[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 192-212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27833]



[[Page 191]]

Vol. 86

Monday,

No. 1

January 4, 2021

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the 
Endangered June Sucker to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule; Final 
Rule

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

[[Page 192]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 (mi\2\) (400 square 
kilometers (km\2\)) 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 algae-dominated, 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, management-induced 
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

[[Page 194]]

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-of-year 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

[[Page 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-year-old 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.

[[Page 196]]

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 (m\3\)) 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 m\3\) 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 m\3\) of permanent 
water for Hobble Creek, up to 4,500 acre-ft (5,550,660 m\3\) 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

[[Page 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-per-unit 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

[[Page 198]]

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, self-sustaining 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 self-sustaining 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

[[Page 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 species-specific 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 mid-1800s. 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.

[[Page 200]]

    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-of-year 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 macrophyte-dominated 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

[[Page 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 sediment-rich 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 post-
stocking 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 
large-scale 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 ([deg]F) or 27 degrees 
Celsius ([deg]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 [deg]F (20 [deg]C), which is the State cold-
water 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

[[Page 202]]

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 m\3\) of permanent water for the Provo River and 8,500 
acre-ft (10,485,000 m\3\) 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 top-level 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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 204]]

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 hatchery-produced 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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 206]]

    (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 peer-review 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 self-sustaining 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,

[[Page 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

[[Page 208]]

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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Incidental take resulting from monitoring of June sucker 
in Utah Lake and its tributaries.
    <bullet> Incidental take resulting from monitoring and management 
of recreational sportfish populations in Utah Lake and its tributaries.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Incidental and direct take resulting from educational or 
outreach efforts to increase public awareness, engagement, and support 
for June sucker recovery efforts.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 210]]

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 post-
stocking 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

[[Page 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

0
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.


0
2. Amend Sec.  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:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
           Common name               Scientific name        Where listed         Status         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\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.44 by adding paragraph (cc) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  17.21(b) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(1) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as 
set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
    (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  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 
Sec.  17.32.
    (ii) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit issued prior to 
February 3, 2021 under Sec.  17.22 for the duration of the permit.
    (iii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (iv) Take, as set forth at Sec.  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 full-time 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

[[Page 212]]

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 
Service-approved 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 Sec.  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