and ended 

without a defined connection to the lake 

interface in Provo Bay due to diversion 

structures and dredging. In the past, the 

channel was blocked by debris that 

created barriers to fish migration, 

preventing adult June suckers from 

accessing the main stem of Hobble 

Creek. 

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

Located south of Provo Bay, the 

Spanish Fork River is the second largest 

stream inflow to Utah Lake, but the 

majority of the discharge is diverted 

during the irrigation season (June 

through September; Psomas 2007, p. 

12). Adult and larval June suckers occur 

in the Spanish Fork River (UDWR 2006, 

p. 2; 2007, p. 2; 2008a, p. 3; 2009a, p. 

4; 2010b, p. 2); however, the seasonally 

inadequate flows, poor June sucker 

rearing habitat at the Utah Lake 

interface, low water clarity, diversion 

structures, and miles of levees along the 

channel are obstacles to successful 

recruitment (Stamp et al. 2002, p. 5). 

Adult spawning habitat is limited to the 

lower 2.7 mi (4.3 km) of the Spanish 

Fork River, where it is of poor quality. 

Other tributaries where spawning may 

occur under favorable conditions 

include the American Fork River and 

Battle Creek, but streamflow to Utah 

Lake in these tributaries is not available 

most years; therefore, they are not found 

to comprise a significant portion of June 

sucker spawning habitat. 

Recovery actions for the June sucker 

to address impacts from water 

development and habitat modification 

have included water acquisition, water 

flow management, and habitat 

restoration (see Recovery, above). The 

availability of quality spawning habitat 

will improve species resiliency, and 

multiple spawning tributaries will 

improve species redundancy. The 

positive trend in spawning population 

numbers, increased number of June 

suckers, and observations of young-ofyear and age-1 June suckers in the wild 

indicate that water acquisition, water 

flow management, and habitat 

restoration have had a positive impact 

on June sucker reproduction (JSRIP 

2018, p. 1; see Species Abundance and 

Trends, above). 

Introduction of Common Carp 

Historically, Utah Lake had a rich 

array of rooted aquatic vegetation, 

which provided nursery and rearing 

habitat for young June suckers 

(Heckmann et al. 1981, p. 2; Ellsworth 

et al. 2010, p. 9). However, with the 

introduction of common carp around 

the 1880s (Sigler and Sigler 1996, pp. 5– 

6), this refugial habitat largely 

disappeared. Common carp physically 

uproot and consume macrophytes and 

disturb sediments, increasing turbidity 

and decreasing light penetration, which 

inhibits macrophyte establishment 

(Crowl and Miller 2004, pp. 11–12). 

Although not specifically identified at 

the time of listing in 1986, the 

successful establishment of common 

carp and their effects on the Utah Lake 

ecosystem are a threat to the June sucker 

(SWCA 2002, p. 19). However, the 

previously described carp removal 

program reduced carp populations and 

increased macrophytic vegetation in the 

lake, improving resiliency of the June 

sucker (see Recovery, above). 

Urbanization 

Rapid urbanization on the floodplains 

of Utah Lake tributaries stimulated 

extensive flood and erosion control 

activities in lake tributaries and reduced 

available land for the natural 

meandering of the historical river 

channels (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 4). 

Channelization for flood control and 

additional channel manipulation for 

erosion control further reduced riverine 

habitat complexity and reduced the total 

length of tributary rivers for spawning 

and early-life-stage use (Stamp et al. 

2008, pp. 12–13). It is anticipated that 

further urban infrastructure 

development is likely, as the 

populations of cities bordering Utah 

Lake and its tributaries continue to 

increase. 

Among the potential impacts from 

continued urbanization near Utah Lake 

is the potential for the construction of 

bridges or other transportation 

crossings. One example is the Utah 

Crossing project, a causeway across 

Utah Lake proposed in 2009 (Service 

2009, entire). An updated application 

for the project to proceed has not been 

filed with Utah’s Department of 

Transportation; however, as 

development continues on the western 

side of Utah Lake, the potential need for 

some type of crossing may increase. 

A large-scale project to dredge Utah 

Lake, remove invasive species, and 

build habitable islands for private 

development was proposed in 2017, and 

is under early stages of planning and 

review at the State level (ULRP 2018, 

entire). This project has not received 

any approval or necessary permits at the 

State or Federal level. We do not expect 

this Utah Lake Restoration Project or the 

Utah Crossing project to move forward 

or impact the June sucker in the next 5– 

10 years. All development projects on 

Utah Lake are subject to Federal and 

State laws, and require consultation 

with the Service prior to beginning 

work. However, such projects could 

potentially impact the June sucker by 

increasing habitat for predatory fish and 

restricting June sucker movement in 

Utah Lake (Service 2009, entire). 

Additional impacts to water quality due 

to the runoff from new structures could 

also pose a threat to the June sucker 

(Service 2009, entire). The UDWQ is 

partnering with the Utah Lake 

Commission and other stakeholders to 

research and provide recommendations 

to improve water quality and address 

impacts of urbanization and other 

factors that may negatively impact 

future water quality (UDWQ 2017, 

entire). 

Lake Water Quality 

Utah Lake is hypereutrophic, 

characterized by frequent algal blooms 

and high turbidity (Merritt 2004, p. 14; 

Psomas 2007, p. 12). The increased 

turbidity, decreased water quality, and 

historical change in the plant 

community from macrophytedominated to algae-dominated (see 

Habitat Restoration, above) affect the 

fishes of Utah Lake, including the June 

sucker. 

High turbidity decreases the feeding 

ability of many species of planktivorous 

fish (Brett and Groot 1963, pp. 5–6; 

Vinyard and O’Brien 1976, p. 3), and 

can result in a lack of access to 

sufficient food for rearing juveniles. 

Thus, elevated turbidity levels may 

decrease feeding efficiency of June 

suckers by limiting their ability to 

visually prey on preferred plankton food 

types. 

Utah Lake is listed on Utah’s 2016 

section 303(d) list for exceedance of 

State criteria for total phosphorus and 

TDS concentrations (UDWQ 2018, p. 3– 

7). The majority of the total phosphorus 

load to Utah Lake is from point sources. 

Although Utah Lake has naturally 

elevated salinity levels compared to 

other intermountain freshwater lakes, 

the concentrations are substantially 

higher today than they were before 

human development (Psomas 2007, p. 

8). Within Utah Lake, natural salinity 

levels are due in part to high 

evaporation rates, which are a function 

of the lake’s large surface-area-to-depth 

ratio and drainage basin characteristics. 

Evaporation naturally removes about 50 

percent of the total volume of water that 

flows into the lake, resulting in a 

doubling of the mean salt concentration 

in water passing through the lake 

(Fuhriman et al. 1981, p. 7). 

In addition, several natural mineral 

springs near the shores of Utah Lake 

contribute dissolved salts, although the 

magnitude and effect of these sources 

has not been quantitatively evaluated 

(Hatton 1932, p. 2). Evaporative losses 

continue to be the main driver of 

salinity concentrations in Utah Lake. 

However, settlement and development 

of the Utah Lake basin since the 1800s 

led to increases in irrigation return 

flows containing dissolved salts, which 

likely exacerbated natural salinity 

concentrations within Utah Lake 

(Sanchez 1904, p. 1). Despite the human 

influences on inflows, in recent years, 

salinity levels in Utah Lake have not 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 201 

increased markedly (Psomas 2007, p. 

13). The UDWQ continues to monitor 

Utah Lake for any changes in salinity 

concentrations. 

The effects of increased salinity 

concentrations on the various life stages 

of June suckers are unknown. Egg size, 

hatching success, and mean total length 

of larvae decreased as salinity levels 

increased for another lake sucker that 

occurs in Nevada, the cui-ui 

(Chasmistes cujus; Chatto 1979, p. 7). 

However, salinity concentrations were 

much higher in the cui-ui habitat than 

any recorded concentrations in Utah 

Lake. 

Natural nutrient loading to the lake is 

high due to the nutrient- and sedimentrich watershed surrounding the lake 

(Fuhriman et al. 1981, p. 12). 

Additionally, human development in 

the drainage increased the naturally 

high inflow of sediments and nutrients 

to the lake (Fuhriman et al. 1981, p. 12). 

Sewage effluent entering the lake 

accounts for 50, 76, and 80 percent of 

all nitrogen, total phosphorous, and 

ortho-phosphate, respectively (Psomas 

2007, p. 12). Phosphorus inputs to the 

lake (297.6 tons (270.0 metric tons) per 

year) exceed exports (83.5 tons (75.7 

metric tons) per year) during all months 

of the year. Thus, the lake acts as a 

phosphorus sink, accumulating 

approximately 214 tons (194.1 metric 

tons) annually (Psomas 2007, p. 15). 

These high nutrient loads increase the 

frequency and extent of large blue-green 

algal blooms, which greatly affect 

overall food web dynamics in Utah Lake 

(Crowl et al. 1998b, p. 13). Blue-green 

algae is inedible to many zooplankton 

species, which decreases zooplankton 

abundance and its availability as a food 

source for the June sucker (Landom et 

al. 2010, p. 19). Reductions in feeding 

rates translate into long-term effects 

such as decreased condition, growth 

rates, and fish survival (Sigler et al. 

1984, p. 7; Hayes et al. 1992, p. 9). 

Furthermore, the increased algal 

biomass limits available light for 

submergent vegetation (Scheffer 1998, p. 

19), thus reducing refugial habitat for 

early life stages of June sucker. The 

frequency and size of algal blooms may 

be increasing based on large-scale algal 

blooms that occurred in 2016 and 2017 

(UDWQ 2017, p. 3). 

Although there is a significant amount 

of research indicating that algal blooms 

can be harmful to many types of fish, we 

do not have direct evidence regarding 

the degree or manner in which they 

impact June suckers in Utah Lake 

(Psomas 2007, p. 14; Crowl 2015, 

entire). No fish kills were documented 

during recent bloom events, but poststocking monitoring of June sucker has 

noted that, during algal blooms, fish 

movement decreased measurably 

(Goldsmith et al. 2017, p. 13). 

The average Utah Lake TDS 

concentration is about 900 parts per 

million (ppm)/milligrams per liter (mg/ 

L), but large variations occur, depending 

on the water year (Hickman and Thurin 

2007, p. 9). There is no evidence of 

direct mortality to June suckers due to 

higher salinity levels, but it is possible 

that increased salinity, when combined 

with increased nutrient input and 

turbidity, may negatively affect June 

suckers by reducing zooplankton and 

refugial habitat abundance as described 

above. Further study of June sucker 

responses during high salinity events is 

needed to better understand this 

relationship. 

Water quality concerns in Utah Lake 

are being addressed through a largescale study and the formation of a 

steering committee and science panel to 

develop recommendations for Utah Lake 

water quality for the benefit of June 

sucker (UDWQ 2017, entire). 

Riverine Water Quality 

Prior to 1986, the year in which we 

listed the June sucker, riverine water 

quality was heavily impacted by water 

withdrawal, agricultural and municipal 

effluents, and habitat modification. The 

water withdrawals reduced the ability of 

the rivers to effectively transport 

sediments and other materials from the 

river channel. Furthermore, 

withdrawals influenced temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, and pollutant and 

nutrient concentrations (Stamp et al. 

2008, p. 18). Diverted streams with 

reduced, shallow summertime base 

flows are very susceptible to solar 

heating and can experience lethally 

warm water temperatures (above 80 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) or 27 degrees 

Celsius (°C), depending on life stage). 

High water temperature, especially if 

combined with stagnant flow velocities, 

can lead to low dissolved oxygen levels 

in streams where flows have been 

reduced (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 19). 

Artificially high temperatures may 

also occur in streams where flow regime 

alterations and channelization have 

limited the recruitment of woody 

riparian vegetation, thereby reducing 

the amount of streamside shading 

(Stamp et al. 2008, p. 19). Subsequently, 

extensive colonization by filamentous 

algae can occur in warmer temperatures, 

creating extreme daily dissolved oxygen 

fluctuations that are harmful to June 

sucker (Service 1994, p. 12). 

Agricultural and municipal effluents 

enrich production of algae, further 

impacting daily dissolved oxygen levels. 

These effluents can cause fish kills if 

significant runoff from agricultural and 

municipal properties occurs during low 

flow periods. Furthermore, heavy algal 

growth can cause the armoring of 

spawning gravels and aid in the 

accumulation of fine sediments that 

degrade spawning habitat quality 

(Stamp et al. 2008, p. 32). 

The Provo River is listed on Utah’s 

2016 section 303(d) list for impairments 

harmful to cold-water aquatic life. 

Additionally, water quality is poor in 

the river’s lower reaches during summer 

low-flow periods due to low dissolved 

oxygen levels and elevated temperatures 

(Stamp et al. 2008, p. 34). It is likely that 

the recent supplementation of flows for 

June sucker recovery in the Provo River 

are minimizing the risk of lethal 

temperatures and dissolved oxygen 

fluctuations by providing water during 

critical periods and maintaining base 

flows throughout the summer while 

larvae are developing. The planned 

PRDRP will provide additional water 

storage and refugial habitat (see 

Recovery, above). 

Hobble Creek is not on the Utah 

section 303(d) list as an impaired 

waterbody. However, there are 

indications that total phosphorus and 

temperature may be problematic in 

Hobble Creek during certain times of the 

year (Stamp et al. 2009, pp. 22–23). 

Average total phosphorous 

concentration is 0.06 ppm/mg/L, which 

exceeds the Utah indicator value of 0.05 

ppm/mg/L (Stamp et al. 2009, p. 24). In 

addition, creek temperatures exceed 

68 °F (20 °C), which is the State coldwater fishery standard; this temperature 

increase typically occurs during 

summer days when air temperatures are 

high and flow in the channel is low 

(Stamp et al. 2009, p. 26). Similar to the 

Provo River, the augmentation of stream 

flows in Hobble Creek has likely 

minimized the risk of lethal 

temperatures by providing flows during 

critical periods. 

Effects of Climate Change 

The predicted increase in global 

average temperatures is expected to 

negatively affect water quality in 

shallow lakes (Mooij et al. 2007, p. 2). 

Turbid shallow lakes such as Utah Lake 

are likely to have higher summer 

chlorophyll-a concentrations with a 

stronger dominance of blue-green algae 

and reduced zooplankton abundance 

from the effects of climate change 

(Mooij et al. 2007, p. 5). This could 

affect June sucker food resources since 

zooplankton are the primary food source 

for the species. 

In Utah, an increase in the intensity 

of naturally occurring future droughts 

and unprecedented warming are 

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

expected (Frankson et al. 2017, p. 2). 

Projected changes in winter 

precipitation include an increase in the 

fractions falling as rain, rather than 

snow, and potentially decreasing 

snowpack water storage (Frankson et al. 

2017, p. 2). These changes in timing and 

amount of flow could affect June sucker 

spawning, because the spawning cues of 

increased runoff and water temperature, 

on which the June sucker relies to 

determine spawning time, would 

potentially occur earlier in the year. 

As changes to water availability and 

timing occur in the future, the JSRIP 

will need to coordinate reservoir 

operations to ensure timely releases. If 

runoff and upstream reservoir volumes 

are insufficient, peak and base flows 

desired in spawning tributaries will be 

reduced. This, in turn, would negatively 

impact the early season attractant flows 

needed by spawning adults, and 

potentially limit flows needed by larval 

suckers to move into downstream 

rearing habitats. As previously 

described, the JSRIP partnership has 

acquired 13,000 acre-ft (16,035,240 m3) 

of permanent water for the Provo River 

and 8,500 acre-ft (10,485,000 m3) for 

Hobble Creek. Flows in both systems are 

intensively managed with consideration 

for the June sucker. Still, additional 

permanent water acquisitions may 

become necessary to secure water that 

can be used to supplement flows during 

critical spawning and rearing periods as 

the climate shifts. 

Summary of Habitat-Based Threats 

Water development and habitat 

modification, common carp, 

urbanization, and water quality are 

threats to the June sucker. Additionally, 

potential increased temperatures and 

decreased precipitation caused by 

climate change may impact water 

quality. However, since the time of 

listing in 1986, the JSRIP partnership 

has implemented the following recovery 

actions: (1) 13,000 acre-ft of permanent 

water for instream flows are secured to 

benefit the June sucker; (2) a mechanism 

for annually recommending and 

providing flows for June sucker 

spawning was implemented; (3) the 

common carp population was 

suppressed, resulting in measurable 

habitat improvement in Utah Lake; (4) 

the impacts of urbanization are being 

considered through active research and 

planning; (5) a landscape-scale stream 

channel and delta restoration for the 

Provo River is being implemented; and 

(6) future water quality and availability 

are actively being studied and 

prioritized by the JSRIP, UDWQ, and the 

Utah Lake Commission (see Recovery, 

above). We find that the severity of 

these threats has decreased since the 

time of listing; adaptive management of 

these threats is ongoing, and increased 

resiliency and redundancy are evident 

as indicated by increasing survival rates 

and overall population numbers. 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial fishing, including fishing 

for June suckers, was historically an 

important use of Utah Lake (Heckman et 

al. 1981, p. 9). Some commercial fishing 

for June suckers occurred through the 

1970s, but on a very limited basis. 

Shortly thereafter, commercial harvest 

for the species largely stopped due to 

the limited population size. Currently, 

the June sucker is a prohibited species 

and cannot be harvested (Utah 

Administrative Code R657–14–8). 

Consequently, commercial or 

recreational fishing is no longer 

considered a threat to the species. 

Regulated collections of June suckers for 

scientific purposes occur at a very 

limited level, but do not pose a threat 

to the species at the population level. 

Disease 

Neither disease nor the presence of 

parasites were considered threats to the 

June sucker at the time of listing (51 FR 

10851; March 31, 1986). Although 

parasites likely exist in June sucker 

habitat, there is no evidence that June 

suckers at the individual or population 

levels are compromised by the presence 

of parasites. Fish health inspections are 

regularly conducted on June suckers at 

the FES hatchery and in Red Butte 

Reservoir, and no known pathogens 

have been detected (JSRIP 2018c, 

entire). At this time, the best available 

information does not indicate that the 

presence of parasites or disease 

negatively affects the June sucker. 

Predation by Nonnative Fishes 

Predation by nonnative fishes poses a 

threat to the successful recruitment of 

young suckers into the spawning adult 

life stage (Radant and Hickman 1984, p. 

6) and was a major factor for listing the 

June sucker as endangered (51 FR 

10851; March 31, 1986). The 

introduction of predatory nonnative 

fishes significantly altered the native 

Utah Lake fish assemblage. Historically, 

Bonneville cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarkii) was the toplevel piscivore (fish-eating predator) in 

Utah Lake; however, 30 fish species 

have been introduced since the late 

1800s. Twelve nonnative fish species 

have established self-sustaining 

populations, and seven of these are 

piscivorous (SWCA 2002, p. 14). As a 

result, June suckers face an array of 

predator species, including white bass 

(Morone chrysops), walleye (Sander 

vitreus), largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus), black bullhead 

(Ameiurus melas), northern pike (Esox 

lucius), and channel catfish (Ictalurus 

punctatus). 

Predation by nonnative fishes 

primarily targets the early life stages of 

June suckers. Adult June suckers are 

larger than the gape size of the average 

predatory fish and, therefore, are 

significantly less vulnerable. At the time 

of listing, the effects of predation were 

exacerbated by the lack of vegetated 

refuge habitat within Utah Lake. 

White bass may have the highest 

potential to limit recruitment of young 

suckers into the spawning adult 

population (SWCA 2002, p. 132; 

Landom et al. 2010, p. 18). White bass 

become piscivorous at age-0 in Utah 

Lake (Radant and Sakaguchi 1981, p. 12; 

Landom et al. 2010, pp. 11–12) and are 

the most abundant piscivore (UDWR 

2010, p. 9). The white bass population 

in Utah Lake could consume as many as 

550 million fish of various species 

throughout the course of 1 year 

(Landom et al. 2010, pp. 8–10). 

However, it appears that restored habitat 

with complex aquatic vegetation 

provides the June sucker with effective 

refuge from white bass. Thus, habitat 

restoration is likely paramount to 

young-of-year June sucker resiliency 

and survival (see Recovery, above). 

The recent illegal introduction of 

northern pike in Utah Lake raises 

concerns similar to white bass. Northern 

pike predominantly feed on juvenile 

fish; predation on adults is less than 1 

percent (Reynolds and Gaeta 2017, p. 

12). Thus far, the number of northern 

pike in the lake has not measurably 

increased, and active removal efforts 

continue to suppress populations 

(Reynolds and Gaeta 2017, p. 13). 

However, a northern pike population 

model shows potential for a high degree 

of population increase with potential for 

a high negative impact on the June 

sucker population by the year 2040 

(Gaeta et al. 2018, entire). Despite these 

modeling results, unique factors 

impacting northern pike population 

dynamics in Utah Lake are still not 

understood. Recent habitat 

improvements in the lake from common 

carp removal (see Recovery, above) may 

help mitigate northern pike predation 

by providing refugia for June suckers. 

Additionally, high levels of total 

dissolved solids (TDS), such as those 

found in Utah Lake, may suppress 

northern pike spawning and 

development (Scannell and Jacobs 2001, 

entire; Koel 2011, p. 7). The JSRIP is 

funding research to clarify this 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 203 

relationship and to determine a course 

of action to prevent northern pike from 

becoming a greater threat to June sucker 

in the future. 

While predation from nonnative 

species remains a threat, spawning 

populations of June suckers and the 

number of untagged fish (e.g., possibly 

natural recruitment) are increasing. 

Adaptive management of nonnative fish 

is ongoing. 

In addition to nonnative predatory 

fishes, avian predation on June suckers 

has been documented and primarily 

occurs when stocked June suckers are 

first released into the lake (Goldsmith et 

al., p. 12). Predation is primarily from 

pelicans, and the amount varies based 

on location of release, time of year, and 

time of day of the June sucker release 

(Goldsmith et al., p. 12). When possible, 

staff releasing stocked fish into Utah 

Lake drive off waiting pelicans, and do 

releases in the fall and at night, when 

predation is lowest (UDWR 2017, p. 3). 

The best available information does not 

indicate that pelicans or other avian 

predators are a threat to June suckers 

once the fish are established in Utah 

Lake. 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms 

Under this factor, we examine the 

stressors identified within the other 

factors as ameliorated or exacerbated by 

any existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. Section 4(b)(1)(A) 

of the Act requires that the Service take 

into account those efforts, if any, being 

made by any State or foreign nation, or 

any political subdivision of a State or 

foreign nation, to protect endangered or 

threatened species. We consider 

relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, 

regulations, and other such binding 

legal mechanisms that may ameliorate 

or exacerbate any of the threats we 

describe in threat analyses under the 

other four factors or otherwise enhance 

the species’ conservation. Our 

consideration of these mechanisms is 

described below. 

As a listed species, the primary 

regulatory mechanism for protection of 

the June sucker is through section 9(a) 

of the Act, as administered by the 

Service, which broadly prohibits 

import, export, take (e.g., to harm, 

harass, kill, capture), and possession of 

the species. Additional regulatory 

mechanisms are provided through 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act, which states 

that each Federal agency shall, in 

consultation with and with the 

assistance of the Secretary, insure that 

any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by the agency is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of habitat of such 

species that is determined by the 

Secretary, after soliciting comments 

from affected States, counties, and 

equivalent jurisdictions, to be critical. 

Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides 

a mechanism for research and 

propagation of listed species for 

recovery purposes through a permitting 

system that allows incidental take of a 

listed species in the course of scientific 

projects that will benefit the species as 

a whole. For non-Federal actions, 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes 

the Service to issue a permit allowing 

take of species provided that the taking 

is incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

the carrying out of an otherwise lawful 

activity. Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act 

requires that a conservation plan, which 

is part of an application for an 

incidental take permit, describe the 

impact of the taking and identify steps 

to minimize and mitigate the impacts. 

The Act will continue to provide 

protection to the June sucker after 

downlisting to threatened status, for as 

long as it remains on the List. The June 

sucker and its habitat will also continue 

to receive consideration and protection 

through the other regulatory 

mechanisms discussed below. 

The NEPA requires Federal agencies 

to evaluate the potential effects of their 

proposed actions on the quality of the 

human environment and requires the 

preparation of an EIS whenever projects 

may result in significant impacts. 

Federal agencies must identify adverse 

environmental impacts of their 

proposed actions and develop 

alternatives that undergo the scrutiny of 

other public and private organizations 

as a part of their decision-making 

process. However, impacts may still 

occur under NEPA, and the 

implementation of conservation 

measures is largely voluntary. Actions 

evaluated under NEPA only affect the 

June sucker if they address potential 

impacts to the species or its habitat. 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) requires that 

Federal agencies sponsoring, funding, or 

permitting activities related to water 

resource development projects request 

review of these actions by the Service 

and the State natural resources 

management agency. Similar to caveats 

noted for NEPA, actions considered 

under the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act are only relevant if 

they potentially impact the species or its 

habitat. The Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act does not provide 

strong or broad protections for listed 

species, but it provides an additional 

layer of review for projects likely to 

impact the June sucker and works in 

concert with other regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Section 101(a) of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (i.e., Clean Water 

Act; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) states that 

the objective of this law is to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nation’s 

waters and provide the means to assure 

protection of fish and wildlife. This 

statute contributes to the protection of 

the June sucker through provisions for 

water quality standards, protection from 

the discharge of harmful pollutants and 

contaminants (sections 303(c), 304(a), 

and 402), and protection from the 

discharge of dredged or fill material into 

all waters, including certain wetlands 

(section 404). 

The Clean Water Act requires every 

State to establish and maintain water 

quality standards designed to protect, 

restore, and preserve water quality in 

the State. However, Utah Lake has failed 

to meet water quality standards due to 

exceedance of total phosphorus and 

TDS concentrations (Psomas 2007, p. 

11), and it is listed as a section 303(d) 

‘‘impaired’’ water (Utah Lake 

Commission 2018, p. 7). Poor water 

quality in Utah Lake could alter food 

availability for the June sucker and 

contribute to increases in harmful algal 

bloom events and toxin concentrations 

from those events, which could increase 

the risk of large-scale June sucker 

mortality events. To meet Clean Water 

Act requirements, the UDWQ and the 

Utah Lake Commission are studying 

water quality in Utah Lake. They have 

a steering committee and science panel 

for the purposes of providing 

recommendations to improve water 

quality standards in Utah Lake (Utah 

Lake Commission 2018, entire). 

June suckers receive some protections 

at the State level. Under Utah 

Administrative Code R657–14–8, June 

suckers may not be harvested, and if 

caught must be immediately returned 

alive and unharmed to the water from 

which they were taken. 

When this rule is effective (see DATES, 

above), the June sucker will continue to 

receive protection under the Act as a 

threatened species. The June sucker will 

also continue to receive protection 

under the other aforementioned 

regulatory mechanisms. Despite these 

existing regulatory mechanisms, the 

threats discussed under the other factors 

continue to affect the June sucker such 

that it now meets the definition of a 

threatened species rather than an 

endangered species. 

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

Cumulative Threats 

The June sucker faces threats 

primarily from degraded habitat and 

water quality, water availability, 

predation from nonnative species, and 

urbanization. Furthermore, existing 

regulatory mechanisms do not 

adequately address these threats. The 

June sucker also faces a future threat of 

climate change, which may exacerbate 

other existing threats. These factors may 

act cumulatively on the species. For 

example, urbanization can result in 

increased pressure on existing water 

resources as well as degraded water 

quality, which, when combined with 

rising temperatures and decreased 

rainfall, can result in less available 

water, increased water temperatures, 

and decreased habitat quality. These 

factors can cause reduced availability of 

food for the June sucker, decreased 

reproductive success, and increased 

mortality. 

However, since the time of listing (51 

FR 10851; March 31, 1986), all of the 

identified threats to the June sucker 

have either improved measurably or are 

being adaptively managed according to 

the best available scientific information 

for the benefit of the June sucker (see 

Recovery, above). Conservation 

measures, including establishing refuge 

populations, stocking of June suckers in 

Utah Lake, habitat restoration projects 

on spawning tributaries, and nonnative 

fish removal, have resulted in increased 

numbers of June suckers in the lake, 

evidence of wild reproduction, and 

improved habitat within the lake and its 

tributaries. As a result, resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation have all 

improved. Continued research and 

monitoring provide an avenue to 

respond to new and evolving threats, 

such as the effects of climate change, to 

recovery progress. The existence of 

refuge populations ensures that, should 

a stochastic event or extreme 

combination of existing threats greatly 

impact the population in Utah Lake, the 

June sucker would not become extinct. 

This resilience to the cumulative 

threats is due largely to the actions of an 

active, committed, and well-funded 

recovery partnership. The JSRIP is the 

driving force behind the reduction in 

threats, habitat improvement, and 

population augmentation, and the JSRIP 

is able to adaptively manage new 

stressors as they arise. The improvement 

of conditions and success of the JSRIP 

can be measured via the increased 

number of spawning June suckers, the 

positive population trend, and the high 

level of year-to-year survival. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register on November 26, 2019 

(84 FR 65080), we requested that all 

interested parties submit written 

comments on our proposal to downlist 

the June sucker by January 27, 2020. We 

also contacted appropriate Federal and 

State agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. Newspaper notices 

inviting general public comment were 

published in the Salt Tribune (Salt Lake 

City) and Daily Herald (Provo). We did 

not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. All substantive information 

provided during the comment period is 

either incorporated directly into this 

final rule or is addressed below. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published on July 1, 1994 

(59 FR 34270) and our August 22, 2016, 

memorandum (USFWS 2016, entire) 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we solicited expert opinion from three 

knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise and familiarity with 

the June sucker, its habitat, its biological 

needs and potential threats, or 

principles of conservation biology. The 

purpose of peer review is to ensure that 

our listing and reclassification 

determinations are based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We received responses 

from two peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from the peer reviewers for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the proposed downlisting of 

the June sucker. The peer reviewers 

provided additional information, 

clarifications, and suggestions to 

improve the final rule, which we 

include in this rule or address in the 

responses to comments below. One peer 

reviewer favored the downlisting of the 

June sucker and provided only small, 

technical edits to the document. The 

other peer reviewer also provided 

technical edits and suggestions. This 

reviewer also expressed concern that 

there was not enough detail in the 

proposed rule to determine whether 

June sucker meets the definition of a 

threatened species, and stated that many 

of the known threats should be more 

thoroughly mitigated before downlisting 

should be considered. Substantive 

comments from this reviewer are 

addressed below, and minor editorial 

comments were resolved in the text of 

the rule itself. 

(1) Comment: The reviewer suggested 

that there may be additional information 

that could contribute to the accuracy 

and completeness of our description 

and analysis of the biology, habitat, 

population trends, and historical and 

current distribution of the June sucker. 

The reviewer stated there is quantitative 

information on population dynamics 

and trends that was not considered in 

the proposed rule. 

Our Response: The reviewer did not 

specify what information may be 

missing from the rule or provide 

information on population dynamics 

and trends that we failed to consider. 

We were unable to find additional 

population or biological information 

about the June sucker that we had not 

reviewed when the proposed rule was 

published. Some additional information 

has become available since publication 

of the proposed rule, and it is included 

in the text of this rule where relevant. 

(2) Comment: The reviewer 

commented that we referred the reader 

to the final listing rule and recovery 

plan, respectively published in 1986 

and 1999, but that these documents are 

relatively old, and substantial new 

information has accrued since their 

appearance, which we reference later. 

Our Response: The final listing rule 

(51 FR 10851; March 31, 1986) and the 

recovery plan (Service 1999) represent 

the only two Service-published 

documents with significant information 

on the biology and habitat of the June 

sucker, until the proposed rule was 

published in 2019 (84 FR 65080; 

November 26, 2019). We referenced the 

older documents in the proposed rule 

because the proposed rule itself also 

served as the 5-year review and our 

most recent update to those documents. 

As the reviewer notes, many other and 

more recent references are available for 

additional information and are cited in 

the text of both the proposed and final 

rules. 

(3) Comment: The reviewer stated that 

we did not adequately consider some of 

the threats to June sucker in our 

analysis, particularly predation by white 

bass on juvenile June suckers, avian 

predation, and the reliance on hatcheryproduced fish to maintain the 

population, as natural reproduction and 

recruitment are not sufficient. The 

reviewer did not provide any additional 

information to support these comments. 

Our Response: The November 26, 

2019, proposed rule (84 FR 65080), as 

well as this final rule, recognize that the 

June sucker currently relies on stocking 

to maintain the population in Utah 

Lake. We do not find this reliance to be 

in conflict with a ‘‘threatened’’ status 

determination, as we have reasonable 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 205 

certainty based on partner agreements 

that stocking will continue until the 

Utah Lake population can be shown to 

be self-sustaining. Continued and 

planned recovery actions, such as 

habitat restoration and removal of 

nonnative species, are likely to continue 

to have a positive effect on 

reproduction, recruitment, and survival, 

and the system is monitored intensely to 

detect any rising threats or reversal of 

recovery progress. As we discuss above 

in this final rule, the best available 

information does not indicate that white 

bass or avian predation constitute a 

threat to the June sucker in Utah Lake 

under current conditions (which 

include ongoing recovery actions, like 

stocking and nonnative fish removal). 

Some predation does occur, and we 

have added text regarding methods used 

to reduce pelican predation on June 

suckers while they are being stocked, as 

that is the time the largest number of 

fish are vulnerable to avian predation. 

If, in the future, these factors are shown 

to prevent the June sucker population in 

Utah Lake from being self-sustaining, 

they will need to be addressed before 

we can achieve full recovery. 

(4) Comment: The reviewer stated that 

we assume that capture of untagged fish 

or fish of ‘‘unknown origin’’ results in 

population estimates and other 

demographic parameters that are 

incorrect (low), but adds that a 

population estimate does not depend on 

tagged fish only and the estimate should 

include the total number of fish, tagged 

and untagged. 

Our Response: The reviewer is 

correct. The number we present as the 

known spawning population is not 

meant to represent a population 

estimate, but to provide the number of 

recorded individual June sucker 

spawners detected using PIT tags and 

antennae. That number is the minimum 

number of spawning adults we can be 

certain are surviving in the lake, and it 

does not account for fish that did not 

spawn in the years analyzed, fish 

without tags, or tagged fish that were 

not recorded by monitoring equipment. 

Due to the lack of information regarding 

untagged fish or Utah Lake fish that are 

not spawning, and the various ways the 

data have been collected, we do not 

attempt to extrapolate the number of 

recorded spawning June suckers into a 

full population estimate. We have 

removed all references to a population 

estimate in this document and clarified 

the nature of the numbers provided. 

(5) Comment: The reviewer stated that 

we have not shown adequately that 

recovery criteria are met in order to 

allow for a downlisting, and cited the 

need for actions such as permanent, 

legally assured flows for spawning, 

increased habitat, and a permanent 

continuous plan to remove carp and 

combat future novel predators that may 

be introduced. 

Our Response: The Recovery 

discussion in the proposed rule (84 FR 

65080, November 26, 2019, pp. 84 FR 

65084–65087), as well as in this final 

rule (above), goes into detail regarding 

the existing downlisting criteria and 

how they have been met (if they have) 

or why they are outdated or irrelevant. 

The legal standard for downlisting is 

whether the species meets the definition 

of a ‘‘threatened species’’ that is, it is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

Due to an exceptional track record and 

proven recovery measures, we are 

assured that the commitment of our 

partners and the JSRIP will continue, 

recovery actions and responses to 

threats will be implemented, and the 

existing agreements mean that June 

sucker is no longer currently in danger 

of extinction through all or a significant 

portion of its range. The reviewer’s 

comments regarding downlisting criteria 

more closely represent the definition of 

full recovery and delisting than for 

downlisting the species to threatened 

status. 

(6) Comment: The reviewer 

commented that we did not include all 

necessary and pertinent information to 

support our arguments, and they 

identified a number of references for 

June sucker that we did not cite in our 

proposed rule that were found through 

an internet search. The reviewer did not 

state that these particular references had 

information that would impact our 

status evaluation; in fact, the reviewer 

said that they had not read them. The 

reviewer only stated that they believed 

the fact that they could find references 

we did not cite meant we had not been 

thorough in our analysis. 

Our Response: The literature cited in 

the proposed rule (84 FR 65080; 

November 26, 2019) constitutes the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the downlisting of 

the June sucker. Additional literature, 

including all of the citations provided 

by the reviewer, were previously 

evaluated as part of the rule 

development, and they remain on file as 

part of the record. A significant amount 

of literature on the June sucker and Utah 

Lake exists, some of which is outdated 

or redundant. Some was not necessary 

to include, as it provides a level of 

detail on aspects of June sucker biology 

that was superfluous to reaching a status 

determination. For the sake of clarity 

and brevity, we did not cite every 

existing piece of literature on the 

species, but limited our citations to the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available regarding the 

status of, and threats to, the June sucker. 

However, no piece of literature that we 

found might have bearing on our 

analysis, either positively or negatively, 

was excluded from our review, 

including the citations provided by the 

commenter. 

Public Comments 

We received 19 letters from the public 

that provided comments on our 

November 26, 2019, proposed rule (84 

FR 65080). Twelve of the commenters 

expressed their explicit support for the 

proposed downlisting, and three 

expressed their opposition to it. Four 

commenters either did not explicitly 

state their position or expressed general 

concerns that threats should be 

addressed if the June sucker is to be 

downlisted. Relevant and substantive 

public comments that have not been 

addressed through changes to the text 

are addressed in the following 

summary. 

(1) Comment: One commenter 

objected to the proposed downlisting on 

the basis that too many threats to the 

species (including climate change and 

carp) still exist to justify reduced 

protections, and stated that increased 

human development inevitably results 

in death or extinction of animals in the 

area. 

Our Response: We agree that a 

number of threats still impact the June 

sucker and need to be continually 

managed for the species’ protection and 

recovery. This rule analyzes adaptive 

measures for all known threats, 

including water management plans and 

habitat restoration to mitigate the effects 

of climate change; long-term 

management plans for carp and other 

nonnative, invasive species; and 

protections that prevent future 

development from increasing the June 

sucker’s risk of becoming endangered 

again. All exceptions from take 

restrictions included in the 4(d) rule, as 

described below under Provisions of the 

4(d) Rule, are tied directly to the benefit 

of June sucker recovery and the health 

of its native habitat. We are confident in 

the JSRIP’s and our partners’ 

commitment to following through with 

existing plans and continuing to manage 

the June sucker in accordance with 

recovery objectives, as they have for the 

last 18 years. Should threats to the June 

sucker increase to the point where there 

is an increased risk of extinction, the 

Service can and will reevaluate its 

status and protections accordingly. 

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

(2) Comment: One commenter 

suggested removing all June suckers and 

other desirable native fishes from Utah 

Lake to a safe holding facility, 

exterminating the nonnative species, 

and then reintroducing native species 

back into the lake. 

Our Response: This comment does 

not relate to the status of June sucker 

now, but to potential ways to continue 

recovery in the future. However, due to 

the size of Utah Lake and unique 

hydrological factors, removal of all 

nonnative fishes from the system, even 

using strong piscicides, is not feasible. 

Mechanical removal is not able to 

capture all nonnative fish at a rate that 

would prevent reestablishment, and 

suitable piscicides are not available in 

enough quantity to eradicate all 

nonnative fish from the lake, even if a 

practical and comprehensive 

application method could be found. 

(3) Comment: One commenter 

requested that we update the June 

sucker recovery plan in order to specify 

what needs to be done to reach full 

recovery and delisting. 

Our Response: An update of the June 

sucker recovery plan, including 

quantitative delisting criteria, is 

underway, and a draft will be published 

for public comment at a later date, after 

this rule goes into effect (see DATES, 

above). 

(4) Comment: We received several 

comments requesting that provisions be 

added to the 4(d) rule regarding State 

management of recreational fisheries of 

Utah Lake and for education and 

outreach efforts for June sucker and 

Utah Lake. In addition to official public 

comments, both of these provisions 

were also informally requested by 

recovery partners at JSRIP meetings. 

Our Response: We have added the 

requested provisions to the final 4(d) 

rule; both provisions will contribute to 

June sucker conservation. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

As explained above under Summary 

of Comments and Recommendations, 

we made several changes in this final 

rule in response to public comments we 

received on our November 26, 2019, 

proposed rule (84 FR 65080). The 

primary changes are to add exceptions 

to the prohibitions on take in the 4(d) 

rule for recreational fisheries 

management and for education and 

outreach. See ‘‘Recreational Fisheries 

Management’’ and ‘‘Education and 

Outreach,’’ under Provisions of the 4(d) 

Rule, below, for a description of these 

take exceptions. These changes address 

requests made both in public comments 

and by our recovery partners at JSRIP 

meetings. 

Additionally, in response to a peerreview comment, in this final rule, we 

do not attempt to extrapolate the 

number of recorded spawning June 

suckers into a full population estimate; 

we have removed all references to a 

population estimate in this document 

and clarified the nature of the numbers 

provided. We also cite more recent 

information (published since the 

November 26, 2019, publication of the 

proposed rule), where it is relevant, in 

this final rule. 

Finally, we made nonsubstantive, 

editorial changes, such as to explain a 

cross-reference to other regulations, to 

the text of the 4(d) rule to improve its 

clarity. 

Determination of June Sucker’s Status 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ 

or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species 

that is ‘‘in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

a species that is ‘‘likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ The Act 

requires that we determine whether a 

species meets the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

June sucker is an endangered or 

threatened species throughout all of its 

range. We carefully examined the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats faced by the June 

sucker. We reviewed the information 

available in our files and other available 

published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

recognized experts and State agencies. 

We evaluated the changes in resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation for the 

June sucker since the time of listing (51 

FR 10851; March 31, 1986). 

June sucker resiliency has improved 

since the time of listing, with an 

increase in the wild spawning 

population of at least ten-fold, a positive 

population trend, and increases in both 

the quality and quantity of habitat. We 

project that these conditions will 

continue to improve based on plans to 

continue successful management 

actions and implement new projects, 

such as the PRDRP and the Utah Water 

Quality Study. Redundancy in June 

sucker is assured by the existence of two 

new populations, including the refuge 

population maintained at FES hatchery 

and an additional naturally selfsustaining population in Red Butte 

Reservoir, as well as the presence of 

water flows in at least two spawning 

tributaries each year (Provo River and 

Hobble Creek), with up to five spawning 

tributaries available in good water years. 

Prior to the June sucker’s listing, there 

were no refuge populations, and in low 

water years, there might be no available 

spawning tributaries with water 

throughout the summer. Representation 

for the June sucker exists in the form of 

genetic diversity in the breeding and 

stocking program, which has preserved 

a high degree of genetic variation in the 

fish stocked in Utah Lake since listing. 

Based on these elements, we find that 

overall viability for the June sucker has 

improved since the time of listing. 

Factor B is not considered a threat to 

the June sucker due to the fact that 

harvest and collection of the species are 

strictly regulated and very limited. June 

suckers are affected by loss and 

degradation of habitat (Factor A), 

predation (Factor C), and other effects of 

human activities, including climate 

change (Factor E). Existing regulatory 

mechanisms outside of the Act (Factor 

D) do not address all the identified 

threats to the June sucker, as indicated 

by the fact that these threats continue to 

affect the species throughout its range. 

However, recovery actions have 

significantly improved viability of the 

June sucker and reduced the immediacy 

of these threats. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effects of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we find that the threats of loss 

and degradation of habitat (Factor A), 

predation (Factor C), and other effects of 

human activities including climate 

change (Factor E) are still acting on the 

June sucker. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms outside of the Act (Factor 

D) do not address all the identified 

threats to the June sucker, as indicated 

by the fact that these threats continue to 

affect the species throughout its range, 

although with less intensity than at the 

time of listing (51 FR 10851; March 31, 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 207 

1986). However, given increases in 

population numbers due to sustained 

recovery efforts by the JSRIP over the 

last 18 years, we determine the June 

sucker no longer meets the Act’s 

definition of an endangered species. We 

therefore proceed with determining 

whether the June sucker meets the Act’s 

definition of a threatened species. 

Based solely on biological factors, we 

consider 25 years to be the foreseeable 

future within which we can reasonably 

determine that the future threats and the 

June sucker’s response to those threats 

is likely. This time period includes 

multiple generations of the species and 

allows adequate time for impacts from 

conservation efforts or changes in 

threats to be indicated through 

population response. 

The foreseeable future for the 

individual threats vary. Management 

and recovery progress of the population 

and its threats are overseen by the 

JSRIP. The charter of this program states 

that the purpose of the JSRIP is to 

recover the June sucker to the point at 

which it no longer requires protections 

under the Act, and to do so based on 

recovery guidance provided by the 

Service using the best available 

scientific and biological information in 

an adaptive management approach. 

Because the JSRIP is committed to 

achieving recovery and the partners 

have committed to continued funding, 

threats to the June sucker will continue 

to be adaptively managed by the JSRIP 

until such time as we find it no longer 

requires protections under the Act. For 

at least as long as the species remains 

listed, the JSRIP will continue to 

manage June sucker threats and 

population health and trends in an 

adaptive way, ensuring that the species 

is extremely unlikely to go extinct. The 

Service will then rely on management 

actions that have been put in place by 

the JSRIP, and other factors such as a 

population viability analysis, habitat 

improvements, and future long-term 

agreements, when delisting is being 

considered. This long-term management 

(e.g., permanent water acquisition, 

breeding program, stocking, and 

nonnative fish removal) ensures 

continued stability in the absence of the 

protections of the Act after the June 

sucker reaches full recovery. 

Although population numbers have 

increased and the intensity of the 

identified threats have decreased, our 

analysis indicates that, because of the 

remaining threats and stressors, the 

species meets the Act’s definition of a 

threatened species. Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that the June sucker is not 

currently in danger of extinction, but is 

still likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The court in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 

WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) 

(Center for Biological Diversity), vacated 

the aspect of the Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 

that provided that the Services do not 

undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as threatened 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, 

we proceed to evaluating whether the 

species is endangered in a significant 

portion of its range—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which both (1) the portion is 

significant; and, (2) the species is in 

danger of extinction in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be more 

efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Center for Biological Diversity, we now 

consider whether there are any 

significant portions of the species’ range 

where the species is in danger of 

extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 

undertaking this analysis for the June 

sucker, we choose to address the status 

question first—we consider information 

pertaining to the geographic distribution 

of both the species and the threats that 

the species faces to identify any 

portions of the range where the species 

is endangered. 

The June sucker is a narrow endemic 

that functions as a single, contiguous 

population and occurs within a small 

area that includes one lake and 

associated tributaries. Thus, there is no 

biologically meaningful way to break 

this limited range into portions, and the 

threats that the species faces affect the 

species throughout its entire range. This 

means that no portions of the species’ 

range have a different status from its 

rangewide status. Therefore, no portion 

of the species’ range can provide a basis 

for determining that the species is in 

danger of extinction in a significant 

portion of its range, and we determine 

that the species is likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. This is consistent with the courts’ 

holdings in Desert Survivors v. 

Department of the Interior, No. 16–cv– 

01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 

959 (D. Ariz. 2017). 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the June sucker does not 

meet the definition of an endangered 

species in accordance with sections 3(6) 

and 4(a)(1) of the Act, but does meet the 

definition of a threatened species in 

accordance with sections 3(20) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, we are 

downlisting the June sucker in the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

from endangered to threatened. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is classified, those activities that would 

or would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a listing on proposed and 

ongoing activities within the range of 

the species being listed. Because we are 

listing this species as a threatened 

species, the prohibitions in section 9 

would not apply directly. We are 

therefore putting into place below a set 

of regulations to provide for the 

conservation of the species in 

accordance with section 4(d), which 

also authorizes us to apply any of the 

prohibitions in section 9 to a threatened 

species. The 4(d) rule, which includes a 

description of the kinds of activities that 

would or would not constitute a 

violation, complies with this policy. 

Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of 

the Act 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the ‘‘Secretary shall issue such 

regulations as he deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation’’ of species listed as 

threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

noted that statutory language like 

‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates 

a large degree of deference to the agency 

(see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 

(1988)). Conservation is defined in the 

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

Act to mean ‘‘the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to [the Act] 

are no longer necessary.’’ Additionally, 

the second sentence of section 4(d) of 

the Act states that the Secretary ‘‘may by 

regulation prohibit with respect to any 

threatened species any act prohibited 

under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 

or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case 

of plants.’’ Thus, the combination of the 

two sentences of section 4(d) provides 

the Secretary with wide latitude of 

discretion to select and promulgate 

appropriate regulations tailored to the 

specific conservation needs of the 

threatened species. The second sentence 

grants particularly broad discretion to 

us when adopting the prohibitions 

under section 9. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld rules developed under section 

4(d) as a valid exercise of agency 

authority where they prohibited take of 

threatened wildlife, or include a limited 

taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. 

Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); 

Washington Environmental Council v. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 

U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 

2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) 

rules that do not address all of the 

threats a species faces (see State of 

Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th 

Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative 

history when the Act was initially 

enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the 

threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to him with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. He 

may, for example, permit taking, but not 

importation of such species, or he may 

choose to forbid both taking and 

importation but allow the transportation 

of such species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 

93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). 

Exercising this authority under 

section 4(d), we have developed a 

species-specific 4(d) rule that is 

designed to address the June sucker’s 

specific threats and conservation needs. 

Although the statute does not require us 

to make a ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ 

finding with respect to the adoption of 

specific prohibitions under section 9, 

we find that this rule as a whole satisfies 

the requirement in section 4(d) of the 

Act to issue regulations deemed 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the June sucker. As 

discussed under Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species, we conclude that 

the June sucker is no longer at risk of 

extinction, but is still likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future, primarily 

due to the identified threats of water 

development, habitat degradation, and 

the introduction of nonnative species. 

The provisions of this 4(d) rule promote 

conservation of the June sucker by 

encouraging management of the Utah 

Lake system in ways that meet the 

conservation needs of the June sucker 

while taking into consideration the 

stakeholders’ needs. The provisions in 

this rule are some of many regulatory 

tools that we will use to promote the 

conservation of the June sucker. 

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule 

This 4(d) rule provides for the 

conservation of the June sucker by 

prohibiting the following activities, with 

certain exceptions (discussed below): 

Importing or exporting; possession and 

other acts with unlawfully taken 

specimens; delivering, receiving, 

transporting, or shipping in interstate or 

foreign commerce in the course of 

commercial activity; and selling or 

offering for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. In addition, anyone taking, 

attempting to take, or otherwise 

possessing a June sucker, or parts 

thereof, in violation of section 9 of the 

Act will be subject to a penalty under 

section 11 of the Act, with certain 

exceptions (discussed below). Under 

section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies 

must continue to ensure that any actions 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the June sucker. 

Under the Act, ‘‘take’’ means to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct. Some of these provisions have 

been further defined in regulations at 50 

CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or 

otherwise, by direct and indirect 

impacts, intentionally or incidentally. 

Allowing incidental and intentional 

take in certain cases, such as for the 

purposes of scientific inquiry, 

monitoring, or to improve habitat or 

water availability and quality, would 

help preserve a species’ remaining 

populations, slow their rate of decline, 

and decrease synergistic, negative 

effects from other stressors. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities, 

including those described above, 

involving threatened wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance propagation or 

survival, for economic hardship, for 

zoological exhibition, for educational 

purposes, for incidental taking, or for 

special purposes consistent with the 

purposes of the Act. There are also 

certain statutory exemptions from the 

prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

We recognize the special and unique 

relationship with our State natural 

resource agency partners in contributing 

to conservation of listed species. State 

agencies often possess scientific data 

and valuable expertise on the status and 

distribution of endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species of wildlife and 

plants. State agencies, because of their 

authorities and their close working 

relationships with local governments 

and landowners, are in a unique 

position to assist us in implementing all 

aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 

6 of the Act provides that we shall 

cooperate to the maximum extent 

practicable with the States in carrying 

out programs authorized by the Act. 

Therefore, any qualified employee or 

agent of a State conservation agency that 

is a party to a cooperative agreement 

with us in accordance with section 6(c) 

of the Act, who is designated by his or 

her agency for such purposes, will be 

able to conduct activities designed to 

conserve the June sucker that may result 

in otherwise prohibited take without 

additional authorization. 

As discussed above under Summary 

of Factors Affecting the Species, 

nonnative species, water development, 

and habitat degradation affect the status 

of the June sucker. A range of 

conservation activities, therefore, have 

the potential to benefit the June sucker, 

including nonnative fish removal, 

habitat restoration projects, monitoring 

of June sucker, management of 

recreational fisheries, June sucker 

research projects, educational and 

outreach efforts, and maintenance of 

June sucker refuges and stocking 

programs. Accordingly, this 4(d) rule 

addresses activities to facilitate 

conservation and management of the 

June sucker where they currently occur 

and may occur in the future by 

excepting them from the Act’s take 

prohibition under certain specific 

conditions. These activities are intended 

to increase management flexibility and 

encourage support for the conservation 

and habitat improvement of the June 

sucker. Under this 4(d) rule, take will 

continue to be prohibited, except for 

actions allowed in this 4(d) rule, 

provided the actions are approved by 

the Service, in coordination with any 

existing designated recovery program 

(e.g., JSRIP), for the purpose of June 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 209 

sucker conservation or recovery. 

Approval must be in writing (by letter 

or email) from a Service biologist or 

supervisor with authority over June 

sucker decisions. Take is allowed under 

this 4(d) rule as follows, and is further 

described below: 

• Incidental take resulting from 

activities intended to reduce or 

eliminate nonnative fish, including, but 

not limited to, common carp, northern 

pike, and white bass, from Utah Lake or 

its tributaries. 

• Incidental take resulting from 

habitat restoration projects or projects 

that allow for the increase of instream 

flows in Utah Lake tributaries, such as 

diversion removals. 

• Incidental take resulting from 

monitoring of June sucker in Utah Lake 

and its tributaries. 

• Incidental take resulting from 

monitoring and management of 

recreational sportfish populations in 

Utah Lake and its tributaries. 

• Incidental and direct take resulting 

from research projects to study factors 

affecting June sucker or its habitat for 

the purposes of providing management 

recommendations or improved 

condition of June sucker. 

• Incidental and direct take resulting 

from educational or outreach efforts to 

increase public awareness, engagement, 

and support for June sucker recovery 

efforts. 

• Incidental and direct take resulting 

from maintaining June sucker refuges 

and stocking population, and from 

moving June sucker for the purposes of 

stocking them in Utah Lake. 

These forms of allowable take are 

explained in more detail below. For all 

forms of allowable take, reasonable care 

must be practiced to minimize the 

impacts from the actions. Reasonable 

care means limiting the impacts to June 

sucker individuals and populations by 

complying with all applicable Federal, 

State, and Tribal regulations for the 

activity in question; using methods and 

techniques that result in the least harm, 

injury, or death, as feasible; undertaking 

activities at the least impactful times 

(e.g., conducting activities that might 

impact spawning habitat in a tributary 

only after spawning is concluded for the 

year) and locations, as feasible; 

procuring and implementing technical 

assistance from a qualified biologist on 

projects regarding all methods prior to 

the implementation of those methods; 

ensuring the number of individuals 

removed or sampled minimally impacts 

the existing wild population; ensuring 

no disease or parasites are introduced 

into the existing June sucker population; 

and preserving the genetic diversity of 

wild populations. 

Nonnative Fish Removal 

Incidental take is allowed where it 

results from activities intended to 

reduce or eliminate nonnative fish, 

including, but not limited to, common 

carp, northern pike, and white bass, 

from Utah Lake or its tributaries. 

Control of nonnative fish is vital for the 

continued recovery of June sucker. 

Control of nonnative fish is primarily 

conducted with mechanical removal via 

commercial seine netting and, to a 

limited extent, through angling (for 

northern pike). Other methods, 

including the use of genetically 

modified nonnative fish and 

electrofishing to reduce existing 

populations, may be implemented in the 

future. 

This 4(d) rule defines nonnative fish 

removal as any action with the primary 

or secondary purpose (such as the 

introduction of genetically engineered 

nonnative fish as part of an elimination 

strategy) of removing nonnative fish 

from Utah Lake and its tributaries that 

compete with, predate upon, or degrade 

the habitat of the June sucker. These 

removal methods must be approved by 

the Service in writing (by letter or 

email), in coordination with an existing 

designated recovery program (e.g., 

JSRIP) for that purpose. Such methods 

may include, but are not limited to, 

mechanical removal, chemical 

treatments such as piscicides, or 

biological controls. All methods used 

must be in compliance with State and 

Federal regulations. Whenever possible, 

June suckers that are caught alive as part 

of nonnative fish removal should be 

returned to their source as quickly as 

possible. 

Habitat Restoration and Improvement of 

Instream Flows 

Incidental take resulting from habitat 

restoration projects or projects that 

increase instream flows in Utah Lake 

tributaries is allowed under this 4(d) 

rule. Habitat restoration projects are 

needed to provide additional spawning 

and rearing habitat and refugia for June 

sucker. Improvements in the ability to 

obtain and deliver water to any of the 

known spawning tributaries will allow 

for improved spawning conditions, 

entrainment of June sucker larvae for 

development, and periodic high flows 

providing scouring of spawning 

habitats. This 4(d) rule defines habitat 

restoration or water delivery 

improvement projects as any action 

with the primary or secondary purpose 

of improving habitat conditions in Utah 

Lake and its tributaries or improving 

water delivery and available instream 

flows in spawning tributaries. These 

projects must be approved by the 

Service in writing, in coordination with 

any existing designated recovery 

program, for that purpose. Examples of 

planned or suggested projects where 

incidental take is allowed to occur 

include the Provo River Delta 

Restoration Project and the removal of 

water diversion structures from the 

Provo River and Hobble Creek. 

June Sucker Monitoring 

This 4(d) rule allows incidental take 

associated with any method used to 

detect June suckers in the wild for the 

purposes of better understanding 

population numbers, trends, or response 

to stressors that is not intended to be 

destructive, but that may 

unintentionally cause harm or death. 

Monitoring of June suckers is vital to 

understanding the population 

dynamics, health, and trends; for 

measuring the success of the stocking 

program; for evaluating impacts from 

threats; and for evaluating recovery 

actions that address threats to the 

species. With the use of PIT tag 

technology, monitoring is becoming less 

disruptive to the June sucker. However, 

many monitoring methods, including 

the initial PIT tagging of individuals, 

may accidentally harm fish or result in 

death. In addition to PIT tag readers, 

methods that may be used to detect June 

suckers in the wild include trammel 

netting, spotlighting, minnow trapping, 

trap netting, gill-netting, electrofishing, 

and seining. Any monitoring activities 

not conducted by the State or under the 

State’s section 6 permit must be 

approved by the Service in writing and 

be conducted in coordination with any 

existing designated recovery program. 

Recreational Fisheries Management 

Recreational fisheries monitoring 

actions conducted by the State are 

allowed to cause incidental take of June 

suckers through this 4(d) rule, provided 

that, whenever possible, June suckers 

that are caught alive as part of 

recreational fisheries are returned to 

their source as quickly as possible. 

These activities do not include fishing 

or other recreational activities 

conducted by private individuals but 

only those conducted by the State to 

manage fisheries in Utah Lake. Covered 

activities are those that do not occur in 

June sucker spawning habitat during the 

season of use or rearing habitat at any 

time of year, and are designed to count 

or capture recreational sport fish only. 

According to the interagency ‘‘Policy for 

Conserving Species Listed or Proposed 

for Listing Under the Endangered 

Species Act While Providing and 

Enhancing Recreational Fisheries 

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

Opportunities’’ published in the Federal 

Register on June 3, 1996 (61 FR 27978), 

the Service will support management 

practices that are consistent with 

recovery objectives and compatible with 

existing recreational fisheries. 

Management of recreational fishing 

opportunities undertaken by the State, 

or its designated agent, on Utah Lake 

and its tributaries require regular 

monitoring of sport fish populations. 

Methods that may be used to monitor 

sport fish populations include trammel 

netting, spotlighting, trawling, minnow 

trapping, trap netting, gill-netting, 

electrofishing, and seining. Use of these 

methods may inadvertently result in the 

capture, and incidental take, of 

individual June Sucker. Any activities 

associated with recreational fisheries 

management that are likely to 

significantly or repeatedly impact June 

suckers, such as those in spawning 

habitat during the season of use, those 

in the rearing habitat any time of year, 

or those that use methods not targeted 

to count or capture recreational sport 

fish only, must be approved by the 

Service in writing (by letter or email) 

and conducted in coordination with any 

existing recovery program in order to 

minimize effects on the population. 

Research 

This 4(d) rule defines June sucker 

research allowed to cause take as any 

activity undertaken for the purposes of 

increasing our understanding of June 

sucker biology, ecology, or recovery 

needs under the auspices of UDWR, a 

recognized academic institution, or a 

qualified scientific contractor and 

approved by the Service in writing, in 

coordination with any existing 

designated recovery program, as a 

necessary and productive study for June 

sucker recovery. Additional research is 

needed on June sucker biology, ecology, 

habitat needs, predators, and response 

to threats in order to improve the 

species’ status and provide 

recommendations for population 

management, habitat improvement, and 

threat reduction. Research may involve 

capture of June suckers using methods 

described above, or a variety of other 

activities to study water quality, 

nonnative fishes, lake and riverine 

ecosystems, tributary flows, habitat, or 

other factors affecting June suckers that 

may impact individual fish 

inadvertently. In some cases, lethal 

sampling of June suckers for research 

purposes may be necessary and 

appropriate. 

Education and Outreach 

This 4(d) rule defines June sucker 

educational and outreach actions 

allowed to cause take as any activity 

undertaken for the purposes of 

increasing public awareness of June 

sucker biology, ecology, or recovery 

needs and their positive effects on Utah 

Lake and its tributaries (e.g., a June 

sucker rearing-and-release program for 

high school students or a live June 

sucker display at an outreach event). 

These activities must be approved by 

the Service in writing (by letter or 

email), in coordination with any 

existing designated recovery program 

(e.g., JSRIP), as activities likely to 

benefit June sucker conservation 

through increased public awareness and 

engagement, which support June sucker 

recovery. 

Education and outreach are a vital 

part of June sucker recovery progress. 

Public awareness of June sucker biology 

and ecology helps foster support for the 

recovery program’s activities in and 

around Utah Lake. Increasing the 

prevailing understanding of how 

recovery activities for June suckers 

improve the health, function, beauty, 

and quality of Utah Lake for sport 

fishers, recreationists, and the 

surrounding community will strengthen 

support for continued conservation of 

the fish. It will also serve to counteract 

common and incorrect narratives that 

the protection of the June sucker is 

responsible for preventing positive 

activities and development in and 

around Utah Lake. This is particularly 

important during the upcoming PRDRP 

construction, in order to tie the recovery 

of the fish to meaningful improvements 

in ecological conditions and amenities 

for the public at Utah Lake. 

Refuges and Stocking 

This 4(d) rule defines June sucker 

stocking and refuge maintenance as any 

activity undertaken for the long-term 

maintenance of the June sucker at 

facilities outside of Utah Lake and its 

tributaries or for the production of June 

suckers for stocking in Utah Lake. Take 

could occur from necessary facility 

maintenance or water management, 

including at Red Butte Reservoir and its 

downstream drainages. Any breeding, 

stocking, or refuge program must be 

approved by the Service in writing, in 

coordination with any existing 

designated recovery program. Any June 

sucker breeding program shall be in 

compliance with all applicable 

regulations and best hatchery and 

fishery management practices as 

described in the American Fisheries 

Society’s Fish Hatchery Management 

(Wedemeyer 2002). 

Maintaining refuge populations and 

stocking the June sucker in Utah Lake is 

an integral part of June sucker recovery. 

The process of breeding, rearing, 

growing, maintaining, and stocking June 

suckers may result in take at all life 

stages, but the benefits to the species far 

outweigh any losses. At the present 

time, one facility (FES hatchery) breeds 

the June sucker for stocking in Utah 

Lake; this facility also functions as the 

designated refuge population for June 

sucker. In addition to the hatchery, FES 

uses offsite ponds as a grow-out facility 

to allow fish to reach a larger size before 

they are stocked in Utah Lake because 

this significantly increases survival 

upon release (Burgad et al. 2016, p. 8). 

Another population of June suckers 

exists in Red Butte Reservoir and is 

maintained, but not actively managed as 

a refuge, for stocking purposes. Red 

Butte Reservoir is a useful source 

population and may be used for 

stocking more intensively in the future, 

since fish from Red Butte Reservoir 

consistently have the highest poststocking success rates. 

Nothing in this 4(d) rule changes in 

any way the recovery planning 

provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the 

consultation requirements under section 

7 of the Act, or our ability to enter into 

partnerships for the management and 

protection of the June sucker. However, 

interagency cooperation may be further 

streamlined through planned 

programmatic consultations for the 

species between us and other Federal 

agencies, where appropriate. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and EISs, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

determining a species’ listing status 

under the Endangered Species Act. In 

an October 25, 1983, notice in the 

Federal Register (48 FR 49244), we 

outlined our reasons for this 

determination, which included a 

compelling recommendation from the 

Council on Environmental Quality that 

we cease preparing environmental 

assessments or environmental impact 

statements for listing decisions. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 211 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that no Tribes will 

be affected by this rule because there are 

no Tribal lands or interests within or 

adjacent to June sucker habitat. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this final rule is available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2019–0026, or upon 

request from the Utah Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are staff members of the Service’s 

Regions 5 and 7 and the Utah Ecological 

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES

and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby amend part 

17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Sucker, June (Chasmistes 

liorus)’’ under ‘‘FISHES’’ in the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable 

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 

(cc) to read as follows: 

§ 17.44 Special rules—fishes. 

* * * * * 

(cc) June sucker (Chasmistes liorus). 

(1) Prohibitions. The following 

prohibitions that apply to endangered 

wildlife also apply to the June sucker. 

Except as provided under paragraph 

(cc)(2) of this section and §§ 17.4 and 

17.5, it is unlawful for any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States to commit, to attempt to commit, 

to solicit another to commit, or cause to 

be committed, any of the following acts 

in regard to this species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) 

for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth 

at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife. 

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of commercial activity, as set 

forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife. 

(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In 

regard to this species, you may: 

(i) Conduct activities as authorized by 

an existing permit under § 17.32. 

(ii) Conduct activities as authorized 

by a permit issued prior to February 3, 

2021 under § 17.22 for the duration of 

the permit. 

(iii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) 

through (c)(4) for endangered wildlife. 

(iv) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b). 

(v) Take June suckers while carrying 

out the following legally conducted 

activities in accordance with this 

paragraph (cc)(2)(iv): 

(A) Definitions. For the purposes of 

this paragraph (cc)(2)(iv): 

(1) Qualified biologist means a fulltime fish biologist or aquatic resources 

manager employed by Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, a Department of the 

Interior agency, or fish biologist or 

aquatic resource manager employed by 

a private consulting firm that has been 

approved by the Service in writing (by 

letter or email), the designated recovery 

program (e.g., June Sucker Recovery 

Implementation Program), or the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources. 

(2) Reasonable care means limiting 

the impacts to June sucker individuals 

and populations by complying with all 

applicable Federal, State, and Tribal 

regulations for the activity in question; 

using methods and techniques that 

result in the least harm, injury, or death, 

as feasible; undertaking activities at the 

least impactful times and locations, as 

feasible; procuring and implementing 

technical assistance from a qualified 

biologist on projects regarding all 

methods prior to the implementation of 

those methods; ensuring the number of 

individuals removed or sampled 

minimally impacts the existing wild 

population; ensuring no disease or 

parasites are introduced into the 

existing June sucker population; and 

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

preserving the genetic diversity of wild 

populations. 

(B) Allowable forms of take of June 

suckers. Take of June suckers as a result 

of the following legally conducted 

activities is allowed, provided that the 

activity is approved by the Service in 

writing (by letter or email), in 

coordination with any existing 

designated recovery program, for the 

purpose of the conservation or recovery 

of the June sucker, and that reasonable 

care is practiced to minimize the impact 

of such activities. 

(1) Nonnative fish removal. Take of 

June suckers as a result of any action 

with the primary or secondary purpose 

of removing from Utah Lake and its 

tributaries nonnative fish that compete 

with, predate upon, or degrade the 

habitat of the June sucker is allowed. 

Allowable methods of removal may 

include, but are not limited to, 

mechanical removal, chemical 

treatments, or biological controls. 

Whenever possible, June suckers that 

are caught alive as part of nonnative fish 

removal should be returned to their 

source as quickly as possible. 

(2) Habitat restoration and 

improvement of instream flows. Take of 

June suckers as a result of any action 

with the primary or secondary purpose 

of improving habitat conditions in Utah 

Lake and its tributaries or improving 

water delivery and available in-stream 

flows in spawning tributaries is 

allowed. 

(3) Monitoring. Take of June suckers 

as a result of any method that is used 

to detect June suckers in the wild to 

better understand population numbers, 

trends, or response to stressors, and that 

is not intended to be destructive but that 

may unintentionally cause harm or 

death, is allowed. 

(4) Recreational fisheries 

management. Take of June suckers as a 

result of any activity by the State, or its 

designated agent, that is necessary to 

manage or monitor recreational fisheries 

in Utah Lake and its tributaries is 

allowed, provided the management 

practices do not contradict June sucker 

recovery objectives and that the 

activities are not intended to cause harm 

or death to June suckers. 

(5) Research. Take of June suckers as 

a result of any activity undertaken for 

the purposes of increasing scientific 

understanding of June sucker biology, 

ecology, or recovery needs under the 

auspices of the designated recovery 

program, a recognized academic 

institution, or a qualified scientific 

contractor is allowed. Incidental and 

direct take resulting from such approved 

research to benefit the June sucker is 

allowed. 

(6) Education and outreach. Take of 

June suckers as a result of any activity 

undertaken under the auspices of the 

designated recovery program for the 

purposes of increasing public awareness 

of June sucker biology, ecology, or 

recovery needs and June sucker 

recovery benefits for Utah Lake, its 

tributaries, and the surrounding 

communities is allowed. Incidental and 

direct take resulting from such 

educational or outreach efforts to benefit 

the June sucker is allowed. 

(7) Refuges and stocking. Take of June 

suckers as a result of activities 

undertaken for the long-term 

maintenance of June suckers at Serviceapproved facilities outside of Utah Lake 

and its tributaries or for the production 

of June suckers for stocking in Utah 

Lake is allowed. 

(vi) Possess and engage in other acts 

with unlawfully taken endangered 

wildlife, as set forth at § 17.21(d)(2). 

Aurelia Skipwith 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27833 Filed 12–31–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P