Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

196

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of the species.
The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
We finalized a recovery plan for June sucker in 1999, which included recovery actions and recovery criteria for downlisting and delisting of June sucker. These criteria lack specific metrics and will be updated in a forthcoming revised recovery plan for the species. However, they are still relevant to the evaluation of recovery, and we discuss them in this document as one way to evaluate the change in status of June sucker.
Since 2002, the JSRIP has funded, implemented, and overseen recovery actions for the conservation of June sucker in accordance with the guidance provided by the recovery plan, including using adaptive management techniques to address new stressors as they arose. These recovery actions include: 1 Acquiring and managing water flows, 2 restoring habitat, 3
removing carp, and 4 augmenting the wild June sucker population. These efforts, and how they relate to the recovery criteria, are described in the following paragraphs.
Acquisition and Management of Water Flows The first downlisting criterion requires that Provo River flows essential for June sucker spawning and recruitment are protected Service 2011, p. 5. We consider this criterion to have been met. The JSRIP provides annual recommendations for river flows to support June suckers on the Provo River and Hobble Creek based on the known biology of the species and the historical flow levels to the CUWCD and other water-managing bodies. The JSRIP has also acquired water totaling over 21,000
acre-ft 25,903,080 cubic m m3 per year to enhance flows during the spawning season on the Provo River and to supplement base flows through the summer for the benefit of larval June sucker. Approximately 13,000 acre-ft 16,035,240 m3 of this water is permanently allocated, and the remainder is allocated through 2021.
The JSRIP is pursuing additional water, permanent and temporary, to bolster June sucker allocations after 2021 JSRIP
2018, p. 5. Additionally, the JSRIP has acquired 8,500 acre-ft 10,485,000 m3 of permanent water for Hobble Creek, up to 4,500 acre-ft 5,550,660 m3 of which
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:06 Dec 31, 2020

Jkt 253001

may be used to supplement Provo river flows as needed in any given year USBR 2017, pp. 35. These protected water sources, when delivered as additional water, provide added resiliency by improving habitat quality for the species, and operational flexibility to address fluctuating annual precipitation scenarios in a timely manner.
The amount of water delivered to supplement flows in the Provo River and Hobble Creek and the timing of those deliveries are determined annually through a cooperative process involving multiple agencies. In 1996, the June Sucker Flow Work Group Flow Work Group was formed by the USBR, DOI Central Utah Project Completion Act CUPCA Office, Provo River Water Users Association, Provo River Water Commissioner, CUWCD, UDWR, the Service, Provo City Public Works, and the URMCC. These agencies initially worked together to adjust reservoir releases to mimic a Provo River spring runoff hydrograph and improve June sucker spawning success.
Since 2002, this process has been overseen by the JSRIP.
As recovery-specific water was acquired, the role of the Flow Work Group expanded to provide a forum for determining the optimal delivery pattern of supplemental flows. Based on existing conditions for a given year e.g., snow pack and reservoir storage, the multi-disciplinary work group uses operational flexibility for reservoir water delivery and runoff timing to evaluate and operate the system to deliver year-round flows to benefit June sucker recovery. Based on recommendations of the Flow Work Group, the JSRIP makes annual recommendations for flow deliveries to the Provo River and Hobble Creek, adjusted for the available water conditions. Water managers including USBR, CUPCA, Provo River Water Users Association, the Provo River Water Commissioner, CUWCD, and Provo City Public Works then work to deliver water to meet that specific annual recommendation and have been successful in meeting the hydrograph scenarios agreed to by the Flow Work Group on an annual basis since 2004.
In 2004, the CUWCD, in cooperation with the Service and other members of the Flow Work Group, agreed on operational scenarios that mimic dry, moderate, and wet year flow patterns for the Provo River CUWCD et al. 2004, p.
17. The Flow Work Group applied these operational scenarios in determining the spawning season flow pattern for the Provo River with the goal of benefiting June sucker recovery. In
PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

2008, an ecosystem-based flow regime recommendation was finalized for the lower Provo River Stamp et al. 2008, p.
13. This year-round flow recommendation refined the operational scenarios identified in 2004, through the incorporation of relevant ecological functions into the in-stream flow analysis. Hydrologic variability, geomorphology, water quality, aquatic biology, and riparian biology were considered as aspects of flow recommendations. The year-round flow recommendations are adaptive, with consideration of the variability within and among each water year. These include recommendations for a baseline flow, a spring runoff flow, and the duration of the rising and receding flow periods before and after runoff. As more is learned about the associations between flow and river functions, the recommendations can be adjusted Stamp et al. 2008, p. 10. In 2015, the JSRIP passed a resolution affirming this process, which further defined how flows in the Provo River should be prioritized for the benefit of the June sucker, and defined the roles of partners in supporting the water needs of June sucker in the Provo River JSRIP 2015, entire.
In 2009, ecosystem-based flow recommendations were developed for Hobble Creek in the Lower Hobble Creek Ecosystem Flow Recommendations Report Stamp et al.
2009, pp. 1112. These recommendations were adopted by the JSRIP, included in the East Hobble Creek Restoration Project Environmental Analysis JSRIP 2009, p. 5, and are currently considered each April when determining the annual recommendations for delivery of flows to Hobble Creek DOI et al. 2013, p. 41.
Similar to the Provo River, these recommendations are intended to be adaptive. In 2012, the JSRIP passed a resolution affirming this process, which further defines how flows in Hobble Creek should be prioritized for the benefit of June sucker, and defines the roles of partners in supporting the water needs of June sucker in Hobble Creek JSRIP 2012, entire.
Habitat Restoration The second downlisting criterion for June sucker requires that spawning and brood-rearing habitat in the Provo River and Utah Lake be enhanced or established to provide for the continued existence of all life stages Service 1999, p. 4. We consider this criterion to have been met. Habitat restoration projects occurred on the Provo River and Hobble Creek, and habitat quality was enhanced in Utah Lake as a result of nonnative
E:FRFM04JAR2.SGM

04JAR2