Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations suckers, not a population estimate. They do not include subadult or juvenile individuals, non-spawning adults, untagged fish, or tagged fish that were not detected via the monitoring antennae.
The actual population of wild June suckers in Utah Lake is likely greater than 3,500, because this number represents only the spawning adults.
However, we did not attempt to extrapolate a total population estimate from the adult spawning data because monitoring efforts in tributaries were not consistent across all years, data were not available for one year due to high flows, and the percentage and origin of untagged fish in Utah Lake is not yet clear Conner and Landom 2018, p. 4.
Stocked June suckers are tagged with a passive integrated transponder PIT.
Untagged fish may be stocked fish that lost their PIT tag or the result of reproduction i.e., recruitment in the wild UDWR 2017, entire.
Monitoring of June suckers in the lower Provo River during the 2018
spawning period captured a significant portion of fish that were not PIT tagged UDWR 2018, p. 3. The natural geochemical markers signatures in the otoliths ear bones and fin rays of collected, unmarked June suckers show that 39 percent 12 of 31 of these fish likely originated from the FES hatchery;
42 percent from Red Butte reservoir, other rearing facilities, or inconclusive;
and 19 percent 6 of 31 had signatures indicating they originated in Utah Lake Wolff and Johnson 2013, p. 9, meaning they were likely recruited naturally into Utah Lake. These results indicate that successful natural reproduction and recruitment are occurring, although the exact location and conditions that contributed to this successful natural recruitment are not known. Additional analysis of June suckers of unknown origin is planned within the next several years to determine the level of natural recruitment occurring in Utah Lake.
Regardless of origin, capture of untagged fish indicates there is an unknown number of spawning June suckers that were not accounted for in the spawning population estimate.
The year-to-year survival rate of fish stocked into Utah Lake varies significantly depending on a number of factors, including length of fish at stock which correlates to age and time of year stocked Goldsmith et al. 2016, p.
5. June suckers stocked in early summer that were 11.6 in 296 mm in length or more usually representing an individual that was 2 years old had a survival rate of 83 percent. June suckers stocked at age 1 had survival rates ranging from 0 to 67 percent. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:06 Dec 31, 2020

Jkt 253001

smallest June suckers, those stocked at under 7.9 in 200 mm, had a survival rate into the next year of only 2 percent Goldsmith et al. 2016, p. 14.
Year-to-year survival rates for spawning June suckers ranged from 65
to 95 percent depending on the tributary and the year Goldsmith et al. 2016, p.
3. Additionally, June suckers that were stocked more than 10 years prior were detected spawning on multiple occasions, indicating the capability for long-term survival in Utah Lake Conner and Landom 2018, p. 3. Between 2013
and 2016, June sucker showed a positive population trend with a combined annual growth rate of 1.06 for females and 1.04 for males across three tributaries Provo River, Spanish Fork, and Hobble Creek, with Provo River having the highest population growth rate and Hobble Creek showing an overall decline Conner and Landom 2018, p. 3. However, nearly 50 percent of spawning June sucker detected in Hobble Creek were of unknown origin.
Therefore, a decline in detected spawners in this tributary does not necessarily mean fewer fish overall are using the tributary. Naturally recruited fish that have never been tagged would not be detected by the remote electronic methods used to collect June sucker presence information at spawning locations.
In summary, the viability of June sucker in its native rangeas indicated by its representation, resiliency, and redundancyhas improved significantly since the time of listing, largely due to the efforts of the JSRIP
see Recovery, below. Stocking of June suckers, a program designed to maximize representation through genetic diversity, has been very successful at increasing the number of fish in Utah Lake. Stocked individuals are behaving as wild fish by migrating to new habitats, surviving many years, and participating in spawning activities.
The JSRIP stocking program is planning to continue until the June sucker reaches self-sustaining population levels, with a focus on stocking 2-yearold fish over 12 in 300 mm long to increase their chances of survival. The spawning population has increased at least ten-fold since 1999; there is evidence of high year-to-year survival rates and long-term survival for spawning individuals; and the spawning population is increasing at a high rate, improving the resiliency of the wild population. The stocking program and maintenance of two additional populations the refuge population at FES hatchery and the introduced population at Red Butte Reservoir also provide redundancy to
PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

195

the wild population. In 20202021, a study is underway to improve our understanding of the degree of natural recruitment of June sucker in Utah Lake and the origin of untagged June suckers.
This information will, combined with future monitoring, yield a population estimate and help inform future stocking rates and management decisions for the purposes of further bolstering the species representation, resiliency, and redundancy to achieve full recovery.
Recovery Section 4f of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4f1Bii, recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, that the species be removed from the List.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards recovery and assess the species likely future condition. However, they are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 4a1 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.

E:FRFM04JAR2.SGM

04JAR2