Provo River - Utah Lake June Sucker Recovery

Provo River – Utah Lake June Sucker Recovery Program

Federal, state, water resource managers and outdoor and environmental interests work together to recover the June sucker.

LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr.

April 8, 2002

Provo River at oxbow near the outlet to Utah Lake.

Provo River Water User Association (PRWUA) general manager G. Keith Denos has nothing but praise for the coalition of federal, state, local water resource managers and wildlife interests who are working together to solve a complicated environmental problem–recovering the June sucker. “It’s looking very promising as a cooperative effort,” says Denos. “People have come together to resolve the problem–you have a very good situation here in Utah.” He's talking about complying with the Endangered Species Act.

The nine participants in the project are: Central Utah Water Conservancy District; Utah Department of Natural Resources; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission; U.S. Department of Interior; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Provo River Water Users Association; Provo Reservoir Water Users Company; and Outdoor and Environmental Interest.

The consequences of not being actively involved can be onerous. Conflict, lawsuits and acrimony sometimes result in dealing with the Act. Last year’s conflict with the Klamath Project in Oregon is an example of what can happen when endangered species and water users compete for the same resource. Over 1,400 farms served by the Klamath Project were left dry to provide water in Upper Klamath Lake for endangered sucker fish and sustain flows in the Klamath River for the threatened coho salmon. The action exemplifies the extreme of man versus the consequences of the federal law. According to Denos, this is exactly what the nine participants are trying to avoid.

The June sucker was first federally listed on April 30, 1986. According to the Federal Register the wild population was 1,000 at the time of listing. A later report indicated that the wild adult spawning population was closer to 300 individuals in 1998.

In 1994 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a “Jeopardy Opinion” on the June sucker. The opinion stated that continued operation of water projects may jeopardize the existence of the June sucker. The authority to make this ruling is found in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Act requires all Federal agencies to undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and prohibits them from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its “critical habitat.” The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service share responsibility for administration of the Act.

Two Bureau of Reclamation built projects, the Provo River Project (1935) and the Central Utah Project (1965), have water development facilities within the Utah Lake basin. As part of the 1992 Central Utah Water Completion Act, the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission was established in 1994 for the purpose of conserving and mitigating fish, wildlife, recreational resources losses caused by reclamation projects in Utah, particularly the effects of the Central Utah Project.

The lower Provo River and Utah Lake are historic habitat of the June sucker. Introduction of nonnative fish species into Utah Lake in the late 1800s, alteration of habitat within the Utah Lake ecosystem and water development have been identified as the major factors contributing to the decline of naturally occurring species in Utah Lake. Of thirteen species naturally occurring in Utah Lake, today only the June sucker and Utah sucker are still present in limited numbers.

In 1994 a June Sucker Recovery effort was undertaken leading up to a June Sucker Recovery Implementation Plan (JSRIP) in 1999. The participating entities entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to carry out the recovery program. The goals of JSRIP are to recover the June sucker so that it no longer needs protection under the Endangered Species Act and continue the operation and development of water projects on the Provo River. The geographic boundary of the recovery project is the Utah Lake Drainage Basin. According to the 2002 Program Document, the recovery elements are: (1) Nonnative and Sport Fish Management, (2) Habitat Development and Maintenance, (3) Water Management and Protection to benefit June sucker, (4) Genetic Integrity and Augmentation, (5) Research, Monitoring and Data Management and (6) Information and Education. The June sucker recovery program is intended to fully recover the June sucker.

Inasmuch as water development has been identified as contributing to the endangered status of the June sucker, the lessons learned from the Klamath Project dramatically illustrate why water users need to participate in the recovery process. As a water resource manager Denos wants to ensure future water deliveries to PRWUA shareholders, including municipal water users along the populated Wasatch Front. Since 1995, flows on the Provo River have been managed to recover the June sucker. The Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Provo Water Users, and Division of Wildlife Resources have worked cooperatively to procure water for the June sucker spawning area during the spawning season.

Biologist Terry Hickman has been hired by PRWUA to provide the technical expertise needed to participate in the recovery project. In a report to the Board of Directors, he stated that he believed that the June sucker population may have stabilized as a result of the work already done in recovering the fish. He did note one anomaly. It was believed that the Provo River was critical to the spawning of the June sucker; however, the June sucker and Bonneville cutthroat are thriving in Red Butte Reservoir located east of the University of Utah in Salt Lake County. "Something is happening here to grow a June sucker and Bonneville cutthroat population that is yet to be explained," said Hickman. "It may represent the biological conditions present when Lake Bonneville existed."

Some believe that the greatest impact on the June sucker is nonnative and sport fish that have been introduced into Utah Lake. The March 2002 Program Document for the JSRIP states that at least 24 nonnative fish species have been introduced into Utah Lake, and several of these have become self-sustaining. Hickman said that the white bass and walleye are the primary predators. There is concern that without controlling the predators, the recovery project will only provide food for the nonnative population, resulting ultimately in the decline of the June sucker. The Program Document acknowledges that "Nonnative fish control to benefit June sucker will be a significant part of the recovery effort."

Denos, makes the point that "Utah is showing leadership" in dealing with the Endangered Species Act. There are currently three major recovery programs underway in Utah; the Upper Colorado River Basin; Virgin River; and the June sucker. All are showing signs of success. “The annual cost of $1 million to implement JSRIP may be a bargain when compared to the consequences of doing nothing,” says Denos. The estimated total cost of the recovery is $50 million to the year 2040.