Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 1986. However, given increases in population numbers due to sustained recovery efforts by the JSRIP over the last 18 years, we determine the June sucker no longer meets the Acts definition of an endangered species. We therefore proceed with determining whether the June sucker meets the Acts definition of a threatened species.
Based solely on biological factors, we consider 25 years to be the foreseeable future within which we can reasonably determine that the future threats and the June suckers response to those threats is likely. This time period includes multiple generations of the species and allows adequate time for impacts from conservation efforts or changes in threats to be indicated through population response.
The foreseeable future for the individual threats vary. Management and recovery progress of the population and its threats are overseen by the JSRIP. The charter of this program states that the purpose of the JSRIP is to recover the June sucker to the point at which it no longer requires protections under the Act, and to do so based on recovery guidance provided by the Service using the best available scientific and biological information in an adaptive management approach.
Because the JSRIP is committed to achieving recovery and the partners have committed to continued funding, threats to the June sucker will continue to be adaptively managed by the JSRIP
until such time as we find it no longer requires protections under the Act. For at least as long as the species remains listed, the JSRIP will continue to manage June sucker threats and population health and trends in an adaptive way, ensuring that the species is extremely unlikely to go extinct. The Service will then rely on management actions that have been put in place by the JSRIP, and other factors such as a population viability analysis, habitat improvements, and future long-term agreements, when delisting is being considered. This long-term management e.g., permanent water acquisition, breeding program, stocking, and nonnative fish removal ensures continued stability in the absence of the protections of the Act after the June sucker reaches full recovery.
Although population numbers have increased and the intensity of the identified threats have decreased, our analysis indicates that, because of the remaining threats and stressors, the species meets the Acts definition of a threatened species. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the June sucker is not currently in danger of extinction, but is
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:06 Dec 31, 2020

Jkt 253001

still likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020
WL 437289 D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020
Center for Biological Diversity, vacated the aspect of the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase Significant Portion of Its Range in the Endangered Species Acts Definitions of Endangered Species and Threatened Species 79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014
that provided that the Services do not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of its rangethat is, whether there is any portion of the species range for which both 1 the portion is significant; and, 2 the species is in danger of extinction in that portion.
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the significance question or the status question first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species range.
Following the courts holding in Center for Biological Diversity, we now consider whether there are any significant portions of the species range where the species is in danger of extinction now i.e., endangered. In undertaking this analysis for the June sucker, we choose to address the status question firstwe consider information pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range where the species is endangered.
The June sucker is a narrow endemic that functions as a single, contiguous population and occurs within a small area that includes one lake and associated tributaries. Thus, there is no biologically meaningful way to break this limited range into portions, and the threats that the species faces affect the species throughout its entire range. This means that no portions of the species range have a different status from its rangewide status. Therefore, no portion
PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

207

of the species range can provide a basis for determining that the species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we determine that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This is consistent with the courts holdings in Desert Survivors v.
Department of the Interior, No. 16cv 01165JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 N.D. Cal.
Aug. 24, 2018, and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 D. Ariz. 2017.
Determination of Status Our review of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the June sucker does not meet the definition of an endangered species in accordance with sections 36
and 4a1 of the Act, but does meet the definition of a threatened species in accordance with sections 320 and 4a1 of the Act. Therefore, we are downlisting the June sucker in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife from endangered to threatened.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 59 FR
34272, to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is classified, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species being listed. Because we are listing this species as a threatened species, the prohibitions in section 9
would not apply directly. We are therefore putting into place below a set of regulations to provide for the conservation of the species in accordance with section 4d, which also authorizes us to apply any of the prohibitions in section 9 to a threatened species. The 4d rule, which includes a description of the kinds of activities that would or would not constitute a violation, complies with this policy.
Final Rule Issued Under Section 4d of the Act Background Section 4d of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory language like necessary and advisable demonstrates a large degree of deference to the agency see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592
1988. Conservation is defined in the
E:FRFM04JAR2.SGM

04JAR2