Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the Endangered June Sucker to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule, 65080-65098 [2019-25549]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65080-65098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25549]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0026; FXES11130900000C6-156-FF09E30000]
RIN 1018-BD48


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification 
of the Endangered June Sucker to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
reclassify the June sucker (Chasmistes liorus) from endangered to 
threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), 
due to substantial improvements in the species' overall status since 
its original listing as endangered in 1986. This proposed action is 
based on a thorough review of the best scientific and commercial data 
available, which indicates that the June sucker no longer meets the 
definition of endangered under the Act. If this proposal is finalized, 
the June sucker would remain protected as a threatened species under 
the Act. We also propose a rule under section 4(d) of the Act that 
provides for the conservation of the June sucker. This document also 
constitutes our 5-year status review for this species.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
January 27, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES below), must be received by 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by January 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You may submit written comments by one 
of the following methods:
     Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2019-
0026, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on 
the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the 
left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the 
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment 
by clicking on the blue ``Comment Now!'' box. If your comments will fit 
in the provided comment box, please use this feature of https://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review 
procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our 
preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple 
comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet 
in Microsoft Excel.
     By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: 
Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2019-0026; U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-
3803.
    We request that you submit written comments only by the methods 
described above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see Public Comments, below for 
more details).
    Document availability: This proposed rule and supporting documents 
are available on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2019-0026. In addition, the supporting file for this proposed rule will 
be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal 
business hours at the Utah Ecological Services Field Office; 2369 Orton 
Circle, Suite 50; West Valley City, Utah 84119, telephone: 801-975-

[[Page 65081]]

3330. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call 
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, 
telephone: 801-975-3330. Direct all questions or requests for 
additional information to: JUNE SUCKER QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service; Utah Ecological Services Field Office; 2369 Orton 
Circle, Suite 50; West Valley City, Utah 84119. Individuals who are 
hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service 
at 800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We want any final rule resulting from this proposal to be as 
accurate as possible. Therefore, we invite tribal and governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested 
parties to submit comments or recommendations concerning any aspect of 
this proposed rule. Comments should be as specific as possible. We 
particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) Biological or ecological reasons why we should or should not 
reclassify June sucker from endangered to threatened on the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (i.e., ``downlist'' the species) 
under the Act.
    (2) New biological or other relevant data concerning any threat (or 
lack thereof) to this species or any current or planned activities in 
the habitat or range that may impact the species.
    (3) New information on any efforts by the State or other entities 
to protect or otherwise conserve June sucker.
    (4) New information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size or trends of this species.
    (5) Information on activities that may warrant consideration in the 
rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 
including:
    (a) Whether a provision should be added to the 4(d) rule that 
excepts take of June suckers resulting from educational or outreach 
activities that would benefit the conservation of June sucker.
    (b) Additional provisions or information the Service may wish to 
consider for a 4(d) rule in order to conserve, recover, and manage the 
June sucker.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please 
note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the 
action under consideration without providing supporting information, 
although noted, may not meet the standard of information required by 
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directs 
that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or 
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.''
    To issue a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will 
take into consideration all comments and any additional information we 
receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from 
this proposal. All comments, including commenters' names and addresses, 
if provided to us, will become part of the supporting record.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. Comments must be 
submitted to https://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern 
Time) on the date specified in DATES.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information in your comment, you may request at 
the top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office. (See FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative 
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' which 
was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and our August 22, 2016, 
Director's Memorandum ``Peer Review Process,'' we will seek the expert 
opinion of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding scientific data and interpretations contained in this 
proposed rule. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer 
reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We 
will ensure that the opinions of peer reviewers are objective and 
unbiased by following the guidelines set forth in the Director's Memo, 
which updates and clarifies Service policy on peer review (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service 2016). The purpose of such review is to ensure 
that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, 
and analysis. Accordingly, our final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public 
hearings on this proposed rule, if requested. We must receive requests 
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by the date shown in DATES. We will schedule public 
hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and places of those 
hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register at least 15 days before the first hearing.

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 12, 1982, the Desert Fishes Council petitioned us to list 
17 fishes, including the June sucker. On December 20, 1982, we included 
the June sucker in a notice of review in the Federal Register (47 FR 
58454). On June 14, 1983, we published our finding that the petition 
from the Desert Fishes Council contained substantial information for us 
to consider the June sucker for listing (48 FR 27273).
    On July 2, 1984, we proposed the June sucker for listing as 
endangered under the Act with proposed critical habitat (49 FR 27183). 
On March 31, 1986 (51 FR 10851), we published the final rule listing 
June sucker as an endangered species and designating critical habit 
comprising the lower 4.9 miles (mi) (7.8 kilometers (km)) of the Provo 
River in Utah County, Utah.
    On June 25, 1999, we finalized a recovery plan for the June sucker 
(Service 1999, entire). On November 13, 2001, we published a notice in 
the Federal Register formally declaring our intention to participate in 
the multi-agency June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program (JSRIP) in 
partnership with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Utah 
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (URMCC), the 
Department of the Interior (DOI), State of Utah Department of Natural 
Resources (UDNR), the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD), 
Provo River Water Users Association, Provo Reservoir Water Users 
Company, and outdoor interest groups (66 FR 56840). The JSRIP was 
designed to implement recovery actions for the endangered June sucker 
and facilitate resolution of conflicts associated with June sucker 
recovery in the Utah Lake and Provo

[[Page 65082]]

River basins in Utah. We have participated in the JSRIP since this time 
and remain an active program member.
    On October 6, 2008, we published a notice of initiation of a 5-year 
review for June sucker in the Federal Register and requested new 
information that could have a bearing on the status of June sucker (73 
FR 58261). This document serves as a completion of that 5-year review.

Species Information

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly related to 
downlisting June sucker in this proposed rule. For more information on 
the description, biology, ecology, and habitat of the species, please 
refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on 
March 31, 1986 (51 FR 10851) and the recovery plan (Service 1999). 
These documents will be available as supporting materials on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0026.
    We identify the species' ecological requirements for survival and 
reproduction using the concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (the 3Rs). Resiliency is the ability of a species to 
withstand stochastic events. It is associated with population size, 
growth rate, and habitat quality. Redundancy is the ability of a 
species to withstand catastrophic events for which adaptation is 
unlikely. It is associated with the number, distribution, and 
resilience of populations. Representation is the ability of a species 
to adapt to novel changes in its environment, as measured by its 
ecological and genetic diversity. It is associated with the 
distribution of populations of the species across its range.

Taxonomy and Description

    The June sucker, a unique lake sucker named for the month in which 
it was known to spawn, was first collected and described by David S. 
Jordan in 1878, in Utah Lake, Utah County, Utah (Jordan 1878, entire). 
However, taxonomic questions regarding hybridization of the June sucker 
and co-occurring Utah sucker (Catostomus ardens) ultimately resulted in 
reclassification of the species.
    The two species likely evolved together in Utah Lake. During the 
1930s, a severe drought stressed the sucker populations in Utah Lake, 
increasing the incidence of June and Utah sucker hybridization (Miller 
and Smith 1981, p. 7). After this hybridization event, as sucker 
populations increased in abundance, the new genes that occurred in both 
the June sucker and Utah sucker populations resulted in hybrid 
characteristics within both populations (Evans 1997, p. 8). It is 
likely that the two species may have hybridized at multiple points in 
the past, in response to environmental bottlenecks (Evans 1997, pp. 9-
12). As a result of the hybridization event in the 1930s, two 
subspecies of June sucker were originally identified--Chasmistes liorus 
liorus to sucker specimens collected in Utah Lake in the late 1800s, 
and Chasmistes liorus mictus to specimens collected after 1939, 
following the drought years (Miller and Smith 1981, p. 11). This 
classification was never corroborated, and because the June sucker 
maintained its distinctiveness from other lake suckers, we determined 
that it should be listed as a full species under the name Chasmistes 
liorus (51 FR 10851, March 31, 1986).
    The June sucker has a large, robust body, a wide, rounded head, and 
a distinct hump on the snout (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991, p. 1). 
Adults are 17-24 inches (in) (43.2-61.0 centimeters (cm)) in length 
(Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991, p. 1; Belk 1998, p. 2). Lake suckers are 
mid-water planktivores (plankton feeders). June sucker is a long-lived 
species, living to 40 years or more (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991, p. 
3; Belk 1998, p. 6). In the wild, June suckers reach reproductive 
maturity at 5 to 10 years of age. They exhibit rapid growth for the 
first 3 to 5 years, with intermediate growth rates between ages 8 to 
10, and a further reduced growth rate after age 10. Growth between 
sexes does not differ within the first 10 years (Scoppettone and 
Vinyard 1991, p. 9).

Distribution and Habitat

    The June sucker is native to Utah Lake and its tributaries, which 
are the primary spawning habitat for the species, and is not found 
outside of its native range except in man-made refuge populations. A 
refuge population was established in Red Butte Reservoir, Salt Lake 
County, Utah, and has been maintained there since 2004 (Utah Division 
of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) 2010, pp. 4-5). The only other population 
of June sucker is maintained at UDNR's Fisheries Experiment Station 
(FES) in Logan, Utah, as part of the JSRIP stocking program to enhance 
the species' population in Utah Lake. The FES also uses ponds at 
Rosebud, Box Elder County, Utah, as a grow-out facility to allow fish 
bred at FES to increase in size prior to stocking in Utah Lake (UDWR 
2018, entire). Refuge populations have aided in retaining ecologic and 
genetic diversity in June sucker, which in turn aids the species in 
adapting to changing environmental conditions (i.e., increases 
representation).
    Utah Lake is a remnant of ancient Lake Bonneville, and is one of 
the largest natural freshwater lakes in the western United States. It 
covers an area of approximately 150 square miles (mi\2\) (400 square 
kilometers (km\2\)) and is relatively shallow, averaging 9 feet (ft) 
(2.7 meters (m)) in depth. The lake lies west of Provo, Utah, and is 
the terminus for several rivers and creeks, including the Provo, 
Spanish Fork, and American Fork Rivers and Hobble and Battle Creeks. 
The outflow of Utah Lake is the Jordan River, which flows north into 
the Great Salt Lake, a terminal basin.
    Utah Lake is located in a sedimentary drainage basin dominated by 
erosive soils with high salt concentrations. Available geologic data 
indicate that Utah Lake had a sediment filling rate of about 0.03 in (1 
millimeter (mm)) per year over the past 10,000 years; this rate more 
than doubled with the urbanization of Utah Valley (Brimhall and Merritt 
1981, pp. 3-5). Faults under the lake appear to be lowering the lake 
bed at about the same rate as sediment is filling it (Brimhall and 
Merritt 1981, pp. 10-11). Inputs of nutrient-rich sediments combined 
with the lake's high evaporation rate cause high levels of sediment 
loading, high soluble salt concentrations, and high nutrient levels as 
a baseline condition (Brimhall and Merritt 1981, p. 11).
    Shallow lakes, such as Utah Lake, are typically characterized as 
having one of two ecological states: A clear water state or a turbid 
water state (Scheffer 1998, p. 10). The clear water state is often 
dominated by rooted aquatic macrophytes (aquatic plants) that can 
greatly reduce turbidity by securing bottom sediments (Carpenter and 
Lodge 1986, p. 4; Madsen et al. 2001, p. 6) and preventing excessive 
phytoplankton (algae) production through a suite of mechanisms (Timms 
and Moss 1984, pp. 3-5). Alternatively, a shallow lake in a turbid 
water state contains little or no aquatic vegetation to secure bottom 
sediments (Madsen et al. 2001, p. 9). As a result, fish movement and 
wave action can easily suspend lake-bottom sediments (Madsen et al. 
2001, p. 9). In addition, fish can promote algal production by 
recycling nutrients (both through feeding activity and excretion). Fish 
can also suppress zooplankton densities through predation, and the 
zooplankton would otherwise suppress algal abundance (Timms and Moss 
1984, p. 11; Brett and Goldman 1996, p. 3).
    Historically, Utah Lake existed in a clear water state dominated by 
rooted

[[Page 65083]]

aquatic vegetation, as shown in sediment cores extracted from Utah Lake 
(Macharia and Power 2011, p. 3). This clear water state is a habitat 
characteristic necessary to improve resiliency of June sucker. Sediment 
cores reveal a shift in the state of the lake shortly after European 
settlement of Utah Valley to an algae-dominated, turbid condition, 
lacking macrophytic vegetation that serves as refugial habitat for June 
sucker (Brimhill and Merritt 1981, p. 16; Scheffer 1998, p. 6; Hickman 
and Thurin 2007, p. 8; Macharia and Power 2011, p. 5). This shift is 
believed to be a result of excessive nutrient input, management-induced 
fluctuations in lake levels, and the introduction of common carp 
(Cyprinus carpio). The end result of compounded natural and human-
caused effects is a present-day lake ecosystem that is dominated by 
algae, rather than the clear water state in which June sucker evolved.
    The extent of ideal riverine habitat available for spawning adults 
and developing larval June sucker was more abundant historically than 
it is currently. Prior to settlement of Utah Valley, spawning 
tributaries, such as the Provo, Spanish Fork, and American Fork Rivers 
and Hobble Creek, contained large deltas with braided, slow, meandering 
channels and aquatic vegetation that provided suitable spawning and 
larval rearing habitat (Olsen et al. 2002, p. 4). Multiple spawning 
tributaries provided redundancy for June sucker. The range of diverse 
habitats historically present within these tributaries was essential to 
larval sucker survival and maintaining the species' resiliency. Most 
importantly, slow water pool and marsh habitats provided refuge from 
predation by larger fishes.
    Since settlement, changes to the tributaries have decreased the 
available habitat for June sucker spawning and rearing, although recent 
restoration projects have improved conditions in the Provo River and 
Hobble Creek. The Provo River contains many natural characteristics 
that support the majority of the June sucker spawning run and also play 
an important role in contributing to the recovery of the species. The 
Provo River is the largest tributary to the lake in terms of annual 
flow, width, and watershed area (Stamp et al. 2002, p. 19). All of 
these characteristics contribute to higher numbers of spawning June 
sucker using the Provo River than the other Utah Lake tributaries. 
These characteristics also best support the proper timing of the June 
sucker spawning period and help protect against further hybridization 
with Utah sucker. Continued increase and improvement of available 
spawning and larval rearing habitat in the Provo River is necessary for 
recovery of the species.

Biology and Ecology

    June suckers are highly mobile and can cover large portions of 
their range in a short period of time (Radant and Sakaguchi 1981, p. 7; 
Buelow 2006, p. 4; Landom et al. 2006, p. 13). Adult June suckers 
exhibit lake-wide distributional behavior throughout most of the year 
(Buelow 2006). However, in the fall, June suckers congregate along the 
western lakeshore, and in the winter, move to the eastern areas. One 
explanation for the easterly orientation in the winter may be the 
presence of relatively warm fresh-water springs along the eastern shore 
of Utah Lake (SWCA 2002, p. 14).
    During pre-spawn staging, in April and May, June suckers congregate 
in large numbers near the mouths of the Provo River, Hobble Creek, 
Spanish Fork River, and American Fork River (Radant and Hickman 1984, 
p. 3; Buelow et al. 2006, p. 4; Hines 2011, p. 8). June suckers 
generally initiate a spawning migration into Utah Lake tributaries 
(primarily the Provo River, but also Hobble Creek and, to a lesser 
extent Spanish Fork River and American Fork River) during the second 
and third weeks of May (Radant and Hickman 1984, p. 7). Provo Bay is 
likely one of their primary pre-spawn and post-spawn congregation areas 
(Buelow 2006, p. 4).
    Most spawning is completed within 5-8 days. Post-spawning suckers 
congregate near the mouth of Provo Bay, which could be a response to 
the high food productivity that remains in the bay until the fall 
(Radant and Shirley 1987, p. 13; Buelow 2006, p. 8). Zooplankton 
densities are greater in Provo Bay than in other lake areas (Kreitzer 
et al. 2011, p. 9), providing abundant food to meet the energy demands 
of post-spawn suckers, as well as an ideal location for the growth and 
survival of young-of-year June suckers recently emerged from the 
spawning tributaries (Kreitzer et al. 2011, p. 10).
    June sucker spawning habitat consists of moderately deep runs and 
riffles in slow to moderate current with a substrate composed of 4-8 in 
(100-200 mm) coarse gravel or small cobble that is free of silt and 
algae. Deeper pools adjacent to spawning areas may provide important 
resting or staging areas (Stamp et al. 2002, p. 5).
    Under natural conditions, June sucker larvae drift downstream and 
rear in shallow vegetated habitats near tributary mouths in Utah Lake 
(Modde and Muirhead 1990, pp. 7-8; Crowl and Thomas 1997, p. 11; 
Keleher et al. 1998, p. 47). Juvenile June suckers then migrate into 
Utah Lake and use littoral aquatic vegetation as cover and refuge 
(Crowl and Thomas 1997, p. 11). June sucker juveniles form schools near 
the water surface, presumably feeding on zooplankton in the shallows. 
Young-of-year suckers form shoals (aggregations of hundreds of fish) 
near the surface under the cover of aquatic vegetation (Billman 2008, 
p. 3).
    However, effects from nonnative common carp, altered tributary 
flows, lake water level management, nutrient loading, poor water 
quality, and river channelization have reduced the amount of shallow, 
warm, and complex vegetated aquatic habitat for rearing at the 
tributary mouths and Utah Lake interface. This reduction in rearing 
habitat has reduced survival of June suckers during the early life 
stages (Modde and Muirhead 1990, p. 9; Olsen et al. 2002, p. 6). As 
June suckers reach the subadult stage, they begin to move offshore 
(Billman 2005, p. 16).

Species Abundance and Trends

    Early accounts indicate that Utah Lake supported an enormous 
population of June sucker (Heckmann et al. 1981, p. 8), and was 
proclaimed ``the greatest sucker pond in the universe'' (Jordan 1878, 
p. 2). The first major reductions in the number of June suckers were in 
the late 1800s. Through the mid-1800s, June suckers were caught during 
their spawning runs and were widely used as fertilizer and food (Carter 
1969, p. 7). During this period, an estimated 1,653 tons (1,500 metric 
tons) of spawning suckers were killed when 2.1 mi (3.3 km) of the Provo 
River was dewatered due to reduced water availability and high demand 
(Carter 1969, p. 8).
    Hundreds of tons of suckers also died when Utah Lake was nearly 
emptied during a 1932-1935 drought (Tanner 1936, p. 3). After the 
drought, June sucker populations gradually increased, but due to the 
combined impacts of drought, overexploitation, and habitat destruction, 
the population did not return to its historical level (Heckmann et al. 
1981, p. 9). June suckers were rare in monitoring surveys during the 
1950s through the 1970s (Heckmann et al. 1981, p. 11; Radant and 
Sakaguchi 1981, p. 5).
    By the time the species was listed under the Act in 1986, the June 
sucker had an estimated wild spawning population of fewer than 1,000 
individuals. In 1999, we estimated the wild spawning population to be 
approximately 300 individuals, with no

[[Page 65084]]

evidence of wild recruitment (Keleher et al. 1998, pp. 12, 53; Service 
1999, p. 5).
    Due to the immediate threat of June sucker extinction at the time 
of listing, the UDWR began raising populations in hatcheries and at 
secure refuge sites. These efforts resulted in the stocking of June 
sucker into Utah Lake to boost population numbers beginning in the 
1990s and continuing through the present day (UDWR 2018b, p. 3). As of 
2017, more than 800,000 captive-bred June suckers have been stocked in 
Utah Lake (UDWR 2017b, p. 6). The vast majority of fish detected 
spawning in Utah Lake tributaries are stocked fish that have become 
naturalized (UDWR 2018c, p. 7).
    An estimated 3,500 June suckers, most of them stocked fish, were 
spawning annually in Utah Lake tributaries as of 2016 (Conner and 
Landom 2018, p. 2).This represents a ten-fold increase in spawning fish 
from when the recovery plan was finalized in 1999 (Conner and Landom 
2018, p. 2). For all spawning tributaries combined, the spawning 
population size for both sexes substantially increased from 2008 to 
2016. The estimated total population size grew by 22 percent. However, 
this estimate may be low, as monitoring efforts in tributaries were not 
consistent across all years, and data were not available for one year 
due to high flows. We do not have a population estimate for the entire 
June sucker population in Utah Lake.
    Additionally, monitoring of June suckers in the lower Provo River 
during the 2018 spawning period captured a significant portion of fish 
that were not PIT tagged (2018 UDWR, p. 3). It is unclear if these 
untagged fish were the result of wild recruitment or of hatchery 
origin. The natural geochemical markers (signatures) in the otoliths 
(ear bones) and fin rays of collected, unmarked June suckers show that 
39 percent (12 of 31) of these fish likely originated from the FES 
hatchery, 42 percent from Red Butte Reservoir, other rearing 
facilities, or inconclusive; and 19 percent (6 of 31) had signatures 
indicating they originated in Utah Lake (Wolff and Johnson 2013, p. 9), 
meaning they were likely recruited naturally into Utah Lake. These 
results suggest that successful natural reproduction and recruitment is 
occurring, although the exact location and conditions that contributed 
to this successful natural recruitment are not known. Additional 
analysis of June suckers of unknown origin is planned in 2019, to 
determine the level of natural recruitment occurring in Utah Lake. 
Regardless of origin, capture of untagged fish indicates there is an 
unknown number of spawning June suckers that were not accounted for in 
the spawning population estimate.
    The year-to-year survival rate of fish stocked into Utah Lake 
varies significantly depending on a number of factors including length 
of fish at stock (which correlates to age) and time of year stocked 
(Goldsmith et al. 2016, p. 5). June suckers stocked in early summer 
that were 11.6 in (296 mm) in length or more (usually representing an 
individual that was 2 years old) had a survival rate of 83 percent. 
June suckers stocked at age one had survival rates ranging from zero to 
67 percent. The smallest June suckers, those stocked at under 7.9 in 
(200 mm), had a survival rate into the next year of only two percent 
(Goldsmith et al. 2016, p. 14).
    Year-to-year survival rates for spawning June suckers ranged from 
65 to 95 percent depending on the tributary and the year (Goldsmith et 
al. 2016, p. 3). Additionally, June suckers that were stocked more than 
10 years prior were detected spawning on multiple occasions, indicating 
the capability for long-term survival in Utah Lake (Conner and Landom 
2018, p. 3). Between 2013 and 2016, June sucker showed a positive 
population trend with a combined annual growth rate of 1.06 for females 
and 1.04 for males across three tributaries (Provo River, Spanish Fork, 
and Hobble Creek), with Provo River having the highest population 
growth rate and Hobble Creek showing an overall decline (Conner and 
Landom 2018, p. 3). However, as nearly 50 percent of spawning June 
sucker detected in Hobble Creek were of unknown origin, a decline in 
detected spawners in this tributary does not necessarily mean fewer 
fish overall are using the tributary, because naturally recruited fish 
that have never been tagged would not be detected by the remote 
electronic methods used to collect June sucker presence information at 
spawning locations.
    In summary, the viability of June sucker in its native range--as 
indicated by its representation, resiliency, and redundancy--has 
improved significantly since the time of listing, largely due to the 
efforts of the JSRIP (see Recovery). Stocking of June sucker, a program 
designed to maximize representation through genetic diversity, has been 
very successful at increasing the number of fish in Utah Lake. Stocked 
individuals are behaving as wild fish by migrating to new habitats, 
surviving many years, and participating in spawning activities. The 
JSRIP stocking program is planned to continue until the June sucker 
reaches self-sustaining population levels, with a focus on stocking 2-
year-old fish over 12 in (300 mm) long to increase their chances of 
survival. The spawning population has increased at least ten-fold since 
1999; there is evidence of high year-to-year survival rates and long-
term survival for spawning individuals; and the spawning population is 
increasing at a high rate, improving the resiliency of the wild 
population. The stocking program and maintenance of refuge populations 
both at Red Butte reservoir and FES also provided redundancy to the 
wild populations. Moving forward, a planned origin study using fin-rays 
is meant to improve our understanding of the degree of natural 
recruitment of June sucker in Utah Lake, which will yield more accurate 
population estimates and inform future stocking rates and management 
decisions for the purposes of further bolstering the species' 
representation, resiliency, and redundancy to achieve full recovery.

Recovery

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include 
``objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions [of section 4 of the 
Act], that the species be removed from the list.'' Recovery plans 
provide a roadmap for full recovery success to the Service, States, and 
other partners on methods of enhancing conservation and minimizing 
threats to listed species, as well as measurable criteria against which 
to evaluate progress towards recovery and assess the species' likely 
future condition. However, they are not regulatory documents and do not 
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations 
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan 
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded 
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we 
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and the 
species is robust enough such that it no longer meets the definition of 
endangered or threatened. In other cases, recovery opportunities may be 
discovered that were not known when the recovery plan

[[Page 65085]]

was finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods 
identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, information on the species 
may be learned that was not known at the time the recovery plan was 
finalized. The new information may change the extent to which existing 
criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. 
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 may 
require updating. 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 do not have enough information to determine 
the exact flow level required for June sucker spawning and recruitment. 
However, the JSRIP provides annual recommendations for June sucker 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. These recommendations are currently supported by 
several reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act performed 
for their most recent restoration projects (Hobble Creek in 2016 and 
Provo River in 2015). The JSRIP has also acquired water totaling over 
21,000 acre-ft (25,903,080 cubic m (m\3\)) 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 m\3\) 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 m\3\) of permanent 
water for Hobble Creek (USBR 2017, pp. 3-5). These protected water 
sources, when delivered as additional water, provide added resiliency 
by improving habitat quality for the species.
    The amount of water delivered to supplement flows in the Provo 
River and Hobble Creek and the timing of those deliveries is determined 
annually through a cooperative process involving multiple agencies. In 
1996, the June Sucker 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 this work 
group has 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 the 
meetings of the Flow Work Group, the JSRIP makes an annual 
recommendation 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 2008, an ecosystem-based flow regime recommendation was finalized 
for the lower Provo River, based on available site-specific information 
(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, which were adjusted in consideration of these 
functions. 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 2009, ecosystem-based flow recommendations were developed for 
Hobble Creek in the Lower Hobble Creek Ecosystem Flow Recommendations 
Report (Stamp et al. 2009, pp. 11-12). 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 year by April in 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.

Habitat Restoration

    The second downlisting criterion for June sucker requires that 
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). Habitat restoration projects have taken place both on the Provo 
River and Hobble Creek, and habitat quality has also been enhanced in 
Utah Lake as a result of nonnative species removal (see Common Carp, 
below).
    Modifications of the Fort Field diversion structure on the Provo 
River, located within critical habitat, were completed in October 2009. 
This modification made an additional 1.2 mi (1.9 km) of spawning 
habitat available for the June sucker, permitting fish passage further 
upstream in their historical range (URMCC 2009, pp. 8-9; JSRIP 2008, p. 
12). During the 2010

[[Page 65086]]

spawning season, June sucker were observed in the Provo River upstream 
of the modified Fort Field Diversion structure (UDWR 2011, pp. 7-8). In 
cooperation with the JSRIP, the CUWCD and URMCC are working with other 
diverters on the Provo River to evaluate further diversion structure 
removal or modification.
    The JSRIP is also implementing a large-scale stream channel and 
delta restoration project for the lower Provo River and particularly 
its interface with Utah Lake to restore, enhance, and create habitat 
conditions in the lower Provo River for spawning, hatching, larval 
transport, rearing, and recruitment of the June sucker to the adult 
life stage, increasing the species' resiliency (Olson et al. 2002, p. 
15; BIO-WEST 2010, p. 3). The Provo River Delta Restoration Project 
(PRDRP) will reestablish some of the historical delta conditions in the 
Provo River, thereby increasing habitat complexity and providing 
appropriate physical and biological conditions necessary for egg 
hatching, larval development, growth, young-of-year survival, and 
recruitment of young fish into the adult population. A Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the PRDRP was released in April 
2015, with a Record of Decision signed in May 2015. Federal agencies 
are currently acquiring lands needed for the PRDRP and developing a 
detailed design to provide optimal rearing habitat for June sucker 
(PRDRP 2017, entire).
    Shortly after formation of the JSRIP, and based on delisting 
criteria identified in the 1999 June Sucker Recovery Plan (Service 
1999, pp. 5-6), several Utah Lake tributaries were evaluated for the 
purpose of establishing a second spawning run of June sucker in 
addition to the Provo River spawning run (Stamp et al. 2002, p. 13). An 
additional spawning run would improve redundancy for the species by 
providing security in the event that a catastrophic event eliminated 
the Provo River spawning population. The study concluded that Hobble 
Creek provided the best opportunity, but would require habitat 
enhancements to make it suitable for June sucker spawning and allow for 
the development of quality rearing habitat for young suckers (Stamp et 
al. 2002, p. 13).
    In 2008, the lower 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of Hobble Creek was relocated 
and reconstructed on land purchased by the JSRIP to provide June sucker 
spawning habitat, a more naturally functioning stream channel, and 
suitable nursery habitat for young suckers. The JSRIP partnered with 
the Utah Transit Authority to implement the habitat restoration project 
on the purchased property (DOI 2008, p. 14). The project re-created a 
functioning delta at the interface between Hobble Creek and Utah Lake 
and allowed the reestablishment of a June sucker spawning run. The 
restoration design results in more active river processes and includes 
numerous seasonally inundated off-channel ponds, which serve as larval 
nursery and rearing habitat to increase larval fish growth and survival 
(DOI 2008, p. 22).
    In 2009, June suckers were documented spawning in the restored 
Hobble Creek, with verified larval production (Landom and Crowl 2010, 
pp. 1-12), and in 2010, juvenile June sucker (from 2009 spawning) were 
collected with seines in ponds within the Hobble Creek restoration area 
(Landress 2011, p. 4). Due to the success of the restoration, 
additional reaches of Hobble Creek have been selected for habitat 
enhancements to increase the amount of available spawning habitat. For 
example, directly upstream of the lower Hobble Creek restoration area, 
the East Hobble Creek Restoration Project was completed to enhance the 
stream channel by increasing sinuosity and floodplain connectivity, 
modify or remove diversion structures, and provide additional stream 
flows for Hobble Creek (JSRIP 2016b, p. 17). An age-1 June sucker was 
observed in this area in January 2018, indicating that June sucker are 
using this area for rearing (Fonken 2018, pers. comm.).

Carp Removal

    The third downlisting criterion requires that nonnative species 
that present a significant threat to the continued existence of June 
sucker are reduced or eliminated from Utah Lake. Common carp was 
identified as the nonnative species having the greatest adverse impact 
on June sucker habitat and resiliency, due to the large scale changes 
in water quality and macrophytic vegetation caused by carp introduction 
(see Distribution and Habitat, above).
    In 2009, a mechanical removal program was instituted to remove 
common carp from Utah Lake. Between 2009 and 2017, over 13,000 tons 
(11,750 metric tons) of common carp were removed from the lake (UDWR 
2017c, p. 2). This removal resulted in a decline of the common carp 
population. Catch-per-unit effort of common carp has decreased over the 
past 4 years, while average weight of individual common carp has 
increased, thus indicating a trend of reduction in common carp density 
in Utah Lake (Gaeta and Landom 2017, p. 7).
    In 2015, after 6 years of common carp removal, native macrophytes 
were observed in Utah Lake vegetation monitoring studies for the first 
time (Landom 2016, pers. comm.). As of 2017, multiple sites in the lake 
have native littoral vegetation, including sites with increasing 
complexity supporting more than four native macrophytic species at one 
site (Dillingham 2018, entire). Sites with more complex vegetation 
support a higher diversity of macroinvertebrates, which provide 
additional food for June sucker, provide greater opportunities for June 
sucker to shelter from predators, and indicate improved water quality 
in the lake (Dillingham 2018, entire).
    The common carp removal program in Utah Lake has had a positive 
impact on habitat quality, which may be contributing to natural 
recruitment and survival rates for June sucker (Gaeta and Landom 2017, 
p. 8; see Species Abundance and Trends). Ongoing research by Utah State 
University is continuing to assess the relationship between common carp 
removal, habitat improvement, and June sucker population response as 
well as develop long-term recommendations for sustainable common carp 
management (Gaeta et al. 2018, entire). The JSRIP is prioritizing 
continued suppression of the common carp population via mechanical 
removal, as well as research into genetically modified sterile (YY) 
male technology that has the potential to reduce or eliminate carp from 
Utah Lake in the future (JSRIP 2018, p. 2).

Population Augmentation

    The fourth and final downlisting criterion in the June sucker 
recovery plan is that an increasing self-sustaining spawning run of 
wild June sucker resulting in significant recruitment over 10 years has 
been reestablished in the Provo River. This criterion does not define 
``significant'' recruitment. Although the spawning population of June 
sucker is increasing, annual stocking continues in order to support the 
population. The augmentation plan for the June sucker set a goal, for 
the purposes of meeting the recovery criterion of a self-sustaining 
population, of stocking 2.8 million individuals into Utah Lake (Service 
and URMCC 1998, entire). The goal was based on early studies of June 
sucker survival and the production capabilities of the facilities. As 
of 2017, more than 800,000 captive-bred June sucker have been stocked 
in Utah Lake from the various rearing locations, and a long-term, 
continued stocking strategy based on the most up-to-date research on 
stocking success and

[[Page 65087]]

survival rates is under development (JSRIP 2008, p. 8; UDWR 2017b, p. 
6).
    Although the June sucker has not met this downlisting criterion 
identified in the 1999 recovery plan, we find that the population 
increases and trends achieved thus far (see Species Abundance and 
Trends), with the addition of refuge populations to increase redundancy 
and genetic representation, will help prevent the species becoming 
endangered or extinct due to catastrophic stochastic events and provide 
a more realistic metric for downlisting eligibility.
    Overall, recovery actions have addressed many of the threats and 
stressors affecting June sucker. The JSRIP has been effective in 
collaborating to implement a stocking program, increase June sucker 
spawning locations, acquire and manage water flows, remove nonnative 
common carp, and develop and conduct habitat restorations that target 
all life stages of June sucker. Studies are planned to improve 
understanding of the effects of other threats and stressors, including 
lake water quality and the impact of other invasive species on the June 
sucker. The JSRIP continues to be active and committed to full recovery 
of the June sucker.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying 
species, or removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined 
by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife 
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or 
wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species 
may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one 
or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: 
(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.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We must consider these same five factors in downlisting a species. 
We may downlist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best 
available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species no 
longer meets the definition of an endangered species, but that it meets 
the definition of a threatened species.
    For the purposes of this analysis, we evaluate whether or not June 
sucker meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species, 
based on the best scientific and commercial information available. We 
use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or conditions 
that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect 
individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions or 
conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), 
as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their 
habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' may 
encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action or 
condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, 
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and 
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, 
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected 
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of 
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative 
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that 
will have positive effects on the species--such as any existing 
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines 
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' 
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative 
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in 
the foreseeable future.
    In our determination, we correlate the threats acting on the 
species to the factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    The following analysis examines the five factors currently 
affecting June sucker or that are likely to affect it within the 
foreseeable future. For each factor, we examine the threats at the time 
of listing in 1986 (or if not present at the time of listing, the 
status of the threat when first detected), the downlisting criterion 
pertinent to the threat, what conservation actions have been taken to 
meet the downlisting criteria or otherwise mitigate the threat, the 
current status of the threat, and its likely future impact on June 
sucker. We also consider stressors not originally considered at the 
time of listing, most notably climate change.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    Loss and alteration of spawning and rearing habitat were major 
factors leading to the listing of the June sucker (51 FR 10851, March 
31, 1986) and continue to threaten the species' overall resiliency and 
its recovery. Suitable spawning and rearing habitat in Utah Lake and 
its tributaries has declined due to water development, habitat 
modification, introduction of common carp, nutrient loading, and 
urbanization.
Water Development and Habitat Modification
    Water development and substantial habitat modifications have 
occurred in the Utah Lake drainage since the mid-1800s. These include 
the reduction in riverine flows (including the Provo River) from 
numerous water diversions, various water storage projects, 
channelization, and additional lake and in-stream alterations (Radant 
et al. 1987, p. 13; UDWR and UDNR 1997, p. 11; Andersen et al. 2007, p. 
8). Many of these modifications and water depletions remain today, and 
continue to hinder the quantity and quality of June sucker rearing and 
spawning habitat, which in turn impacts species resiliency.
    In 1849, settlers founded Fort Utah along the Provo River and began 
modifying the waters of Utah Lake and its main tributaries (USBR 1989, 
p. 3). In 1872, a low dam was placed across the lake outflow to the 
Jordan River, changing the function of Utah Lake into a storage 
reservoir (CUWCD 2004, p. 2). By the early 1900s, a pumping plant was 
constructed at the outflow to allow the lake to be lowered below the 
outlet elevation; this structure has since been modified and enlarged 
(Andersen et al. 2007, p. 5). The present capacity of the pumping plant 
is 1,050 cubic feet per second (cfs) (29.7 cubic meters per second 
(cms)), and it can lower the lake level 8-10 ft (2.4-3.0 m) below the 
compromise elevation of 4,489 ft (1,368 m) (Andersen et al. 2007, p. 
5). The compromise elevation is a managed lake elevation target that 
the interested water authorities have agreed not to exceed

[[Page 65088]]

through the active storage of water. This compromise elevation was 
intended to balance the threat of flooding among lands adjacent to Utah 
Lake and those downstream along the Jordan River (CUWCD 2004, p. 7).
    As a storage reservoir, the surface elevation of Utah Lake 
fluctuates widely. Prior to the influence of water development 
projects, annual fluctuations averaged 2.1 ft (0.6 m) per year. For 
approximately 50 years, under the influence of water development 
projects, water levels fluctuated an average of 3.5 ft (1.0 m) annually 
prior to the completion of the Central Utah Project. After its 
completion, annual lake fluctuations averaged 2.5 ft (0.8 m) (Hickman 
and Thurin 2007, p. 20). Fluctuation in surface elevation is one of the 
possible factors contributing to the marked degradation of shoreline 
habitat and aquatic vegetation in the lake and may contribute to a 
decline in June sucker refugial habitat from predators (Hickman and 
Thurin 2007, p. 23).
    The long history of water management in the Provo River, including 
river alterations, dredging, and channelization efforts, have modified 
the historical braided and complex delta into a single trapezoidal 
channel (Radant et al. 1987, p. 15; Olsen et al. 2002, p. 11). The 
current channel lacks vegetative cover, habitat complexity, and the 
food sources necessary to sustain larval fishes rearing in the lower 
Provo River (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 20). Additionally, the lower 2 mi 
(3.2 km) of the Provo River experiences a back-water effect, where the 
velocity stalls under low-flow scenarios and a high seasonal lake level 
causes the water to back up from the lake into the Provo River (Stamp 
et al. 2008, p. 20). The slack-water substantially reduces the number 
of larvae drifting into the lake; as a result, the larvae, with poorly 
developed swimming abilities, either starve or are consumed by 
predators in this lower stretch of river (Ellsworth et al. 2010, p. 9). 
Because of the extensive modification of the lower Provo River, in the 
past June sucker larvae have not survived longer than 20 days after 
hatching (Ellsworth et al. 2010, pp. 9-10). The upcoming PRDRP is 
designed to increase survival of larvae by providing additional rearing 
habitat along the Provo (PRDRP 2017, entire).
    Similar to the Provo River, Hobble Creek and other tributaries of 
significance (Spanish Fork River and American Fork River), have been 
extensively modified by human activities. The hydrological regimes have 
been altered by multiple dams and diversions, and the stream channels 
have been straightened and dredged into incised trapezoidal canals 
(Stamp et al. 2002, p. 5). As a result, the streams are isolated from 
their historical floodplains and have modified flow velocities and 
pool-riffle sequences (Stamp et al. 2002, p. 6). Until recent 
restoration efforts, the Hobble Creek channel had almost no gradient 
and ended without a defined connection to the lake interface in Provo 
Bay due to diversion structures and dredging. In the past, the channel 
was blocked by debris accumulation that created barriers to fish 
migration, preventing adult June sucker access to the main stem of 
Hobble Creek.
    Located south of Provo Bay, the Spanish Fork River is the second 
largest stream inflow to Utah Lake, but the majority of the discharge 
is diverted during the irrigation season (June-September) (Psomas 2007, 
p. 12). While adult and larval June sucker occur in the Spanish Fork 
River (UDWR 2006, p. 2; 2007, p. 2; 2008a, p. 3; 2009a, p. 4; and 
2010b, p. 2), the seasonally inadequate flows, poor June sucker rearing 
habitat at the Utah Lake interface, low water clarity, diversion 
structures, and miles of levees along the channel are obstacles to 
successful recruitment (Stamp et al. 2002, p. 5). Adult spawning 
habitat is limited to the lower 2.7 mi (4.3 km) of the Spanish Fork 
River, where it is of poor quality. Other tributaries where spawning 
may occur under favorable conditions include the American Fork River 
and Battle Creek, but streamflow to Utah Lake in these tributaries is 
not available most years; therefore, they are not believed to comprise 
a significant portion of June sucker spawning habitat.
    Recovery actions for the June sucker to address impacts from water 
development and habitat modification have included water acquisition, 
water flow management, and habitat restoration (see Recovery). The 
availability of quality spawning habitat will improve species 
resiliency, and multiple spawning tributaries will improve species 
redundancy. The positive trend in spawning population numbers, 
increased number of June suckers, and observations of young-of-year and 
age-1 June sucker in the wild indicate that water acquisition, water 
flow management, and habitat restoration have had a positive impact on 
June sucker reproduction (JSRIP 2018, p. 1; see Species Abundance and 
Trends).
Introduction of Common Carp
    Historically, Utah Lake had a rich array of rooted aquatic 
vegetation, which provided nursery and rearing habitat for young June 
sucker (Heckmann et al. 1981, p. 2; Ellsworth et al. 2010, p. 9). 
However, with the introduction of common carp around the 1880s (Sigler 
and Sigler 1996, pp. 5-6), this refugial habitat largely disappeared. 
Common carp physically uproot and consume macrophytes and disturb 
sediments, increasing turbidity and decreasing light penetration, which 
inhibits macrophyte establishment (Crowl and Miller 2004, pp. 11-12). 
Although not specifically identified at the time of listing, the 
successful establishment of common carp and their effect on the Utah 
Lake ecosystem is a threat to the persistence of the species (SWCA 
2002, p. 19). However, the previously described carp removal program 
has reduced carp populations and increased macrophytic vegetation in 
the lake, improving resiliency of June sucker (see Recovery).
Urbanization
    Rapid urbanization on the floodplains of Utah Lake tributaries 
stimulated extensive flood and erosion control activities in lake 
tributaries and reduced available land for the natural meandering of 
the historical river channels (Stamp et al. 2008, p. 4). Channelization 
for flood control and additional channel manipulation for erosion 
control further reduced riverine habitat complexity and reduced the 
total length of tributary rivers for spawning and early-life-stage use 
(Stamp et al. 2008, pp. 12-13). It is anticipated that further urban 
infrastructure development is likely as the populations of cities 
bordering Utah Lake and its tributaries continue to increase.
    Among the potential impacts from continued urbanization near Utah 
Lake is the potential for the construction of bridges or other 
transportation crossings. One example is the Utah Crossing project, a 
causeway across Utah Lake proposed in 2009. An updated application has 
not been filed with Utah's Department of Transportation for the project 
to proceed; however, as development continues on the western side of 
Utah Lake, the potential need for some type of crossing may increase.
    A large-scale project to dredge Utah Lake, remove invasive species, 
and build habitable islands for private development was proposed in 
2017 and is under early stages of planning and review at the State 
level (ULRP 2018, entire). This project has not received any approval 
or necessary permits at the State or Federal level. We do not expect 
the Utah Lake Restoration Project or the Utah Crossing project to move 
forward or impact June sucker in the next 5-10 years. All development 
projects on Utah Lake are subject to Federal and State

[[Page 65089]]

laws and require consultation with the Service prior to beginning work. 
However, such projects could potentially impact June sucker by 
increasing habitat for predatory fish and restricting June sucker 
movement in Utah Lake (Service 2009, entire). Additional impacts to 
water quality due to the runoff from new structures could also pose a 
threat to June sucker (Service 2009, entire). The Utah Division of 
Water Quality (UDWQ) is partnering with the Utah Lake Commission and 
other stakeholders to research and provide recommendations to improve 
water quality and address impacts of urbanization and other factors 
that may negatively impact future water quality (UDWQ 2017, entire).
Summary of Factor A
    Water development and habitat modification, common carp, and