35708 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

proceeding, including seeking cost and 

benefit analyses. This information may 

help the Commission identify and 

evaluate other relevant matters, 

including compliance costs and burdens 

on small entities that may result from 

the matters explored in the NPRM. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

45. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance, rather than 

design, standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 

46. In the NPRM, the Commission 

seeks to identify the appropriate band 

for devices that could be used to mark 

fishing equipment and how to best 

protect maritime safety and incumbents. 

The Commission has raised three 

possible for approaches for 

consideration. As discussed above, the 

first approach looks at use of the current 

1900–2000 kHz band and whether it 

remains appropriate for use in support 

of fishing operations. Pursuant to the 

NDAA21 statutory mandate, the NPRM 

seeks comment on whether imposing 

requirements with respect to the manner 

in which devices that could be used to 

mark fishing equipment are deployed 

would enable them to be authorized to 

operate in radio frequencies assigned for 

AIS consistent with the core AIS 

purpose to prevent maritime accidents. 

In the alternative, the Commission 

raised for consideration whether 

alternative frequencies could provide a 

viable option for devices that could be 

used to mark fishing equipment, in 

particular 160.900 MHz. To understand 

the technical, operational, and 

economic impact of each of these 

alternatives the Commission has 

provided small entities and others the 

opportunity to provide information, 

including cost and benefit analyses on 

issues identified in the NPRM as well as 

information on any other issues relevant 

to this matter. 

47. The Commission expects to 

consider more fully the economic 

impact on small entities following its 

review of comments filed in response to 

the NPRM, including costs and benefits 

analyses, and this IFRA. The 

Commission’s evaluation of the 

comments filed in this proceeding will 

shape the final conclusions it reaches, 

the final alternatives it considers, and 

the actions it ultimately takes in this 

proceeding to minimize any significant 

economic impact that may occur on 

small entities. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

48. None. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

49. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 303(r), 

308, 309, and 384 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 

154(i), 301, 303(r), 308, 309, and 384, 

and pursuant to Section 8416 of the 

William M. (Mac) Thornberry National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2021, that this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is hereby adopted. 

50. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14362 Filed 7–6–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057; 

FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] 

RIN 1018–BE07 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassification of the 

Razorback Sucker From Endangered 

to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

reclassify the razorback sucker 

(Xyrauchen texanus) from an 

endangered species to a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 

proposed downlisting is based on our 

evaluation of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

which indicates that the species’ status 

has improved due to conservation 

actions and partnerships, and the 

threats to the razorback sucker 

identified at the time of listing in 1991 

have been eliminated or reduced to the 

point that the species is no longer 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, but it is still likely to become 

so within the foreseeable future without 

current active and intensive 

management. We also propose a rule 

under section 4(d) of the Act that 

provides for the conservation of the 

razorback sucker. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

September 7, 2021. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. We must receive requests for a 

public hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by August 23, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search panel on 

the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rule box to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

Document availability: Supporting 

documentation used to prepare this 

proposed rule, including the 5-year 

review and the species status 

assessment (SSA) report, are available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35709 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Chart, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program, 

P.O. Box 25486, DFC, Lakewood, CO 

80225; telephone: 303–236–9885. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (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, a species may warrant 

reclassification from endangered species 

status to threatened species status if it 

no longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species (in danger of 

extinction). Downlisting a species as a 

threatened species can only be made by 

issuing a rulemaking. 

What this document does. This 

document proposes to reclassify the 

razorback sucker from an endangered 

species to a threatened species (i.e., to 

‘‘downlist’’ the species) on the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife, with a rule issued under 

section 4(d) of the Act, based on the 

species’ current status, which has been 

improved and maintained through 

implementation of conservation actions 

such as stocking, flow and habitat 

management, and invasive species 

control. This proposed rule and the 

associated SSA report reassess all 

available information regarding the 

status of and threats to the razorback 

sucker. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we determine whether a species is 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species’’ based on any of five 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. We 

may reclassify a species if the best 

available commercial and scientific data 

indicate the species no longer meets the 

applicable definition in the Act. For the 

reasons discussed below, we have 

determined that the razorback sucker no 

longer meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species, but does meet the 

Act’s definition of a threatened species. 

The actions of multiple conservation 

partners over the past 30 years have 

improved the condition of razorback 

sucker and reduced threats to the 

species. However, there is enough risk 

associated with the species’ reliance on 

management actions and the potential 

loss of these important management 

actions such that the species meets the 

definition of a threatened species. 

The status of the razorback sucker has 

been improved and maintained by a 

variety of conservation actions such as 

stocking, flow and habitat management, 

and invasive species control that benefit 

the razorback sucker. Conservation 

programs implemented by many 

partners improved conditions such that 

the razorback sucker now has multiple, 

large, reproducing populations 

distributed across much of its originally 

occupied range, with four populations 

in the upper basin and three 

populations in the lower basin. In total, 

conditions have improved, and the 

species now has sufficient resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation such 

that it is not currently at risk of 

extinction throughout all of its range 

(i.e., it does not meet the Act’s 

definition of an endangered species). 

However, recruitment of razorback 

sucker to the adult life stage remains 

rare in all but one population, and the 

species currently depends on 

management actions in order for 

populations to be resilient. In the future, 

management of the species and the 

conditions of the resources required by 

the species are likely to change such 

that the species is likely to become an 

endangered species in the foreseeable 

future (i.e., the species meets the Act’s 

definition of a threatened species). 

We are proposing to promulgate a 

section 4(d) rule. We propose to prohibit 

all intentional take of the razorback 

sucker and specifically tailor the 

incidental take exceptions under section 

9(a)(1) of the Act as a means to provide 

protective mechanisms to State, Federal, 

Tribal, and private partners so that they 

may continue with certain activities that 

are not anticipated to cause direct injury 

or mortality to the razorback sucker and 

that will facilitate the conservation and 

recovery of the species. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the comment period, our final 

determinations may differ from this 

proposal. Based on the new information 

we receive (and any comments on that 

new information), we may conclude that 

the species should remain listed as 

endangered instead of being reclassified 

as threatened, or we may conclude that 

the species no longer warrants listing as 

either an endangered species or a 

threatened species. We may also make 

revisions to the 4(d) rule based on 

public comment. Because we are still 

accepting, considering, and analyzing 

additional information, a final decision 

that falls within any of those categories 

could be a logical outgrowth of this 

proposal. 

Information Requested 

Public Comments 

Any final action resulting from this 

proposed rule will be based on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and be as accurate and as effective as 

possible. Therefore, we request 

comments or information from other 

concerned governmental agencies, 

Native American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) Reasons we should or should not 

reclassify the razorback sucker as a 

threatened species. 

(2) New information on the historical 

and current status, range, distribution, 

and population size of the razorback 

sucker. 

(3) New information on the known 

and potential threats to the razorback 

sucker, including predatory, nonnative 

fish. 

(4) New information regarding the life 

history, ecology, and habitat use of the 

razorback sucker. 

(5) Current or planned activities 

within the geographic range of the 

razorback sucker that may have adverse 

or beneficial impacts on the species. 

(6) Information on regulations that are 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the razorback sucker 

and that the Service can consider in 

developing a 4(d) rule for the species. In 

particular, information concerning the 

extent to which we should include any 

of the section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) 

rule or whether any other forms of take 

should be excepted from the 

prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35710 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. For 

the immediate future, we will provide 

these public hearings using webinars 

that will be announced on the Service’s 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of these virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

razorback sucker. The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994), our August 22, 2016, Director’s 

Memo on the Peer Review Process, and 

the Office of Management and Budget’s 

December 16, 2004, Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

(revised June 2012), we solicited 

independent scientific reviews of the 

information contained in the razorback 

sucker SSA report. We sent the SSA 

report to six independent peer reviewers 

and received three responses. Results of 

this structured peer review process can 

be found at https://www.fws.gov/ 

mountain-prairie/science/ 

peerReview.php. The SSA report was 

also submitted to our Federal, State, and 

Tribal partners for scientific review. We 

received review from 13 partners 

including States, Federal agencies, 

private partners and scientific experts. 

In preparing this proposed rule, we 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the final 

SSA report, which is the foundation for 

this proposed rule. 

Previous Federal Actions 

By the middle of the 20th century, the 

Colorado River ecosystem where the 

razorback sucker lives had been greatly 

altered by large dams and smaller 

agricultural diversions, water depletions 

for municipal and agricultural uses, and 

the proliferation of many nonnative fish 

species. The razorback sucker was first 

proposed for listing as a threatened 

species on April 24, 1978 (43 FR 17375); 

the proposal was subsequently 

withdrawn on May 27, 1980 (45 FR 

35410), after a final rule was not issued 

within 2 years of the proposed rule to 

comply with provisions of the Act as 

amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). Citing a lack of recruitment to 

reproductive age, dwindling numbers of 

adults, and occupation of only 25 

percent of its historical range, the 

razorback sucker was proposed to be 

listed as an endangered species on May 

22, 1990 (55 FR 21154). The final rule 

listing the razorback sucker as an 

endangered species was published on 

October 23, 1991 (56 FR 54957). Critical 

habitat was subsequently designated as 

2,776 kilometers (km) (1,725 miles (mi)) 

of the Colorado River basin on March 

21, 1994 (59 FR 13374), which included 

portions of the Yampa, White, Green, 

Duchesne, Colorado, Gunnison, San 

Juan, Verde, Salt and Gila Rivers, and 

several Colorado River mainstem 

reservoirs including Lake Mead and 

Lake Mohave. 

We issued the first recovery plan for 

razorback sucker on December 23, 1998, 

which identified predation by nonnative 

fish species and loss of habitat as the 

primary reasons for the decline of the 

razorback sucker (Service 1998, entire). 

The plan was amended and 

supplemented with recovery goals on 

August 1, 2002 (Service 2002, entire). 

The 2002 recovery goals describe two 

recovery units, the upper and lower 

basins, which are physically demarcated 

by Glen Canyon Dam and have unique 

demographic trends, threats, and 

management actions. 

We completed status reviews (‘‘5-year 

reviews’’) under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the 

Act for razorback sucker on August 30, 

2012, and September 25, 2018 (Service 

2012; Service 2018b, entire). Our most 

recent 5-year review completed on 

September 25, 2018, recommended the 

razorback sucker be downlisted (i.e., 

reclassified from an endangered to a 

threatened species), which prompted 

this proposed rule. 

Proposed Reclassification 

Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the razorback 

sucker is presented in the SSA report 

(Service 2018a, entire), found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057, which is 

briefly summarized here. 

Species Description 

The razorback sucker is a freshwater 

fish species endemic to warm-water 

portions of the Colorado River basin in 

the southwestern United States, 

uniquely identified by a bony, dorsal 

keel (ridge) located behind its head. The 

species tolerates wide-ranging 

temperatures, high turbidity and 

salinity, low dissolved oxygen, and 

wide-ranging flow conditions. 

Razorback sucker sexually mature at 3 

to 4 years of age, grow up to 1 meter (m) 

(3 feet (ft)) long, can live for more than 

40 years, and spawn multiple times over 

a lifespan. 

Habitat and Range 

Razorback sucker are found 

throughout the Colorado River basin, 

but are most common in low-velocity 

habitats such as backwaters, 

floodplains, flatwater river reaches, and 

reservoirs. The species’ historical range 

includes most of the Colorado River 

basin, from Wyoming to the delta in 

Mexico, including the States of 

Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, 

Nevada, and California, and Mexican 

States of Baja and Sonora. Dam 

construction across the basin 

dramatically altered flow-regimes and 

habitat, disconnecting floodplain 

habitats, and converting long reaches of 

river to reservoirs. These reservoirs 

initially supported some of the largest 

populations of razorback sucker (greater 

than 70,000 individuals) until nonnative 

sportfish were introduced and became 

abundant, at which time recruitment, or 

the survival of young to become adults, 

became rare and populations declined. 

Recovery Criteria 

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. Recovery plans must, to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35711 

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. 

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 published the first recovery plan 

for the razorback sucker in 1998, which 

outlined a suite of recovery actions, 

including maintaining genetic diversity, 

reversing the declining population 

trends in Lake Mohave and the Green 

River subbasin, protecting and restoring 

habitat, and augmenting or 

reestablishing five additional 

populations of razorback sucker in 

designated critical habitat (Service 1998, 

p. vi). In 2002, the razorback sucker 

recovery goals supplemented and 

amended the 1998 recovery plan, 

providing demographic criteria and 

management actions needed for 

recovery (Service 2002, entire). When 

the 2002 recovery goals were published, 

wild populations were considered to be 

in serious jeopardy with only small 

numbers of wild razorback sucker 

remaining in the Green River, upper 

Colorado River and San Juan River 

subbasins, lower Colorado River 

between Lake Havasu and Davis Dam, 

reservoirs of Lakes Mead and Mohave, 

and in small tributaries of the Gila River 

subbasin (Verde River, Salt River, and 

Fossil Creek). Furthermore, when the 

goals were approved, a minimum viable 

population (MVP) was estimated to be at 

least 5,800 adults. The recovery goals 

include the following reclassification 

criteria (summarized below for brevity): 

Downlisting can occur if, over a 5- 

year period, all of the following criteria 

are met with genetically and 

demographically viable, self-sustaining 

populations: 

Criterion 1: The trend in adult point 

estimates for two populations in the 

upper basin (Green River subbasin and 

either the upper Colorado River or San 

Juan River subbasin) do not decline 

significantly. Recruitment of naturally 

produced fish equals or exceeds mean 

annual adult mortality for each of the 

populations. Point estimates for each 

population must equal or exceed 5,800 

adults. 

Criterion 2: A genetic refuge is 

maintained in Lake Mohave. 

Criterion 3: The trend in adult point 

estimates for two populations in the 

lower basin do not decline significantly. 

Recruitment of naturally produced fish 

equals or exceeds mean annual adult 

mortality for each of the populations. 

Point estimates for each population 

must equal or exceed 5,800 adults. 

Criterion 4: Site-specific management 

actions are identified, developed, and 

implemented. 

For downlisting criterion 4, the 

recovery goals described the following 

management actions needed to support 

the species (summarized for brevity): 

(1) Reestablish populations with 

hatchery-produced fish. 

(2) Identify and maintain genetic 

variability of razorback sucker in Lake 

Mohave. 

(3) Provide, and legally protect, 

habitat and flow regimes. 

(4) Provide passage over barriers in 

occupied habitat. 

(5) Investigate water temperatures in 

the Gunnison River. 

(6) Minimize entrainment in 

diversion/out-take structures. 

(7) Ensure adequate protection from 

overutilization. 

(8) Ensure adequate protection from 

diseases and parasites. 

(9) Regulate nonnative fish releases 

and escapement. 

(10) Control problematic nonnative 

fishes as needed. 

(11) Minimize the risk of hazardousmaterials spills in critical habitat. 

(12) Remediate water quality 

problems. 

(13) Minimize the threat of 

hybridization with white sucker. 

(14) Provide for the long-term 

management and protection of 

populations and their habitats if the 

species were delisted. 

The recovery goals further describe 

that delisting can occur if, 3 years after 

the downlisting criteria are met, the 

downlisting criteria continue to be met. 

The current condition of the 

razorback sucker partially meets the 

2002 recovery criteria. Criterion 1 has 

been partially met, as the number of 

adults, whether stocked or wildproduced, present in the basin exceeds 

the 5,800 benchmark in both the Green 

and Colorado Rivers. However, the 

second target that recruitment of 

naturally produced fish equals or 

exceeds mean annual adult mortality for 

each of the populations has not been 

achieved due to the lack of natural 

recruitment (survival of wild spawned 

individuals to the adult life stage) as a 

result of predation. Not only is Criterion 

1 only partially met without natural 

recruitment, but without ongoing 

stocking to offset the lack of natural 

recruitment, the population size would 

quickly fall below the demographic 

target for adults and would not be selfsustaining, which would not satisfy the 

recovery vision of a self-sustaining 

species. All stages of the life-cycle are 

routinely observed until the juvenile life 

stage, signs of which are increasing 

across the upper basin, but nonnative 

predators eat the juveniles before they 

can grow into adults. The juvenile life 

stage is the only life stage absent on a 

wide scale. Criterion 2 has been met, as 

a genetic refuge is maintained in Lake 

Mohave. Criteria 3 has been partially 

met, as the lower basin is home to the 

only naturally recruiting population in 

Lake Mead, but population levels are 

low (less than 500 adults). Adult 

populations of thousands of razorback 

sucker persist in both Lake Mohave and 

Lake Havasu (and their associated river 

reaches), but neither population is 

naturally recruiting or meets the 5,800- 

adult threshold. Without continued 

stocking, these populations would 

quickly fall below this threshold due to 

the lack of natural recruitment resulting 

from the ongoing threat of predation 

from nonnative predatory fish. Criterion 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35712 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

4 has been partially met, with many of 

the threats to the species managed or 

abated. Nonnative fish remain a 

persistent threat in both basins. 

Since 2002, the best available science 

regarding razorback sucker has 

increased, including knowledge about 

the species and its associated threats. 

Regarding the first and third criteria, we 

now expect that a 5-year period may not 

be adequate to consider the 

demographic variability of razorback 

sucker populations resulting from 

substantial environmental variability in 

the Colorado River ecosystem. 

Razorback sucker adapted to a highly 

variable ecosystem with fluctuating 

levels of drought and flood, and thus 

populations would likely see both 

population increases and decreases over 

that time. The species has a long 

lifespan to survive periods of poor 

resource conditions and has high 

reproductive potential to compensate 

during periods of suitable resource 

conditions. 

Based on the updated scientific 

knowledge of razorback sucker, the 2002 

recovery goals should be reviewed and 

updated. Regarding downlisting 

criterion 3, the minimum viable 

population (MVP) was established 

without considering the extent or 

boundary of each population. For 

example, Lake Powell was once 

considered of little ecological value, yet 

groups of razorback sucker have 

established residency in both the 

Colorado and San Juan River inflow 

areas. Finally, regarding downlisting 

criterion 4, a number of the management 

actions have been achieved, such as 

items (2), (4), (5), and (6); a number of 

the actions are ongoing and still needed, 

such as items (1), (3), (9), (10), (13), and 

(14); and a number of the actions are no 

longer considered needed for the 

species, such as items (7), (8), (11), and 

(12). In addition, the actions outlined in 

the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program’s (LCR;MSCP) 

workplan do not include control of 

nonnative species, restoring natural 

flow variability below dams, or a future 

absent sustained augmentation (with the 

exception of the Lake Mead population). 

As such, the 2018 5-year review of the 

status of the species recommended 

revising the 2002 recovery goals to 

incorporate new information about the 

species. We expect to revise the 

recovery plan for razorback sucker when 

this rulemaking process is complete. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

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 is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘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 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 consider these same five 

factors in reclassifying a species from 

endangered to threatened (50 CFR 

424.11(c)–(e)). 

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 have a direct 

impact on 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—in light of 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, 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 in light of 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 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 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

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

foreseeable future extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent our decision on 

whether the species should be 

reclassified as a threatened species 

under the Act. It does, however, provide 

the scientific basis that informs our 

regulatory decisions, which involve the 

further application of standards within 

the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. The following 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35713 

is a summary of the key results and 

conclusions from the SSA report; the 

full SSA report can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057. 

To assess razorback sucker viability, 

we used the three conservation biology 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (Shaffer and Stein 

2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency 

supports the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years); 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events); and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of a species to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time. We use this information to inform 

our regulatory decision. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this section, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

Species Needs 

Individual razorback sucker need: 

Complex lotic (rapidly moving 

freshwater) and lentic (still freshwater) 

habitats for spawning, rearing, feeding, 

and sheltering; suitable water 

temperatures and quality for spawning, 

egg incubation, larval development, and 

growth; variable flow regimes in lotic 

systems to provide access to off-channel 

wetland habitats; and an adequate and 

reliable food supply (Service 2018a, pp. 

21–24). We briefly summarize each of 

these needs below. 

Habitat—Individual razorback sucker 

need specific habitat types to breed, 

feed, and shelter, including rocky 

substrates, warm shallow waters, and 

deeper waters (Service 2018a, p. 21). 

Rocky substrates of boulder, cobble, and 

clean gravel are used for spawning and 

subsequent egg development. Larvae 

and juveniles need nursery habitats, 

which include persistent, shallow, 

warm, and sheltered shorelines of 

backwaters, floodplains, or similar 

habitat types with cover present 

(vegetation and turbidity) to avoid 

predation. Adults also need pockets of 

deeper water, either in reservoirs, large 

eddies, or pools with slow velocities. 

Water quality and temperature— 

Razorback sucker tolerate a wide range 

of water quality conditions, including 

warm temperatures, low dissolved 

oxygen, and high levels of turbidity and 

salinity. The species opportunistically 

selects appropriate water temperatures 

for spawning as temperature can affect 

hatching, growth, and survival of larvae 

(Service 2018a, p. 69). 

Variable flow—Lotic populations in 

much of the upper basin depend on 

variable flows in the form of high spring 

peaks to carry larvae into floodplain 

wetlands that provide sufficient food 

and protection from nonnative predators 

(Service 2018a, p. 22). 

Food supply—Razorback sucker are 

omnivorous (feed on plants and 

animals), with a diet that is highly 

dependent on habitat and food 

availability. 

Range and connectivity—Razorback 

sucker can move long distances through 

unimpeded river systems, allowing for 

dispersal into new habitat and selection 

of appropriate conditions for spawning. 

Each population needs resiliency to 

rebound from disturbance, which is 

provided by the abundance of 

individuals and the completion of all 

life stages, or recruitment. Stocked 

individuals are long-lived, migrate, and 

spawn, which routinely produces viable 

eggs and subsequent larvae. However, 

natural recruitment, the survival of 

wild-spawned individuals to the adult 

life stage, is rare due to predation on 

juveniles by nonnative fish and reduced 

nursery habitat availability. Therefore, 

population resiliency currently depends 

on management actions, primarily the 

stocking and reintroduction of hatchery 

reared individuals. The species also 

needs multiple populations to provide 

adequate redundancy against potential 

catastrophic events and genetic and 

ecological diversity to maintain the 

adaptive traits of the species (Service 

2018a, pp. 21–24). Before dam 

construction in the 1960s, there were 

nine populations of razorback sucker, 

and the species is currently found in 

seven populations throughout the 

Colorado River basin. 

Risk Factors 

To determine the condition of 

razorback sucker populations, we 

evaluated a number of stressors that 

influence the resiliency of razorback 

sucker populations, such as river flows, 

nonnative fish, genetic factors, 

alterations to habitat, overutilization, 

parasites, disease, pollutants, and the 

effects of global climate change (Service 

2018a, pp. 27–42). The stressors that 

most influence the resiliency of 

razorback sucker populations are 

reductions in flow regimes, which 

reduce available habitat and 

connectivity, and predation by 

nonnative fish species. The effects of 

global climate change were not 

anticipated to affect the species in the 

near term, but could affect habitat 

connectivity, flow conditions, and 

densities of predatory nonnative fish 

over longer timeframes (Service 2018a, 

pp. 27–29). 

Altered flow regimes reducing access 

to nursery habitat—Complex backwater 

and floodplain wetland habitat support 

the growth of larval and juvenile 

razorback sucker. Dam installations in 

the 20th century altered river flow 

regimes by reducing spring peak flows, 

which limited access to the floodplain 

habitat needed by larvae and juveniles. 

Altered flow regimes also reduced the 

complexity of in-river habitat by 

encouraging establishment of nonnative 

vegetation on previously dynamic 

sandbars, which prevents the 

development of backwater pools and 

reduced in-river vegetative cover used 

by larvae and juvenile razorback sucker. 

Nonnative fish species—Razorback 

sucker lack competitive and predator 

defense abilities compared to fish that 

evolved in more species-rich regions 

(Martinez et al. 2014, p. 1). Predation of 

young razorback sucker by large, 

nonnative piscivores (carnivores that eat 

fish) is a major cause of recruitment 

failure throughout the basin. Species of 

particular concern in the upper basin 

include smallmouth bass (Micropterus 

dolomieu), northern pike (Esox lucius), 

and walleye (Sander vitreus) in the 

Green and Colorado River basins and 

channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35714 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

the San Juan River basin. Smallmouth 

bass, in particular, are adept at 

establishing large riverine populations. 

Species of particular concern in the 

lower basin include striped bass 

(Morone saxatilis) and flathead catfish 

(Pylodictis olivaris), both of which can 

consume all life stages of razorback 

sucker, including adults. Nonnative 

fishes may also compete with razorback 

sucker for food and habitat. 

Additionally, impacts of nonnative 

fishes can be so considerable that they 

prohibit use of habitat by razorback 

sucker. 

Climate change—The potential effects 

of climate change were assessed using 

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s 

SECURE Water Act Section 9503(c) 

Report (Reclamation, 2016, entire). The 

Colorado River basin is expected to have 

higher temperatures, with seasonal 

drying, but increases in fall and winter 

precipitation in some areas 

(Reclamation 2016, pp. 3–9). In the long 

term, razorback sucker are likely to 

benefit from warming conditions with 

higher growth rates, but may be 

impacted by lower flow conditions that 

cannot be mitigated by water 

management. Warming conditions may 

also increase nonnative warm-water 

fishes that prey on razorback sucker. 

These impacts are more likely to occur 

in the longer timeframe (i.e, greater than 

30 years). Climate change is not 

expected to be a significant stressor in 

the near term, but the effects could 

increase in the long term (Service 2018a, 

pp. 99–103). 

Conservation Actions 

Ongoing management actions to 

benefit razorback sucker are primarily 

undertaken by three expansive, multistakeholder management programs: The 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program (Upper Basin 

Program), established in January 1988 

and funded through 2023; the San Juan 

River Basin Recovery Implementation 

Program (San Juan Program) established 

in 1992 and funded through 2023; and 

the LCR—MSCP, established in 2005 

and funded through 2055, as well as a 

variety of smaller working groups. 

These conservation programs’ goals are 

to work toward improving population 

resiliency by augmenting adult 

populations, providing beneficial flows, 

creating habitat and reducing nonnative 

predators and competitors. Our SSA 

report provides additional information 

on these conservation programs (Service 

2018a, pp. 42–51). 

In the upper basin, augmentation 

occurs from three established 

broodstocks at three independent 

hatchery facilities: Southwestern Native 

Aquatic Resources and Recovery Center 

(SNARRC), Ouray National Fish 

Hatchery at Randlett (Randlett), and 

Ouray National Fish Hatchery–Grand 

Valley (Grand Valley). Each hatchery 

maintains its own broodstock according 

to genetic and management plans 

(Czapla 1999, entire; Ryden 2005, entire; 

Integrated Stocking Plan Revision 

Committee 2015, entire; Wilson 2012, 

entire) developed by the programs they 

serve. The Grand Valley and Randlett 

hatcheries annually spawn, produce, 

and distribute 6,000 razorback sucker 

averaging 350 mm or greater into the 

Colorado and Green River basins 

respectively. SNARRC produces 

sufficient larvae for 11,400 razorback 

sucker that are grown at sister facilities 

before distribution into the San Juan 

River Basin. In the lower basin, the 

established population in Lake Mohave 

is the broodstock for most stocking 

efforts as it has been documented as the 

most genetically diverse population. 

Commonly referred to as repatriation, 

wild larvae are collected; reared at 

Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery, 

Achii Hanyo Native Fish Rearing 

Facility, Overton Wildlife Management 

Area, and the Lake Mead Fish Hatchery; 

and released into Colorado River 

reaches managed by LCR–MSCP (LCR– 

MSCP 2015, pp. 9–12). In addition, a 

backup broodstock has been developed 

at SNARRC that provides larvae for 

rearing at Bubbling Ponds Native Fish 

Hatchery to avoid the movement of 

quagga mussels found in Lake Mohave 

(LCR–MSCP 2015, p. 12) beyond the 

Colorado River basin. Overall, the LCR– 

MSCP has committed to stocking or 

repatriating 660,000 razorback sucker 

into the Colorado River over 50 years 

and until 2055. Augmentation, 

including stocking and repatriation, is 

the primary tool used to enhance the 

resiliency of razorback sucker in the 

lower basin. In the upper basin, stocking 

is coupled with other management 

actions that all contribute to population 

resiliency on the landscape. 

Flow recommendations have been 

developed for most major rivers in the 

upper basin (Holden 1999, entire; Muth 

et al. 2000, entire; McAda 2003, entire) 

to support conservation of native fish 

species, including razorback sucker. 

Flow recommendations commonly set 

both peak and base flow 

recommendations based on the 

hydrology of the system in a given year 

based on their effects on native fish 

species and downstream 

geomorphology. Most important for 

razorback sucker in the Green River are 

spring peaks timed to move wildproduced larvae into warm, food-rich 

floodplain wetlands that are then 

managed to exclude nonnative fish. 

Successful floodplain management for 

razorback sucker nursery habitat 

requires: (a) Flow management that 

provides floodplain connection when 

larval razorback sucker are present in 

the system; (b) floodplains that are 

retrofitted with water control structures 

that restrict entry of large-bodied fish 

and allow managers to fill and drain the 

habitat at the beginning and end of the 

growing season, respectively; and (c) a 

supplemental water source to freshen 

floodplain water quality through the 

summer. The Upper Basin Program has 

developed multiple wetlands that can 

connect under various flow regimes in 

the Green River downstream of Flaming 

Gorge Dam. One wetland, Stewart Lake, 

has provided the largest naturally 

produced cohort of wild razorback 

sucker surviving through their first 

summer of life to date in the upper 

basin (Schelley et al. 2016, p. 7). 

The Upper Basin and San Juan 

Programs are working to reduce the 

numbers of nonnative fishes, focusing 

primarily on smallmouth bass, northern 

pike, and walleye in the Green and 

upper Colorado River subbasins and 

channel catfish in the San Juan. A 

comprehensive nonnative fish control 

strategy was developed by the Upper 

Basin Program encompassing active 

removal from riverine habitats, 

escapement prevention from upstream 

reservoirs, revised stocking guidelines, 

harvest regulation changes, and 

outreach messaging (Martinez et al. 

2014, entire). In-river removal efforts are 

scientifically evaluated and adjusted as 

appropriate to increase effectiveness. 

In addition, both the Upper Basin and 

San Juan Programs have installed fish 

passage facilities to support range 

expansion of the species and have 

screened irrigation canals to prevent 

entrainment. Research, monitoring, and 

habitat management occur throughout 

the Colorado River basin. 

Current Condition 

The SSA assesses eight populations of 

razorback sucker: Four populations in 

the upper basin (Green, upper Colorado, 

and San Juan River subbasins, and Lake 

Powell) and four in the lower basin 

(Lake Mead [including upstream 

mainstem river], Lake Mohave 

[including upstream mainstem river], 

the Colorado River between Davis and 

Parker Dams [Lake Havasu], and the 

Colorado River mainstem below Parker 

Dam). Razorback sucker were 

historically present in the Gila River 

system, but the system was not 

evaluated in the SSA because wild 

razorback sucker were extirpated from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35715 

the system and subsequent stocking 

efforts have ceased without establishing 

a population. Table 1 summarizes the 

current condition for each population in 

terms of four resiliency categories (High, 

Medium, Low, and Extirpated) which is 

an average of our evaluation of 

condition for the population factors of 

population size, evidence of 

reproduction, and recruitment that 

influence the resiliency of each 

population. Definitions of population 

factors for each category (High, Medium, 

Low, and Extirpated) were developed to 

calibrate our understanding of these 

factors in terms of resiliency (Service 

2018a, p. 54). In general, populations in 

higher resiliency categories are better 

able to withstand stochastic events than 

populations in lower resiliency 

categories. To calculate an overall score 

for resiliency for each population, we 

assigned a 3 for population factors with 

High condition, 2 for Medium 

condition, 1 for Low condition, and 0 

for Extirpated condition, and then 

calculated an average (High resiliency 

2.26–3; Medium resiliency 1.51–2.25; 

Low resiliency 0.76–1.5; and Extirpated 

0–0.75) (Service 2018a, p. 95). 

Currently, Lake Mead has High 

resiliency, the Green River subbasin has 

Medium resiliency, the Colorado and 

San Juan river subbasins, Lake Powell, 

Lake Mohave, and Lake Havasu have 

Low resiliency, and the Colorado River 

below Parker dam is currently 

extirpated (Table 1). Our SSA report 

provides additional detail regarding our 

evaluation of current condition (Service 

2018a, pp. 52–97). 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP07JY21.075</GPH>

Table 1.-Current Condition of Razorback Sucker Populations 

Population Factors 

Estimated Evidence of 

Basin Population Population Reproduction Recruitment b Resiliency Name Sizea (Based on presence 

of wild larvae) 

Green River 36,355 Yes Possible Medium 

Upper 

Colorado 8,058 Yes No Low 

River 

I-< i:::: San Juan 4,000-5,00QC Yes Possible Low 0.. <I) ·- River rr, 

0.. c::s 

;:::i~ San Juan River 

Inlet: 

Lake Powell approximately Yes Possible Low 2,QQQd 

Colorado River 

Inlet: 2, 184 

Lake Mead 360e Yes Yes High 

Lake Mohave 3,47F Yes No Low 

~ i:::: 

~ ·oo 

0 Lake Havasu 3,803e Yes No Low c::s 

.....l ~ 

Lower 

Colorado 169e Low No Extirpated 

River 

c::s .s - r:r, Gila River No No Extirpated a~ -

a As presented in Service 2018a, entire unless otherwise designated below. 

b "Possible" indicates that signs of recruitment have been documented to either the young of year or 

juvenile stage, but are not yet sufficient to imply recruitment on a large scale. 

c Diver and Wilson, 2018, p. 5. 

dPennock,2019,p. 14. 

•LCR-MSCP, 2019, p. 48, population estimate in Lake Havasu declined due to a change in 

methodology. 
35716 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Below, we summarize the current 

condition for each known population of 

razorback sucker, taking into account 

the stressors and conservation actions 

for each population. 

The Upper Basin—The four upper 

basin populations currently have 

adequate food and unimpeded 

connectivity, except for a waterfall that 

blocks upstream movement of razorback 

sucker from Lake Powell into the San 

Juan River. In other areas, fish passage 

structures have been constructed to 

ensure that there are no other 

impediments to movement between 

populations. Populations in the upper 

basin generally have medium-quality 

habitat, water temperature, water 

quality, and variable flow, with the 

exception of the Green River subbasin, 

where water temperature and quality 

and variable flow are in high condition 

(Service 2018a, p. 85). Since the early 

2000s, management of river flows has 

restored much of the important intraand inter-annual variability of river flow 

needed to support razorback sucker. 

Flows in the Green River are actively 

managed to benefit razorback sucker by 

using biologically triggered releases 

from Flaming Gorge Dam to increase 

connectivity with off-channel 

floodplains. Four floodplains are 

managed in conjunction with these 

flows on the Green River with plans to 

create a fifth in the year 2020. Another 

floodplain wetland is being developed 

on the Colorado River near Moab, Utah, 

to provide nursery habitat. Reservoirs in 

the Aspinall Unit along the Colorado 

River changed release patterns to 

provide downstream flows that support 

razorback sucker. In addition, the Upper 

Basin Program acquired water stored in 

reservoirs in the Yampa and Colorado 

Rivers to enhance flow conditions when 

needed, such as during low flow periods 

in summer. In the San Juan River, flow 

recommendations for Navajo Reservoir 

support creation and sustained presence 

of habitat. Therefore, conservation 

actions have helped restore flow 

regimes to increase connectivity to 

floodplain habitats, such that the 

stressor of altered flow regimes has been 

reduced in the upper basin populations. 

Predation by nonnative fish species 

remains a significant stressor to 

razorback sucker in the upper basin, 

resulting in populations with low 

overall conditions throughout most of 

the upper basin. Over 50 nonnative fish 

species have been introduced into the 

upper basin, some of which prey on or 

compete with razorback sucker. Most 

upper basin populations have 

substantial levels of predatory 

nonnative fish species, including 

channel catfish, smallmouth bass, 

northern pike, and walleye, which 

likely prevent recruitment of young 

razorback sucker to the adult life stage 

on a large scale. In addition, smallbodied nonnative fish are ubiquitous 

across the upper basin and likely prey 

on younger life-stages of razorback 

sucker. The Upper Basin Program 

implements nonnative fish management 

actions, such as removing predatory fish 

from approximately 966 km (600 mi) of 

river and screening reservoir outlets to 

prevent predators from escaping into 

downstream habitats used by razorback 

sucker. State partners in the Upper 

Basin Program no longer stock certain 

nonnative predators and instead 

implement harvest regulations that 

promote the removal of predatory fish 

throughout the upper basin. The San 

Juan River subbasin is free from 

nonnative predators with the exception 

of channel catfish, which are removed 

by the San Juan Program. 

Upper basin populations of razorback 

sucker are monitored using markrecapture population estimation, some 

with estimates dating back to the late 

1980s. Population monitoring in the late 

1980s and early 1990s estimated 

populations of hundreds of individuals 

in the middle Green River. By 2000, the 

estimates had declined to approximately 

100 wild adults, prompting the 

development of a stocking program in 

the upper basin. The most recent 

population estimates from 2011 to 2013 

indicate the Green River subbasin 

population to be in the tens of 

thousands of adult razorback sucker that 

were stocked as a result of management 

actions (Zelasko et al. 2018, pp. 11–13). 

Although successful reproduction and 

larval presence is documented annually 

in the Green River population, there is 

no natural recruitment due to predation 

by nonnative predatory fish, so this 

population is not self-sustaining. 

Young-of-year life stage (surviving 

through the first summer of life) has 

been documented annually since 2013 

in managed off-channel wetlands. 

Captures of wild juveniles have 

increased in the Green River basin, 

including the detection of a wild-reared 

razorback sucker after 3 years in the 

wild in the spring of 2019 (Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program 2019, p. 4). This 

detection is the first documentation of a 

wild-spawned razorback sucker 

surviving for three years, suggesting that 

survival of young razorback sucker is 

increasing in the basin. Additionally, 

the Upper Basin Program stocks 6,000 

adult razorback sucker into the Green 

River subbasin annually to support the 

population. However, natural 

recruitment (survival of wild-spawned 

individuals to adult life stage) remains 

rare. 

The number of wild razorback sucker 

in the upper Colorado River subbasin 

decreased by the 1970s, and the 

population was functionally extirpated 

by 2000. The most recent population 

estimates (2013 to 2015) indicate that 

the population numbers in the 

thousands (Elverud 2020, pp. 26,92). 

The upper Colorado River subbasin 

population is not self-sustaining, but 

reproduction and larval presence have 

been documented. Survival to the 

juvenile stage is rare, but has been 

confirmed at low levels. As in the Green 

River, recruitment to the adult life stage 

is rare, if present, likely due to 

persistent predation from nonnative 

fishes and the lack of nursery habitat. 

The Upper Basin Program stocks 6,000 

adults annually into the upper Colorado 

River subbasin to support the 

population. There is one managed 

floodplain wetland on the Colorado 

River. 

Sampling efforts from 1987 and 1993 

failed to collect any razorback sucker in 

the San Juan River, prompting stocking 

efforts in the basin. Populations in the 

San Juan River subbasin have recently 

been monitored using catch-per-unit 

effort (CPUE), which saw a significant 

increase in the population after 2010 

(Schleicher 2016, pp. 17–18). Recent 

population estimates indicate the adult 

population is relatively stable between 

4,000 and 5,000 (Diver and Wilson 

2018, p. 5). Successful reproduction and 

larval presence is documented annually, 

but recruitment to the juvenile and 

adult life stages is also rare in the San 

Juan River subbasin. However, in 2018, 

more than 200 young-of-year razorback 

sucker were captured in the river 

(Upper Basin Program and San Juan 

Program 2019, p. 10), potentially 

because of habitat created during higher 

flow conditions in 2016 and 2017 and 

a lack of large-bodied predators. In 

2019, 45 age-1 razorback sucker were 

found, documenting survival of some 

young-of-year through their first winter 

(Service 2019, p. 1). These two 

discoveries document the first signs of 

recruitment in the San Juan River basin. 

Regardless, the population is not selfsustaining, and 11,400 adult razorback 

sucker are stocked annually to support 

the population. 

The fourth upper basin population is 

found in the Colorado and San Juan 

River inflow areas to Lake Powell. 

Although this population may 

functionally be an extension of the other 

three upper basin populations, its 

habitat conditions and the methods 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35717 

used to monitor it are markedly 

different from the other three 

populations, which supports its 

consideration as a fourth population in 

the upper basin. Little is known about 

this population, as monitoring has only 

recently been expanded into its reaches. 

However, mark-recapture population 

estimates indicate there are persistent 

populations in both the San Juan and 

Colorado River arms, with 

approximately 2,000 (Pennock 2019, p. 

14) and 2,184 (Service 2018a, p. 82) 

individuals, respectively, primarily 

comprising stocked adults. 

Reproduction is occurring annually, and 

larval razorback sucker have been 

captured in both inflow areas. 

Recruitment has yet to be confirmed, 

but untagged adults have been captured 

in Lake Powell. Lake Powell also 

supports populations of nonnative 

predatory fish species, including 

smallmouth bass, largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides), striped bass, 

walleye, channel catfish, black crappie 

(Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus), but inflow areas 

commonly have inflow- or wind-driven 

turbidity and inundated terrestrial 

vegetation, which may offer protection 

for razorback sucker from predation by 

nonnative fish species (Albrecht et al. 

2017, pp. 510–511). The Upper Basin 

and San Juan Programs are continuing 

to explore the Lake Powell population, 

which is not actively managed like the 

other three river populations in the 

upper basin. 

Summary of Current Condition in the 

Upper Basin—Four populations of 

razorback sucker occur in the upper 

basin. The Upper Basin and San Juan 

Programs’ conservation and 

management actions have maintained 

and improved resource conditions for 

three of the four populations in the 

upper basin over the last 20 years. The 

SSA assessed the Green River as having 

medium condition relative to other 

populations and the three remaining 

upper basin populations to be in low 

condition. Populations of stocked adults 

use fish passage facilities to increase 

and expand through all available 

habitat. Successful reproduction, as 

evidenced by the collection of wildproduced larvae, is common in all 

populations. Signs of survival to later 

life stages are increasing, but have not 

reached levels of self-sustainability. 

Razorback sucker populations in the 

upper basin rely on management actions 

to maintain resiliency. 

The Lower Basin—Dams on the 

mainstem of large rivers that provide 

water storage and hydropower 

dramatically altered the aquatic habitat 

in the lower Colorado River, such that 

these dams now define the boundaries 

of the razorback sucker populations in 

the lower basin. Three of the four lower 

basin populations generally have highquality habitat, water quality, and 

temperature, and adequate food for 

razorback sucker. The reservoirs provide 

suitable habitat for razorback sucker, 

and the largest populations ever 

documented occurred in these 

reservoirs after filling. There are few 

natural barriers to movement within 

these populations, but connectivity 

among populations across the dams 

depends on management actions. Flows 

are heavily managed in the lower basin, 

with the dams reducing spring peak 

flows and providing stable downstream 

flows year-round, so there are few 

natural flows. Due to dam management 

of flows, variable flows are not available 

in the lower basin, which are essential 

to connect off-channel floodplains in 

the upper basin. Despite the presence of 

nonnative predatory fish, the reservoirs 

behind the dams provide suitable 

nursery habitat for juvenile razorback 

sucker that supports recruitment in Lake 

Mead. 

As in the upper basin, predation of 

razorback sucker by nonnative fish is a 

significant stressor in the lower basin 

that influences the resiliency of the 

populations. Over 20 nonnative fish 

species occupy razorback sucker habitat, 

and all the lower basin mainstem 

reservoirs have populations of bluegill, 

striped bass, smallmouth bass, and 

largemouth bass that are managed as 

sport fisheries. Both striped bass and 

flathead catfish easily consume all life 

stages of razorback sucker, including 

large adults, so are especially 

detrimental to population recruitment. 

Flathead catfish have established 

populations in Lake Havasu, 

downstream of Parker Dam and in the 

Gila River subbasin. These predatory 

nonnative fish species have largely 

eliminated recruitment to the adult life 

stage in all lower basin populations 

except Lake Mead. The Lake Mead 

population is the only population that 

demonstrates sufficient recruitment, to a 

level that it is self-sustaining that does 

not require stocking. Managers 

hypothesize that portions of Lake Mead 

have physical conditions (vegetative 

cover and high turbidity) that provide 

some cover from site-feeding predatory 

nonnative fishes, and that this cover has 

led to a low level of recruitment that is 

sustaining this population at its current 

population level. 

The LCR–MSCP oversees management 

actions to support razorback sucker in 

the Colorado River mainstem in the 

lower basin. Management focuses 

primarily on capturing and raising wildproduced larvae to an adult size in 

protected environments for stocking, 

creating, and managing predator-free 

off-channel habitats, and monitoring 

populations. Nonnative fish are not 

actively controlled in the lower basin, 

except in the Grand Canyon, where they 

are managed by the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program. Many 

of the nonnative species are valuable 

sport fish managed by State wildlife 

agencies. 

LCR–MSCP produces annual markrecapture population estimates for all 

razorback sucker populations in its 

geographic scope. The Lake Mead 

population, though large during the 

initial filling of the reservoir, has 

declined to approximately 300 adults 

(LCR–MSCP 2019, p. 48). Ten years of 

population estimates document that the 

population is stable, but small. 

Reproduction and natural recruitment 

have been documented annually since 

the 1990s in turbid inflow areas, making 

Lake Mead home to the only selfsustaining razorback sucker population 

in either basin. Cover, in the form of 

turbidity and submerged vegetation, 

may explain why recruitment to the 

adult life stage occurs in Lake Mead, 

despite the presence of many nonnative 

predatory fish species. 

Lake Mohave remains an important 

genetic refuge for razorback sucker, 

annually providing wild-spawned 

larvae for reintroduction efforts across 

the lower basin. Recent genetic studies 

document the persistence of high levels 

of genetic diversity in both wild and 

stocked individuals. The population 

was documented to exceed 60,000 

individuals in the 1980s, but declined to 

less than 250 wild individuals in 2011. 

Currently, the population is estimated at 

several thousand hatchery-raised and 

stocked adults. Reproduction and larval 

presence is documented annually. 

Recruitment to the adult life stage has 

not been documented in this 

population, and is unlikely due to high 

rates of predation. Each year, wild 

larvae are captured, raised in hatcheries, 

and reintroduced at sizes larger than can 

be consumed by most nonnative fish 

species. Reintroduction occurs 

annually, but the number of 

reintroduced adults varies. 

Razorback sucker were extirpated 

from the Colorado River between Davis 

and Parker Dams, including Lake 

Havasu. Reintroduction has established 

a population of approximately 5,000 

adults, and the population is 

maintained through continual stocking. 

Spawning and larval presence occur 

annually. Recruitment to the adult life 

stage has not been documented in this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35718 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

population and is unlikely due to high 

rates of predation. 

In the Colorado River downstream of 

Parker Dam, razorback sucker are 

augmented annually. Survival is low, 

making population estimation difficult, 

but the population is currently 

estimated to be in the hundreds (LCR– 

MSCP 2019, p. 48). Some reproduction 

is seen, but at low levels. No evidence 

of natural recruitment to any life stage 

has been documented. This population 

was assessed to be in extirpated 

condition and, therefore, is not counted 

in the seven established populations. 

Summary of the Lower Basin—There 

are currently three extant populations of 

razorback sucker in the lower basin. The 

LCR–MSCP’s conservation and 

management actions continue to 

reintroduce razorback sucker and 

actively develop off-channel habitat. 

The Lake Mead population is small, 

persistent, and the only self-sustaining 

population of the species. The SSA 

rated the population condition as high 

relative to other populations. 

Populations of reintroduced adults in 

Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu are 

maintained through stocking. The SSA 

rated both populations as in low 

condition. The SSA rated the 

population below Parker Dam as in 

extirpated condition, but recent 

population estimates indicate it may be 

in the hundreds. Successful 

reproduction and larval recruitment are 

common in three of the four 

populations, with minimal larval 

production in the population below 

Parker Dam. Razorback sucker 

populations in the lower basin rely on 

management actions to be persistent. 

Summary of Current Condition—The 

razorback sucker has many traits that 

enable individuals to be resilient in the 

face of stochasticity, including a long 

lifespan, high reproductive potential, 

flexibility in habitat conditions, 

adaptation to a wide variety of waterquality conditions, flow and thermal 

regimes, and a variable omnivorous diet. 

Although individual adult razorback 

sucker are persistent, seven of the eight 

populations are maintained through 

stocking. Overall, there is one 

population rated in high condition, one 

in medium condition, five in low 

condition, and one in extirpated 

condition. Only one population, the 

Lake Mead population, exhibits natural 

recruitment and stability of the 

population. The overall status of each 

population depends on ongoing 

management actions, such as population 

augmentation and the removal of 

nonnative predatory fish species, in 

order to maintain resiliency. 

Redundancy for razorback sucker is 

currently provided by seven established 

populations. Further, the expansive 

distribution of each population, with 

individuals distributed and established 

in multiple locations across wide areas, 

also provides redundancy to help 

reduce risk associated with catastrophic 

events, such as widespread wildfire and 

extended drought. Due to this 

widespread distribution, existing 

populations are likely to survive 

localized and even regional catastrophic 

events. Representation is sufficient in 

terms of genetic diversity and genetic 

relatedness, as genetic diversity has 

been maintained through augmentation. 

Ecological representation is 

demonstrated by the species exhibiting 

a high degree of plasticity by inhabiting 

both lentic and lotic habitats. However, 

the lack of natural recruitment may 

reduce levels of genetic diversity for the 

species. 

Future Condition 

We predicted the resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of the 

razorback sucker under five plausible 

future scenarios, 30 years into the 

future, based on various levels of active 

conservation actions. For the purposes 

of our analysis in the SSA, we also 

considered a 100 year timeframe to 

evaluate whether threats could increase 

or decrease, but the 100-year timeframe 

was not considered as a foreseeable 

future for the finding in this proposed 

rule. The future scenarios we evaluated 

are summarized below and are 

discussed in greater detail in the SSA 

report (Service 2018a, pp. 104–118). The 

future scenarios range from a reduction 

in conservation actions to an increase 

and improvement in the effectiveness of 

conservation actions. We selected the 

30-year timeframe because it accounts 

for approximately three generations of 

razorback sucker (time to sexual 

maturity) and was a timeframe with 

sufficient certainty to anticipate the 

effects of stressors. 

Scenario 1 of the SSA describes a 

reduction in recovery and conservation 

actions for razorback sucker to minimal 

levels due to funding reductions or the 

expiration of recovery programs. 

Scenario 2 of the SSA describes a 

reduction in the effectiveness of 

stocking and reintroduction efforts, 

which is currently a key management 

tool supporting most populations. 

Scenarios 3, 4, and 5 of the SSA show 

continued management actions under 

various levels of effectiveness. Scenario 

3 represents a continuation of current 

management actions. Scenarios 4 and 5 

assume increases in the effectiveness of 

management actions based on more 

effective flow and nursery habitat 

management or the development of 

novel techniques to control nonnative 

predators. 

Under Scenario 1, conditions would 

likely severely degrade in 30 years in 

the upper basin, primarily because of 

the assumed reduction in conservation 

activities that would occur in absence of 

the Upper Basin and San Juan Programs, 

likely resulting in all four populations 

reaching an extirpated condition in the 

foreseeable future. Under Scenario 1, 

conditions would likely remain constant 

in the Lower Basin because the 

LCR;MSCP has committed conservation 

actions under their consultation 

requirements under section 7 of the Act 

and Habitat Conservation Plan until 

2055. The most dramatic declines in 

condition are likely under Scenario 2 

under which most populations would 

decline to an extirpated condition, 

underscoring the importance of stocking 

and reintroduction programs to the 

species across the basin. In scenarios 1 

and 2, both resiliency and redundancy 

are likely to decline in all populations. 

Scenario 2 predicts a decline in 

representation because genetics are 

currently managed and distributed 

using stocking and reintroduction 

programs. Scenarios 3, 4, and 5 all 

predict increasing resource and 

population conditions because 

conservation actions are assumed to 

continue to improve the resiliency of 

populations, differentiated by the 

effectiveness of said actions. Scenario 3 

predicts restoration of all upper basin 

populations and the Lake Mohave 

population to a medium condition 

based on continued implementation of 

management actions, which support 

resiliency, redundancy and 

representation. Under scenario 3, 

populations are likely to continue to 

expand, but resiliency of the species 

would require ongoing management 

actions. Scenario 4 predicts an increase 

in effectiveness of management 

activities to support wild recruitment, 

including the management of additional 

nursery habitat in the upper basin and 

additional off-channel habitat in the 

lower basin. Under scenario 4, all 

populations are predicted to reach high 

or moderate condition, except for the 

population below Parker Dam, which 

would likely remain in low condition. 

Under scenario 5, which assumes 

availability of a novel tool to address 

nonnative fish, most populations would 

be expected to reach high condition. In 

scenarios 3, 4, and 5, improvements in 

the upper basin populations are likely 

larger than those in the lower basin as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35719 

a broader suite of actions are occurring 

in the upper basin. 

The SSA report (Service 2018a, entire) 

contains a more detailed discussion of 

our evaluation of the biological status of 

razorback sucker and the influences that 

may affect its continued existence. Our 

evaluations are based upon the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we undertake 

an iterative analysis that encompasses 

and incorporates the threats 

individually and then accumulates and 

evaluates the effects of all the factors 

that may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Determination of Razorback Sucker 

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. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the razorback 

sucker. Threats to the razorback sucker 

include changes in flow regime and 

habitat connectivity (which could be 

affected by climate change in the long 

term) (Factor A), and predation and 

competition with nonnative fish species 

(Factor C) (Service 2018a, pp. 25–42, 

98–105). There is no evidence that 

overutilization (Factor B) of razorback 

sucker, disease (Factor C), or other 

natural and manmade factors affecting 

the species (Factor E) are occurring. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor 

D) are discussed below. We evaluated 

each potential stressor, including its 

source, affected resources, exposure, 

immediacy, geographic scope, 

magnitude, and impacts on individuals 

and populations, and our level of 

certainty regarding this information, to 

determine which stressors were likely to 

be drivers of the species’ current 

condition (Service 2018a, pp. 25–42). 

We have also analyzed potential 

cumulative effects of stressors, such as 

low river flows and warm water 

temperatures that may act cumulatively 

to increase predation by nonnative 

predators. The SSA framework 

considers the presence of the factors 

influencing the species, including 

threats and conservation efforts and to 

what degree they collectively influence 

risk to the entire species at the current 

time and in the future. 

Our analysis found that the primary 

drivers for the razorback sucker’s 

current and future condition in the wild 

are lack of access to rearing habitat in 

the upper basin and persistent 

populations of predatory nonnative fish 

species, which, together, prevent natural 

recruitment from occurring at a 

population scale in both basins. We 

summarize these stressors below, with 

more detail provided in the SSA report 

(Service 2018a, pp. 27–42). 

Access to nursery habitat—The 

presence and operation of large dams 

can reduce spring peak flows and interand intra-annual flow variability, 

needed by razorback sucker larvae and 

juveniles as rearing habitat. Historical 

dam operations did not always provide 

river flow conditions that supported 

razorback sucker, but recent 

modifications to operations have 

improved conditions. Current flow 

recommendations at upper basin dams 

(including Flaming Gorge [Green River 

subbasin], the Aspinall Unit [Colorado 

River subbasin], and Navajo Dam [San 

Juan River subbasin]) now promote 

inter- and intra-annual variability. In 

addition, Flaming Gorge Reservoir 

operations have incorporated 

experimental strategies to use spring 

peak flows to push larval razorback 

sucker into managed off-channel 

floodplains. These larval-triggered dam 

operations have resulted in the first 

consistent signs of first-year survival in 

the upper basin. For recruitment to the 

adult life stage to occur at a significant 

scale, more managed floodplains may be 

needed to connect to the river more 

regularly in the Green River (and 

potentially in the other) subbasins. 

Recent high, channel altering flows in 

the San Juan River, followed by low 

flows that provided in-river juvenile 

backwater habitat produced one yearclass of naturally recruited juveniles. 

Similar patterns would need to occur on 

a more regular basis to produce enough 

juveniles to replace adults lost through 

mortality. Future conditions of river 

flow and temperature are uncertain 

because conditions are shaped by 

regional climatic patterns and water 

availability. 

Predation—Predation and 

competition by nonnative fish species 

are stressors to razorback sucker in both 

the upper and lower basins by reducing 

recruitment to adult life stages. Juvenile 

razorback sucker are most vulnerable to 

predation from nonnative fish species 

during the first few years of life. In the 

lower basin, populations that co-occur 

with striped bass and flathead catfish 

are vulnerable even as adults. Nonnative 

fish can also compete for resources with 

all life stages of razorback sucker. The 

razorback sucker evolved in an 

environment relatively free of predators 

and competitors. It is ill-adapted to 

living with the many nonnative fish that 

have been introduced into the Colorado 

River basin because it is a soft-rayed fish 

with no defense mechanisms for 

protection from predators. 

Predation from nonnative fish species, 

particularly smallmouth bass in the 

upper basin, and striped bass and 

flathead catfish in the lower basin, is 

actively reducing the viability of 

razorback sucker. All upper basin 

razorback sucker populations have 

established nonnative predator 

populations; however, predation 

pressure is considered low in the San 

Juan River. All lower basin populations 

are dominated by nonnative predators. 

Only Lake Mead remains unmanaged 

and naturally recruiting. Management 

actions have restored razorback sucker 

populations to much of their historical 

habitat and are necessary to continue to 

support the species. 

Regulatory mechanisms—Regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) and other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35720 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

management efforts benefit the 

razorback sucker. Most habitat resources 

affecting razorback sucker, such as river 

flow regimes, are strictly regulated 

through Federal, State, and Tribal 

mechanisms. The razorback sucker is 

widely distributed across the upper 

basin, occupying areas surrounded by 

both private and public land, but many 

of the essential habitats (e.g., floodplain 

wetlands and nursery areas) are largely 

protected by land use management 

plans or other mechanisms associated 

with Federal, State, and Tribal land 

ownership. Releases from large dams, 

primarily operated by the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, are now operated to 

promote river function and connect fish 

habitat. These revised dam operations 

have been vetted through the National 

Environmental Policy Act process and 

are described in the records of decision 

(RODs) for Flaming Gorge (U.S. 

Department of the Interior 2006), the 

Aspinall Unit (U.S. Department of the 

Interior 2012), and Navajo dams (U.S. 

Department of the Interior 2005). 

The Upper Basin and San Juan 

Programs coordinate and implement the 

majority of management actions for the 

upper basin populations, while the LCRMSCP undertakes management actions 

for the lower Colorado River basin. 

These programs are considered 

regulatory mechanisms because they are 

largely federally funded, are guided by 

statute, are renewed on a periodic basis 

by acts of Congress, and provide 

compliance under the Act for water 

development projects. 

Commitment to management actions 

for the benefit of razorback sucker is 

strong among the various partnerships; 

nevertheless, uncertainty of continued 

implementation in the upper basin does 

exist. For example, the cooperative 

agreement establishing the Upper Basin 

and San Juan Programs expires in 2023. 

The partners continue to discuss how 

the programs will be continued post 

2023, with strong agreement that 

continuation is essential for all parties. 

Elimination of those two programs 

would introduce severe uncertainty 

about continued implementation of 

important management actions for 

razorback sucker in the upper basin. In 

the lower basin, the habitat conservation 

plan that created the LCR-MSCP is the 

legally binding mechanism that 

provides more certainty for razorback 

sucker conservation actions through 

2055. 

The Upper Basin and San Juan 

Programs and LCR-MSCP are key 

regulatory mechanisms that shape the 

current and future condition of 

razorback sucker. The Upper Basin and 

San Juan Programs implement 

management actions that benefit all 

resource needs of the razorback sucker, 

including flow and habitat management, 

nonnative fish removal, and stocking of 

adults. After coordination through the 

programs, the Service maintains 

stocking agreements with the states 

prohibiting the introduction of 

nonnative species that cause undue 

harm to endangered species 

populations. The States of Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming have enacted 

fishing regulations that encourage 

anglers to remove nonnative predatory 

species throughout the upper Colorado 

River basin. The LCR-MSCP develops 

off-channel, predator-free habitat and 

reintroduces adults. Although it is likely 

that all programs will continue to 

implement management actions, there is 

uncertainty regarding the status of the 

Upper Basin and San Juan Programs 

over the next 30 years. However, we 

believe there is strong, broad-based 

incentive to continue these collaborative 

programs, because they collectively 

provide regulatory compliance under 

the Act for the depletive effects 

associated with more than 2,500 water 

projects, which deplete an average of 3.8 

million acre-feet per year. 

We find that endangered species 

status is no longer appropriate for the 

razorback sucker because the species 

currently demonstrates sufficient 

individual and population resiliency, 

redundancy, representation across seven 

reproducing populations, four in the 

upper basin and three in the lower 

basin, supplemented by well-managed 

captive populations across the range, 

such that the potential extirpation of 

multiple populations is not likely to 

occur now or in the short term. The 

current resiliency of the relatively small, 

naturally recruiting Lake Mead 

population, in conjunction with the 

resiliency and redundancy afforded by 

management-based populations across 

both basins, decreases risk to the species 

from stochastic and catastrophic events. 

Wide-ranging adult populations, 

successful spawning, continued 

stocking and reintroduction programs, 

coupled with threat management 

programs provide resiliency and 

redundancy, which decrease the risks to 

the species. The risk of extinction is 

currently low, due to the presence of 

one recruiting wild population and six 

additional populations that are 

maintained by stocking from wellmanaged captive populations. 

Therefore, the species is not currently in 

danger of extinction. We, therefore, 

proceed with determining whether 

razorback sucker is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all of its range (i.e., 

meets the Act’s definition of a 

threatened species). 

We find that razorback sucker is likely 

to become an endangered species 

throughout all of its range within the 

foreseeable future. Due to nonnative 

predators that prevent nearly all natural 

recruitment of razorback sucker to the 

adult life stage in most habitats, the 

condition of the seven populations 

distributed across the upper and lower 

basins depends on management actions, 

such as stocking efforts, which are 

effective and ongoing. Management 

actions have ensured that stocked 

razorback sucker are migrating, 

spawning, and producing viable larvae 

in most populations. Signs of 

recruitment to the juvenile life stage are 

increasing, but are not yet sufficient for 

self-sustainability in most populations. 

Although the current risk of extinction 

is low, such that the species is not an 

endangered species, there is enough risk 

associated with the species’ reliance on 

management actions and the potential 

loss of these important management 

actions such that the species is 

vulnerable. The primary management 

organization in the lower basin, LCRMSCP, will continue through the 

foreseeable future considered in this 

rule (currently set to expire in 2055) 

ensuring conservation actions will 

continue in the lower basin to maintain 

populations in their current state. 

Reduction or elimination of ongoing 

management actions in the upper basin, 

which could occur after 2023, could 

slow or reverse the positive trajectory in 

the upper basin populations. Thus, after 

assessing the best available information, 

we determine that the razorback sucker 

is not currently in danger of extinction, 

but is likely to become in danger of 

extinction 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 2014 Significant 

Portion of its Range Policy that provided 

that the Service does 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35721 

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 

razorback 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. 

For the razorback sucker, we 

considered whether threats are 

geographically concentrated in any 

portion of the species’ range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. We 

examined the following threats: Changes 

in flow regime and habitat connectivity 

(which could be affected by climate 

change in the long term) (Factor A), 

predation and competition with 

nonnative fish species (Factor C), 

overutilization (Factor B) of razorback 

sucker, disease (Factor C), or other 

natural and manmade factors affecting 

the species (Factor E), including 

cumulative effects. We determined that 

threats to the razorback sucker include 

changes in flow regime and habitat 

connectivity (which could be affected 

by climate change in the long term) 

(Factor A), and predation and 

competition with nonnative fish species 

(Factor C) (Service 2018a, pp. 25–42, 

98–105). There is no evidence that 

overutilization (Factor B) of razorback 

sucker, disease (Factor C), or other 

natural and manmade factors affecting 

the species (Factor E) are occurring. 

In the upper basin, large dams 

historically changed flow regimes, 

which altered water temperatures and 

reduced connectivity and access to 

rearing habitat needed by the razorback 

sucker. Currently, flow 

recommendations in the upper basin are 

providing access to rearing habitat in 

the form of off-channel wetlands and 

floodplains. In the lower basin, large 

dams created large on-channel 

reservoirs that supported large 

populations of wild razorback sucker 

before the introduction of nonnative fish 

species. Both the upper and lower 

basins now support large augmented 

populations of razorback sucker. 

Although in the future, regional climatic 

patterns and water availability could 

affect the river flows and water 

temperatures needed by the razorback 

sucker, flow regimes are currently not a 

threat to the species and there are no 

geographically concentrated changes to 

flow regimes operating at biologically 

meaningful scales, whether at a 

population level, across the upper or 

lower basins, or the species rangewide. 

Across the upper and lower basins, 

the razorback sucker evolved in an 

environment relatively free of predators 

and competitors, and as a soft-rayed fish 

with no defense mechanisms against 

predation, it is ill-adapted to live with 

the many nonnative fish that were 

introduced into the Colorado River 

basin. By feeding on juvenile razorback 

sucker, and some adults in the lower 

basin, predatory, nonnative fish species 

reduce recruitment of the razorback 

sucker to adult life stages. Nonnative 

fish can also compete for resources with 

all life stages of razorback sucker. As a 

result, predation and competition by 

nonnative fish species are threats to the 

razorback sucker in both the upper and 

lower basins. All razorback sucker 

populations in the upper and lower 

basins have established populations of 

nonnative predators; however, 

predation pressure is considered low in 

the San Juan River in the upper basin, 

and only Lake Mead in the lower basin 

remains unmanaged and naturally 

recruiting. Although nonnative species 

are different, predation and competition 

by nonnative fish species occurs across 

both the upper and lower basins and 

there are no geographical concentrations 

of this threat across biologically 

meaningful scales, either at the 

population scale, across the upper and 

lower basins, or the species rangewide. 

We found no concentration of threats 

in any portion of the range of the 

razorback sucker at a biologically 

meaningful scale. Thus, there are no 

portions of the species’ range where the 

species has a different status from its 

rangewide status. Therefore, no portion 

of the species’ range provides 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 razorback sucker 

meets the definition of a threatened 

species. Therefore, we propose to 

reclassify the razorback sucker as a 

threatened species in accordance with 

sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Proposed 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 

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) of the Act 

provide 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35722 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 

proposed rule that is designed to 

address the razorback 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 razorback 

sucker. As discussed in the Summary of 

Biological Status and Threats section, 

we have concluded that the razorback 

sucker is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

primarily due to changes to water flow 

and predatory, nonnative fish species. 

The provisions of this proposed 4(d) 

rule would promote the conservation of 

the razorback sucker by providing 

continued protection from take and to 

facilitate the expansion of the species’ 

range by increasing flexibility in 

management activities. The provisions 

of this rule are one of many tools that 

we would use to promote the 

conservation of the razorback sucker. 

This proposed 4(d) rule would apply 

only if and when we make final the 

reclassification of the razorback sucker 

as a threatened species. 

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule 

This proposed 4(d) rule would 

provide for the conservation of the 

razorback sucker by prohibiting the 

following activities, except as otherwise 

authorized or permitted: 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; or selling or offering for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce. This 

proposed 4(d) rule includes actions to 

facilitate conservation and management 

of razorback sucker where they 

currently occur, and may occur in the 

future, by eliminating the Act’s take 

prohibition for certain activities. These 

activities are intended to encourage 

support for the conservation of 

razorback 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 regulation at 50 

CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or 

otherwise, by direct and indirect 

impacts, intentionally or incidentally. 

Under this proposed 4(d) rule, take will 

continue to be prohibited, except for the 

following forms of take that would be 

excepted under the Act: 

• Take resulting from population 

restoration efforts including captivebreeding, stocking, and reintroduction 

of individuals; 

• Take resulting from display of 

razorback sucker for educational 

purposes; 

• Take resulting from creating and 

managing nursery habitat for razorback 

sucker; 

• Take resulting from the removal or 

suppression of nonnative fish species; 

• Take resulting from catch-andrelease angling activities associated with 

razorback sucker in accordance with all 

applicable laws, including incidental 

take from nontargeted angling in critical 

habitat and take from targeted angling 

for razorback sucker in any newly 

established areas; and 

• Take associated with chemical 

treatments in support of the recovery of 

razorback sucker. 

Captive-Breeding, Reintroduction, and 

Stocking 

Robust hatchery and reestablishment 

programs have been developed as a 

result of catastrophic historical declines 

in wild populations and are essential 

management tools used by agencies 

across the Colorado River basin. 

Population restoration efforts provide 

the flexibility to perform supplemental 

stocking into existing populations or 

reintroduction of individuals to 

extirpated areas. Stocking hatcheryreared razorback sucker and 

reintroducing wild-spawned larvae as 

adults too large for predation are 

important management actions 

supporting the managed viability of the 

species. Introducing individuals into 

new areas can provide increased 

redundancy and decreased risk to 

catastrophic events by expanding the 

range of the species. Introducing 

individuals into wild populations can 

substitute for resiliency for extant 

populations by potentially offsetting 

population declines or increasing 

genetic diversity. Currently, the genetic 

diversity of razorback sucker exists in 

captive broodstock and wild-spawned 

larvae in Lake Mohave. Broodstock are 

maintained at multiple locations across 

the upper and lower basin. 

The process of establishing or 

supplementing broodstock or enhancing 

populations by reintroducing wildcollected larvae as adults can require 

take in the form of collection of wild 

individuals of various life stages. 

Furthermore, the long-term care and 

maintenance of broodstock or hatchery 

stock can result in take, including take 

related to disease, parasites, genetic 

assessment, and management of captive 

populations, and natural mortality of 

individuals existing in broodstock or 

refuge populations. The process of 

culturing and stocking individuals can 

also result in take via hatchery methods 

or incidental mortality of stocked 

individuals. 

This proposed 4(d) rule describes 

captive-breeding, stocking, and 

reintroduction of razorback sucker 

excepted from take as any activity 

undertaken to expand the range of 

razorback sucker or to supplement 

existing wild populations. Under this 

proposed 4(d) rule, take resulting from 

captive-breeding, stocking, and 

reintroduction for razorback sucker by 

qualified personnel would not be 

prohibited as long as reasonable care is 

practiced to minimize the effects of such 

taking. Qualified personnel are full-time 

fish biologists or aquatic resources 

managers employed by any of the 

Colorado River Basin State or Tribal 

wildlife agencies, the Department of the 

Interior bureau offices located within 

the Colorado River basin, or fish 

biologists or aquatic resource managers 

employed by a private consulting firm. 

Reasonable care should include, but is 

not limited to: (1) Ensuring that the 

number of individuals removed 

minimally impacts extant wild 

populations; (2) acting in accordance 

with the Service’s Policy Regarding 

Controlled Propagation of Species 

Listed Under the Endangered Species 

Act (65 FR 56916, September 20, 2000) 

and all Federal, State, and Tribal laws 

and regulations; (3) implementing 

methods that result in the least harm, 

injury, or death to razorback sucker as 

feasible; (4) preserving specific genetic 

groupings of razorback sucker as 

defined by the best available science to 

maintain the genetic diversity of the 

species; and (5) ensuring no detrimental 

impacts to existing razorback sucker 

populations from disease, parasites, or 

genetic drift. Any stocking of razorback 

sucker must be approved by the Service. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35723 

Exhibitions of Captive-Bred Razorback 

Sucker 

Live fish exhibits provide a unique 

opportunity for the public to see and 

interact with rare native species. 

Exhibits are currently distributed 

throughout the basin in educational 

classrooms and public buildings 

holding hatchery-propagated fish. In 

cooperation with the Service, an 

educational message shall be presented 

with each animal and shall include the 

following minimal information: 

Common and scientific names, 

historical and current distribution, 

Endangered Species Act listing status, 

and a brief history of recovery. The 

long-term care and maintenance of live 

individuals in exhibits can result in 

take, including take related to disease, 

parasites, and natural mortality of 

individuals existing in captivity. Wildcaught razorback sucker are not 

permitted to be used for this purpose. 

Fish used in exhibitions may not be 

released into natural waterways without 

written permission from the Service 

defining time, location, and procedures 

to be used during release. Any releases 

must be in compliance with all Federal, 

State, and Tribal laws and regulations. 

Reasonable care must be taken to reduce 

take including, but not limited to: (a) 

Holding razorback sucker in aquaria of 

appropriate size for the life stage on 

exhibit (no less than 10 gallons (37.8 L)); 

and (b) providing routine care by 

individuals trained and knowledgeable 

in fish and aquarium care and the 

management of parasites and disease. 

Creation and Management of Nursery 

Habitat 

Floodplain wetlands and other 

habitats support growth of larval and 

juvenile razorback sucker (see Summary 

of Biological Status and Threats, above). 

Successful floodplain management for 

razorback sucker can require: (a) Flow 

management that provides floodplain 

connection when larval razorback 

sucker are present in the system; (b) 

floodplains that are retrofitted with 

water control structures that restrict 

entry of large-bodied fish and allow 

managers to fill and drain the habitat at 

the beginning and end of the growing 

season, respectively; (c) supplemental 

water to freshen floodplain water 

quality through the summer; and (d) 

periodic monitoring of fish communities 

in the wetland to determine species 

composition. Take of razorback sucker 

can occur when the floodplains are 

drained and razorback sucker are 

inadvertently left in the floodplain or 

when water quality or other physical 

habitat conditions become insufficient 

to support the species. Incidental take 

may also occur when individuals of the 

species are handled, either during 

population sampling or draining of the 

wetland. 

Currently, management of floodplain 

wetlands occurs at multiple locations in 

the Green River basin and in one 

location along the Colorado River, near 

Moab, Utah. Creation of floodplain 

habitat is in development in the San 

Juan River basin. In the lower basin, 

razorback sucker are common in offchannel pond habitat. Both the 

floodplain and pond habitats are 

constructed and managed to keep largebodied nonnative predators out. New 

construction designs or management 

techniques, as available and feasible, 

may also need to be implemented in the 

future. 

This proposed 4(d) rule describes 

creation and management of nursery 

habitat excepted from take prohibitions 

as any action with the primary or 

secondary purpose of enhancing or 

providing nursery habitat for razorback 

sucker, and that is approved in writing 

by the Service for that purpose. 

Under this proposed 4(d) rule, take 

resulting from actions to create or 

manage nursery habitats to benefit 

razorback sucker by qualified personnel 

would not be prohibited as long as 

reasonable care is practiced to minimize 

the effects of such taking. Reasonable 

care may include, but is not limited to: 

(1) Performance of management 

treatments at times and locations that 

reduce the impacts to razorback sucker; 

(2) compliance with all Federal, State, 

and Tribal regulations for construction 

in wetland habitats; (3) attention to 

water quality conditions while 

razorback sucker are thought to be 

present; and (4) performance of robust 

salvage efforts to remove any razorback 

sucker before draining occurs. 

Whenever possible, razorback sucker 

that are salvaged should be moved to a 

location that supports recovery of the 

species. 

Nonnative Fish Removal 

Control of nonnative fishes is vital for 

the continued recovery of razorback 

sucker because predatory, nonnative 

fishes are a principal threat to razorback 

sucker (see Summary of Biological 

Status and Threats, above). The goal of 

removing nonnative fishes is to reduce 

predation and competition pressure on 

razorback sucker to such a level that it 

results in increasing razorback sucker 

survival, recruitment, and access to 

resources. During the course of 

removing nonnative fishes, take of 

razorback sucker may occur from 

incidental captures resulting in capture, 

handling, injury, or possible mortality. 

However, nonnative removal activities 

in razorback sucker habitats are 

designed to be selective, allowing for 

the removal of predatory, nonnative fish 

while razorback sucker are returned 

safely to the river. Therefore, if 

nonnative fish removal is performed 

under deliberate, well-designed 

programs, the benefits to razorback 

sucker can greatly outweigh losses. 

Currently, active nonnative fish 

removal is widespread in the upper 

basin, but is less common in the lower 

basin. Control of nonnative fishes is 

conducted by qualified personnel in the 

upper basin via mechanical removal 

using boat-mounted electrofishing, nets, 

and seines, primarily focusing on 

removal of smallmouth bass, northern 

pike (Esox lucius), and walleye (Sander 

vitreus). Removal of nonnative fishes in 

the upper basin is performed under 

strict standardized protocols to limit 

impacts to razorback sucker. In the 

lower basin, nonnative fish actions 

primarily focus on preventing 

establishment of new species (such as 

removal of green sunfish below Glen 

Canyon Dam) and controlling 

populations of trout in tributary habitats 

(such as removal of brown trout in 

Bright Angel Creek). New techniques, as 

available and feasible, may also need to 

be implemented in the future. 

This proposed 4(d) rule describes 

nonnative fish removal excepted from 

take prohibitions as any action with the 

primary or secondary purpose of 

mechanically removing nonnative fishes 

that compete with, predate, or degrade 

the habitat of razorback sucker, and that 

is approved in writing by the Service for 

that purpose. These methods include 

mechanical removal within occupied 

razorback sucker habitats, including, but 

not limited to, electrofishing, seining, 

netting, and angling, or other ecosystem 

modifications such as altered flow 

regimes or habitat modifications. All 

methods must be conducted by 

qualified personnel and equipment used 

in compliance with applicable Federal, 

State, and Tribal regulations. 

Under this proposed 4(d) rule, 

incidental take resulting from actions 

implementing nonnative fish control 

activities to benefit razorback sucker 

would not be prohibited as long as 

reasonable care is practiced to minimize 

the effects of such taking. Reasonable 

care may include, but is not limited to: 

(1) Performing removal actions at times 

and locations that reduce the impacts to 

razorback sucker; (2) complying with all 

applicable regulations and following 

principles of responsible removal; and 

(3) judiciously using methods and tools 

to reduce the likelihood that razorback 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35724 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

sucker are captured, injured, or die in 

the removal process. Whenever 

possible, razorback sucker that are 

caught alive as part of nonnative fish 

removal should be returned to their 

capture location as quickly as possible. 

Catch-and-Release Angling of 

Razorback Sucker 

Recreational angling is an important 

consideration for management of all 

fisheries, as recreational angling is the 

primary mechanism by which the 

public interacts with fishes. 

Furthermore, angling regulations are an 

important communication tool. While 

the razorback sucker is not currently a 

species that is prized for its recreational 

or commercial value, the species is a 

large-bodied, catchable-sized fish that 

could offer potential recreational value 

in certain situations. Conservation value 

from public support for razorback 

sucker could arise through newly 

established fishing locations and public 

engagement with this species. 

Furthermore, anglers target species that 

co-occur with razorback sucker at some 

locations. As a result, otherwise legal 

angling activity in razorback sucker 

habitats could result in the 

unintentional catch of razorback sucker 

by the angling public. Catch-and-release 

angling, both intentional and incidental, 

can result in take of razorback sucker 

through handling, injury, and potential 

mortality. However, the conservation 

support that angling provides can 

outweigh losses to razorback sucker, if 

the angling program is designed 

appropriately. 

Currently, State angling regulations 

require the release of all incidental 

catches of razorback sucker and do not 

allow anglers to target the species. 

Therefore, current angling regulations 

for razorback sucker by the States of 

Arizona, California, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Nevada, and Utah demonstrate 

a willingness to enact appropriate 

regulations for the protection of the 

razorback sucker. It is important to 

continue to protect razorback sucker 

from intentional angling pressure in 

critical habitat to support recovery of 

the species. Supporting recreational 

fishing access to these areas for species 

other than razorback sucker is an 

important economic consideration for 

State and Tribal entities. We propose to 

allow take of razorback sucker from 

angling activities that are in accordance 

with State and Tribal fishing regulations 

in razorback sucker critical habitat, but 

that do not target razorback sucker. That 

is, take associated with incidental catchand-release of razorback sucker in the 

core populations would not be 

prohibited. Reasonable consideration by 

the States and Tribes for incidental 

catch of razorback sucker in critical 

habitat includes: (1) Regulating tactics 

to minimize potential injury and death 

to razorback sucker if caught; (2) 

communicating the potential for 

catching razorback sucker in these areas; 

and (3) promoting the importance of the 

populations across the Colorado River 

basin. 

Outside of critical habitat, we foresee 

that Federal, State, or Tribal 

governments may want to establish a 

new recovery location where razorback 

sucker could be targeted for catch-andrelease angling or a new location 

without recovery value, where the sole 

purpose is recreational angling for 

razorback sucker. Newly established 

locations could offer a genetic refuge for 

core populations of razorback sucker, 

provide a location for hatchery-reared 

fish (see Captive-Breeding, Stocking, 

and Reintroduction, above), and offer 

the public a chance to interact with the 

species in the wild. Therefore, we 

propose to allow take of razorback 

sucker from catch-and-release angling 

activities that target razorback sucker 

and are in accordance with State and 

Tribal fishing regulations in areas 

outside of critical habitat. 

Sport fishing for razorback sucker 

would be allowed only through the 4(d) 

rule and subsequent State or Tribal 

regulations created in collaboration with 

the Service. This rule would allow 

recreational catch-and-release fishing of 

razorback sucker in specified waters 

outside of critical habitat. Management 

as a recreational species would be 

conducted after completion of, and 

consistent with the goals within, a 

revised recovery plan for the species. 

The principal effect of this 4(d) rule 

would be to allow take in accordance 

with fishing regulations enacted by 

States or Tribes, in collaboration with 

the Service. 

Recreational opportunities may be 

developed by the States and Tribes in 

new waters following careful 

consideration of the locations and 

impacts to the species. Reasonable 

consideration for establishing new 

recreational locations for razorback 

sucker include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Carefully evaluating each water body 

and determining whether the water 

body can sustain angling; (2) ensuring 

the population does not detrimentally 

impact populations of razorback sucker 

through such factors as disease or 

genetic drift; (3) ensuring adequate 

availability of razorback sucker to 

support angling; and (4) monitoring to 

ensure there are no detrimental effects 

to the population from angling. If 

monitoring indicates that angling has a 

negative effect on the conservation of 

razorback sucker in the opinion of the 

Service, the fishing regulations must be 

amended or the fishery could be closed 

by the appropriate State. 

Chemical Treatments Supporting 

Razorback Sucker 

Chemical treatments of water bodies 

are an important fisheries management 

tool because they are the principal 

method used to remove all fishes from 

a defined area. That is, chemical 

treatments provide more certainty of 

complete removal than other methods, 

such as mechanical removal. Therefore, 

chemical treatments are used for a 

variety of restoration and conservation 

purposes, such as preparing areas for 

stocking efforts, preventing nonnative 

fishes from colonizing downstream 

areas, and resetting locations after failed 

management efforts. Chemical 

treatments of water bodies could take 

razorback sucker if individuals reside in 

the locations that are treated and cannot 

be salvaged completely prior to 

treatment. However, the overall benefit 

of conservation actions implemented 

using chemical treatment can outweigh 

the losses of razorback sucker, if 

reasonable care and planning are taken 

prior to treatments. 

Chemical piscicides (chemicals that 

are poisonous to fish) have been used in 

the upper and lower basin to remove 

upstream sources of nonnative fishes in 

support of razorback sucker. For 

example, Red Fleet Reservoir (Green 

River, Utah) was treated by the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources to 

remove walleye that were escaping 

downstream, and a slough downstream 

of Glen Canyon Dam (Colorado River, 

Arizona) was treated by the National 

Park Service to remove green sunfish. At 

Red Fleet Reservoir, chemical treatment 

also provided the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources with the ability to 

establish a new fish community that 

supported angling interests and 

provided greater compatibility with 

downstream conservation efforts. 

Chemical treatments could support a 

variety of activities to assist in the 

conservation of razorback sucker, 

including certain other actions 

described in this proposed 4(d) rule. For 

example, chemical treatments could be 

used prior to introducing razorback 

sucker through stocking. Nonnative 

fishes can also be removed using 

chemical treatments, providing a faster 

and more complete removal than 

mechanical removal. Furthermore, 

chemical treatments offer the ability to 

fully restore a location after a failed 

introduction effort. For example, if 

razorback sucker were stocked into a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35725 

new area, but did not successfully 

establish, landowners may want to 

restore this location for another 

purpose. 

Chemical treatments would be 

allowed under this proposed 4(d) rule. 

Necessary precautions and planning 

should be applied to avoid impacts to 

razorback sucker. For example, 

treatments upstream of occupied 

razorback sucker habitats should plan 

for unintended consequences (e.g., 

dispersal of piscicide beyond treatment 

boundaries). Chemical treatments that 

take place in locations where razorback 

sucker occur, or may occur, must take 

place only after a robust salvage effort 

takes place to remove razorback sucker 

in the area. Any chemical treatment that 

takes place in an area where razorback 

sucker may reside would need written 

approval from the Service, but 

treatments of unoccupied habitat would 

not need to be approved. Once the 

location of a chemical treatment is 

approved in writing by the Service, the 

take of razorback sucker by qualified 

personnel associated with performing a 

chemical treatment would not be 

regulated by the Service. 

Under this proposed 4(d) rule, take 

resulting from actions implementing 

chemical treatments to benefit razorback 

sucker would not be prohibited as long 

as reasonable care is practiced to 

minimize the effects of such taking. 

Reasonable care may include, but is not 

limited to: (1) Performance of treatments 

at times and locations that reduce the 

impacts to razorback sucker; (2) 

compliance with all Federal, State, and 

Tribal regulations for the use of fish 

toxicants and piscicides; (3) adherence 

to all protocols to limit the potential for 

fish toxicants and piscicides travelling 

beyond treatment boundaries; and (4) 

performance of robust salvage efforts to 

remove any razorback sucker in the 

treatment area. Whenever possible, 

razorback sucker that are salvaged 

should be moved to a location that 

supports recovery of the species. 

Reporting and Disposal of Razorback 

Sucker 

Under the proposed 4(d) rule, if 

razorback sucker are killed during 

actions described in the 4(d) rule, the 

Service must be notified of the death 

and may request to take possession of 

the animal. Notification should be given 

to the appropriate Service Regional Law 

Enforcement Office or associated 

management office. Information on the 

offices to contact is set forth under 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation, 

below. Law enforcement offices must be 

notified within 72 hours of the death, 

unless special conditions warrant an 

extension. The Service may allow 

additional reasonable time for reporting 

if access to these offices is limited due 

to closure or if the activity was 

conducted in an area without sufficient 

communication access. 

Permits 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities, 

including those described above, 

involving threatened wildlife as 

necessary in light of any finalized 4(d) 

rule. Regulations governing permits are 

codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to 

threatened wildlife, a permit may be 

issued for the following purposes: 

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. 

This proposed 4(d) rule would not 

impact existing or future permits issued 

by the Service for take of razorback 

sucker. Any person with a valid permit 

issued by the Service under § 17.22 or 

§ 17.32 may take razorback sucker, 

subject to all take limitations and other 

special terms and conditions of the 

permit. 

The Service recognizes 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 the Service in implementing all 

aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 

6 of the Act provides that the Service 

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 the Service in accordance with 

section 6(c) of the Act, who is 

designated by his or her agency for such 

purposes, would be able to conduct 

activities designed to conserve 

razorback sucker that may result in 

otherwise prohibited take without 

additional authorization. 

Proposed 4(d) Rule 

We have determined that the actions 

and activities that would be allowed 

under this proposed 4(d) rule, while 

they may cause some level of harm to 

individual razorback sucker, would not 

negatively affect efforts to conserve and 

recover razorback sucker, and would 

facilitate these efforts by increasing 

educational opportunities and public 

support for the conservation of 

razorback sucker and by providing more 

efficient implementation of recovery 

actions. This proposed 4(d) rule would 

not be made final until we have 

reviewed and fully considered 

comments from the public and unless 

and until we make final a rule to 

reclassify the species as threatened. 

Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule 

would change in any way the recovery 

planning provisions of section 4(f) of the 

Act, the consultation requirements 

under section 7 of the Act, or the ability 

of the Service to enter into partnerships 

for the management and protection of 

the razorback sucker. However, 

interagency cooperation may be further 

streamlined through planned 

programmatic consultations for the 

species between Federal agencies and 

the Service, where appropriate. We ask 

the public, particularly State and Tribal 

agencies and other interested 

stakeholders that may be affected by the 

proposed 4(d) rule, to provide 

comments and suggestions regarding 

additional guidance and methods that 

the Service could provide or use, 

respectively, to streamline the 

implementation of this proposed 4(d) 

rule (see Information Requested, above). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of This Proposed Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35726 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We determined that we do not need 

to prepare an environmental assessment 

or an environmental impact statement, 

as defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in 

connection with regulations adopted 

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). We also determine that 4(d) 

rules that accompany regulations 

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 

Act are not subject to the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

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 

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 will coordinate with Tribes in the 

range of the razorback sucker and 

request their input on this proposed 

rule. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2020–0057, 

and upon request from the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the 

Service’s Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program 

Office. 

Signing Authority 

The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Martha Williams, Principal Deputy 

Director Exercising the Delegated 

Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, approved this 

document on June 23, 2021, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby propose to 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

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

entry for ‘‘Sucker, razorback’’ under 

FISHES on the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

*******

FISHES

* * * * * * * 

Sucker, razorback .......... Xyrauchen texanus ........ Wherever found ............. T 56 FR 54957, 10/23/1991; [FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 

FINAL RULE]; 50 CFR 17.44(gg); 4d 50 CFR 

17.95(e).CH

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.44 by adding paragraph 

(gg) to read as follows: 

§ 17.44 Special rules—fishes. 

* * * * * 

(gg) Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen 

texanus). 

(1) Prohibitions. The following 

prohibitions that apply to endangered 

wildlife also apply to the razorback 

sucker. Except as provided under 

paragraphs (gg)(2) and (3) of this section 

and §§ 17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for 

any person subject to the jurisdiction of 

the United States to commit, to attempt 

to commit, to solicit another to commit, 

or cause to be committed, any of the 

following acts in regard to this species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. 

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

for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth 

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

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of commercial activity, as set 

forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered 

wildlife. 

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

at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife. 

(2) General exceptions from 

prohibitions. In regard to this species, 

you may: 

(i) Conduct activities as authorized by 

an existing permit for its duration under 

§ 17.32. 

(ii) Conduct activities as authorized 

by a permit issued prior to [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] under 

§ 17.22 for the duration of the permit. 

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

through (4) for endangered wildlife. 

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35727 

(v) Possess and engage in other acts 

with unlawfully take wildlife, as set 

forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(3) Exceptions from prohibitions for 

specific types of incidental take. You 

may take razorback sucker while 

carrying out the following legally 

conducted activities in accordance with 

this paragraph: 

(i) Definitions. For the purposes of 

this paragraph (gg)(3): 

(A) Person means a person as defined 

by section 3(13) of the Act. 

(B) Qualified person means a full-time 

fish biologist or aquatic resources 

manager employed by any of the 

Colorado River Basin State or Tribal 

wildlife agencies or the Department of 

the Interior bureau offices located 

within the Colorado River basin, or a 

fish biologist or aquatic resource 

manager employed by a private 

consulting firm, provided the firm has 

received a scientific collecting permit 

from the appropriate State or Tribal 

agency. 

(C) Reasonable care means limiting 

the impacts to razorback 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; salvaging 

individuals from treatment areas, as 

feasible, and returning them to a 

location that supports recovery of the 

species; ensuring the number of 

individuals removed or sampled 

minimally impacts existing extant wild 

populations; ensuring no disease or 

parasites are introduced into existing 

extant wild populations; and preserving 

the genetic diversity of extant wild 

populations. 

(ii) Captive-breeding, reintroduction, 

and stocking. A qualified person may 

take razorback sucker while engaging in 

captive-propagation, stocking, or 

reintroduction, provided that reasonable 

care is practiced to minimize the effects 

of that taking. All captive-breeding shall 

be conducted by a qualified person in 

accordance with Service policies 

pertaining to the propagation of listed 

species and all Federal, State, and Tribal 

laws and regulations. Methods of 

allowable take include, but are not 

limited to, removing wild individuals 

via electrofishing, nets, and seines from 

the six core populations; managing 

captive populations, including 

handling, rearing, and spawning of 

captive fish; and sacrificing individuals 

for hatchery management, such as 

parasite and disease certification. 

(iii) Exhibitions of captive-bred 

razorback sucker in aquaria for 

educational purposes. A person may 

exhibit live, captive-bred razorback 

sucker in aquaria for educational 

purposes. Allowable take includes, but 

is not limited to, incidental take 

associated with the care and display of 

captive-bred razorback sucker in aquaria 

for educational purposes. 

(A) An educational message shall be 

presented with each animal and shall 

include the following minimal 

information: Common and scientific 

names, historical and current 

distribution, Endangered Species Act 

listing status as threatened, and a brief 

history of recovery. 

(B) All exhibitions must be provided 

routine care and be housed in aquaria of 

10 gallons (38 liters) or more. 

(C) Captive-bred razorback sucker 

used in exhibitions may not be released 

into natural waterways without written 

permission from the Service, which will 

define time, location, and procedures to 

be used during release. Any releases of 

captive-bred razorback sucker used for 

educational purposes must be in 

compliance with all Federal, State, and 

Tribal laws and regulations. 

(iv) Creation and management of 

nursery habitats. A qualified person 

may take razorback sucker to create or 

manage nursery habitats to support the 

growth of larval and juvenile razorback 

sucker. The Service must approve, in 

advance and in writing, the 

development of any nursery habitat 

with the primary or secondary purpose 

of conserving razorback sucker. 

Methods of allowable take include, but 

are not limited to, draining or drying an 

occupied floodplain wetland to remove 

fish or perform habitat maintenance; 

construction activities to improve or 

maintain the wetland; and habitat 

management activities to alter 

vegetation including but not limited to 

mechanical, chemical, and burning 

treatments. 

(v) Nonnative fish removal. A 

qualified person may take razorback 

sucker in order to perform nonnative 

fish removal for conservation purposes 

if reasonable care is practiced to 

minimize effects to razorback sucker. 

Nonnative fish removal for conservation 

purposes means any action with the 

primary or secondary purpose of 

mechanically removing nonnative fishes 

that compete with, predate, or degrade 

the habitat of razorback sucker. The 

Service and all applicable landowners 

must approve, in advance and in 

writing, any nonnative fish removal 

activities. Methods of allowable take 

include, but are not limited to, 

mechanical removal of nonnative fish 

within occupied razorback sucker 

habitats, including, but not limited to, 

electrofishing, seining, netting, and 

angling and the use of other ecosystem 

modifications, such as altered flow 

regimes or habitat modifications, for the 

purpose of managing nonnative species 

populations that may impact razorback 

sucker populations. 

(vi) Catch-and-release angling of 

razorback sucker. States and Tribes may 

enact Federal, State, and Tribal fishing 

regulations that address catch-andrelease angling. In federally designated 

critical habitat for the razorback sucker, 

angling activities may include 

nontargeted (incidental) catch and 

release of razorback sucker when 

targeting other species in accordance 

with Federal, State, and Tribal fishing 

regulations. In areas outside of federally 

designated critical habitat for the 

razorback sucker, angling activities may 

include targeted catch and release of 

razorback sucker in accordance with 

Federal, State, and Tribal fishing 

regulations. 

(A) Angling activities for razorback 

sucker may cause take via handling, 

injury, and unintentional death to 

razorback sucker that are caught via 

angling. 

(B) Reasonable consideration by the 

Federal, State, and Tribal agencies for 

incidental catch and release of 

razorback sucker in critical habitat 

include regulating tactics to minimize 

potential injury and death to razorback 

sucker if caught and communicating the 

potential for catching razorback sucker 

in these areas. 

(C) Reasonable consideration for 

establishing new recreational angling 

locations for razorback sucker includes, 

but is not limited to, evaluating each 

water body’s ability to support 

razorback sucker and sustain angling; 

ensuring the recreational fishing 

population does not detrimentally 

impact populations of razorback sucker 

through such factors as disease or 

genetic drift; and monitoring to ensure 

there are no detrimental effects to the 

razorback sucker population from 

angling. 

(D) The Service and all applicable 

State, Federal, and Tribal landowners 

must approve, in advance and in 

writing, any new recreational fishery for 

razorback sucker. 

(vii) Chemical treatments to support 

razorback sucker. A qualified person 

may take razorback sucker by 

performing a chemical treatment in 

accordance with Federal, State, and 

Tribal regulations that would support 

the conservation and recovery of 

razorback sucker, provided that 

reasonable care is practiced to minimize 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35728 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

the effects of such taking. For treatments 

outside of occupied razorback sucker 

habitat, Service approval is not 

required, and care should be taken to 

limit the potential for fish toxicants and 

piscicides travelling beyond treatment 

boundaries and impacting razorback 

sucker. For treatments in known or 

potentially occupied razorback sucker 

habitat, the Service must approve any 

treatment, in advance and in writing. 

(viii) Reporting and disposal 

requirements. Any mortality of 

razorback sucker associated with the 

actions authorized under the provisions 

of this paragraph (gg) must be reported 

to the Service within 72 hours, and 

specimens may be disposed of only in 

accordance with directions from the 

Service. Reports in the upper basin 

(upstream of Glen Canyon Dam) must be 

made to the Service’s Mountain-Prairie 

Region Law Enforcement Office, or the 

Service’s Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Office. 

Reports in the lower basin (downstream 

of Glen Canyon Dam) must be made to 

the Service’s Southwest Region Law 

Enforcement Office, or the Service’s 

Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Office. Contact information for the 

Service’s regional offices is set forth at 

50 CFR 2.2. The Service may allow 

additional reasonable time for reporting 

if access to these offices is limited due 

to office closure or if the activity was 

conducted in an area without sufficient 

communication access. 

Anissa Craghead, 

Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division 

of Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14335 Filed 7–6–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS