Je veux savoir à propos de…

198

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
vegetation support a higher diversity of macroinvertebrates, which provide additional food for June sucker, provide greater opportunities for June sucker to shelter from predators, and indicate improved water quality in the lake Dillingham 2018, entire.
The common carp removal program in Utah Lake has a positive impact on habitat quality, which may be contributing to natural recruitment and survival rates for the June sucker Gaeta and Landom 2017, p. 8; see Species Abundance and Trends, above.
Ongoing research by Utah State University continues to assess the relationship between common carp removal, habitat improvement, and June sucker population response as well as develop long-term recommendations for sustainable common carp management Gaeta et al. 2018, entire. The JSRIP
prioritizes continued suppression of the common carp population via mechanical removal, as well as research into genetically modified sterile YY
male technology that has the potential to reduce or eliminate carp from Utah Lake in the future JSRIP 2018, p. 2.
Population Augmentation The fourth and final downlisting criterion in the June sucker recovery plan is that an increasing, selfsustaining spawning run of wild June sucker resulting in significant recruitment over 10 years has been reestablished in the Provo River. We consider this criterion to be ongoing.
This criterion does not define significant recruitment. Although the spawning population of June sucker is increasing, annual stocking continues in order to maintain the population. An augmentation plan for the June sucker set a goal, for the purposes of meeting the recovery criterion of a selfsustaining population, of stocking 2.8
million individuals into Utah Lake Service and URMCC 1998, entire. The goal was based on early studies of June sucker survival and the production capabilities of the facilities. As of 2017, more than 800,000 captive-bred June sucker have been stocked in Utah Lake from the various rearing locations, and a long-term, continued stocking strategy based on the most up-to-date research on stocking success and survival rates is under development JSRIP 2008, p. 8;
UDWR 2017b, p. 6.
Although the June sucker has not yet met this downlisting criterion identified in the 1999 recovery plan, we find that the population increases and trends achieved thus far see Species Abundance and Trends, above, along with the addition of refuge populations to increase redundancy and genetic
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:06 Dec 31, 2020

Jkt 253001

representation, support downlisting the species. The criterion of an increasing, self-sustaining spawning run of wild June sucker resulting in significant recruitment over 10 years is more suitable as a delisting criterion and indicative of full recovery.
Overall, recovery actions have addressed many of the threats and stressors affecting the June sucker. The JSRIP has been effective in collaborating to implement a stocking program, increase June sucker spawning locations, acquire and manage water flows, remove nonnative common carp, and develop and conduct habitat restorations that target all life stages of June sucker. Studies are planned to improve understanding of the effects of other threats and stressors, including lake water quality and the impact of other invasive species on the June sucker. The JSRIP continues to be active and committed to full recovery of the June sucker.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species Section 4 of the Act 16 U.S.C. 1533
and its implementing regulations 50
CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying species, or removing species from listed status.
Species is defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature 16 U.S.C. 153216. 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
PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We must consider these same five factors in downlisting a species from endangered to threatened. Under our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11c-e, we may downlist a species if, after a review of the species status, the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered species, but that it meets the definition of a threatened species.
For the purposes of this analysis, we evaluate whether or not the June sucker meets the Acts definition of an endangered species or a threatened species, based on the best scientific and commercial information available.
We use the term threat to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term threat includes actions or conditions that directly affect individuals direct impacts, as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources stressors. The term threat may encompasseither together or separatelythe source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threats 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 threatswith regard to those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threatson an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species and then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole.
We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats with regard to those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the speciessuch as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the Acts 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
E:FRFM04JAR2.SGM

04JAR2