Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations relationship and to determine a course of action to prevent northern pike from becoming a greater threat to June sucker in the future.
While predation from nonnative species remains a threat, spawning populations of June suckers and the number of untagged fish e.g., possibly natural recruitment are increasing.
Adaptive management of nonnative fish is ongoing.
In addition to nonnative predatory fishes, avian predation on June suckers has been documented and primarily occurs when stocked June suckers are first released into the lake Goldsmith et al., p. 12. Predation is primarily from pelicans, and the amount varies based on location of release, time of year, and time of day of the June sucker release Goldsmith et al., p. 12. When possible, staff releasing stocked fish into Utah Lake drive off waiting pelicans, and do releases in the fall and at night, when predation is lowest UDWR 2017, p. 3.
The best available information does not indicate that pelicans or other avian predators are a threat to June suckers once the fish are established in Utah Lake.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms Under this factor, we examine the stressors identified within the other factors as ameliorated or exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. Section 4b1A
of the Act requires that the Service take into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect endangered or threatened species. We consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, regulations, and other such binding legal mechanisms that may ameliorate or exacerbate any of the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four factors or otherwise enhance the species conservation. Our consideration of these mechanisms is described below.
As a listed species, the primary regulatory mechanism for protection of the June sucker is through section 9a of the Act, as administered by the Service, which broadly prohibits import, export, take e.g., to harm, harass, kill, capture, and possession of the species. Additional regulatory mechanisms are provided through section 7a2 of the Act, which states that each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:06 Dec 31, 2020

Jkt 253001

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined by the Secretary, after soliciting comments from affected States, counties, and equivalent jurisdictions, to be critical.
Section 10a1A of the Act provides a mechanism for research and propagation of listed species for recovery purposes through a permitting system that allows incidental take of a listed species in the course of scientific projects that will benefit the species as a whole. For non-Federal actions, section 10a1B of the Act authorizes the Service to issue a permit allowing take of species provided that the taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Section 10a2A of the Act requires that a conservation plan, which is part of an application for an incidental take permit, describe the impact of the taking and identify steps to minimize and mitigate the impacts.
The Act will continue to provide protection to the June sucker after downlisting to threatened status, for as long as it remains on the List. The June sucker and its habitat will also continue to receive consideration and protection through the other regulatory mechanisms discussed below.
The NEPA requires Federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed actions on the quality of the human environment and requires the preparation of an EIS whenever projects may result in significant impacts.
Federal agencies must identify adverse environmental impacts of their proposed actions and develop alternatives that undergo the scrutiny of other public and private organizations as a part of their decision-making process. However, impacts may still occur under NEPA, and the implementation of conservation measures is largely voluntary. Actions evaluated under NEPA only affect the June sucker if they address potential impacts to the species or its habitat.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq. requires that Federal agencies sponsoring, funding, or permitting activities related to water resource development projects request review of these actions by the Service and the State natural resources management agency. Similar to caveats noted for NEPA, actions considered under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act are only relevant if they potentially impact the species or its habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act does not provide strong or broad protections for listed species, but it provides an additional layer of review for projects likely to
PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

203

impact the June sucker and works in concert with other regulatory mechanisms.
Section 101a of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act i.e., Clean Water Act; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. states that the objective of this law is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nations waters and provide the means to assure protection of fish and wildlife. This statute contributes to the protection of the June sucker through provisions for water quality standards, protection from the discharge of harmful pollutants and contaminants sections 303c, 304a, and 402, and protection from the discharge of dredged or fill material into all waters, including certain wetlands section 404.
The Clean Water Act requires every State to establish and maintain water quality standards designed to protect, restore, and preserve water quality in the State. However, Utah Lake has failed to meet water quality standards due to exceedance of total phosphorus and TDS concentrations Psomas 2007, p.
11, and it is listed as a section 303d impaired water Utah Lake Commission 2018, p. 7. Poor water quality in Utah Lake could alter food availability for the June sucker and contribute to increases in harmful algal bloom events and toxin concentrations from those events, which could increase the risk of large-scale June sucker mortality events. To meet Clean Water Act requirements, the UDWQ and the Utah Lake Commission are studying water quality in Utah Lake. They have a steering committee and science panel for the purposes of providing recommendations to improve water quality standards in Utah Lake Utah Lake Commission 2018, entire.
June suckers receive some protections at the State level. Under Utah Administrative Code R657148, June suckers may not be harvested, and if caught must be immediately returned alive and unharmed to the water from which they were taken.
When this rule is effective see DATES, above, the June sucker will continue to receive protection under the Act as a threatened species. The June sucker will also continue to receive protection under the other aforementioned regulatory mechanisms. Despite these existing regulatory mechanisms, the threats discussed under the other factors continue to affect the June sucker such that it now meets the definition of a threatened species rather than an endangered species.

E:FRFM04JAR2.SGM

04JAR2