Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

206

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
2 Comment: One commenter suggested removing all June suckers and other desirable native fishes from Utah Lake to a safe holding facility, exterminating the nonnative species, and then reintroducing native species back into the lake.
Our Response: This comment does not relate to the status of June sucker now, but to potential ways to continue recovery in the future. However, due to the size of Utah Lake and unique hydrological factors, removal of all nonnative fishes from the system, even using strong piscicides, is not feasible.
Mechanical removal is not able to capture all nonnative fish at a rate that would prevent reestablishment, and suitable piscicides are not available in enough quantity to eradicate all nonnative fish from the lake, even if a practical and comprehensive application method could be found.
3 Comment: One commenter requested that we update the June sucker recovery plan in order to specify what needs to be done to reach full recovery and delisting.
Our Response: An update of the June sucker recovery plan, including quantitative delisting criteria, is underway, and a draft will be published for public comment at a later date, after this rule goes into effect see DATES, above.
4 Comment: We received several comments requesting that provisions be added to the 4d rule regarding State management of recreational fisheries of Utah Lake and for education and outreach efforts for June sucker and Utah Lake. In addition to official public comments, both of these provisions were also informally requested by recovery partners at JSRIP meetings.
Our Response: We have added the requested provisions to the final 4d rule; both provisions will contribute to June sucker conservation.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule As explained above under Summary of Comments and Recommendations, we made several changes in this final rule in response to public comments we received on our November 26, 2019, proposed rule 84 FR 65080. The primary changes are to add exceptions to the prohibitions on take in the 4d rule for recreational fisheries management and for education and outreach. See Recreational Fisheries Management and Education and Outreach, under Provisions of the 4d Rule, below, for a description of these take exceptions. These changes address requests made both in public comments
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:06 Dec 31, 2020

Jkt 253001

and by our recovery partners at JSRIP
meetings.
Additionally, in response to a peerreview comment, in this final rule, 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. We also cite more recent information published since the November 26, 2019, publication of the proposed rule, where it is relevant, in this final rule.
Finally, we made nonsubstantive, editorial changes, such as to explain a cross-reference to other regulations, to the text of the 4d rule to improve its clarity.
Determination of June Suckers Status Section 4 of the Act 16 U.S.C. 1533
and its implementing regulations 50
CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of endangered species or threatened species. 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 a species meets the definition of endangered species or 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.
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing whether the June sucker is an endangered or threatened species throughout all of its range. We carefully examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the June sucker. We reviewed the information available in our files and other available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized experts and State agencies.
We evaluated the changes in resiliency, redundancy, and representation for the June sucker since the time of listing 51
FR 10851; March 31, 1986.
June sucker resiliency has improved since the time of listing, with an
PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

increase in the wild spawning population of at least ten-fold, a positive population trend, and increases in both the quality and quantity of habitat. We project that these conditions will continue to improve based on plans to continue successful management actions and implement new projects, such as the PRDRP and the Utah Water Quality Study. Redundancy in June sucker is assured by the existence of two new populations, including the refuge population maintained at FES hatchery and an additional naturally selfsustaining population in Red Butte Reservoir, as well as the presence of water flows in at least two spawning tributaries each year Provo River and Hobble Creek, with up to five spawning tributaries available in good water years.
Prior to the June suckers listing, there were no refuge populations, and in low water years, there might be no available spawning tributaries with water throughout the summer. Representation for the June sucker exists in the form of genetic diversity in the breeding and stocking program, which has preserved a high degree of genetic variation in the fish stocked in Utah Lake since listing.
Based on these elements, we find that overall viability for the June sucker has improved since the time of listing.
Factor B is not considered a threat to the June sucker due to the fact that harvest and collection of the species are strictly regulated and very limited. June suckers are affected by loss and degradation of habitat Factor A, predation Factor C, and other effects of human activities, including climate change Factor E. Existing regulatory mechanisms outside of the Act Factor D do not address all the identified threats to the June sucker, as indicated by the fact that these threats continue to affect the species throughout its range.
However, recovery actions have significantly improved viability of the June sucker and reduced the immediacy of these threats.
Status Throughout All of Its Range After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effects of the threats under the section 4a1
factors, we find that the threats of loss and degradation of habitat Factor A, predation Factor C, and other effects of human activities including climate change Factor E are still acting on the June sucker. Existing regulatory mechanisms outside of the Act Factor D do not address all the identified threats to the June sucker, as indicated by the fact that these threats continue to affect the species throughout its range, although with less intensity than at the time of listing 51 FR 10851; March 31,
E:FRFM04JAR2.SGM

04JAR2