Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations certainty based on partner agreements that stocking will continue until the Utah Lake population can be shown to be self-sustaining. Continued and planned recovery actions, such as habitat restoration and removal of nonnative species, are likely to continue to have a positive effect on reproduction, recruitment, and survival, and the system is monitored intensely to detect any rising threats or reversal of recovery progress. As we discuss above in this final rule, the best available information does not indicate that white bass or avian predation constitute a threat to the June sucker in Utah Lake under current conditions which include ongoing recovery actions, like stocking and nonnative fish removal.
Some predation does occur, and we have added text regarding methods used to reduce pelican predation on June suckers while they are being stocked, as that is the time the largest number of fish are vulnerable to avian predation.
If, in the future, these factors are shown to prevent the June sucker population in Utah Lake from being self-sustaining, they will need to be addressed before we can achieve full recovery.
4 Comment: The reviewer stated that we assume that capture of untagged fish or fish of unknown origin results in population estimates and other demographic parameters that are incorrect low, but adds that a population estimate does not depend on tagged fish only and the estimate should include the total number of fish, tagged and untagged.
Our Response: The reviewer is correct. The number we present as the known spawning population is not meant to represent a population estimate, but to provide the number of recorded individual June sucker spawners detected using PIT tags and antennae. That number is the minimum number of spawning adults we can be certain are surviving in the lake, and it does not account for fish that did not spawn in the years analyzed, fish without tags, or tagged fish that were not recorded by monitoring equipment.
Due to the lack of information regarding untagged fish or Utah Lake fish that are not spawning, and the various ways the data have been collected, we do not attempt to extrapolate the number of recorded spawning June suckers into a full population estimate. We have removed all references to a population estimate in this document and clarified the nature of the numbers provided.
5 Comment: The reviewer stated that we have not shown adequately that recovery criteria are met in order to allow for a downlisting, and cited the need for actions such as permanent,
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:06 Dec 31, 2020

Jkt 253001

legally assured flows for spawning, increased habitat, and a permanent continuous plan to remove carp and combat future novel predators that may be introduced.
Our Response: The Recovery discussion in the proposed rule 84 FR
65080, November 26, 2019, pp. 84 FR
6508465087, as well as in this final rule above, goes into detail regarding the existing downlisting criteria and how they have been met if they have or why they are outdated or irrelevant.
The legal standard for downlisting is whether the species meets the definition of a threatened species that is, it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Due to an exceptional track record and proven recovery measures, we are assured that the commitment of our partners and the JSRIP will continue, recovery actions and responses to threats will be implemented, and the existing agreements mean that June sucker is no longer currently in danger of extinction through all or a significant portion of its range. The reviewers comments regarding downlisting criteria more closely represent the definition of full recovery and delisting than for downlisting the species to threatened status.
6 Comment: The reviewer commented that we did not include all necessary and pertinent information to support our arguments, and they identified a number of references for June sucker that we did not cite in our proposed rule that were found through an internet search. The reviewer did not state that these particular references had information that would impact our status evaluation; in fact, the reviewer said that they had not read them. The reviewer only stated that they believed the fact that they could find references we did not cite meant we had not been thorough in our analysis.
Our Response: The literature cited in the proposed rule 84 FR 65080;
November 26, 2019 constitutes the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the downlisting of the June sucker. Additional literature, including all of the citations provided by the reviewer, were previously evaluated as part of the rule development, and they remain on file as part of the record. A significant amount of literature on the June sucker and Utah Lake exists, some of which is outdated or redundant. Some was not necessary to include, as it provides a level of detail on aspects of June sucker biology that was superfluous to reaching a status determination. For the sake of clarity and brevity, we did not cite every
PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

205

existing piece of literature on the species, but limited our citations to the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the status of, and threats to, the June sucker.
However, no piece of literature that we found might have bearing on our analysis, either positively or negatively, was excluded from our review, including the citations provided by the commenter.
Public Comments We received 19 letters from the public that provided comments on our November 26, 2019, proposed rule 84
FR 65080. Twelve of the commenters expressed their explicit support for the proposed downlisting, and three expressed their opposition to it. Four commenters either did not explicitly state their position or expressed general concerns that threats should be addressed if the June sucker is to be downlisted. Relevant and substantive public comments that have not been addressed through changes to the text are addressed in the following summary.
1 Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed downlisting on the basis that too many threats to the species including climate change and carp still exist to justify reduced protections, and stated that increased human development inevitably results in death or extinction of animals in the area.
Our Response: We agree that a number of threats still impact the June sucker and need to be continually managed for the species protection and recovery. This rule analyzes adaptive measures for all known threats, including water management plans and habitat restoration to mitigate the effects of climate change; long-term management plans for carp and other nonnative, invasive species; and protections that prevent future development from increasing the June suckers risk of becoming endangered again. All exceptions from take restrictions included in the 4d rule, as described below under Provisions of the 4d Rule, are tied directly to the benefit of June sucker recovery and the health of its native habitat. We are confident in the JSRIPs and our partners commitment to following through with existing plans and continuing to manage the June sucker in accordance with recovery objectives, as they have for the last 18 years. Should threats to the June sucker increase to the point where there is an increased risk of extinction, the Service can and will reevaluate its status and protections accordingly.

E:FRFM04JAR2.SGM

04JAR2