Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus

SSA & 5-year Review

Glen Canyon Dam AMP Technical Work Group March 14, 20191

Kevin McAbee

Upper Colorado River Recovery Program
Evaluating Species Status:

SSA Framework

USFWS

Decision

Analysis

USFWS 

Decision

Documents

Species Status Assessment

Species 

Needs

Current 

Condition

Future 

Condition

2

Separation of 

Science and Policy

Input from States, 

Species Experts, & 

Peer Review

5-year

Review

Supports diverse 

USFWS documents

Spend More Time on Science

Improve Transparency & Consistency
3

Razorback Sucker 

SSA Timeline

 Initiated 2016

 Delphi Process – spring 2016

Species Expert Input

 Drafts 2016 & 2017

 Futures Scenarios - January 2018

Science Team

 Peer Review – Summer 2018

 Stakeholder Review – Summer 2018

 Published - September 2018

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program - Recovery Goals
3 Stages of SSAs

4

SPECIES NEEDS

Current Availability

or Condition of those 

Needs

CURRENT SPECIES’ 

CONDITION

Future Availability

or Condition of those 

Needs

SPECIES’ FUTURE 

CONDITION
Razorback Sucker

Species Needs

Primary Resource Categories

1. Complex lotic and/or lentic habitat 

2. Suitable water temperature and quality 

3. Variable flow regimes in lotic systems 

4. Adequate food supply 

5. Range and connectivity 

6. Adequate Population size

7. Multiple interconnected, naturally 

recruiting, and resilient populations 

8. Genetic diversity

5

Ch. 3

Various 

Individual, 

Population, 

and Species 

Needs
Stressors and Conservation

Impacting Species Needs

Management-based species

Risks/Stressors

•Nonnative predation

•Habitat – flow regime

•Nonnative competition

•Nonnative/Invasive effects on habitat

•Water Temperature

•Climate Change

•Land Use

•Inbreeding (reductions in diversity)

•Heavy metals

•Hybridization

•Parasites and diseases

•Contaminant spills

•Runoff pollution

•Overutilization

Conservation Actions

•Water management

•Recovery program funding

•Augmentation programs

•Nonnative removal

•Research and Monitoring

Ch. 4
Condition of Species Needs

Physical Needs

Complex Habitat

Adequate food Water Quality 

/Temperature

Variable 

flow (lotic 

only)

Range & 

Connectivity Habitat 

Nonnative 

presence 

in habitat

High

Medium

Low

Extirpated

Demographic Needs

Adult 

population size 

(wild + stocked 

fish)

Spawning 

and 

Larval 

Presence

Recruitment Dependence on 

Stocking

Genetic 

Integrity

Population 

Stability 

(wild 

recruited 

adults)

Ch. 5
Razorback Sucker Populations

Upper Basin

• Green River subbasin

• Colorado River subbasin

• San Juan River subbasin

• Lake Powell

Lower Basin

8

• Lake Mead (& Grand Canyon)

• Lake Mohave

• Lake Havasu

• Colorado below Parker Dam
Current Condition:

Physical Needs Ch. 5
Current Condition:

Demographics Ch. 5
Razorback Sucker

Current Condition

11

Upper Basin

• Green River subbasin

• Colorado River subbasin

• San Juan River subbasin

• Lake Powell

Lower Basin

• Lake Mead (& Grand Canyon)

• Lake Mohave

• Lake Havasu

• Colorado below Parker Dam

Ch. 5
3 Stages of SSAs

12

Future Availability

or Condition of those 

Needs

SPECIES NEEDS

Current Availability

or Condition of those 

Needs

CURRENT SPECIES’ 

CONDITION

SPECIES’ FUTURE 

CONDITION
Razorback Sucker

Plausible Future Scenarios

Ch. 6

• Science Team created 5 plausible future scenarios

• Assumed climate change is likely to increase water temperature and 

reduce water availability

• Chose management based scenarios because of the importance of 

management for the species

• Considered likelihood of each over 30 and 100 years
Plausible Future Scenario 1

Dramatic reduction in 

recovery / conservation 

actions

Ch. 6
Plausible Future Scenario 2

Constant level of effort, 

lower effectiveness of 

stocking success

Ch. 6
Plausible Future Scenario 3

Status quo (continued 

level of effort and 

effectiveness)

Ch. 6
Plausible Future Scenario 4

Continued effort leading 

to increased success 

(supports recruitment)

Ch. 6
Plausible Future Scenario 5

Continued effort with 

more effective techniques 

Ch. 6
19

Razorback Sucker

Historic Condition Ch. 5

• 30 years ago

• Initiation of management 

actions
Razorback Sucker

Condition Over Time

Historic Current Futures

1

2

4

3

5

Ch. 6
Razorback Sucker

Condition Over Time

Historic

(30 years ago)

Current Future

(30 years in future)

Predictions of Future Conditons in All Populations

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Extirpated Low Medium High

Ch. 6

Most 

Likely 

Future
USFWS Decision:

5-year Review

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to review the status of each federally 

listed species every five years. 

 Endangered Species: A species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range

 Threatened Species: species likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range.

 The key statutory difference between a threatened species and an endangered species 

is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either now

(endangered species) or in the foreseeable future (threatened species). 
23

Razorback Sucker 

5-year Review

Endangered Species: A species in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range (now)

• Widely distributed: 8 population centers; Rivers and lakes

• Numerous adults: 50,000+ hatchery produced adults in system

• Successful stocking: Long-lived adults occupy habitats far from stocking locations 

• Adapting to wild: Adults are spawning in many locations 

• Incomplete life history: Wild recruitment is extremely rare 

• Management dependent: Populations (except Lake Mead) are highly dependent on 

hatchery augmentation, flows, floodplain habitat, & nonnative fish control 

• Commitment: sustained management was the most likely future scenario. 

• Therefore, the USFWS concluded that the Razorback Sucker does not 

meet the definition of an endangered species. 
24

Razorback Sucker 

5-year Review

Threatened Species: species likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

• Therefore, the USFWS concluded that the Razorback Sucker does meet 

the definition of an threatened species.

• Incomplete life history: Without significant natural 

recruitment, adult populations depend entirely on 

continued captive propagation to persist into the future

• Stressors remain in place: stressors to viability, such as 

nonnative fish, are not fully controlled

• Management dependent: uncertainty and risk associated 

with the continuation and effectiveness of management 

actions remain
Next Steps

The USFWS is committed to follow through on the 

recommendations

Status change is a federal rulemaking

Proposed rule to reclassify razorback sucker as threatened

Receive public comments on proposed rule 

Final Rule considers public comments and all information 

Revise recovery plan

If reclassified, recovery plan would only include de-listing criteria

25
Next Steps

Razorback Sucker

Document Expected Date

SSA completed in 2018

5 Year Recommendation completed in 2018

Proposed Dowlisting & 4(d) Rule (in draft) Sept. 2019

Receive Public Comments 60 days from publish

Final Rule ~1 year later (2020)

Recovery Plan Revision ~2021
What about Humpback chub?

USFWS is finalizing a

proposed downlisting with 4(d) rule 
Humpback Chub Proposed 

Downlisting Rule: Overview

We propose to reclassify the humpback chub from 

endangered to threatened and 

issue a species specific 4(d) rule

• 5-year review (March 2018) provided the recommendation

• Analyses supported by SSA (March 2018)

• Recovery Goals (2002) are considered in the proposed rule, but 

outdated; Revised Recovery Plan to follow rulemaking 

• Species specific 4(d) rule included, which exempts take for 

certain actions to aid in conservation and recovery
Humpback Chub

Regulatory Schedule

Document Expected Date

SSA completed in 2018

5 Year Recommendation completed in 2018

Proposed Downlisting & 4(d) Rule (in draft) May 2019

Receive Public Comments 60 days from publish

Final Rule ~1 year later (2020)

Recovery Plan Revision ~2020
Thank You – Questions?

30

Kevin_McAbee@fws.gov

(303) 236-9887
What is a 4(d) rule? 

Section 4(d) of the ESA

• Section 4(d) of the ESA, which directs the Service to issue 

regulations deemed “necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of threatened species.” 

What this means

• Incentivize positive conservation actions 

• Streamline the regulatory process for minor impacts

• Clarify/simplify what forms of take of 

are and are not prohibited
Status of Upper Basin Humpback 

Chub Demographics

•Blacks Rocks & Westwater Canyon

• Declines through 2007; 

• Subsequent stabilization

•Desolation / Gray canyons

•Unclear abundance estimates trend

• Point estimates decline but CI overlap 

• CPUE apparently stable over ~30 years

•Cataract Canyon

•Persistent at low abundance; CPUE variable

•Dinosaur National Monument 

•Extirpated but potential for translocations

32
Westwater 

Canyon Hines 2018

33
Black Rocks

2016 and 2017 data preliminary) Francis et al. 2018

34
Desolation / 

Gray Canyons

Howard and Caldwell 2018

35
Cataract 

Canyon

Ahrens 2017 36
Humpback Chub

Current and Future Condition

SSA Ch. 5.0

37

Upper Basin 

Recovery Program 

ceases
Continued Progress:

San Juan Razorback Sucker

50 yearling razorback sucker in the 

San Juan River in 2018 — an all time 

high.
SSAs Assess Species’ Viability 

Viability is the ability of a species to sustain populations in 

the wild beyond a biologically meaningful time frame.

Representation – the ability of the species to 

adapt to changing environmental conditions

> Genetic and ecological diversity

Resiliency – the ability of the populations to 

withstand stochasticity

> Population health, abundance, growth rate, etc.

Redundancy – the ability of the species to 

withstand catastrophic events

> Number and distribution of populations

39

Population 1 

Resilience

Population 3 

Resilience

Redundancy

Population 

2 Resilience Population 4 

Resilience

Representation
Razorback Sucker SSA 

Technical Input

FWS Lead

Upper Colorado River Recovery Program

• Julie Stahli

Science Team for Scenario Development

–Paul Badame – Utah

–Shane Capron – WAPA

–Pete Cavalli – Wyoming

–Tom Chart – UCRRP

–Harry Crockett – Colorado

–Scott Durst – San Juan RIP

–Mark Grover – Arizona

–Jess Gwinn – FWS R2 ES

–Mark McKinstry – USBR

–Dale Ryden – FWS R6 FAC

–Brandon Senger – Nevada

–David Speas – USBR

–Jim Stolberg – LCR MSCP

–Melissa Trammell – NPS

–David Vigil – California

–Matt Zeigler – New Mexico
Razorback Sucker 

SSA Preparation & Review

Writing Team

UCRRP

–Julie Stahli

–Tom Chart

–Kevin McAbee

BIO-WEST

–Brandon Albrecht 

–Ron Kegerries

–Sean Keenan

–Harrison Mohn

–Ron Rogers

Peer Review

–Koreen Zelasko - CSU

–Summer Burdick - USGS

–Robert Schelly – NPS

Stakeholder Review

– Upper Colorado and San Juan 

Recovery Programs’ Biology 

Committees

– Tribal Partners

– Lower Basin Programs’ 

Representatives (identified by R2)

Reviews Received –State of Colorado

–State of Arizona

–State of New Mexico

–Brian Kesner

–Paul Marsh

–Chuck Minckley

–Tom Wesche

–Dave Speas

–R2 Fisheries

–Tom Dowling

–Bill Stewart

–San Juan Program

–Tom Pitts

–Scott Vanderkooi