Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing 10 Freshwater Fish and 1 Crayfish, 67862-67899 [2016-22778]
Download as PDF
67862
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Susan Jewell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS–FAC, 5275 Leesburg Pike,
Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; 703–
358–2416. If a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) is required,
please call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 16
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–FAC–2013–0095;
FXFR13360900000–167–FF09F14000]
RIN 1018–AY69
Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing 10
Freshwater Fish and 1 Crayfish
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) is amending its
regulations to add to the list of injurious
fish the following freshwater fish
species: Crucian carp (Carassius
carassius), Eurasian minnow (Phoxinus
phoxinus), Prussian carp (Carassius
gibelio), roach (Rutilus rutilus), stone
moroko (Pseudorasbora parva), Nile
perch (Lates niloticus), Amur sleeper
(Perccottus glenii), European perch
(Perca fluviatilis), zander (Sander
lucioperca), and wels catfish (Silurus
glanis). In addition, the Service also
amends its regulations to add the
freshwater crayfish species common
yabby (Cherax destructor) to the list of
injurious crustaceans. These listings
will prohibit the importation of any live
animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of
these 10 fish and 1 crayfish into the
United States, except as specifically
authorized. These listings will also
prohibit the interstate transportation of
any live animal, gamete, viable egg, or
hybrid of these 10 fish and 1 crayfish
between States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or
any territory or possession of the United
States, except as specifically authorized.
These species are injurious to the
interests of agriculture or to wildlife or
the wildlife resources of the United
States, and the listing will prevent the
purposeful or accidental introduction,
establishment, and spread of these 10
fish and 1 crayfish into ecosystems of
the United States.
DATES: This rule is effective on October
31, 2016.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–HQ–FAC–2013–0095. Comments
and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in the
preparation of this rule, will also be
available for public inspection by
appointment during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA
22041.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) is amending its regulations to
add to the list of injurious fish the
following nonnative freshwater fish
species: Crucian carp, Eurasian
minnow, Prussian carp, roach, stone
moroko, Nile perch, Amur sleeper,
European perch, zander, and wels
catfish. In addition, the Service is
amending its regulations to add the
common yabby, a nonnative freshwater
crayfish species, to the list of injurious
crustaceans. These listings prohibit the
importation of any live animal, gamete,
viable egg, or hybrid of these 10 fish and
1 crayfish (11 species) into the United
States, except as specifically authorized.
These listings also prohibit the
interstate transportation of any live
animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of
these 10 fish and 1 crayfish, except as
specifically authorized. With this final
rule, the importation and interstate
transportation of any live animal,
gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of these 10
fish and 1 crayfish may be authorized
only by permit for scientific, medical,
educational, or zoological purposes, or
without a permit by Federal agencies
solely for their own use. This action is
necessary to protect the interests of
agriculture, wildlife, or wildlife
resources from the purposeful or
accidental introduction, establishment,
and spread of these 11 species into
ecosystems of the United States.
On October 30, 2015, we published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register
(80 FR 67026) to add the 11 species to
the list of injurious fish and crustaceans
as injurious wildlife under the Lacey
Act (the Act; 18 U.S.C. 42, as amended)
and announced the availability of the
draft economic analysis and the draft
environmental assessment of the
proposed rule. The 60-day comment
period ended on December 29, 2015. We
also solicited peer review at the same
time. In this final rule, we used public
comments and peer review to inform
our final determinations.
The need for the action to add 11
nonnative species to the list of injurious
wildlife under the Lacey Act developed
from the Service’s concern that, through
our rapid screen process, these 11
species were categorized as ‘‘high risk’’
for invasiveness. A species does not
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
have to be currently imported or present
in the United States for the Service to
list it as injurious. All 11 species have
a high climate match in parts of the
United States, a history of invasiveness
outside their native ranges, and, except
for one fish species in one lake, are not
currently found in U.S. ecosystems.
Nine of the freshwater fish species
(Amur sleeper, crucian carp, Eurasian
minnow, European perch, Prussian
carp, roach, stone moroko, wels catfish,
and zander) have been introduced to
and established populations within
Europe and Asia, where they have
spread and are causing harm. The Nile
perch has been introduced to and
become invasive in new areas of central
Africa. The common yabby has been
introduced to western Australia and to
Europe where it has established
invasive populations. Most of these
species were originally introduced for
aquaculture, recreational fishing, or
ornamental purposes. Two of these fish
species (the Eurasian minnow and stone
moroko) were accidentally introduced
when they were unintentionally
transported in shipments with desirable
fish species stocked for aquaculture or
fisheries management.
Based on our evaluation under the
Act of all 11 species, the Service seeks
to prevent the introduction,
establishment, and spread within the
United States of each species by adding
them all to the Service’s lists of
injurious wildlife, thus prohibiting both
their importation and interstate
transportation. We take this action to
prevent injurious effects, which is
consistent with the Lacey Act.
We evaluated the 10 fish and 1
crayfish species using the Service’s
Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria.
The criteria include the likelihood and
magnitude of release or escape, of
survival and establishment upon release
or escape, and of spread from origin of
release or escape. The criteria also
examine the effect on wildlife resources
and ecosystems (such as through
hybridizing, competition for food or
habitat, predation on native species, and
pathogen transfer), on endangered and
threatened species and their respective
habitats, and on human beings, forestry,
horticulture, and agriculture.
Additionally, criteria evaluate the
likelihood and magnitude of wildlife or
habitat damages resulting from control
measures. The analysis using these
criteria serves as a basis for the Service’s
regulatory decision regarding injurious
wildlife species listings.
Each of these 11 species has a welldocumented history of invasiveness
outside of its native range, but not in the
United States. When released into the
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
environment, these species have
survived and established, expanded
their nonnative range, preyed on native
wildlife species, and competed with
native species for food and habitat.
Since it would be difficult to eradicate,
manage, or control the spread of these
11 species; it would be difficult to
rehabilitate or recover habitats disturbed
by these species; and because
introduction, establishment, and spread
of these 11 species would negatively
affect agriculture, and native wildlife or
wildlife resources, the Service is
amending its regulations to add these 11
species as injurious under the Lacey
Act. This listing prohibits the
importation and interstate
transportation of any live animal,
gamete, viable egg, or hybrid in the
United States, except as specifically
authorized.
The Service solicited three
independent scientific peer reviewers
who all submitted individual comments
in written form. We also received
comments from 20 State agencies,
regional and U.S.-Canada governmental
alliances, commercial businesses,
conservation organizations,
nongovernmental organizations, and
private citizens during the 60-day
public comment period. We reviewed
all comments for substantive issues and
new information regarding the proposed
designation of the 11 species as
injurious wildlife. None of the peer or
public comments necessitated any
substantive changes to the rule, the
environmental assessment, or the
economic analysis. Comments received
provided a range of opinions on the
proposed listing: (1) Unequivocal
support for the listing with no
additional information included; (2)
unequivocal support for the listing with
additional information provided; (3)
equivocal support for the listing with or
without additional information
included; and (4) unequivocal
opposition to the listing with additional
information included. We consolidated
comments and our responses into key
issues in the ‘‘Summary of Comments
Received on the Proposed Rule’’ section.
This final rule is not significant under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. E.O.
12866 Regulatory Planning and Review
(Panetta 1993) and the subsequent
document, Economic Analysis of
Federal Regulations under E.O. 12866
(U.S. Office of Management and Budget
1996) require the Service to ensure that
proper consideration is given to the
effect of this final action on the business
community and economy. With respect
to the regulations under consideration,
analysis that comports with the Circular
A–4 would include a full description
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
and estimation of the economic benefits
and cost associated with the
implementation of the regulations. The
economic effects to three groups would
be addressed: (1) Producers; (2)
consumers; and (3) society. Of the 11
species, only one population of one
species (zander) is found in the wild in
the United States. Of the 11 species, 4
species (crucian carp, Nile perch, wels
catfish, yabby) have been imported in
small numbers since 2011, and 7 species
are not in U.S. trade. To our knowledge,
the total number of importation events
of those 4 species from 2011 to 2015 is
25, with a declared total value of $5,789.
Therefore, the economic effect in the
United States is negligible for those four
species and nil for the seven not in
trade. The final economic analysis that
the Service prepared supports this
conclusion (USFWS Final Economic
Analysis 2016).
Previous Federal Actions
On October 30, 2015, we published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register
(80 FR 67026) to list the crucian carp,
Eurasian minnow, Prussian carp, roach,
stone moroko, Nile perch, Amur sleeper,
European perch, zander, wels catfish,
and common yabby to the list of
injurious fish and crustaceans as
injurious wildlife under the Act. The
proposed rule established a 60-day
comment period ending on December
29, 2015, and announced the
availability of the draft economic
analysis and the draft environmental
assessment of the proposed rule. We
also solicited peer review at the same
time.
For the injurious wildlife evaluation
in this final rule, in addition to
information used for the proposed rule,
we considered: (1) Comments from the
public comment period for the proposed
rule, (2) comments from three peer
reviewers, and (3) new information
acquired by the Service by the end of
the public comment period. We present
a summary of the peer review comments
and the public comments and our
responses to them following the Lacey
Act Evaluation Criteria section in this
final rule.
Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule
We fully considered comments from
the public and the peer reviewers on the
proposed rule. This final rule
incorporates changes to our proposed
rule based on the comments we received
that are discussed under Summary of
Comments Received on the Proposed
Rule and newly available information
that became available after the close of
the comment period. Specifically, we
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67863
made one change to the common yabby
that did not result in a change to the
final determination to that species but
may be worth singling out. We removed
‘‘Potential Impacts to Humans’’ as one
of the factors for considering the yabby
as injurious. We found that while the
common yabby may directly impact
human health by transferring metal
contaminants through consumption and
may require consumption advisories,
these advisories are not expected to be
more stringent than those for crayfish
species that are not considered
injurious. Therefore, none of the 11
species in this final rule is being listed
as injurious wildlife because of
potential impacts to humans.
Background
The regulations contained in 50 CFR
part 16 implement the Act. Under the
terms of the Act, the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to prescribe by
regulation those wild mammals, wild
birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans,
amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring
or eggs of any of the foregoing that are
injurious to human beings, to the
interests of agriculture, horticulture,
forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife
resources of the United States. The lists
of injurious wildlife species are found
in title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at §§ 16.11 through
16.15.
The purpose of listing the crucian
carp, Eurasian minnow, Prussian carp,
roach, stone moroko, Nile perch, Amur
sleeper, European perch, zander, and
wels catfish and the common yabby
(hereafter ‘‘11 species’’) as injurious
wildlife is to prevent the harm that
these species could cause to the
interests of agriculture, wildlife, and
wildlife resources through their
accidental or intentional introduction,
establishment, and spread into the wild
in the United States. The Service
evaluated each of the 11 species
individually, and we determined each
species to be injurious based on its own
traits.
Consistent with the statutory language
and congressional intent, it is the
Service’s longstanding and continued
position that the Lacey Act prohibits
both the importation into the United
States and all interstate transportation
between States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or
any territory or possession of the United
States, including interstate
transportation between States within the
Continental United States, of injurious
wildlife, regardless of the preliminary
injunction decision in U.S. Association
of Reptile Keepers v. Jewell, No. 13–
2007 (D.D.C. May 12, 2015). The
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
67864
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Service’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C.
42(a)(1) finds support in the plain
language of the statute, the Lacey Act’s
purpose, legislative history, and
congressional ratification. First, the
statute’s use of the disjunctive ‘‘or’’ to
separate the listed geographic entities
indicates that each location has
independent significance. Second,
Congress enacted the Lacey Act in 1900
for the purpose of, among other things,
regulating the introduction of species in
localities, not merely large territories,
where they have not previously existed.
See 16 U.S.C. 701. Third, the legislative
history of Congress’ many amendments
to the Lacey Act since its enactment in
1900 shows that Congress intended,
from the very beginning, for the Service
to regulate the interstate shipment of
certain injurious wildlife. Finally,
recent Congresses have made clear that
Congress interprets 18 U.S.C. 42(a)(1) as
prohibiting interstate transport of
injurious wildlife between the States
within the continental United States. In
amending § 42(a)(1) to add zebra
mussels and bighead carp as injurious
wildlife without making other changes
to the provision, Congress repeated and
ratified the Service’s interpretation of
the statute as prohibiting all interstate
transport of injurious species.
The prohibitions on importation and
all interstate transportation are both
necessary to prevent the introduction,
establishment, and spread of injurious
species that threaten human health or
the interests of agriculture, horticulture,
forestry, or the wildlife or wildlife
resources of the United States. By listing
these 11 species as injurious wildlife,
both the importation into the United
States and interstate transportation
between States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or
any territory or possession of the United
States of live animals, gametes, viable
eggs, or hybrids is prohibited, except by
permit for zoological, educational,
medical, or scientific purposes (in
accordance with permit regulations at
50 CFR 16.22), or by Federal agencies
without a permit solely for their own
use, upon filing a written declaration
with the District Director of Customs
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Inspector at the port of entry. In
addition, no live specimens of these 11
species, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids
imported or transported under a permit
could be sold, donated, traded, loaned,
or transferred to any other person or
institution unless such person or
institution has a permit issued by the
Service. The rule would not prohibit
intrastate transport of the listed fish or
crayfish species. Any regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
pertaining to the transport or use of
these species within a particular State
would continue to be the responsibility
of that State.
How the 11 Species Were Selected for
Consideration as Injurious Species
While the Service recognizes that not
all nonnative species become invasive,
it is important to have some
understanding of the risk that nonnative
species pose to the United States. The
Ecological Risk Screening Summary
(ERSS) approach was developed to
address the need described in the
National Invasive Species Management
Plan (NISC 2008). The Plan states that
prevention is the first-line of defense.
One of the objectives in the Plan is to
‘‘[d]evelop fair and practical screening
processes that evaluate different types of
species moving intentionally in trade.’’
The ERSS process, and the associated
Risk Assessment Mapping Program,
were peer-reviewed by risk assessment
experts from the United States, Canada,
and Mexico. Those experts support the
use of those tools for U.S. national risk
assessment, and associated risk
management. The Service utilizes a
rapid screening process to provide a
prediction of the invasive potential of
nonnative species and to prioritize
which species to consider for listing.
Rapid screens categorize risk as either
high, low, or uncertain and have been
produced for two thousand foreign
aquatic fish and invertebrates for use by
the Service and other entities. Each
rapid screen is summarized in an
Ecological Risk Screening Summary
(ERSS; see ‘‘Rapid Screening’’ below for
explanation regarding how these
summaries were done). The Service
selected 11 species with a rapid screen
result of ‘‘high risk’’ to consider for
listing as injurious. We put these 11
species through a subsequent risk
analysis to evaluate each species for
injuriousness (see ‘‘Injurious Wildlife
Evaluation Criteria’’ section below).
These 11 species have a high climate
match (see Rapid Screening) in parts of
the United States, a history of
invasiveness outside of their native
range (see Need for the Final Rule), are
not yet found in U.S. ecosystems (except
for one species in one lake), and have
a high degree of certainty regarding
these results. The ERSS reports for each
of the 11 species are available on the
Service’s Web site (https://www.fws.gov/
injuriouswildlife/Injurious_
prevention.html).
The practice of using history of
invasiveness and climate match to
determine risk has been validated in
peer-reviewed studies over the years.
Here are some examples: Kolar and
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Lodge (2002) found that discriminant
analysis revealed that successful fishes
in the establishment stage grew
relatively faster, tolerated wider ranges
of temperature and salinity, and were
more likely to have a history of
invasiveness than were failed fishes.
They also correlated traits of
invasiveness with stages of invasion to
predict rate of spread for specific
species and predicted that the roach,
Eurasian minnow, and European perch
would spread quickly, while the zander
would spread slowly (the other seven
species in this final rule were not
studied). Hayes and Barry (2008) found
that climate and habitat match, history
of successful invasion, and number of
arriving and released individuals are
consistently associated with successful
establishment. Bomford et al. (2010)
found that ‘‘Relative to failed species,
established species had better climate
matches between the country where
they were introduced and their
geographic range elsewhere in the
world. Established species were also
more likely to have high establishment
success rates elsewhere in the world.’’
Recently, Howeth et al. (2016) showed
that climate match between a species’
native range and the Great Lakes region
predicted establishment success with 75
to 81 percent accuracy.
All 11 species are documented to be
highly invasive internationally (see
Species Information for each species).
Nine of the freshwater fish species
(Amur sleeper, crucian carp, Eurasian
minnow, European perch, Prussian
carp, roach, stone moroko, wels catfish,
and zander) have been introduced and
established populations within Europe
and Asia. The Prussian carp was
recently found to be established in
waterways in southern Alberta, Canada
(Elgin et al. 2014), near the U.S. border.
Another freshwater fish species, the
Nile perch, has been introduced to and
become invasive in new areas of central
Africa. The freshwater crayfish, the
common yabby, has been introduced to
and established populations in new
areas of Australia and in Europe. Most
of the 11 species were originally
intentionally introduced for
aquaculture, recreational fishing, or
ornamental purposes. The Eurasian
minnow and the stone moroko were
accidentally mixed with and introduced
with shipments of fish stocked for other
intended purposes.
Need for the Final Rule
Consistent with 18 U.S.C. 42, the
Service aims to prevent the
introduction, establishment, and spread
of all 11 species within the United
States due to concerns regarding the
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
potential injurious effects of the 11
species on the interests of agriculture or
to wildlife or wildlife resources of the
United States. The threat posed by these
11 species is evident in their history of
invasiveness (establishment and spread)
in other countries and their high risk of
establishment as demonstrated by a high
climate match within the United States.
All of these species have wide
distribution ranges where they are
native and where they are invasive,
suggesting they are highly adaptable and
tolerant of new environments and
opportunistic when expanding from
their native range. Based on the results
of rapid screening assessments and our
injurious wildlife evaluation, we
anticipate that these 11 species will
become invasive if they are introduced
into waters of the United States.
Furthermore, if introduced and
established in one area of the United
States, these species could then spread
to other areas of the country through
unintentional or intentional interstate
transport, such as for aquaculture,
recreational and commercial fishing,
bait, ornamental display, and other
possible uses.
Listing Process
The Service promulgates regulations
under the Act in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.). We published a
proposed rule for public notice and
comment. We solicited peer review
under Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) guidelines ‘‘Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review’’ (OMB
2004). We also prepared a draft
economic analysis (including analysis of
potential effects on small businesses)
and a draft environmental assessment,
both of which we made available to the
public. For this final rule, we prepared
a final economic analysis and a final
environmental assessment.
This final rule is based on an
evaluation using the Service’s Injurious
Wildlife Evaluation Criteria (see
Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria,
below, for more information). We use
these criteria to evaluate whether a
species does or does not qualify as
injurious under the Act. These criteria
include the likelihood and magnitude of
release or escape, of survival and
establishment upon release or escape,
and of spread from origin of release or
escape. These criteria also examine the
impact on wildlife resources and
ecosystems (such as through
hybridizing, competition for food or
habitat, predation on native species, and
pathogen transfer), on endangered and
threatened species and their respective
habitats, and on human beings, forestry,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
horticulture, and agriculture.
Additionally, criteria evaluate the
likelihood and magnitude of wildlife or
habitat damages resulting from
measures to control the proposed
species. The analysis using these criteria
serves as a basis for the Service’s
regulatory decision regarding injurious
wildlife species listings. The objective
of such a listing is to prohibit
importation and interstate
transportation and thus prevent the
species’ likely introduction,
establishment, and spread in the wild,
thereby preventing injurious effects
consistent with 18 U.S.C. 42.
We evaluated each of the 11 species
individually and are listing all 11
species because we determined each of
these species to be injurious. The final
rule contains responses to comments we
received on the proposed rule, states the
final decision, and provides the
justification for that decision. Each of
the species determined to be injurious
will be added to the list of injurious
wildlife found in 50 CFR 16.13.
To assist us with making our
determination under the injurious
wildlife evaluation criteria, we used
information from available sources,
including the Centre for Agricultural
Bioscience International (CABI) reports
(called full datasheets) from their
Invasive Species Compendium (CABI
ISC) that were specific to each species
for biological and invasiveness
information as well as primary literature
and import data from our Office of Law
Enforcement.
Introduction Pathways for the 11
Species
The primary potential pathways for
the 11 species into the United States are
through commercial trade in the live
animal industry, including aquaculture,
recreational fishing, bait, and
ornamental display. Some could arrive
unintentionally in water used to carry
other aquatic species. Aquatic species
may be imported into many designated
ports of entry, including Miami, Los
Angeles, Baltimore, Dallas-Fort Worth,
Detroit, Chicago, and San Francisco.
Once imported, aquatic species could be
transported throughout the country for
aquaculture, recreational and
commercial fishing, bait, display, and
other possible uses.
Aquaculture is the farming of aquatic
organisms, such as fish, crustaceans,
mollusks, and plants, for food, pets,
stocking for fishing, and other purposes.
Aquaculture usually occurs in a
controlled setting where the water is
contained, as a pond or in a tank, and
is separate from lakes, ponds, rivers,
and other natural waters. The controlled
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67865
setting allows the aquaculturist to
maintain proper conditions for each
species being raised, which promotes
optimal feeding and provides protection
from predation and disease. However,
Bartley (2011) states that aquaculture is
the primary reason for the deliberate
movement of aquatic species outside of
their range, and Casal (2006) states that
many countries are turning to
aquaculture for human consumption,
and that has led to the introduction and
establishment of these species in local
ecosystems. Although the farmed
species are normally safely contained,
outdoor aquaculture ponds have often
flooded from major rainfall events and
merged with neighboring natural waters,
allowing the farmed species to escape
by swimming or floating to nearby
watersheds. Once a species enters a
watershed, it has the potential to
establish and spread throughout the
watershed, which then increases the
risk of spread to neighboring watersheds
through further flooding. Other
pathways for aquaculture species to
enter natural waters include intentional
stocking programs, and through
unintentional stocking when the species
is inadvertently included in a shipment
with an intended species for stocking
(Bartley 2011), release of unwanted
ornamental fish, and release of live bait
by fishermen.
Stocking for recreational fishing is a
common pathway for invasive species
when an aquatic species is released into
a water body where it is not native.
Often it takes repeated releases before
the fish (or other animal) becomes
established. The type of species that are
typically selected and released for
recreational fishing are predatory, grow
quickly and to large sizes, reproduce
abundantly, and are adaptable to many
habitat conditions (Fuller et al. 1999).
These are often the traits that also
contribute to the species becoming
invasive (Copp et al. 2005c; Kolar and
Lodge 2001, 2002).
Live aquatic species, such as fish and
crayfish, are frequently used as bait for
recreational and commercial fishing.
Generally, bait animals are kept alive
until they are needed, and leftover
individuals may be released into
convenient waterbodies (Litvak and
Mandrak, 1993; Ludwig and Leitch,
1996). For example, Kilian et al. (2012)
reported that 65 and 69 percent of
Maryland anglers using fishes and
crayfishes, respectively, released their
unused bait, and that a nonnative,
potentially invasive species imported
into the State as bait is likely to be
released into the wild. Often, these
individuals survive, establish, and cause
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
67866
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
harm to that waterbody (Fuller et al.
1999; Kilian et al. 2012).
Litvak and Mandrak (1993) found that
41 percent of anglers released live bait
after use. Their survey found nearly all
the anglers who released their bait
thought they were doing a good thing
for the environment. When the authors
examined the purchase location and the
angling destination, they concluded that
18 of the 28 species found in the
dealers’ bait tanks may have been used
outside their native range. Therefore, it
is not surprising that so many species
are introduced in this manner; Ontario,
Canada, alone has more than 65 legal
baitfish species, many of which are not
native to some or all of Ontario
(Cudmore and Mandrak 2005). Ludwig
and Leitch (1996) concluded that the
probability of at least 1,000 bait release
events from the Mississippi Basin to the
Hudson Bay Basin in 1 year is close to
1 (a certainty).
Ornamental aquatic species are
species kept in aquaria and aquatic
gardens for display for entertainment or
public education. The first tropical
freshwater fishes became available in
trade in the United States in the early
1900s (Duggan 2011), and there is
currently a large variety of freshwater
and saltwater fishes in the ornamental
trade. The trade in ornamental crayfish
species is more recent but is growing
rapidly (Gherardi 2011). The most
sought-after species frequently are not
native to the display area. Ornamental
species may accidentally escape from
outdoor ponds into neighboring
waterbodies (Andrews 1990; Fuller et
al. 1999; Gherardi 2011). They may also
be released outdoors intentionally when
owners no longer wish to maintain
them, despite laws in most States
prohibiting release into the wild.
The invasive range of many of the
species in this final rule has expanded
through intentional release for
commercial and recreational fishing
(European perch, Nile perch, Prussian
carp, roach, wels catfish, zander, and
common yabby), as bait (Eurasian
minnow, roach, common yabby), and as
ornamental fish (Amur sleeper, stone
moroko), and unintentionally (Amur
sleeper, crucian carp, Eurasian minnow,
and stone moroko) with shipments of
other aquatic species. All 11 species
have proven that they are capable of
naturally dispersing through waterways.
The main factor influencing the
chances of these 11 species establishing
in the wild would be the propagule
pressure, defined as the frequency of
release events (propagule number) and
numbers of individuals released
(propagule size) (Williamson 1996;
Colautti and MacIsaac 2004; Duncan
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
2011). This factor increases the odds of
both genders being released and finding
mates and of those individuals being
healthy and vigorous. After a sufficient
number of unintentional or intentional
releases, a species may establish in
those regions suitable for its survival
and reproduction. Thus, continuing to
allow the importation and interstate
transport of these 11 species
subsequently increases the risk of any of
these species becoming established and
spreading in the United States.
An additional factor indicating an
invasive species’ likelihood of
successful establishment and spread is a
documented history of these same
species successfully establishing and
spreading elsewhere outside of their
native ranges. All 11 species have been
introduced, become established, and
been documented as causing harm in
countries outside of their native ranges.
For example, the stone moroko’s native
range includes southern and central
Japan, Taiwan, Korea, China, and the
Amur River basin (Copp et al. 2010).
Since the stone moroko’s original
introduction to Romania in the early
1960s, this species has invaded nearly
every European country and additional
regions of Asia (Welcomme 1988; Copp
et al. 2010; Froese and Pauly 2014g).
The demonstrated ability of each of
these species to become established,
spread, and cause harm outside of their
native range, in conjunction with the
risk they would pose to U.S.
ecosystems, warrants listing all 11
species as injurious under the Lacey
Act. The objective of this listing is to
prohibit importation and interstate
transportation of these species and thus
prevent their likely introduction,
establishment, and spread in the wild
and associated harms to the interests of
agriculture, or wildlife or wildlife
resources of the United States.
Species Information
We obtained our information on a
species’ biology, history of invasiveness,
and climate matching from a variety of
sources, including the U.S. Geological
Survey Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
(NAS) database, CABI datasheets, ERSS
reports, primary literature, and peer and
public comments. We queried the NAS
database (https://nas.er.usgs.gov/) to
confirm that 10 of the 11 species are not
currently established in U.S.
ecosystems. The zander is established in
a lake in North Dakota (Fuller 2009).
The CABI ISC (https://www.cabi.org/
isc/) is an encyclopedic resource
containing datasheets on more than
1,500 invasive species and animal
diseases. The Service contracted with
CABI for many of the species-specific
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
datasheets that we used in preparation
of this final rule. The datasheets were
prepared by experts on the species, and
each datasheet was reviewed by expert
peer reviewers.
Crucian Carp (Carassius carassius)
The crucian carp was first described
and cataloged by Linnaeus in 1758, and
is part of the order Cypriniformes and
family Cyprinidae (ITIS 2014). The
family Cyprinidae, or the carp and
minnow family, is a large and diverse
group that includes 2,963 freshwater
species (Froese and Pauly 2014d). The
taxonomic status of the crucian carp has
been reported to be confused and it is
commonly misidentified with other
Carassius spp. (Godard and Copp 2012).
Native Range and Habitat
The crucian carp inhabits a temperate
climate (Riehl and Baensch 1991). The
native range includes much of north and
central Europe, extending from the
North Sea and Baltic Sea basins across
northern France and Germany to the
Alps and through the Danube River
basin and eastward to Siberia (Godard
and Copp 2012). The species inhabits
freshwater lakes, ponds, rivers, and
ditches (Godard and Copp 2012). This
species can survive in water with low
dissolved oxygen levels, including
aquatic environments with greatly
reduced oxygen (hypoxic) or largely
devoid of dissolved oxygen (anoxic)
(Godard and Copp 2012).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
Crucian carp have been widely
introduced to and established in
ˇ´
Croatia, Greece, southern France (Holcık
1991; Godard and Copp 2012), Italy, and
England (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007),
Spain, Belgium, Israel, Switzerland,
Chile, India, Sri Lanka, Philippines
ˇ´
(Holcık 1991; Froese and Pauly 2014a),
and Turkey (Innal and Erk’akan 2006).
In the United States, crucian carp may
have been established within Chicago
(Illinois) lakes and lagoons in the early
1900s (Meek and Hildebrand 1910;
Schofield et al. 2005), but they
apparently died out because currently
no such population exists (Welcomme
1988; Schofield et al. 2005; Schofield et
al. 2013).
Several other fish species, including
the Prussian carp, the common carp
(Cyprinus carpio), and a brown variety
of goldfish (Carassius auratus) have
been misidentified as crucian carp
(Godard and Copp 2012). Crucian carp
may have been accidentally introduced
to some regions in misidentified
shipments of ornamental fishes
(Wheeler 2000; Hickley and Chare
2004). However, no known populations
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
of crucian carp currently exist in the
United States.
Biology
Crucian carp generally range from 20
to 45 centimeters (cm) (8 to 18 inches
(in)) long with a maximum of 50 cm
(19.5 in) (Godard and Copp 2012).
Specimens have been reported to weigh
up to 3 kilograms (kg) (6.6 pounds (lb))
(Froese and Pauly 2014a). These fish
have an olive-gray back that transitions
into brassy green along the sides and
brown on the body (Godard and Copp
2012).
Crucian carp can live up to 10 years
(Kottelat and Freyhof 2007) and reach
sexual maturity at one and a half years
but may not begin spawning until their
third year (Godard and Copp 2012).
Crucian carp are batch spawners
(release multiple batches of eggs per
season) and may spawn one to three
times per year (Aho and Holopainen
2000, Godard and Copp 2012).
Crucian carp feed during the day and
night on plankton, benthic (bottomdwelling) invertebrates, plant materials,
and detritus (organic material) (Kottelat
and Freyhof 2007).
Crucian carp can harbor the virus
causing the fish disease Spring Viraemia
of Carp (SVC) (Ahne et al. 2002) and
several parasitic infections
(Dactylogyrus gill flukes disease,
Trichodinosis, skin flukes, false fungal
infection (Epistylis sp.), and turbidity of
the skin) (Froese and Pauly 2014b). SVC
is a disease that, when found, is
required to be reported to the Office
International des Epizooties (OIE)
(World Organisation of Animal Health)
(Ahne et al. 2002). The SVC virus
infects carp species but may be
transmitted to other fish species. The
virus is shed with fecal matter and
urine, and often infects through
waterborne transmission (Ahne et al.
2002). Additionally, SVC may result in
significant morbidity and mortality with
an approximate 70 percent fatality
among juvenile fish and 30 percent
fatality in adult fish (Ahne et al. 2002).
Thus, the spread of SVC may have
serious effects on native fish stocks.
OIE-notifiable diseases affect animal
health internationally. OIE-notifiable
diseases meet certain criteria for
consequences, spread, and diagnosis.
For the consequences criteria, the
disease must have either been
documented as causing significant
production losses on a national or
multinational (zonal or regional) level,
or have scientific evidence that
indicates that the diseases will cause
significant morbidity or mortality in
wild aquatic animal populations, or be
an agent of public health concern. For
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
the spread criteria, the disease’s
infectious etiology (cause) must be
known or an infectious agent is strongly
associated with the disease (with
etiology unknown). In addition for the
spread criteria, there must be a
likelihood of international spread (via
live animals and animal products) and
the disease must not be widespread
(several countries or regions of countries
without specific disease). For the
diagnosis criteria, there must be a
standardized, proven diagnostic test for
disease detection (OIE 2012). These
internationally accepted standards,
including those that document the
consequences (harm) of certain diseases,
offer supporting evidence of
injuriousness.
Invasiveness
This species demonstrates many of
the strongest traits for invasiveness. The
crucian carp is capable of securing and
ingesting a wide range of food, has a
broad native range, and is highly
adaptable to different environments
(Godard and Copp 2012). While foraging
along the substrate, Crucian carp can
increase turbidity (cloudiness of water)
in lakes, rivers, and streams with soft
bottom sediments. Increased turbidity
reduces light availability to submerged
plants and can result in harmful
ecosystem changes, such as to
phytoplankton survival and nutrient
cycling. Crucian carp can breed with
other carp species, including the
common carp (Wheeler 2000). Hybrids
of crucian carp and common carp can
affect fisheries, because such hybrids,
along with the introduced crucian carp,
may compete with native species for
food and habitat resources (Godard and
Copp 2012).
Eurasian Minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus)
The Eurasian minnow was first
described and cataloged by Linnaeus in
1758, and belongs to the order
Cypriniformes and family Cyprinidae
(ITIS 2014). Although Eurasian minnow
is the preferred common name, this fish
species is also referred to as the
European minnow.
Native Range and Habitat
The Eurasian minnow inhabits a
temperate climate, and the native range
includes much of Eurasia within the
basins of the Atlantic, North and Baltic
Seas, and the Arctic and the northern
Pacific Oceans (Froese and Pauly
2014e).
Eurasian minnows can be found in a
variety of habitats ranging from brackish
(estuarine; slightly salty) to freshwater
streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes located
within the coastal zone to the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67867
mountains (Sandlund 2008). In Norway,
they are found at elevations up to 2,000
m (6,562 ft). These minnows prefer
shallow lakes or slow-flowing streams
and rivers with stony substrate
(Sandlund 2008).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The Eurasian minnow’s nonnative
range includes parts of Sweden and
Norway, United Kingdom, and Egypt
(Sandlund 2008), as well as other
drainages juxtaposed to native
waterways. The Eurasian minnow was
initially introduced as live bait, which
was the main pathway of introduction
throughout the 1900s (Sandlund 2008).
The inadvertent inclusion of this
minnow species in the transport water
of brown trout (Salmo trutta) that were
intentionally stocked into lakes for
recreational angling has contributed to
their spread (Sandlund 2008). From
these initial stockings, minnows have
dispersed naturally downstream and
established in new waterways, and have
spread to new waterways through
tunnels constructed for hydropower
development. These minnows have also
been purposely introduced as food for
brown trout and to control the Tune fly
(in Simuliidae) (Sandlund 2008).
The Eurasian minnow is expanding
its nonnative range by establishing
populations in additional waterways
bordering the native range. Waterways
near where the minnow is already
established are most at risk (Sandlund
2008).
Biology
The Eurasian minnow has a torpedoshaped body measuring 6 to 10 cm (2.3
to 4 in) with a maximum of 15 cm (6
in). Size and growth rate are both highly
dependent on population density and
environmental factors (Lien 1981; Mills
1987, 1988; Sandlund 2008). These
minnows have variable coloration but
are often brownish-green on the back
with a whitish stomach and brown and
black blotches along the side (Sandlund
2008).
The Eurasian minnow’s life-history
traits (age, size at sexual maturity,
growth rate, and lifespan) may be highly
variable (Mills 1988). Populations
residing in lower latitudes often have
smaller body size and younger age of
maturity than those populations in
higher altitudes and latitudes (Mills
1988). Maturity ranges from less than 1
year to 6 years of age, with a lifespan as
long as 13 to 15 years (Sandlund 2008).
The Eurasian minnow spawns annually
with an average fecundity between 200
to 1,000 eggs (Sandlund 2008).
This minnow usually cohabitates with
salmonid fishes (Kottelat and Freyhof
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
67868
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
2007). The Eurasian minnow feeds
mostly on invertebrates (crustaceans
and insect larvae) as well as some algal
and plant material (Lien 1981).
Invasiveness
The Eurasian minnow demonstrates
many of the strongest traits for
invasiveness. The species is highly
adaptable to new environments and is
difficult to control (Sandlund 2008).
The species can become established
within varying freshwater systems,
including lowland and high alpine
areas, as well as in brackish water
(Sandlund 2008). Introductions of the
Eurasian minnow can cause major
changes to nonnative ecosystems by
affecting the benthic community
(decreased invertebrate diversity) and
disrupting trophic-level structure
(Sandlund 2008). This occurrence
affects the ability of native fish to find
food as well as disrupts native
spawning. The Eurasian minnow has
been shown to reduce recruitment of
brown trout by predation (Sandlund
2008). Although brown trout are not
native to the United States, they are
closely related to our native trout and
salmon, and thus Eurasian minnows
could be expected to reduce the
recruitment of native trout.
In addition, Eurasian minnows are
carriers of parasites and have increased
the introduction of parasites to new
areas. Such parasites affected native
snails, mussels, and different insects
within subalpine lakes in southern
Norway following introduction of the
Eurasian minnows (Sandlund 2008).
Additionally, Zietara et al. (2008) used
molecular methods to link the parasite
Gyrodactylus aphyae from Eurasian
minnows to the new hosts of Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Prussian Carp (Carassius gibelio)
The Prussian carp was first described
and catalogued by Bloch in 1782, and
belongs to the order Cypriniformes and
family Cyprinidae (ITIS 2014). While
some have questioned the taxonomy of
Prussian carp, genetic studies have
suggested that it is distinct Carassius
species (Elgin et al. 2014). However, the
species is not monophyletic
(characterized by descent from a single
ancestral group) and therefore possibly
two distinct species (Kalous et al. 2012,
Elgin et al. 2014). In fact, one clade
(represents a single lineage) of Prussian
carp is more closely related to goldfish
(C. auratus) than to the second clade of
Prussian carp (Kalous et al. 2012). The
Prussian carp is very similar in
appearance to other Carassius spp. and
common carp (Cyprinus carpio), and are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
often difficult to differentiate (Britton
2011).
Native Range and Habitat
The Prussian carp inhabits a
temperate climate (Baensch and Riehl
2004). The species is native to regions
of central Europe and eastward to
Siberia. It is also native to several Asian
countries, including China, Georgia,
Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Turkey, and
Turkmenistan (Britton 2011). The
Prussian carp resides in a variety of
fresh stillwater bodies and rivers. This
species also inhabits warm, shallow,
eutrophic (high in nutrients) waters
with submerged vegetation or regular
flooding events (Kottelat and Freyhof
2007). This species can live in polluted
waters with pollution and low oxygen
concentrations (Britton 2011).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The Prussian carp has been
introduced to many countries within
central and Western Europe. This
species was first introduced to Belgium
during the 1600s and is now prevalent
in its freshwater systems. The Prussian
carp was also introduced to Belarus and
Poland during the 1940s for recreational
fishing and aquaculture. This carp
species has dispersed and expanded its
range using the Vistula and Bug River
basins (Britton 2011). During the mid to
late 1970s, this carp species invaded the
Czech Republic river system from the
Danube River via the Morava River.
Once in the river system, the fish
expanded into tributary streams and
connected watersheds. Throughout its
nonnative range, this species has been
stocked with common carp and
misidentified as crucian carp (Britton
2011). From the original stocked site,
the Prussian carp has dispersed both
naturally and with human involvement.
The Prussian carp’s current nonnative
range includes the Asian countries of
Armenia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan and
the European countries of Belarus,
Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, France, Germany, Poland, and
Switzerland (Britton 2011). The species
has recently invaded the Iberian
Peninsula (Ribeiro et al. 2015). The
species was recently found to be
established in waterways in southern
Alberta, Canada (Elgin et al. 2014).
Biology
The Prussian carp has a silvery-brown
body with an average length of 20 cm
(7.9 in) and reported maximum length
of 35 cm (13.8 in) (Kottelat and Freyhof
2007, Froese and Pauly 2014c). This
species has a reported maximum weight
of 3 kilograms (kg; 6.6 pounds (lb)
(Froese and Pauly 2014c)).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The Prussian carp lives up to 10 years
(Kottelat and Freyhof 2007). This
species can reproduce in a way very rare
among fish. Introduced populations
often include, or are solely composed of,
triploid females that can undergo
natural gynogenesis, allowing them to
use the sperm of other species to
activate (but not fertilize) their own eggs
(Vetemaa et al. 2005, Britton 2011).
Thus, the eggs are viable without being
fertilized by male Prussian carp.
The Prussian carp is a generalist
omnivore and consumes a varied diet
that includes plankton, benthic
invertebrates, plant material, and
detritus (Britton 2011).
The parasite Thelohanellus
wuhanensis (Wang et al. 2001) and
black spot disease
(Posthodiplostomatosis) have been
found to affect the Prussian carp
´
(Markovıc et al. 2012).
Invasiveness
The Prussian carp is a highly invasive
species in freshwater ecosystems
throughout Europe and Asia. This fish
species grows rapidly and can
reproduce from unfertilized eggs
(Vetemaa et al. 2005). Prussian carp
have been implicated in the decline in
both the biodiversity and population of
native fish (Vetemaa et al. 2005, Lusk et
al. 2010). The presence of this fish
species has been linked with increased
water turbidity (Crivelli 1995), which in
turn alters both the ecosystem’s trophiclevel structure and nutrient availability.
Roach (Rutilus rutilus)
The roach was first described and
cataloged by Linnaeus in 1758, and
belongs to the order Cypriniformes and
family Cyprinidae (ITIS 2014).
Native Range and Habitat
The roach inhabits temperate climates
(Riehl and Baensch 1991). The species’
native range includes regions of Europe
and Asia. Within Europe, it is found
north of the Pyrenees and Alps and
eastward to the Ural River and Eya
drainages (Caspian Sea basin) and
within the Aegean Sea basin and
watershed (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007).
In Asia, the roach’s native range extends
from the Sea of Marmara basin and
lower Sakarya Province (Turkey) to the
Aral Sea basin and Siberia (Kottelat and
Freyhof 2007).
This species often resides in nutrientrich lakes, medium to large rivers, and
backwaters. Within rivers, the roach is
limited to areas with slow currents.
Nonnative Range and Habitat
This species has been introduced to
several countries for recreational fishing
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
or as bait. Once introduced, the roach
has moved into new water bodies
within the same country (Rocabayera
and Veiga 2012). In 1889, the roach was
brought from England to Ireland for use
as bait fish. Some of these fish
accidentally escaped into the Cork
Blackwater system. After this initial
introduction, this fish species was
deliberately stocked in nearby lakes.
The roach has continued its expansion
throughout Ireland watersheds, and by
2000, had invaded every major river
system within Ireland (Rocabayera and
Veiga 2012).
This species has been reported as
invasive in north and central Italy,
where it was introduced for recreational
fishing (Rocabayera and Veiga 2012).
The roach was also introduced to
Madagascar, Morocco, Cyprus, Portugal,
the Azores, Spain, and Australia
(Rocabayera and Veiga 2012).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Biology
The roach has an average body length
of 25 cm (9.8 in) and reported maximum
length of 50 cm (19.7 in) (Rocabayera
and Veiga 2012). The maximum
published weight is 1.84 kg (4 lb)
(Froese and Pauly 2014f).
The roach can live up to 14 years
(Froese and Pauly 2014f). Male fish are
sexually mature at 2 to 3 years and
female fish at 3 to 4 years. A whole
roach population typically spawns
within 5 to 10 days, with each female
producing 700 to 77,000 eggs
(Rocabayera and Veiga 2012). Eggs hatch
approximately 12 days later (Kottelat
and Freyhoff 2007).
The roach has a general, omnivorous
diet, including benthic invertebrates,
zooplankton, plants, and detritus
(Rocabayera and Veiga 2012). Of the
European cyprinids (carps, minnows,
and their relatives), the roach is one of
the most efficient molluscivores
(Winfield and Winfield 1994).
Parasitic infections, including worm
cataracts (Diplostomum spathaceum),
black spot disease (diplostomiasis), and
tapeworm (Ligula intestinalis), have all
been found associated with the roach
(Rocabayera and Veiga 2012), as has the
pathogen bacterium Aeromonas
salmonicida, which causes furunculosis
(skin ulcers) in several fish species
(Wiklund and Dalsgaard 1998).
Invasiveness
The main issues associated with
invasive roach populations include
competition with native fish species,
hybridization with native fish species,
and altered ecosystem nutrient cycling
(Rocabayera and Veiga 2012). The roach
is a highly adaptive species and adapts
to a different habitat or diet to avoid
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
predation or competition (Winfield and
Winfield 1994).
The roach also has a high
reproductive potential and spawns
earlier than some other native fish
(Volta and Jepsen 2008, Rocabayera and
Veiga 2012). This trait allows larvae to
have a competitive edge over native fish
larvae (Volta and Jepsen 2008).
The roach can hybridize with other
cyprinids, including rudd (Scardinius
erythrophthalmus) and bream (Abramis
brama), in places where it has invaded.
The new species (roach-rudd cross and
roach-bream cross) then compete for
food and habitat resources with both the
native fish (rudd, bream) and invasive
fish (roach) (Rocabayera and Veiga
2012).
Within nutrient-rich lakes or ponds,
large populations of roach create
adverse nutrient cycling. High numbers
of roach consume large amounts of
zooplankton, which results in algal
blooms, increased turbidity, and
changes in nutrient availability and
cycling (Rocabayera and Veiga 2012).
Stone Moroko (Pseudorasbora parva)
The stone moroko was first described
and cataloged by Temminick and
Schlegel in 1846 and belongs to the
order Cypriniformes and family
Cyprinidae (ITIS 2014). Although the
preferred common name is the stone
moroko, this fish species is also called
the topmouth gudgeon (Froese and
Pauly 2014g).
Native Range and Habitat
The stone moroko inhabits a
temperate climate (Baensch and Riehl
1993). Its native range is Asia, including
southern and central Japan, Taiwan,
Korea, China, and the Amur River basin.
The stone moroko resides in freshwater
lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and
irrigation canals (Copp 2007).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The stone moroko was introduced to
Romania in the early 1960s with a
Chinese carp shipment (Copp et al.
2010). By 2000, this fish species had
invaded nearly every other European
country and additional countries in Asia
(Copp 2007). This species was primarily
introduced unintentionally with fish
shipped purposefully. Natural dispersal
also occurred in most countries (Copp
2007).
Within Asia, the stone moroko has
been introduced to Afghanistan,
Armenia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos,
Taiwan, Turkey, and Uzbekistan (Copp
2007). In Europe, this fish species’
nonnative range includes Albania,
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech
Republic, Denmark, France, Germany,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67869
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania,
Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands,
Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia,
Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Ukraine, and the United Kingdom (Copp
2007). The stone moroko has also been
introduced to Algeria and Fiji (Copp
2007).
Biology
The stone moroko is a small fish with
an average body length of 8 cm (3.1 in),
maximum reported length of 11 cm (4.3
in) (Froese and Pauly 2014g), and
average body mass of 17 to 19 grams (g;
0.04 lb) (Witkowski 2011). This fish
species is grayish black with a lighter
belly and sides. Juveniles have a dark
stripe along the side that disappears
with maturity (Witkowski 2011).
This fish species can live up to 5
years (Froese and Pauly 2014g). The
stone moroko becomes sexually mature
and begins spawning at 1 year
(Witkowski 2011). Females release
several dozen eggs per spawning event
and spawn several times per year. The
total number of eggs spawned per
female ranges from a few hundred to a
few thousand eggs (Witkowski 2011).
Male fish aggressively guard eggs until
hatching (Witkowski 2011).
The stone moroko maintains an
omnivorous diet of small insects, fish,
mollusks, planktonic crustaceans, fish
eggs, algae (Froese and Pauly 2014g),
and plants (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007).
The stone moroko is an unaffected
carrier of the pathogenic parasite
Sphaerothecum destruens (Gozlan et al.
2005, Pinder et al. 2005). This parasite
is transferred to water from healthy
stone morokos. Once in the water, this
parasite has infected Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Atlantic
salmon, sunbleak (Leucaspius
delineatus), and fathead minnows
(Pimephales promelas) (Gozlan et al.
2005). Sphaerothecum destruens infects
the internal organs, resulting in
spawning failure, organ failure, and
death (Gozlan et al. 2005).
Invasiveness
The stone moroko has proven to be a
highly invasive fish, establishing
invasive populations in nearly every
European country over a 40-year span
(Copp 2007, Copp et al. 2010). This fish
species has proven to be adaptive and
tolerant of a variety of habitats,
including those of poorer quality (Beyer
et al. 2007). This species’ invasiveness
is further aided by multiple spawning
events and the guarding of eggs by the
male until hatching (Kottelat and
Freyhof 2007).
In many areas of introduction and
establishment (for example, United
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
67870
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Kingdom, Italy, China, and Russia), the
stone moroko has been linked to the
decline of native freshwater fish
populations (Copp 2007). The stone
moroko has been found to dominate the
fish community when it becomes
established. Native fishes have
exhibited decreased growth rate and
reproduction, and they shifted their diet
as a result of food competition (Britton
et al. 2010b).
Additionally, this species is a vector
of Sphaerothecum destruens, which is a
documented pathogen of salmonids
native to the United States (Gozlan et al.
2005, Gozlan et al. 2009, Andreou et al.
2011). Sphaerothecum destruens has
caused mortalities in cultured North
American salmon (Andreou et al. 2011).
Nile Perch (Lates niloticus)
The Nile perch was first described
and cataloged by Linnaeus in 1758 and
is in the order Perciformes and family
Centropomidae (ITIS 2014). Although
its preferred common name is the Nile
perch, it is also referred to as the
African snook and Victoria perch (Witte
2013).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Native Range and Habitat
The Nile perch inhabits a tropical
climate with an optimal water
temperature of 28 °C (82 °F) and an
upper lethal temperature of 38 °C (100
°F) (Kitchell et al. 1997). The species’
native distribution includes much of
central, western, and eastern Africa. The
species is common in the Nile, Chad,
Senegal, Volta, and Zaire River basins
and brackish Lake Mariout near
Alexandria, Egypt, on the
Mediterranean coast (Azeroual et al.
2010, Witte 2013). Nile perch reside in
brackish lakes and freshwater lakes,
rivers, stream, reservoirs, and irrigation
channels (Witte 2013).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The Nile perch, which is not native to
Lake Victoria in Africa, was first
introduced to the lake in 1954 from
nearby Lake Albert. This species was
introduced on the Ugandan side and
spread to the Kenyan side. A breeding
population existed in the lake by 1962
(Witte 2013).
The Nile perch was also introduced to
Lake Kyoga (1954 and 1955) to gauge
the effects of Nile perch on fish
populations similar to that of Lake
Victoria. At the time of introduction,
people were unaware that this species
had already been introduced
unofficially into Lake Victoria (Witte
2013). Additional introductions of Nile
perch occurred in 1962 and 1963 in
Kenyan and Ugandan waters to promote
a commercial fishery. Since its initial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
introduction to Lakes Victoria and
Kyoga, this fish species has been
accidentally and deliberately introduced
to many of the neighboring lakes and
waterways (Witte 2013). The increase in
Nile perch population was first noted in
Kenyan waters in 1979, in Ugandan
waters 2 to 3 years later, and in
Tanzanian waters 4 to 5 years later
(Witte 2013). There are currently only a
few lakes in the area without a Nile
perch population (Witte 2013).
The Nile perch was also introduced
into Cuba for aquaculture and sport in
1982 and 1983 (Welcomme 1988), but
we have no information on the
subsequent status.
Nile perch were stocked in Texas
waters in 1978, 1979, and 1984 (88, 14,
and 26 fish respectively in Victor
Braunig Lake); in 1981 (68,119 in Coleto
Creek Reservoir); and in 1983 (1,310 in
Fairfield Lake) (Fuller et al. 1999,
TPWD 2013a). These introductions were
unsuccessful at establishing a selfsustaining population (Howells 1992,
Howells and Garret 1992, Howells
2001). Although the fish did not
establish, biologists in Texas and
Florida recommended against stocking
Nile perch because of its ability to
tolerate cold winter temperatures in
some local waters, tolerance of salt
water, and ability to range widely in
riverine habitats, as well as large size
and predatory nature (Howells and
Garret 1992). Today, Nile perch are a
prohibited exotic species in Texas
(TPWD 2013b, 2016).
Biology
The Nile perch has a perch-like body
with an average body length of 1 meter
(m) (3.3 feet (ft)), maximum length of 2
m (6.6 ft) (Ribbink 1987, Froese and
Pauly 2014h), and maximum weight of
200 kg (441 lb) (Ribbink 1987). The Nile
perch is gray-blue on the dorsal side
with gray-silver along the flank and
ventral side (Witte 2013).
The age of sexual maturity varies with
habitat location. Most male fish become
sexually mature before females (1 to 2
years versus 1 to 4 years of age) (Witte
2013). This species spawns throughout
the year with increased spawning
during the rainy season (Witte 2013).
The Nile perch produce 3 million to 15
million eggs per breeding cycle (Asila
and Ogari 1988). This high fecundity
allows the Nile perch to quickly
establish in new regions with favorable
habitats (Ogutu-Ohwayo 1988).
Additionally, the Nile perch’s
reproductive potential in introduced
habitats is much greater than that of its
prey, haplochromine cichlids (fish from
the family Cichlidae), which have a
reproductive rate of 13 to 33 eggs per
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
breeding cycle (Goldschmidt and Witte
1990).
Nile perch less than 5 cm eat
zooplankton (cladocerans and
copepods) (Witte 2013). Juvenile Nile
perch (35 to 75 cm long) feed on
invertebrates, primarily aquatic insects,
crustaceans, and mollusks (Ribbink
1987). Adult Nile perch are primarily
piscivorous (fish eaters), but they also
consume large crustaceans (Caridina
and Macrobrachium shrimp) and insects
(Witte 2013).
The Nile perch is host to a number of
parasites capable of causing infections
and diseases in other species, including
sporozoa infections (Hennegya sp.),
Dolops infestation, Ergasilus disease,
gonad nematodosis disease (Philometra
sp.), and Macrogyrodactylus and
Diplectanum infestation (Paperna 1996,
Froese and Pauly 2014i).
Invasiveness
The Nile perch has been listed as one
of the 100 ‘‘World’s Worst’’ Invaders by
the Global Invasive Species Database
(https://www.issg.org) (Snoeks 2010,
ISSG 2015). During the 1950s and
1960s, this fish was introduced to
several East African lakes for
commercial fishing. This fish is now
prevalent in Lake Victoria and
constitutes more than 90 percent of
demersal (bottom-dwelling) fish mass
within this lake (Witte 2013). Since its
introduction, native fish populations
have declined or disappeared (Witte
2013). Approximately 200 native
haplochromine cichlid species have
become locally extinct due to predation
and competition (Snoeks 2010, Witte
2013).
According to Gophen (2015), the Lake
Victoria ecosystem was unique and
comprised at least 400 endemic species
of haplochromine fishes. Historically,
the food web structure was naturally
balanced, with short periods of anoxia
in deep waters and dominance of
diatomides algal species. During the
1980s, Nile perch became the dominant
fish. The haplochromine species were
depleted, and the whole ecosystem was
modified. Algal assemblages were
changed to Cyanobacteria; anoxia
became more frequent and occurred in
shallower waters. The effect of the Nile
perch predation and its ecological
implications in Lake Victoria is also
confirmed by the elimination of
planktivory by the haplochromine
fishery. Consequently, this loss has
resulted in significant shifts to the
trophic-level structure and loss of
biodiversity of this lake’s ecosystem.
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Amur Sleeper (Perccottus glenii)
The Amur sleeper was first described
and cataloged by B.I. Dybowski in 1877,
as part of the order Perciformes and
family Odontobutidae (Bogutskaya and
Naseka 2002, ITIS 2014). The Amur
sleeper is the preferred common name
of this freshwater fish, but this fish is
also called the Chinese sleeper or rotan
(Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002, Froese
and Pauly 2014j). In this final rule, we
will refer to the species as the Amur
sleeper.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Native Range and Habitat
The Amur sleeper inhabits a
temperate climate (Baensch and Riehl
2004). The species’ native distribution
includes much of the freshwater regions
of northeastern China, northern North
Korea, and eastern Russia (Reshetnikov
and Schliewen 2013). Within China,
this species is predominantly native to
the lower to middle region of the Amur
River watershed, including the Zeya,
Sunguri, and Ussuri tributaries
(Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002,
Grabowska 2011) and Lake Khanka
(Courtenay 2006). The Amur sleeper’s
range extends northward to the Tugur
River (Siberia) (Grabowska 2011) and
southward to the Sea of Japan
(Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002,
Grabowska 2011). To the west, the
species does not occur in the Amur
River upstream of Dzhalinda
(Bogutskaya and Nasaka 2002).
The Amur sleeper inhabits freshwater
lakes, ponds, canals, backwaters, flood
plains, oxbow lakes, and marshes
(Grabowska 2011). This fish is a poor
swimmer, thriving in slow-moving
waters with dense vegetation and
muddy substrate and avoiding main
river currents (Grabowska 2011). The
Amur sleeper can live in poorly
oxygenated water and can also survive
in dried out or frozen water bodies by
burrowing into and hibernating in the
mud (Bogutskaya and Nasaka 2002,
Grabowska 2011).
Although the Amur sleeper is a
freshwater fish, there are limited reports
of it appearing in saltwater
environments (Bogutskaya and Naseka
2002). These reports seem to occur with
flood events and are likely a
consequence of these fish being carried
downstream into these saltwater
environments (Bogutskaya and Naseka
2002).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
This species’ first known introduction
was in western Russia. In 1912, Russian
naturalist I.L. Zalivskii brought four
Amur sleepers to the Lisiy Nos
settlement (St. Petersburg, Russia)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
(Reshetnikov 2004, Grabowska 2011).
These four fish were held in aquaria
until 1916, when they were released
into a pond, where they subsequently
established a population before
naturally dispersing into nearby
waterbodies (Reshetnikov 2004,
Grabowska 2011). In 1948, additional
Amur sleepers were introduced to
Moscow for use in ornamental ponds by
members of an expedition (Bogutskaya
and Naseka 2002, Reshetnikov 2004).
These fish escaped the ponds into
which they had been stocked and
spread to nearby waters in the city of
Moscow and Moscow Province
(Reshetnikov 2004).
Additionally, Amur sleepers were
introduced to new areas when they were
unintentionally shipped to fish farms in
fish stocks, such as silver carp
(Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and
grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella).
From these initial introductions, the
Amur sleepers were able to expand from
their native range through escape,
release, and transfer between fish farms
(Reshetnikov 2004). Additionally, Amur
sleepers tolerate being transported and
have been moved from one waterbody to
another by anglers as bait (Reshetnikov
2004).
The Amur sleeper is an invasive
species in western Russia and 16
additional countries: Mongolia, Belarus,
Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,
Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia,
Serbia, Bulgaria, Moldova, Kazakhstan,
Croatia, and recently Germany, where it
is dispersing up the Danube River into
western Europe (Reshetnikov and
Schliewen 2013). The Amur sleeper is
established within the Baikal, Baltic,
and Volga water basins of Europe and
Asia (Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002) and
the Danube of Europe (Reshetnikov and
Schliewen 2013). The occurrence of the
Amur sleeper in a far-western region of
Europe is highly troublesome because
this invasive and hardy predator
represents a major threat to European
freshwater shallow lentic water-body
ecosystems where the Amur sleeper is
capable of depleting diversity in species
of macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and
fish (Reshetnikov and Schliewen 2013).
Biology
The Amur sleeper is a small- to
medium-sized fish with a maximum
body length of 25 cm (9.8 in)
(Grabowska 2011) and weight of 250 g
(0.6 lb) (Reshetnikov 2003). As with
other fish species, both body length and
weight vary with food supply, and
larger Amur sleeper specimens have
been reported from its nonnative range
(Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67871
Body shape is fusiform with two
dorsal fins, short pelvic fins, and
rounded caudal fin (Grabowska 2011).
The Amur sleeper has dark coloration of
greenish olive, brownish gray, or dark
green with dark spots and pale yellow
to blue-green flecks (Grabowska 2011).
Males are not easily discerned from
females except during breeding season.
Breeding males are darker (almost black)
with bright blue-green spots (Grabowska
2011).
The Amur sleeper lifespan is from 7
to 10 years. Within native ranges, the
fish rarely lives more than 4 years,
whereas in nonnative ranges, the fish
generally lives longer (Bogutskaya and
Naseka 2002, Grabowska 2011). The fish
reaches maturity between 2 and 3 years
of age (Grabowska 2011) and has at least
two spawning events per year.
The number of eggs per spawning
event varies with female size. In the
Wloclawski Reservoir, which is outside
of the Amur sleeper’s native range, the
females produced an average of 7,766
eggs per female (range 1,963 to 23,479
eggs) (Grabowska et al. 2011). Male
Amur sleepers are active in prenatal
care by guarding eggs and aggressively
defending the nest (Bogutskaya and
Naseka 2002, Grabowska et al. 2011).
The Amur sleeper is a voracious,
generalist predator that eats
invertebrates (such as freshwater
crayfish, shrimp, mollusks, and insects),
amphibian tadpoles, and small fish
(Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002).
Reshetnikov (2003) found that the Amur
sleeper significantly reduced species
diversity of fishes and amphibians
where it was introduced. In some small
water bodies, Amur sleepers
considerably decrease the number of
species of aquatic macroinvertebrates,
amphibian larvae, and fish species
(Reshetnikov 2003, Pauly 2014, Kottelat
and Freyhof 2007).
The predators of Amur sleepers
include pike, perch, snakeheads
(Channa spp.), and gulls (Laridae)
(Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002). It is
believed that this species is primarily
controlled by snakeheads in their native
range. Eggs and juveniles are fed on by
a variety of insects (Bogutskaya and
Naseka 2002).
The Amur sleeper reportedly has high
parasitic burdens of more than 40
parasite species (Grabowska 2011). The
host-specific parasites, including
Nippotaenia mogurndae and
Gyrodactylus perccotti, have been
transported to new areas along with the
ˇ
´
introduced Amur sleeper (Kosuthova et
al. 2004, Grabowska 2011). The cestode
(tapeworm) Nippotaenia mogurndae
was first reported in Europe in the River
Latorica in east Slovakia in 1998, after
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
67872
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
this same river was invaded by the
ˇ
´
Amur sleeper (Kosuthova et al. 2004).
This parasite may be able to infect other
ˇ
´
fish species (Kosuthova et al. 2008).
Thus, the potential for the Amur sleeper
to function as a parasitic host could aid
in the transmission of parasites to new
environments and potentially to new
ˇ
´
species (Kosuthova et al. 2008,
ˇ
´
Kosuthova et al. 2009).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Invasiveness
The Amur sleeper is considered one
of the most widespread, invasive fish in
European freshwater ecosystems within
the last several decades (Copp et al.
2005a, Grabowska 2011, Reshetnikov
and Ficetola 2011). Reshetnikov and
Ficetola (2011) indicate that there are 13
expansion centers for this fish outside of
its native range. Once this species has
been introduced, it has proven to be
capable of establishing sustainable
populations (Reshetnikov 2004). Within
the Vistula River (Poland), the Amur
sleeper has averaged an annual
expansion of its range by 88 kilometers
(km) (54.5 miles (mi) per year)
(Grabowska 2011). A recent study
(Reshetnikov and Ficetola 2011)
suggests many other regions of Europe
and Asia, as well as the northeastern
United States and southeastern Canada,
have suitable climates for the Amur
sleeper and are at risk for an invasion.
The Amur sleeper demonstrates many
of the strongest traits for invasiveness: It
consumes a highly varied diet, is fast
growing with a high reproductive
potential, easily adapts to different
environments, and has an expansive
native range and proven history of
increasing its nonnative range by itself
and through human-mediated activities
(Grabowska 2011). Where it is invasive,
the Amur sleeper competes with native
species for similar habitat and diet
resources (Reshetnikov 2003, Kottelat
and Freyhof 2007). This fish has also
been associated with the decline in
populations of the European
mudminnow (Umbra krameri), crucian
carp, and belica (Leucaspius delineates)
(Grabowska 2011). This species hosts
parasites that may be transmitted to
native fish species when introduced
ˇ
´
outside of its native range (Kosuthova et
ˇ
´
al. 2008, Kosuthova et al. 2009)
European Perch (Perca fluviatilis)
The European perch was first
described and cataloged by Linnaeus in
1758, and is part of the order
Perciformes and family Percidae (ITIS
2014). European perch is the preferred
common name, but this species may
also be referred to as the Eurasian perch
or redfin perch (Allen 2004, Froese and
Pauly 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Native Range and Habitat
The European perch inhabits a
temperate climate (Riehl and Baensch
1991, Froese and Pauly 2014). This
species’ native range extends
throughout Europe and regions of Asia,
including Afghanistan, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan,
Mongolia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan
(Froese and Pauly 2014k). The fish
resides in a range of habitats that
includes estuaries and freshwater lakes,
ponds, rivers, and streams (Froese and
Pauly 2014k).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The European perch has been
intentionally introduced to several
countries for recreational fishing,
including Ireland (in the 1700s),
Australia (in 1862), South Africa (in
1915), Morocco (in 1939), and Cyprus
(in 1971) (FAO 2014, Froese and Pauly
2014k). This species was introduced
intentionally to Turkey for aquaculture
(FAO 2004) and unintentionally to
Algeria when it was included in the
transport water with carp intentionally
brought into the country (Kara 2012,
Froese and Pauly 2014k). European
perch have also been introduced to
China (in the 1970s), Italy (in 1860),
New Zealand (in 1867), and Spain (no
date) for unknown reasons (FAO 2014).
In Australia, this species was first
introduced as an effort to introduce
wildlife familiar to European colonizers
(Arthington and McKenzie 1997). The
European perch was first introduced to
Tasmania in 1862, Victoria in 1868, and
to southwest Western Australia in 1892
and the early 1900s (Arthington and
McKenzie 1997). This species has now
invaded western Victoria, New South
Wales, Tasmania, Western Australia,
and South Australian Gulf Coast (NSW
DPI 2013). In the 1980s, the European
perch invaded the Murray River in
southwestern Australia (Hutchison and
Armstrong 1993).
Biology
The European perch has an average
body length of 25 cm (10 in) with a
maximum length of 60 cm (24 in)
(Kottelat and Freyhof 2007, Froese and
Pauly 2014k) and an average body
weight of 1.2 kg (2.6 lb) with a
maximum weight of 4.75 kg (10.5 lb)
(Froese and Pauly 2014k). European
perch color varies with habitat. Fish in
well-lit shallow habitats tend to be
darker, whereas fish residing in poorly
lit areas tend to be lighter. These fish
may also absorb carotenoids (nutrients
that cause color) from their diet
(crustaceans), resulting in reddishyellow color (Allen 2004). Male fish are
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
not easily externally differentiated from
female fish (Allen 2004).
The European perch lives up to 22
years (Froese and Pauly 2014k),
although the average is 6 years (Kottelat
and Freyhof 2007). This fish may
participate in short migrations prior to
spawning in February through July,
depending on latitude and altitude
(Kottelat and Freyhof 2007). Female fish
are sexually mature at 2 to 4 years and
males at 1 to 2 years (Kottelat and
Freyhof 2007).
The European perch is a generalist
predator with a diet of zooplankton,
macroinvertebrates (such as copepods
and crustaceans), and small fish
(Kottelat and Freyhof 2007, Froese and
Pauly 2014k).
The European perch can also carry the
OIE-notifiable disease epizootic
haematopoietic necrosis (EHN) virus
(NSW DPI 2013). Several native
Australian fish (including the silver
perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) and Murray
cod (Maccullochella peelii)) are
extremely susceptible to the virus and
have had significant population
declines over the past decades with the
continued invasion of European perch
(NSW DPI 2013).
Invasiveness
The European perch has been
introduced to many new regions
through fish stocking for recreational
use. The nonnative range has also
expanded as the fish has swum to new
areas through connecting waterbodies
(lakes, river, and streams within the
same watershed). In New South Wales,
Australia, these fish are a serious pest
and are listed as Class 1 noxious species
(NSW DPI 2013). These predatory fish
have been blamed for the local
extirpation of the mudminnow
(Galaxiella munda) (Moore 2008, ISSG
2010) and depleted populations of
native invertebrates and fish (Moore
2008). This species reportedly
consumed 20,000 rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) fry from an
Australian reservoir in less than 3 days
(NSW DPI 2013). The introduction of
these fish in New Zealand and China
has severely altered native freshwater
communities (Closs et al. 2003).
European perch form dense
populations, forcing them to compete
amongst each other for a reduced food
supply. This competition results in
stunted fish that are less appealing to
the recreational fishery (NSW DPI 2013).
Zander (Sander lucioperca)
The zander was first described and
catalogued by Linnaeus in 1758, and
belongs to the order Perciformes and
family Percidae (ITIS 2014). Although
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
its preferred common name in the
United States is the zander, this fish
species is also called the pike-perch and
European walleye (Godard and Copp
2011, Froese and Pauly 2014l).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Native Range and Habitat
The zander’s native range includes
the Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea,
Aral Sea, North Sea, and Aegean Sea
basins. In Asia, this fish is native to
Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, and
Uzbekistan. In Europe, the zander is
native to much of eastern Europe
(Albania, Austria, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland,
Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia,
Ukraine, and Serbia and Montenegro)
and the Scandinavian Peninsula
(Finland, Norway, and Sweden) (Godard
and Copp 2011, Froese and Pauly
2014l). The northernmost records of
native populations are in Finland up to
64 °N (Larsen and Berg 2014).
The zander resides in brackish coastal
estuaries and freshwater rivers, lakes,
and reservoirs. The species prefers
turbid, slightly eutrophic waters with
high dissolved oxygen concentrations
(Godard and Copp 2011). The zander
can survive in salinities up to 20 parts
per thousand (ppt), but prefers
environments with salinities less than
12 ppt and requires less than 3 ppt for
reproduction (Larsen and Berg 2014).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The zander has been repeatedly
introduced outside of its native range
for recreational fishing and aquaculture
and also to control cyprinids (Godard
and Copp 2011, Larsen and Berg 2014).
This species has been introduced to
much of Europe, parts of Asia (China,
Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey), and northern
Africa (Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia).
Within Europe, the zander has been
introduced to Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Italy,
the Netherlands, Portugal, the Azores,
Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, and the
United Kingdom (Godard and Copp
2011, Froese and Pauly 2014l). In
Denmark, although the zander is native,
stocking is not permitted to prevent the
species from being introduced into lakes
and rivers where it is not presently
found and where introduction is not
desirable (Larsen and Berg 2014).
The zander has been previously
introduced to the United States.
Juvenile zanders were stocked into
Spiritwood Lake (North Dakota) in 1989
for recreational fishing (Fuller et al.
1999, Fuller 2009, USGS NAS 2014).
Although previous reports indicated
that zanders did not become established
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
in Spiritwood Lake, there have been
documented reports of captured
juvenile zanders from this lake (Fuller
2009). In 2009, the North Dakota Game
and Fish Department reported a small,
established population of zanders
within Spiritwood Lake (Fuller 2009),
and a zander caught in 2013 was
considered the State record (North
Dakota Game and Fish 2013).
Biology
The zander has an average body
length of 50 cm (1.6 ft) and maximum
body length of 100 cm (3.3 ft). The
maximum published weight is 20 kg (44
lb) (Froese and Pauly 2014l). The zander
has a long, slender body with yellowgray fins and dark bands running from
the back down each side (Godard and
Copp 2011).
The zander’s age expectancy is
inversely correlated to its body growth
rate. Slower-growing zanders may live
up to 20 to 24 years, whereas fastergrowing fish may live only 8 to 9 years
(Godard and Copp 2011). Female
zanders typically spawn in April and
May and produce approximately 150 to
400 eggs per gram of body mass. After
spawning, male zanders protect the nest
and fan the eggs with their tails (Godard
and Copp 2011).
The zander is piscivorous, and its diet
includes smelt (Osmerus eperlanus),
ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus),
European perch, vendace (Coregonus
albula), roach, and other zanders
(Kangur and Kangur 1998).
Several studies have found that
zanders can be hosts for multiple
parasites (Godard and Copp 2011). The
nematode Anisakis, which is known to
infect humans through fish
consumption, has been documented in
the zander (Eslami and Mokhayer 1977,
Eslami et al. 2011). A study in the
Polish section of Vistula Lagoon found
26 species of parasites associated with
the zander, which was more than any of
the other 15 fish species studied
(Rolbiecki 2002, 2006).
Invasiveness
The zander has been intentionally
introduced numerous times for
aquaculture, recreational fishing, and
occasionally for biomanipulation to
remove unwanted cyprinids (Godard
and Copp 2011). Biomanipulation is the
management of an ecosystem by adding
or removing species. The zander
migrates for spawning, which further
expands its invasive range. It is a
predatory fish that is well-adapted to
turbid water and low-light habitats
˚
¨
(Sandstrom and Karas 2002). The zander
competes with and preys on native fish.
The zander is also a vector for the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67873
trematode Bucephalus polymorphus,
which has been linked to a decrease in
native French cyprinid populations
(Kvach and Mierzejewska 2011).
Wels Catfish (Silurus glanis)
The wels catfish was first described
and cataloged by Linnaeus in 1758, and
belongs to the order Siluriformes and
family Siluridae (ITIS 2014). The
preferred common name is the wels
catfish, but this fish is also called the
Danube catfish, European catfish, and
sheatfish (Rees 2012, Froese and Pauly
2014m).
Native Range and Habitat
The wels catfish inhabits a temperate
climate (Baensch and Riehl 2004). The
species is native to eastern Europe and
western Asia, including the North Sea,
Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, and
Aral Sea basins (Rees 2012, Froese and
Pauly 2014m). The species resides in
slow-moving rivers, backwaters, shallow
floodplain channels, and heavily
vegetated lakes (Kottelat and Freyhof
2007). The wels catfish has also been
found in brackish water of the Baltic
and Black Seas (Froese and Pauly
2014m). The species is a demersal
(bottom-dwelling) species that prefers
residing in crevices and root habitats
(Rees 2012).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The wels catfish was introduced to
the United Kingdom and western
Europe during the 19th century. The
species was first introduced to England
in 1880 for recreational fishing at the
private Bedford manor estate of Woburn
Abbey. Since then, wels catfish have
been stocked both legally and illegally
into many lakes and are now widely
distributed throughout the United
Kingdom (Rees 2012). This species was
introduced to Spain, Italy, and France
for recreational fishing and aquaculture
(Rees 2012). Wels catfish were
introduced to the Netherlands as a
substitute predator to control cyprinid
fish populations (De Groot 1985) after
the native pike were overfished. The
wels catfish has also been introduced to
Algeria, Belgium, Bosnia-Hercegovina,
China, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark,
Finland, Portugal, Syria, and Tunisia,
although they are not known to be
established in Algeria or Cyprus (Rees
2012).
Biology
The wels catfish commonly grows to
3 m (9.8 ft) in body length with a
maximum length of 5 m (16.4 ft) and is
Europe’s largest freshwater fish (Rees
2012). The maximum published weight
is 306 kg (675 lb) (Rees 2012).
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
67874
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
This species has a strong, elongated,
scaleless, mucus-covered body with a
flattened tail. The body color is variable
but is generally mottled with dark
greenish-black and creamy-yellow sides.
Wels catfishes possess six barbels; two
long ones on each side of the mouth,
and four shorter ones under the jaw
(Rees 2012).
Although the maximum reported age
is 80 years (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007),
the average lifespan of a wels catfish is
15 to 30 years. This species becomes
sexually mature at 3 to 4 years of age.
Nocturnal spawning occurs annually
and aligns with optimal temperature
and day length between April and
August (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007, Rees
2012). The number of eggs produced per
female, per year is highly variable, and
depends on age, size, geographic
location, and other factors. Studies in
Asia have documented egg production
of a range of approximately 8,000 to
467,000 eggs with the maximum
reported being 700,000 eggs (Copp et al.
2009). Male fish will guard the nest,
repeatedly fanning their tails to ensure
proper ventilation until the eggs hatch
2 to 10 days later (Copp et al. 2009).
Young catfish develop quickly and, on
average, achieve a 38- to 48-cm (15- to
19-in) total length within their first year
(Copp et al. 2009).
This species is primarily nocturnal
and will exhibit territorial behavior
(Copp et al. 2009). The wels catfish is
a solitary ambush predator but is also an
opportunistic scavenger of dead fish
(Copp et al. 2009). Juvenile catfish
typically eat invertebrates. Adult catfish
are generalist predators with a diet that
includes fish (at least 55 species),
crayfish, small mammals (such as
rodents), and waterfowl (Copp et al.
2009, Rees 2012). Wels catfish have
been observed beaching themselves to
prey on land birds located on river
banks (Cucherousset 2012).
Juvenile wels catfish can carry the
highly infectious SVC (Hickley and
Chare 2004). This disease is recognized
worldwide and is classified as a
notifiable animal disease by the World
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE
2014). The wels catfish is also a host to
at least 52 parasites, including:
Trichodina siluri, Myxobolus miyarii,
Leptorhynchoides plagicephalus and
Pseudotracheliastes stellifer, all of
which may be detrimental to native fish
survival (Copp et al. 2009).
Invasiveness
The wels catfish is a habitat-generalist
that tolerates poorly oxygenated waters
and has been repeatedly introduced to
the United Kingdom and western
Europe for aquaculture, research, pest
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
control, and recreational fishing (Rees
2012). Although this species has been
intentionally introduced for aquaculture
and fishing, it has also expanded its
nonnative range by escaping from
breeding and stocking facilities (Rees
2012). This species is tolerant of a
variety of warm-water habitats,
including those with low dissolved
oxygen levels. The invasive success of
the wels catfish will likely be further
enhanced with the predicted increase in
water temperature with climate change
(2 to 3 °C by 2050) (Rahel and Olden
2008, Britton et al. 2010a).
The major risks associated with
invasive wels catfish to the native fish
population include disease transmission
(SVC) and competition for habitat and
prey species (Rees 2012). This fish
species also excretes large amounts of
phosphorus and nitrogen (estimated 83to 286-fold and 17- to 56-fold,
ˆ
respectively) (Bouletreau et al. 2011)
into the ecosystem and consequently
greatly disrupts nutrient cycling and
transport (Schaus et al. 1997, McIntyre
ˆ
et al. 2008, Bouletreau et al. 2011).
Because of their large size, multiple
wels catfish in one location magnify
these effects and can greatly increase
ˆ
algae and plant growth (Bouletreau et al.
2011), which reduces water quality.
Common Yabby (Cherax destructor)
Unlike the 10 fish in this rule, the
yabby is a crayfish. Crayfish are
invertebrates with hard shells. They can
live and breathe underwater, and they
crawl along the substrate on four pairs
of walking legs (Holdich and Reeve
1988); the pincers are considered
another pair of walking legs. The
common yabby was first described and
cataloged by Clark in 1936 and belongs
to the phylum Arthropoda, order
Decapoda, and family Parastacidae (ITIS
2014). This freshwater crustacean may
also be called the yabby or the common
crayfish. The term ‘‘yabby’’ is also
commonly used for crayfish in
Australia.
Native Range and Habitat
The common yabby is native to
eastern Australia and extends from
South Australia, northward to southern
parts of the Northern Territory, and
eastward to the Great Dividing Range
(Eastern Highlands) (Souty-Grosset et al.
2006, Gherardi 2012).
The common yabby inhabits
temperate and tropical climates. In
aquaculture, the yabby tolerates the
wide range of water temperatures from
1 to 35 °C (34 to 95 °F), with an optimal
water temperature range of 20 to 25 °C
(68 to 77 °F) (Withnall 2000). Growth
halts below 15 °C (59 °F) and above 34
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
°C (93 °F), partial hibernation
(decreased metabolism and feeding)
occurs below 16 °C (61 °F), and death
occurs when temperatures rise above 36
°C (97 °F) (Gherardi 2012). The common
yabby can also survive drought for
several years by sealing itself in a deep
burrow (burrows well over 5 m; 16.4 ft
have been found) and aestivating (the
crayfish’s respiration, pulse, and
digestion nearly cease) (NSW DPI 2015).
This species can tolerate a wide range
of dissolved oxygen concentrations and
salinities (Mills and Geddes 1980) but
prefers salinities less than 8 ppt
(Withnall 2000, Gherardi 2012). Growth
ceases at salinities above 8 ppt
(Withnall 2000). This correlates with
Beatty’s (2005) study where all yabbies
found in waters greater than 20 ppt were
dead. Yabbies have been found in ponds
where the dissolved oxygen was below
1 percent saturation (NSW DPI 2015).
The common yabby resides in a
variety of habitats, including desert
mound springs, alpine streams,
subtropical creeks, rivers, billabongs
(small lake, oxbow lake), temporary
lakes, swamps, farm dams, and
irrigation channels (Gherardi 2012). The
yabby is found in mildly turbid waters
and muddy or silted bottoms. The
common yabby digs burrows that
connect to waterways (Withnall 2000).
Burrowing can result in unstable and
collapsed banks (Gherardi 2012).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The common yabby is commercially
valuable and is frequently imported by
countries for aquaculture, aquariums,
and research (Gherardi 2012); it is raised
in aquaculture as food for humans
(NSW DPI 2015). This species has
spread throughout Australia, and its
nonnative range extends to New South
Wales east of the Great Dividing Range,
Western Australia, and Tasmania. This
crayfish species was introduced to
Western Australia in 1932 for
commercial aquaculture from where it
escaped and established in rivers and
irrigation dams (Souty-Grosset et al.
2006). Outside of Australia, this species
has been introduced into Italy and
Spain where it has become established
(Gherardi 2012). The common yabby has
been introduced to China, South Africa,
and Zambia for aquaculture (Gherardi
2012) but has not become established in
the wild in those countries. The first
European introduction occurred in
1983, when common yabbies were
transferred from a California farm to a
pond in Girona, Catalonia, Spain
(Souty-Grosset et al. 2006). This crayfish
species became established in Zaragoza
Province, Spain, after being introduced
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
in 1984 or 1985 (Souty-Grosset et al.
2006).
Biology
The common yabby has been
described as a ‘‘baby lobster’’ because of
its relatively large body size for a
crayfish and because of its unusually
large claws. Yabbies have a total body
length up to 15 cm (6 in) with a smooth
external carapace (exoskeleton) (SoutyGrosset et al. 2006, Gherardi 2012).
Body color can vary with geographic
location, season, and water conditions
(Withnall 2000). Most captive-cultured
yabbies are blue-gray, whereas wild
yabbies may be green-beige to black
(Souty-Grosset et al. 2006, Withnall
2000). Yabbies in the aquarium trade
can be blue or white and go by the
names blue knight and white ghost
(LiveAquaria.com 2014a, b).
Most common yabbies live 3 years
with some living up to 6 years (SoutyGrosset et al. 2006, Gherardi 2012).
Females can be distinguished from
males by the presence of gonopores at
the base of the third pair of walking
legs; while males have papillae at the
base of the fifth pair of walking legs
(Gherardi 2012). The female yabby
becomes sexually mature before it is 1
year old (Gherardi 2012). Spawning is
dependent on day length and water
temperatures. When water temperatures
rise above 15 °C (59 °F), the common
yabby will spawn from early spring to
mid-summer. When the water
temperature is consistently between 18
and 20 °C (64 to 68 °F) with daylight of
more than 14 hours, the yabby will
spawn up to five times a year (Gherardi
2012). Young females produce 100 to
300 eggs per spawning event, while
older (larger) females can produce up to
1,000 eggs (Withnall 2000). Incubation
is also dependent on water temperature
and typically lasts 19 to 40 days
(Withnall 2000).
The common yabby grows through
molting, which is shedding of the old
carapace and then growing a new one
(Withnall 2000). A juvenile yabby will
molt every few days, whereas, an adult
yabby may molt only annually or
semiannually (Withnall 2000).
The common yabby is an
opportunistic omnivore with a
carnivorous summer diet and
herbivorous winter diet (Beatty 2005).
The diet includes fish (Gambusia
holbrooki), plant material, detritus, and
zooplankton. The yabby is also
cannibalistic, especially where space
and food are limited (Gherardi 2012).
The common yabby is affected by at
least ten parasites (Jones and Lawrence
2001), including the crayfish plague
(caused by Aphanomyces astaci), burn
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
spot disease, Psorospermium sp. (a
parasite), and thelohaniasis (Jones and
Lawrence 2001, Souty-Grosset et al.
2006, Gherardi 2012). The crayfish
plague is an OIE-reportable disease.
Twenty-three bacteria species have been
found in the yabby as well (Jones and
Lawrence 2001).
Invasiveness
The common yabby has a quick
growth and maturity rate, high
reproductive potential, and generalist
diet. These attributes, in addition to the
species’ tolerance for a wide range of
freshwater habitats, make the common
yabby an efficient invasive species.
Additionally, the invasive range of the
common yabby is expected to expand
with climate change (Gherardi 2012).
Yabbies can also live on land and travel
long distances by walking between
water bodies (Gherardi 2011).
The common yabby may reduce
biodiversity through competition and
predation with native species. In its
nonnative range, the common yabby has
proven to out-compete native crayfish
species for food and habitat (Beatty
2006, Gherardi 2012). Native freshwater
crayfish species are also at risk from
parasitic infections from the common
yabby (Gherardi 2012).
Summary of the Presence of the 11
Species in the United States
Only one of the 11 species, the
zander, is known to be present in the
wild within the United States. There has
been a small established population of
zander within Spiritwood Lake (North
Dakota) since 1989. Crucian carp were
reportedly introduced to Chicago lakes
and lagoons during the early 1900s.
Additionally, Nile perch were
introduced to Texas reservoirs between
1978 and 1985. However, neither the
crucian carp nor the Nile perch
established populations, and these two
species are no longer present in the wild
in U.S. waters. Although these species
are not yet present in the United States
(except for one species in one lake), all
11 species have a high climate match in
parts of the United States and have been
introduced, become established, spread,
and been documented as causing harm
in countries outside of their native
ranges in habitats and ecosystems
similar to those found in the United
States. Acting now to prohibit both their
importation and interstate
transportation and thereby prevent the
species’ likely introduction,
establishment, and spread in the wild
and associated harm to the interests of
agriculture or to wildlife or wildlife
resources of the United States is critical.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67875
Rapid Screening
The first step that the Service
performed in selecting species to
evaluate for listing as injurious was to
prepare a rapid screen to assess which
species out of thousands of foreign
species not yet found in the United
States should be categorized as high-risk
of invasiveness. We compiled the
information in Ecological Risk
Screening Summaries (ERSS) for each
species to determine the Overall Risk
Assessment of each species.
The Overall Risk Assessment
incorporates scores for the history of
invasiveness, climate match between
the species’ range (native and invaded
ranges) and the United States, and
certainty of assessment.
The climate match analysis
(Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences
2010) incorporates 16 climate variables
(eight for rainfall and eight for
temperature) to calculate climate scores
that can be used to calculate a Climate
6 ratio. The Climate 6 score (or ratio) is
determined by this formula: (Sum of the
Counts for Climate Match Scores 6–10)/
(Sum of all Climate Match Scores). This
ratio was shown to be the best predictor
of success of introduction of exotic
freshwater fish (Bomford 2008). Using
the Climate 6 ratio, species can be
categorized as having a low (0.000 to
0.005), medium (greater than 0.005 to
less than 0.103), or high (greater than
0.103) climate match (Bomford 2008;
USFWS 2013b).
The climate match score is a
calculation that ranges from 0 to 10. It
compares the 16 climate variables as
one point (source climate station) to
another point (target station). The
equation calculates a figurative
‘‘distance’’ between every source and
target station, then selects the highest
score (best match and closest
‘‘distance’’). This distance is then
normalized on a score from 0 to 10 to
make it easier to understand and to
calculate ratios. The 16 climate
parameters used to estimate the extent
of climatically matched habitat in the
CLIMATE program are in Table 1
(Bomford et al. 2010).
TABLE 1—THE CLIMATE PARAMETERS
USED IN THE CLIMATE PROGRAM
Temperature
parameters
(°C)
Rainfall parameters
(mm)
Mean annual .............
Minimum of coolest
month.
Maximum of warmest
month.
Mean annual.
Mean of wettest
month.
Mean of driest month.
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
67876
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
carp has been introduced and become
TABLE 1—THE CLIMATE PARAMETERS to the United States ranged from
established in Croatia, Greece, France,
USED IN THE CLIMATE PROGRAM— medium for the Nile perch to high for
the remaining nine fish and one crayfish Italy, and England (Crivelli 1995,
Continued
Rainfall parameters
(mm)
Average range ..........
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Temperature
parameters
(°C)
species. The certainty of assessment
(with sufficient and reliable
information) was high for all species.
Mean monthly coefficient of variation.
Mean of coolest quarter.
Mean of warmest
quarter.
Mean of wettest quarter.
Mean of driest quarter.
Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria
Once we determined that all 11
species were good candidates for further
Mean of coolest quarand more in-depth evaluation because
ter.
of their overall invasive risk, we used
Mean of warmest
the criteria below to evaluate whether
quarter.
each of these species qualifies as
Mean of wettest quarter.
injurious under the Act. The analysis
Mean of driest quarter
using these criteria serve as a general
basis for the Service’s injurious wildlife
listing decisions. Biologists within the
We use Climate 6 scores because that
Service evaluate both the factors that
system was peer reviewed (Bomford
contribute to and the factors that reduce
2008). In Bomford’s seminal risk
the likelihood of injuriousness:
assessment manual, she stated, ‘‘The
(1) Factors that contribute to being
generic model is based on Climate 6 (as
considered injurious:
opposed to Climate 5, 7 or 8), since
• The likelihood of release or escape;
Climate 6 was shown to be the best
• Potential to survive, become
predictor of success of introduction,’’
established, and spread;
referring to exotic freshwater fish. We
• Impacts on wildlife resources or
believe that the categorical system
ecosystems through hybridization and
provided by generating and using the
competition for food and habitats,
Climate 6 Ratio is effective for our
habitat degradation and destruction,
current needs. For more information on
predation, and pathogen transfer;
how the climate match scores are
• Impacts to endangered and
derived, please see the revised Standard threatened species and their habitats;
Operating Procedures (USFWS 2016).
• Impacts to human beings, forestry,
As explained in the proposed rule, the horticulture, and agriculture; and
Service expanded the source ranges
• Wildlife or habitat damages that
(native and nonnative distribution) of
may occur from control measures.
(2) Factors that reduce the likelihood
several species for the climate match
of the species being considered as
from those listed in the ERSSs. The
injurious:
revised source ranges included
• Ability to prevent escape and
additional locations referenced in
establishment;
FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2014), the
• Potential to eradicate or manage
CABI ISC, and the Handbook of
established populations (for example,
European Freshwater Fishes (Kottelat
making organisms sterile);
and Freyhof 2007). Additional source
• Ability to rehabilitate disturbed
points were also specifically selected for
ecosystems;
the stone moroko’s distribution within
• Ability to prevent or control the
the United Kingdom (Pinder et al. 2005).
spread of pathogens or parasites; and
There were no revisions to the climate
• Any potential ecological benefits to
match for the Nile perch, Amur sleeper,
introduction.
or common yabby. The target range for
For this final rule, a hybrid is defined
the climate match included the States,
as any progeny (offspring) from any
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto
cross involving a parent from 1 of the
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
11 species. These progeny would likely
The ERSS process was peer-reviewed
have the same or similar biological
in 2013 per OMB guidelines (OMB
characteristics of the parent species
2004). More information on the ERSS
(Ellstrand and Schierenbeck 2000,
process and its peer review is posted
Mallet 2007), which, according to our
online at https://www.fws.gov/
analysis, would indicate that they are
injuriouswildlife/Injurious_
injurious to the interests of agriculture,
prevention.html, https://www.fws.gov/
science/pdf/ERSS-Process-Peer-Review- or to wildlife or wildlife resources of the
United States.
Agenda-12-19-12.pdf, and https://
www.fws.gov/science/pdf/ERSS-PeerFactors That Contribute to
Review-Response-report.pdf.
Injuriousness for Crucian Carp
The Overall Risk Assessment was
Current Nonnative Occurrences
found to be high for all 11 species. All
11 species have a high risk for history
This species is not currently found
of invasiveness. Overall climate match
within the United States. The crucian
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Kottelat and Freyhof 2007).
Potential Introduction and Spread
Potential pathways of introduction
into the United States include stocking
for recreational fishing and through
misidentified shipments of ornamental
fish (Wheeler 2000, Hickley and Chare
2004, Innal and Erk’ahan 2006, Sayer et
al. 2011). Additionally, crucian carp
may be misidentified as other carp
species, such as the Prussian carp or
common carp, and thus they are likely
underreported (Godard and Copp 2012).
The crucian carp prefers a temperate
climate (as found in much of the United
States) and tolerates high summer air
temperatures (up to 35 °C (95 °F)) and
can survive in poorly oxygenated waters
(Godard and Copp 2012). The crucian
carp has an overall high climate match
with a Climate 6 ratio of 0.355. This
species has a high climate match
throughout much of the Great Lakes
region, southeastern United States, and
southern Alaska and Hawaii. Low
matches occur in the desert Southwest.
If introduced, the crucian carp is
likely to spread and become established
in the wild due to its ability to be a
habitat and diet generalist and adapt to
new environments, its long lifespan
(maximum 10 years), and its ability to
establish outside of the native range.
Potential Impacts to Native Species
(including Threatened and Endangered
Species)
As mentioned previously, the crucian
carp can compete with native fish
species, alter the health of freshwater
habitats, hybridize with other invasive
and injurious carp species, and serve as
a vector of the OIE-reportable fish
disease SVC (Ahne et al. 2002, Godard
and Copp 2012). The introduction of
crucian carp to the United States could
result in increased competition with
native fish species for food resources
(Welcomme 1988). The crucian carp
consumes a variety of food resources,
including plankton, benthic
invertebrates, plant materials, and
detritus (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007).
With this varied diet, crucian carp
would directly compete with numerous
native species.
The crucian carp has a broad climate
match throughout the country, and thus
its introduction and establishment
could further stress the populations of
numerous endangered and threatened
amphibian and fish species through
competition for food resources.
The ability of crucian carp to
hybridize with other species of
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Cyprinidae (including common carp)
may exacerbate competition over
limited food resources and ecosystem
changes and, thus, further challenge
native species (including native
threatened or endangered fish species).
Crucian carp harbor the fish disease
SVC and additional parasitic infections.
Although SVC also infects other carp
species, the virus causing this disease
can also be transmitted through the
water column to native fish species
causing fish mortalities. Mortality rates
from SVC have been documented up to
70 percent among juvenile fish and 30
percent among adult fish (Ahne et al.
2002). Therefore, as a vector of SVC, this
fish species may also be responsible for
reduced wildlife diversity. Crucian carp
may outcompete native fish species,
thus replacing them in the trophic
scheme. Large populations of crucian
carp can result in considerable
predation on aquatic plants and
invertebrates. Changes in ecosystem
cycling and wildlife diversity may have
negative effects on the aesthetic,
recreational, and economic benefits of
the environment.
kill native species. Control measures
that would harm other wildlife are not
recommended as mitigation plans to
reduce the injurious characteristics of
this species and, therefore, do not meet
control measures under the Injurious
Wildlife Evaluation Criteria.
No other control methods are known
for the crucian carp, but several other
control methods are currently being
used or are in development for
introduced and invasive carp species of
other genera. For example, the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) is developing
a method to orally deliver a piscicide
(Micromatrix) specifically to invasive
bighead carp and silver carp (Luoma
2012). This developmental control
measure is expensive and not
guaranteed to prove effective for any
carps.
Potential Impacts to Humans
Current Nonnative Occurrences
We have no reports of the crucian
carp being directly harmful to humans.
This species is not currently found
within the United States. The Eurasian
minnow was introduced to new
waterways in its native range of Europe
and Asia (Sandlund 2008). This fish
species also has been introduced
outside of its native range to new
locations within Norway (Sandlund
2008, Hesthagen and Sandlund 2010).
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The introduction of crucian carp is
likely to affect agriculture by
contaminating commercial aquaculture.
This fish species can harbor SVC, which
can infect numerous fish species,
including common carp, koi (C. carpio),
crucian carp, bighead carp
(Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), silver
carp, and grass carp (Ahne et al. 2002).
This disease can cause serious fish
mortalities, and thus can detrimentally
affect the productivity of several species
in commercial aquaculture facilities,
including grass carp, goldfish, koi,
fathead minnows (Pimephales
promelas), and golden shiner
(Notemigonus crysoleucas) (Ahne et al.
2002, Goodwin 2002).
Factors That Reduce or Remove
Injuriousness for Crucian Carp
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Control
Lab experiments indicate that the
piscicide rotenone (a commonly used
natural fish poison) could be used to
control a crucian carp population (Ling
2003). However, rotenone is not targetspecific (Wynne and Masser 2010).
Depending on the applied
concentration, rotenone kills other
aquatic species in the water body. Some
fish species are more susceptible than
others, and the use of this piscicide may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Potential Ecological Benefits for
Introduction
We are not aware of any documented
ecological benefits for the introduction
of crucian carp.
Factors That Contribute to
Injuriousness for Eurasian Minnow
Potential Introduction and Spread
Likely pathways of introduction
include release or escape when used as
live bait, unintentional inclusion in the
transport water of intentionally stocked
fish (often with salmonids), and
intentional introduction for vector
(insect) management (Sandlund 2008).
Once introduced, this species can
spread and establish in nearby
waterways.
The Eurasian minnow prefers a
temperate climate (Froese and Pauly
2014e). This minnow is capable of
establishing in a variety of aquatic
ecosystems ranging from freshwater to
brackish water (Sandlund 2008). The
Eurasian minnow has an overall high
climate match to the United States with
a Climate 6 ratio of 0.397. The highest
climate matches are in the northern
States, including Alaska. The lowest
climate matches are in the Southeast
and Southwest.
If introduced to the United States, the
Eurasian minnow is highly likely to
spread and become established in the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67877
wild due to this species’ traits as a
habitat generalist and generalist
predator, with adaptability to new
environments, high reproductive
potential, long lifespan, extraordinary
mobility, social nature, and proven
invasiveness outside of the species’
native range.
Potential Impacts to Native Species
(including Endangered and Threatened
Species)
Introduction of the Eurasian minnow
can affect native species through several
mechanisms, including competition
over resources, predation, and parasite
transmission. Introduced Eurasian
minnows have a more serious effect in
waters with fewer species than those
waters with a more developed, complex
fish community (Museth et al. 2007). In
Norway, dense populations of the
Eurasian minnow have resulted in an
average 35 percent reduction in
recruitment and growth rates in native
brown trout (Museth et al. 2007). In the
United States, introduced Eurasian
minnow populations would likely
compete with and adversely affect
Atlantic salmon, State-managed brown
trout, and other salmonid species.
Eurasian minnow introductions have
also disturbed freshwater benthic
invertebrate communities (N#stad and
Brittain 2010). Increased predation by
Eurasian minnows has led to shifts in
invertebrate populations and changes in
benthic diversity (Hesthagen and
Sandlund 2010). Many of the
invertebrates consumed by the Eurasian
minnow are also components of the diet
of the brown trout, thus exacerbating
competition between the introduced
Eurasian minnow and brown trout
(Hesthagen and Sandlund 2010).
Additionally, Eurasian minnows have
been shown to consume vendace (a
salmonid) larvae (Huusko and Sutela
1997). If introduced, the Eurasian
minnow’s diet may include the larvae of
U.S. native salmonids, including salmon
and trout species (Oncorhynchus and
Salvelinus spp.).
The Eurasian minnow serves as a host
to parasites, such as Gyrodactylus
aphyae, that it can transmit to other fish
species, including salmon and trout
(Zietara et al. 2008). Once introduced,
these parasites would likely spread to
native salmon and trout species.
Depending on pathogenicity, parasites
of the Gyrodactylus species may cause
high fish mortality (Bakke et al. 1992).
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the Eurasian
minnow being harmful to humans.
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
67878
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The Eurasian minnow may impact
agriculture by affecting aquaculture.
This species harbors a parasite that may
infect other fish species and can cause
high fish mortality (Bakke et al. 1992).
Eurasian minnow populations can
adversely impact both recruitment and
growth of brown trout. Reduced
recruitment and growth rates can reduce
the economic value associated with
brown trout aquaculture and
recreational fishing.
Factors That Reduce or Remove
Injuriousness for Eurasian Minnow
Control
Once introduced, it is difficult and
costly to control a Eurasian minnow
population (Sandlund 2008).
Eradication may be possible from small
waterbodies in cases where the
population is likely to serve as a center
for further spread, but no details are
given on how to accomplish such
eradication (Sandlund 2008). Control
may also be possible using habitat
modification or biocontrol (introduced
predators); however, we know of no
published accounts of long-term success
by either method. Both control measures
of habitat modification and biocontrol
cause wildlife or habitat damages and
are expensive mitigation strategies and,
therefore, are not recommended or
considered appropriate under the
Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria as
a risk management plan for this species.
Potential Ecological Benefits for
Introduction
There has been one incidence where
the Eurasian minnow was introduced as
a biocontrol for the Tune fly
(Simuliidae) (Sandlund 2008). However,
we do not have information on the
success of this introduction. We are not
aware of any other documented
ecological benefits associated with the
Eurasian minnow.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Factors That Contribute to
Injuriousness for Prussian Carp
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This species is not found within the
United States. However, it was recently
reported to be established in waterways
in southern Alberta, Canada, which is
the first confirmed record in the wild in
North America (Elgin et al. 2014). The
Prussian carp has been introduced to
many countries of central and Western
Europe. This species’ current nonnative
range includes the Asian countries of
Armenia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan and
the European countries of Belarus,
Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, France, Germany, Poland, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Switzerland (Britton 2011); it also
includes the Iberian Peninsula (Ribeiro
et al. 2015).
Potential Introduction and Spread
Potential pathways of introduction
include stocking for recreational fishing
and aquaculture. Once introduced, the
Prussian carp will naturally disperse to
new waterbodies.
The Prussian carp prefers a temperate
climate and resides in a variety of
freshwater environments, including
those with low dissolved oxygen
concentrations and increased pollution
(Britton 2011). The Prussian carp has an
overall high climate match with a
Climate 6 ratio of 0.414. This fish
species has a high climate match to the
Great Lakes region, northern Plains,
some western mountain States, and
parts of California. The Prussian carp
has a medium climate match to much of
the United States, including southern
Alaska and regions of Hawaii. This
species has a low climate match to the
southeastern United States, especially
Florida and along the Gulf Coast. This
species is not found within the United
States but has been recently discovered
as established in Alberta, Canada (Elgin
et al. 2014); the climate match was run
prior to this new information, so the
results do not include any actual
locations in North America.
If introduced, the Prussian carp is
likely to spread and establish as a
consequence of its tolerance to poorquality environments, rapid growth rate,
very rare ability to reproduce from
unfertilized eggs (gynogenesis), and
proven invasiveness outside of the
native range.
Potential Impacts to Native Species
(including Threatened and Endangered
Species)
The Prussian carp is closely related
and behaviorally similar to the crucian
carp (Godard and Copp 2012). As with
crucian carp, introduced Prussian carp
may compete with native fish species,
alter freshwater ecosystems, and serve
as a vector for parasitic infections.
Introduced Prussian carp have been
responsible for the decreased
biodiversity and overall populations of
native fish (including native
Cyprinidae), invertebrates, and plants
(Anseeuw et al. 2007, Lusk et al. 2010).
Thus, if introduced to the United States,
the Prussian carp will likely affect
numerous native Cyprinid species,
including chub, dace, shiner, and
minnow fish species (Froese and Pauly
2014c). Several of these native
Cyprinids, such as the laurel dace
(Chrosomus saylori) and humpback
chub (Gila cypha), are listed as
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act.
Prussian carp can alter freshwater
habitats. This was documented in Lake
Mikri Prespa (Greece), where scientists
correlated increased turbidity with
increased numbers of Prussian carp
(Crivelli 1995). This carp species
increased turbidity levels by disturbing
sediment during feeding. These carp
also intensively fed on zooplankton,
thus resulting in increased
phytoplankton abundance and
phytoplankton blooms (Crivelli 1995).
Increased turbidity results in
imbalances in nutrient cycling and
ecosystem energetics. If introduced to
the United States, Prussian carp could
cause increased lake and pond turbidity,
increased phytoplankton blooms,
imbalances to ecosystem nutrient
cycling, and altered freshwater
ecosystems.
Several different types of parasitic
infections, such as black spot disease
(Posthodiplostomatosis) and from the
parasite Thelohanellus, are associated
ˇ
´
with the Prussian carp (Ondrackova et
´
al. 2002, Markovıc et al. 2012). Black
spot disease particularly affects young
fish and can cause physical
deformations, decreased growth, and
ˇ
´
decrease in body condition (Ondrackova
et al. 2002). These parasites and the
respective diseases may infect and
decrease native fish stocks.
Prussian carp may compete with
native fish species and may replace
them in the trophic scheme. Large
populations of Prussian carp can cause
heavy predation on aquatic plants and
invertebrates (Anseeuw et al. 2007).
Changes in ecosystem cycling and
wildlife diversity may have negative
effects on the aesthetic, recreational,
and economic benefits of the
environment.
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the Prussian
carp being harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The Prussian carp may impact
agriculture by affecting aquaculture. As
mentioned in the Potential Impacts to
Native Species section, Prussian carp
harbor several types of parasites that
may cause physical deformations,
decreased growth, and decrease in body
ˇ
´
condition (Ondrackova et al. 2002).
Impaired fish physiology and health
detract from the productivity and value
of commercial aquaculture.
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Factors That Reduce or Remove
Injuriousness for Prussian Carp
Control
We are not aware of any documented
control methods for the Prussian carp.
The piscicide rotenone has been used to
control the common carp and crucian
carp population (Ling 2003) and may be
effective against Prussian carp.
However, rotenone is not target-specific
(Wynne and Masser 2010). Depending
on the applied concentration, rotenone
kills other aquatic species in the water
body. Some fish species are more
susceptible than others, and, even if
effective against Prussian carp, the use
of this piscicide may kill native species
(Allen et al. 2006). Control measures
that would harm other wildlife are not
recommended as mitigation to reduce
the injurious characteristics of this
species and, therefore, do not meet
control measures under the Injurious
Wildlife Evaluation Criteria.
Potential Ecological Benefits for
Introduction
We are not aware of any documented
ecological benefits for the introduction
of the Prussian carp.
Factors That Contribute to
Injuriousness for Roach
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This species is not found in the
United States. The roach has been
introduced and become established in
England, Ireland, Italy, Madagascar,
Morocco, Cyprus, Portugal, the Azores,
Spain, and Australia (Rocabayera and
Veiga 2012).
Potential Introduction and Spread
Potential introduction pathways
include stocking for recreational fishing
and use as bait fish. Once introduced,
released, or escaped, the roach naturally
disperses to new waterways within the
watershed.
This species prefers a temperate
climate and can reside in a variety of
freshwater habitats (Riehl and Baensch
1991). Hydrologic changes, such as
weirs and dams that extend aquatic
habitats that are otherwise scarce,
enhance the potential spread of the
roach (Rocabayera and Veiga 2012). The
roach has an overall high climate match
to the United States with a Climate 6
ratio of 0.387. Particularly high climate
matches occurred in southern and
central Alaska, the Great Lakes region,
and the western mountain States. The
Southeast and Southwest have low
climate matches.
If introduced, the roach is likely to
spread and establish due to its highly
adaptive nature toward habitat and diet
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
choice, high reproductive potential,
ability to reproduce with other cyprinid
species, long lifespan, and extraordinary
mobility. This species has also proven
invasive outside of its native range.
Potential Impacts to Native Species
(including Endangered and Threatened
Species)
Potential effects to native species from
the introduction of the roach include
competition over food and habitat
resources, hybridization, altered
ecosystem nutrient cycling, and parasite
and pathogenic bacteria transmission.
The roach is a highly adaptive species
and will switch between habitats and
food sources to best avoid predation and
competition from other species
(Winfield and Winfield 1994). The
roach consumes an omnivorous
generalist diet, including benthic
invertebrates (especially mollusks),
zooplankton, plants, and detritus
(Rocabayera and Veiga 2012). With such
a varied diet, the roach would be
expected to compete with numerous
native fish species from multiple
trophic levels. The trophic level is the
position an organism occupies in a food
chain. Such species may include
shiners, daces, chubs, and stonerollers,
several of which are federally listed as
endangered or threatened.
Likewise, introduction of the roach
would be expected to detrimentally
affect native mollusk species (including
mussels and snails), some of which may
be federally endangered or threatened.
One potentially affected species is the
endangered Higgins’ eye pearly mussel
(Lampsilis higginsii), which is native to
the upper Mississippi River watershed,
where there is high climate match for
the roach species. Increased competition
with and predation on native species
may alter trophic cycling and diversity
of native aquatic species.
The roach can hybridize with other
fish species of its subfamily
(Leuciscinae), including rudd and
bream (Pitts et al. 1997, Kottelat and
Freyhof 2007). In Ireland, the roach has
hybridized with the rudd (Scardinius
erythrophthalmus) and the bream
(Abramis brama); all three are in the
subfamily Leuciscinae. Although the
bream is not found in the United States,
the rudd is already considered invasive
in the Great Lakes (Fuller et al. 1999,
Kapuscinski et al. 2012). Hybrids of
roaches and rudds could exacerbate the
potential adverse effects (competition)
of each separate species (Rocabayera
and Veiga 2012). Furthermore, the roach
will likely be able to hybridize with
some U.S. native species in the same
subfamily, which includes minnows.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67879
Large populations of the roach may
alter nutrient cycling in lake
ecosystems. Increased populations of
roach may prey heavily on zooplankton,
thus resulting in increased
phytoplankton communities and algal
blooms (Rocabayera and Veiga 2012).
These changes alter nutrient cycling and
can consequently affect native aquatic
species that depend on certain nutrient
balances.
Several parasitic infections, including
worm cataracts, black spot disease, and
tapeworms, have been associated with
the roach (Rocabayera and Veiga 2012).
The pathogenic bacterium Aeromonas
salmonicida also infects the roach,
causing furunculosis (Wiklund and
Dalsgaard 1998). This disease causes
skin ulcers and hemorrhaging. The
disease can be spread through a fish’s
open sore. This disease affects both
farmed and wild fish. The causative
bacteria A. salmonicida has been
isolated from fish in U.S. freshwaters
(USFWS 2011). The roach may spread
these parasites and bacteria to new
environments and native fish species.
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the roach being
harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The roach may affect agriculture by
decreasing aquaculture productivity if
they are unintentionally introduced into
aquaculture operations in the United
States, such as when invaded
watersheds flood aquaculture ponds or
by accidentally being included in a
shipment of fish, then outcompeting
and preying on the aquacultured fish,
spreading pathogens, or hybridizing
with farmed fish. Hybridization can
reduce the reproductive success and
productivity of the commercial fisheries
and aquaculture facilities.
Roaches harbor several parasitic
infections (Rocabayera and Veiga 2012)
that can impair fish physiology and
health. The pathogenic bacterium
Aeromonas salmonicida infects the
roach, causing furunculosis (Wiklund
and Dalsgaard 1998). The disease can be
spread through a fish’s open sore when
the bacteria is shed from the ulcerated
skin and survives in water to infect
another fish. Introduction and spread of
parasites and pathogenic bacterium to
an aquaculture facility can result in
increased incidence of fish disease and
mortality and decreased productivity
and value.
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
67880
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Factors That Reduce or Remove
Injuriousness for Roach
Control
An introduced roach population
would be difficult to control
(Rocabayera and Veiga 2012).
Application of the piscicide rotenone
may be effective for limited populations
of small fish. However, rotenone is not
target-specific (Wynne and Masser
2010). Depending on the applied
concentration, rotenone kills other
aquatic species in the water body. Some
fish species are more susceptible than
others, and the use of this piscicide may
kill native species. Control measures
that would harm other wildlife are not
recommended as mitigation to reduce
the injurious characteristics of this
species and, therefore, do not meet
control measures under the Injurious
Wildlife Evaluation Criteria.
Potential Ecological Benefits for
Introduction
We are not aware of any documented
ecological benefits for the introduction
of the roach.
Factors That Contribute to
Injuriousness for Stone Moroko
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This fish species is not found within
the United States. The stone moroko has
been introduced and become
established throughout Europe and
Asia. Within Asia, this fish species is
invasive in Afghanistan, Armenia, Iran,
Kazakhstan, Laos, Taiwan, Turkey, and
Uzbekistan (Copp 2007). In Europe, this
fish species’ nonnative range includes
Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Czech Republic, Denmark, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, the
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia,
Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United
Kingdom (Copp 2007). The stone
moroko’s nonnative range also includes
Algeria and Fiji (Copp 2007).
Potential Introduction and Spread
The primary introduction pathways
are as unintentional inclusion in the
transport water of intentionally stocked
fish shipments for both recreational
fishing and aquaculture, released or
escaped bait, and released or escaped
ornamental fish. Once introduced, the
stone moroko naturally disperses to new
waterways within a watershed. Since
the 1960s, this fish has invaded nearly
every European country and many
Asian countries (Copp et al. 2005).
The stone moroko inhabits a
temperate climate (Baensch and Riehl
1993) and a variety of freshwater
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
habitats, including those with poor
dissolved oxygen concentrations (Copp
2007). The stone moroko has an overall
high climate match to the United States
with a Climate 6 ratio of 0.557. This
species has a high or medium climate
match to most of the United States. The
highest matches are in the Southeast,
Great Lakes, central plains, and West
Coast.
If introduced, the stone moroko is
highly likely to establish and spread.
This fish species is a habitat generalist
and diet generalist and is quick growing,
highly adaptable to new environments,
and highly mobile. Additionally, the
stone moroko has proven invasive
outside of its native range (Copp 2007,
Kottelat and Freyhof 2007, Witkowski
2011, Yalc(n-Ozdilek et al. 2013).
¸ ¨
Potential Impacts to Native Species
(including Endangered and Threatened
Species)
In much of the stone moroko’s
nonnative range, the introduction of this
species has been linked to the decline
of native freshwater fish species (Copp
2007). The stone moroko could
potentially adversely affect native
species through predation, competition,
disease transmission, and altering
freshwater ecosystems (Witkowski
2011).
Stone moroko introductions have
mostly originated from unintentional
inclusion in the transport water of
intentionally stocked fish species. In
many stocked ponds, the stone moroko
actually outcompetes the farmed fish
species for food resources, which results
in decreased production of the farmed
fish (Witkowski 2011). The stone
moroko’s omnivorous diet includes
insects, fish, fish eggs, molluscs,
planktonic crustaceans, algae (Froese
and Pauly 2014g), and plants (Kottelat
and Freyhof 2007). With this diet, the
stone moroko would compete with
many native U.S. freshwater fish,
including minnow, dace, sunfish, and
darter species.
In the United Kingdom, Italy, China,
and Russia, the introduction of the stone
moroko correlates with dramatic
declines in native fish populations and
species diversity (Copp 2007). The stone
moroko first competes with native fish
for food resources and then predates on
the eggs, larvae, and juveniles of these
same native fish species (Pinder 2005,
Britton et al. 2007). In England, where
stone morokos were introduced, they
dominated the fish community quickly,
and the other fish species exhibited
decreased growth rates and
reproduction, as well as shifts in their
trophic levels (Britton et al. 2010b).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The stone moroko is a vector of the
pathogenic, rosette-like agent
Sphaerothecum destruens (Gozlan et al.
2005, Pinder et al. 2005), which is a
documented pathogen of farmed and
wild European fish. The stone moroko
is a healthy host for this nonspecific
pathogen that could threaten
aquaculture trade, including that of
salmonids (Gozlan et al. 2009). This
pathogen infects a fish’s internal organs
causing spawning failure, organ failure,
and death (Gozlan et al. 2005). This
pathogen has been documented as
infecting the sunbleak (Leucaspius
delineatus), which are native to eastern
Europe, and Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Atlantic
salmon, and the fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas), all three of
which are native to the United States
(Gozlan et al. 2005).
The stone moroko consumes large
quantities of zooplankton. The declines
in zooplankton population results in
increased phytoplankton populations,
which in turn causes algal blooms and
unnaturally high nutrient loads
(eutrophication). These changes can
cause imbalanced nutrient cycling,
decrease dissolved oxygen
concentrations, and adversely impact
the health of native aquatic species.
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the stone
moroko being harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The stone moroko may affect
agriculture by decreasing aquaculture
productivity. This species often
contaminates farmed fish stocks and
competes with the farmed species for
food resources, resulting in decreased
aquaculture productivity (Witkowski
2011). The stone moroko is an
unaffected carrier of the pathogenic,
rosette-like agent Sphaerothecum
destruens (Gozlan et al. 2005, Pinder et
al. 2005). This pathogen is transmitted
through water and causes reproductive
failure, disease, and death to farmed
fish. This pathogen is not speciesspecific and has been known to infect
cyprinid and salmonid fish species.
Sphaerothecum destruens is responsible
for disease outbreaks in North American
salmonids and causes mortality in both
juvenile and adult fish (Gozlan et al.
2009). If this pathogen was introduced
to an aquaculture facility, it is likely to
spread and infect numerous fish,
resulting in high mortality. Further
research is needed to ascertain this
pathogen’s prevalence in the wild
environment (Gozlan et al. 2009).
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Factors That Reduce or Remove
Injuriousness for Stone Moroko
Control
An established, invasive stone
moroko population would be both
difficult and costly to control (Copp
2007). Additionally, this fish species
has a higher tolerance for the piscicide
rotenone than most other fish belonging
to the cyprinid group (Allen et al. 2006).
Application of rotenone for stone
moroko control may kill native aquatic
fish species. Control measures that
would harm other wildlife are not
recommended as mitigation to reduce
the injurious characteristics of this
species and, therefore, do not meet
control measures under the Injurious
Wildlife Evaluation Criteria.
Potential Ecological Benefits for
Introduction
We are not aware of any documented
ecological benefits for the introduction
of the stone moroko.
Factors That Contribute to
Injuriousness for Nile Perch
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This species is not currently found
within the United States. The Nile perch
is invasive in the Kenyan, Tanzanian,
and Ugandan watersheds of Lake
Victoria and Lake Kyoga (Africa). This
species has also been introduced to
Cuba (Welcomme 1988).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Potential Introduction and Spread
This species was stocked in Texas
reservoirs, although this population
failed to establish (Fuller et al. 1999,
Howells 2001). However, with
continued release events, we anticipate
that the Nile perch is likely to establish
in parts of the United States, including
the Southeast, Southwest, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.
Likely introduction pathways include
use for aquaculture and recreational
fishing. Over the past 60 years, the Nile
perch has invaded, established, and
become the dominant fish species
within this species’ nonnative African
range (Witte 2013).
The Nile perch prefers a tropical
climate and can inhabit a variety of
freshwater and brackish habitats (Witte
2013). The Nile perch has an overall
medium climate match to the United
States with a Climate 6 ratio of 0.038.
Of the 11 species in this rule, the Nile
perch has the only overall medium
climate match. However, this fish
species has a high climate match to the
Southeast (Florida and Gulf Coast),
Southwest (California), Hawaii, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
If introduced into the United States,
the Nile perch is likely to establish and
spread due to this species’ nature as a
habitat generalist and generalist
predator, long lifespan, quick growth
rate, high reproductive potential,
extraordinary mobility, and proven
invasiveness outside of the species’
native range (Witte 2013, Asila and
Ogari 1988, Ribbinick 1982).
Potential Impacts to Native Species
(including Endangered and Threatened
Species)
Potential impacts of introduction of
the Nile perch include outcompeting
and preying on native species, altering
habitats and trophic systems, and
disrupting ecosystem nutrient cycling.
The Nile perch can produce up to 15
million eggs per breeding cycle (Asila
and Ogari 1988), likely contributing to
this species’ efficiency and effectiveness
in establishing an introduced
population.
Historical evidence from the Lake
Victoria (Africa) basin indicate that the
Nile perch outcompeted and preyed on
at least 200 endemic fish species,
leading to their extinction (Kaufman
1992, Snoeks 2010, Witte 2013). Many
of the affected species were
haplochromine cichlid fish species, and
the populations of native lung fish
(Protopterus aethiopicus) and catfish
species (Bagrus docmak, Xenoclarias
eupogon, Synodontis victoria) also
witnessed serious declines (Witte 2013).
By the late 1980s, only three fish
species, including the cyprinid
Rastrineobolas argentea and the
introduced Nile perch and Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus), were common
in Lake Victoria (Witte 2013).
The haplochromine cichlid species
comprised 15 subtrophic groups with
varied food (detritus, phytoplankton,
algae, plants, mollusks, zooplankton,
insects, prawns, crabs, fish, and
parasites) and habitat preferences (Witte
and Van Oijen 1990, Van Oijen 1996).
The depletion of so many fish species
has drastically altered the Lake Victoria
ecosystem’s trophic-level structure and
biodiversity. These changes resulted in
abnormally high lake eutrophication
and frequency of algal blooms (Witte
2013).
The depletion of the native fish
species in Lake Victoria by Nile perch
led to the loss of income and food for
local villagers. Nile perch was not a
suitable replacement for traditional
fishing. Fishing for this larger species
required equipment that was
prohibitively more expensive, required
processing that could not be done by the
wife and children, required the men to
be away for extended periods, and
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67881
decreased the availability of fish for
household consumption (Witte 2013).
If introduced to the United States,
Nile perch are expected to prey on small
native fish species, such as
mudminnows, cyprinids, sunfishes, and
darters. Nile perch would likely prey
on, compete with, and decrease the
species diversity of native cyprinid fish.
Nile perch are expected to compete with
larger native fish species, including
largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides) and smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieu), blue catfish
(Ictalurus furcatus), channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus), and flathead
catfish (Pyodictis olivaris). These native
fish species are not only economically
important to both commercial and
recreational fishing, but are integral
components of freshwater ecosystems.
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the Nile perch
being harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
We are not aware of any reported
effects to agriculture. However, Nile
perch may affect aquaculture if they are
unintentionally introduced into
aquaculture operations in the United
States, such as when invaded
watersheds flood aquaculture ponds or
by accidentally being included in a
shipment of fish, by outcompeting and
preying on the aquacultured fish.
Factors That Reduce or Remove
Injuriousness for Nile Perch
Control
Nile perch grow to be large fish with
a body length of 2 m (6 ft) and
maximum weight of 200 kg (440 lb)
(Ribbinick 1987). Witte (2013) notes that
this species would be difficult and
costly to control. We are not aware of
any documented reports of successfully
controlling or eradicating an established
Nile perch population.
Potential Ecological Benefits for
Introduction
We are not aware of any documented
ecological benefits for the introduction
of the Nile perch.
Factors That Contribute to
Injuriousness for the Amur Sleeper
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This species has not been reported
within the United States. The Amur
sleeper is invasive in Europe and Asia
in the countries of Belarus, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania,
Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Russia, and
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
67882
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Mongolia (Froese and Pauly 2014j,
Grabowska 2011).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Potential Introduction and Spread
Although the Amur sleeper has not
yet been introduced to the United
States, the likelihood of introduction,
release, or escape is high as evidenced
by the history of introduction over a
broad geographic region of Eurasia.
Since its first introduction outside of its
native range in 1916, the Amur sleeper
has invaded 15 Eurasian countries and
become a widespread, invasive fish
throughout European freshwater
ecosystems (Copp et al. 2005,
Grabowska 2011). The introduction of
the Amur sleeper has been attributed to
release and escape of aquarium and
ornamental fish, unintentional and
intentional release of Amur sleepers
used for bait, and the unintentional
inclusion in the transport water of
intentionally stocked fish (Reshetnikov
2004, Grabowska 2011, Reshetnikov and
Ficetola 2011).
Once this species has been
introduced, it has proven to be capable
of establishing (Reshetnikov 2004). The
established populations can have rapid
rates of expansion. Upon introduction
into the Vistula River in Poland, the
Amur sleeper expanded its range by 44
km (27 mi) the first year and up to 197
km (122 mi) per year thereafter
(Grabowska 2011).
Most aquatic species are constrained
in distribution by temperature,
dissolved oxygen levels, and lack of
flowing water. However, the Amur
sleeper has a wide water temperature
preference (Baensch and Riehl 2004),
can live in poorly oxygenated waters,
and may survive in dried-out or frozen
water bodies by burrowing into and
hibernating in the mud (Grabowska
2011). The Amur sleeper has an overall
high climate match to the United States
with a Climate 6 ratio of 0.376. The
climate match is highest in the Great
Lakes region (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota),
central and high Plains (Iowa, Nebraska,
and Missouri), western mountain States
(South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana,
Wyoming, and Colorado), and central to
eastern Alaska.
If introduced, the Amur sleeper
would be expected to establish and
spread in the wild due to this species’
ability as a habitat generalist, generalist
predator, rapid growth, high
reproductive potential, adaptability to
new environments, extraordinary
mobility, and a history of invasiveness
outside of the native range.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Potential Impacts to Native Species
(including Endangered and Threatened
Species)
The Amur sleeper is a voracious
generalist predator whose diet includes
crustaceans, insects, and larvae of
mollusks, fish, and amphibian tadpoles
(Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002,
Reshetnikov 2008). Increased predation
with the introduction of the Amur
sleeper has resulted in decreased
species richness and decreased
population of native fish (Grabowska
2011). In some areas, the Amur sleeper’s
eating habits have been responsible for
the dramatic decline in juvenile fish and
amphibian species (Reshetnikov 2003).
Amur sleepers prey on juvenile stages
and can cause decreased reproductive
success and reduced populations of the
native fish and amphibians (Mills et al.
2004). Declines in lower trophic-level
populations (invertebrates) also result in
increased competition among native
predatory fish, including the European
mudminnow (Umbra krameri)
(Grabowska 2011).
Two species similar to the European
mudminnow, the eastern mudminnow
(Umbra pygmaea) and the central
mudminnow (Umbra limi), are native to
the eastern United States. Both of these
species are integral members of
freshwater ecosystems, with the eastern
mudminnow ranging from New York to
Florida (Froese and Pauly 2014n), and
the central mudminnow residing in the
freshwater of the Great Lakes, Hudson
Bay, and Mississippi River basins
(Froese and Pauly 2014o). Introduced
Amur sleepers could prey on and
reduce the population of native U.S.
mudminnow species.
The introduction or establishment of
the Amur sleeper is also expected to
reduce native wildlife biodiversity. In
the Selenga River (Russia), the Amur
sleeper competes with the native
Siberian roach (Rutilus rutilus lacustris)
and Siberian dace (Leuciscus leuciscus
baicalensis) for food resources. This
competition results in decreased
populations of native fish species,
which may result in economic losses
and negative effects on commercial
fisheries (Litvinov and O’Gorman 1996,
Grabowska 2011).
Species similar to Siberian roach and
Siberian dace that are native to the
United States include those of the genus
Chrosomus, such as the blackside dace
(Chrosomus cumberlandensis), northern
redbelly dace (C. eos), southern redbelly
dace (C. erythrogaster), and Tennessee
dace (C. tennesseensis). Like with the
Siberian roach and the Siberian dace,
introduced populations of the Amur
sleeper may compete with native dace
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
fish species, resulting in population
declines of these native species.
Additionally, the Amur sleeper
harbors parasites, including
Nippotaenia mogurndae and
Gyrodactylus perccotti. The
introduction of the Amur sleeper has
resulted in the simultaneous
introduction of both parasites to the
Amur sleeper’s nonnative range. These
parasites have expanded their own
nonnative range and successfully
infected new hosts of native fish species
ˇ
´
(Kosuthova et al. 2008).
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of Amur sleeper
being harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The Amur sleeper may affect
agriculture by decreasing aquaculture
productivity. This fish species hosts
parasites, including Nippotaenia
mogurndae and Gyrodactylus perccotti.
These parasites may switch hosts
ˇ
´
(Kosuthova et al. 2008) and infect
farmed species involved in aquaculture.
Increased parasite load impairs a fish’s
physiology and general health, and
consequently may decrease aquaculture
productivity.
Factors That Reduce or Remove
Injuriousness for Amur Sleeper
Control
Once introduced and established, it
would be difficult, if not impossible, to
control or eradicate the Amur sleeper.
All attempts to eradicate the Amur
sleeper once it had established a
reproducing population have been
unsuccessful (Litvinov and O’Gorman
1996). Natural predators include pike,
snakeheads, and perch (Bogutskaya and
Naseka 2002). Not all freshwater
systems have these or similar predatory
species, and thus would allow the Amur
sleeper population to be uncontrolled.
Some studies have indicated that the
Amur sleeper may be eradicated by
adding calcium chloride (CaCl2) or
ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) to the
water body (Grabowska 2011). However,
this same study found that the Amur
sleeper was one of the most resistant
fish species to either treatment. Thus,
the use of either treatment would likely
negatively affect many other native
organisms and is not considered a viable
option. Control measures that would
harm other wildlife are not
recommended as mitigation to reduce
the injurious characteristics of this
species and, therefore, do not meet
control measures under the Injurious
Wildlife Evaluation Criteria.
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Potential Ecological Benefits for
Introduction
We are not aware of any documented
ecological benefits for the introduction
of the Amur sleeper.
Factors That Contribute to
Injuriousness for European Perch
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This fish species is not found within
the United States. The European perch
has been introduced and become
established in several countries,
including Ireland, Italy, Spain,
Australia, New Zealand, China, Turkey,
Cyprus, Morocco, Algeria, and South
Africa.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Potential Introduction and Spread
The main pathway of introduction is
through stocking for recreational
fishing. Once stocked, this fish species
has expanded its nonnative range by
swimming through connecting
waterbodies to new areas within the
same watershed.
The European perch prefers a
temperate climate (Riehl and Baensch
1991, Froese and Pauly 2014k). This
species can reside in a wide variety of
aquatic habitats ranging from freshwater
to brackish water (Froese and Pauly
2014k). The European perch has an
overall high climate match to the United
States, with a Climate 6 ratio of 0.438,
with locally high matches to the Great
Lakes region, central Texas, western
mountain States, and southern and
central Alaska. Hawaii ranges from low
to high matches. Much of the rest of the
country has a medium climate match.
If introduced to the United States, the
European perch is likely to spread and
establish in the wild as a generalist
predator that is able to adapt to new
environments and outcompete native
fish species. Additionally, this species
has proven to be invasive outside of its
native range.
Potential Impacts to Native Species
(including Threatened and Endangered
Species)
The European perch can impact
native species through outcompeting
and preying on them and by
transmitting disease. This introduced
fish species competes with other
European native species for both food
and habitat resources (Closs et al. 2003)
and has been implicated in the local
extirpation (in Western Australia) of the
mudminnow (Galaxiella munda)
(Moore 2008, ISSG 2010).
In addition to potentially competing
with the native yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), the European perch may
also hybridize with this native species,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
resulting in irreversible changes to the
genetic structure of this important
native species (Schwenk et al. 2008).
Hybridization can reduce the fitness of
the native species and, in some cases,
has resulted in drastic population
declines causing endangered
classification and even extinction
(Mooney and Cleland 2001).
Furthermore, the yellow perch has value
for both commercial and recreational
fishing and is also an important forage
fish in many freshwater ecosystems
(Froese and Pauly 2014p). Thus,
declines in yellow perch populations
can result in serious consequences for
upper trophic-level piscivorous fish.
Additionally, European perch can form
dense populations competing with each
other to the extent that they stunt their
own growth (NSW DPI 2013).
European perch prey on zooplankton,
macroinvertebrates, and fish; thus, the
introduction of this species can
significantly alter trophic-level cycling
and affect native freshwater
communities (Closs et al. 2003).
European perch are reportedly
voracious predators that consume small
Australian fish (pygmy perch
Nannoperca spp., rainbowfish (various
species), and carp gudgeons
Hypseleotris spp.); and the eggs and fry
of silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus),
golden perch (Macquaria ambigua),
Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii), and
introduced trout species (rainbow,
brook (Salvelinus fontinalis), and brown
trout (NSW DPI 2013)). In one instance,
European perch consumed 20,000
newly released nonnative rainbow trout
fry from a reservoir in southwestern
Australia in less than 72 hours (NSW
DPI 2013). Rainbow trout are native to
the western United States. If introduced
into U.S. freshwaters, European perch
would be expected to prey on rainbow
trout and other native fish.
The European perch can also harbor
and spread the viral disease Epizootic
Haematopoietic Necrosis (EHN) (NSW
DPI 2013). This virus can cause mass
fish mortalities and affects silver perch,
Murray cod, Galaxias fish, and
Macquarie perch (Macquaria
australasica) in their native habitats.
The continued spread of this virus (with
the introduction of the European perch)
has been partly responsible for
declining populations of native
Australian fish species (NSW DPI 2013).
This virus is currently restricted to
Australia but could expand its
international range with the
introduction of European perch to new
waterways where native species would
have no natural resistance.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67883
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the European
perch being harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The European perch may affect
agriculture by decreasing aquaculture
productivity. The European perch may
potentially spread the viral disease EHN
(NSW DPI 2013) to farmed fish in
aquaculture facilities. Although this
virus is currently restricted to Australia,
this disease can cause mass fish
mortalities and is known to affect other
fish species (NSW DPI 2013).
Factors That Reduce or Remove
Injuriousness for European Perch
Control
It would be extremely difficult to
control or eradicate a population of
European perch. However, Closs et al.
(2003) examined the feasibility of
physically removing (by netting and
trapping) European perch from small
freshwater environments. Although
these researchers were able to reduce
population numbers through repeated
removal efforts, European perch were
not completely eradicated from any of
the freshwater lakes. Biological controls
or chemicals might be effective;
however, they would also have lethal
effects on native aquatic species.
Control measures that would harm other
wildlife are not recommended as
mitigation to reduce the injurious
characteristics of this species and,
therefore, do not meet control measures
under the Injurious Wildlife Evaluation
Criteria.
Potential Ecological Benefits for
Introduction
We are not aware of any documented
ecological benefits for the introduction
of the European perch.
Factors That Contribute to
Injuriousness for Zander
Current Nonnative Occurrences
The zander was intentionally
introduced into Spiritwood Lake (North
Dakota) in 1989 for recreational fishing.
The North Dakota Game and Fish
Department reports that a small,
established population occurs in this
lake (Fuller 2009) and that a 32-in (81.3cm) zander was caught by an angler in
2013 (North Dakota Game and Fish
2013). This was the largest zander in the
lake reported to date, which could
indicate that the species is finding
suitable living conditions. We are not
aware of any other occurrences of
zanders within the United States. This
fish species has been introduced and
become established through much of
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
67884
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Europe, regions of Asia (China,
Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey), and Africa
(Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia). Within
Europe, zanders have established
populations in Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Italy,
the Netherlands, Portugal, the Azores,
Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, and the
United Kingdom.
Potential Introduction and Spread
The zander has been introduced to the
United States, and a small population
exists in Spiritwood Lake, North Dakota.
Primary pathways of introduction have
originated with recreational fishing and
aquaculture stocking. The zander has
also been introduced to control
unwanted cyprinids (Godard and Copp
2011). Additionally, the zander disperse
unaided into new waterways.
The zander prefers a temperate
climate (Froese and Pauly 2014l). This
species resides in a variety of freshwater
and brackish environments, including
turbid waters with increased nutrient
concentrations (Godard and Copp 2011).
The overall climate match to the United
States is high with a Climate 6 ratio of
0.374. The zander has high climate
matches in the Great Lakes region,
northern Plains, western mountain
States, and Pacific Northwest. Medium
climate matches include southern
Alaska, western mountain States,
central Plains, and mid-Atlantic and
New England regions. Low climate
matches occur in Florida, along the Gulf
Coast, and desert Southwest regions.
If introduced, the zander would likely
establish and spread as a consequence
of its nature as a generalist predator,
ability to hybridize with multiple fish
species, extraordinary mobility, long
lifespan (maximum 24 years) (Godard
and Copp 2011), and proven
invasiveness outside of the native range.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Potential Impacts to Native Species
(including Endangered and Threatened
Species)
The zander may affect native fish
species by outcompeting and preying on
them, transferring pathogens to them,
and hybridizing with them. The zander
is a top-level predator and competes
with other native piscivorous fish
species. In Western Europe, increased
competition from introduced zanders
resulted in population declines of native
northern pike and European perch
(Linfield and Rickards 1979). If
introduced to the United States, the
zander is projected to compete with
native top-level predators such as the
closely related walleye (Sander vitreus),
sauger (Sander canadensis), and
northern pike.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
The zander’s diet includes juvenile
smelt, ruffe, European perch, vendace,
roach, and other zanders (Kangur and
Kangur 1998). The zander also feeds on
juvenile brown trout and Atlantic
salmon (Jepsen et al. 2000; Koed et al.
2002). Increased predation on juvenile
and young fish disrupts the species’ life
cycle and reproductive success.
Decreased reproductive success results
in decreased populations (and
sometimes extinction) (Crivelli 1995) of
native fish species. If introduced, zander
could decrease native populations of
cyprinids (minnows, daces, and chub
species), salmonids (Atlantic salmon
and species of Pacific salmon
(Oncorhynchus spp.), and yellow perch.
The zander is a vector for the
trematode parasite Bucephalus
polymorphus (Poulet et al. 2009), which
has been linked to decreased native
cyprinid populations in France
(Lambert 1997, Kvach and Mierzejewska
2011). This parasite may infect native
cyprinid species and result in their
population declines.
The zander can hybridize with both
the European perch and Volga perch
(Sander volgensis) (Godard and Copp
2011). Our native walleye and sauger
also hybridize (Hearn 1986, Van Zee et
al. 1996, Fiss et al. 1997), providing
further evidence that species of this
genus can readily hybridize. Hence,
there is concern that zander may
hybridize with walleye (Fuller 2009)
and sauger (P. Fuller, pers. comm.
2015). Zander hybridizing with native
species could result in irreversible
changes to the genetic structure of
native species (Schwenk et al. 2008).
Hybridization can reduce the fitness of
a native species and, in some cases, has
resulted in drastic population declines
leading to endangered classification
and, in rare cases, even extinction
(Mooney and Cleland 2001).
Potential Impacts to Humans
We are not aware of any documented
reports of the zander being harmful to
humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The zander may impact agriculture by
affecting aquaculture. This species is a
vector for the trematode parasite
Bucephalus polymorphus (Poulet et al.
2009), which has been linked to
decreased native cyprinid populations
in France (Lambert 1997, Kvach and
Mierzejewska 2011). This parasite may
infect and harm native U.S. cyprinid
species involved in the aquaculture
industry.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Factors That Reduce or Remove
Injuriousness for Zander
Control
An established population of zanders
would be both difficult and costly to
control (Godard and Copp 2011). In the
United Kingdom (North Oxford Canal),
electrofishing was unsuccessful at
eradicating localized populations of
zander (Smith et al. 1996).
Potential Ecological Benefits for
Introduction
Zanders have been stocked for
biomanipulation of small planktivorous
fish (cyprinid species) in a small,
artificial impoundment in Germany to
improve water transparency with some
success (Drenner and Hambright 1999).
However, in their discussion on using
zanders for biomanipulation, Mehner et
al. (2004) state that the introduction of
nonnative predatory species, which
includes the zander in parts of Europe,
is not recommended for biodiversity
and bioconservation purposes. We are
not aware of any other documented
ecological benefits of a zander
introduction.
Factors That Contribute to
Injuriousness for Wels Catfish
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This fish species is not found in the
wild in the United States. The wels
catfish has been introduced and become
established in China; Algeria, Syria, and
Tunisia; and the European countries of
Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia,
Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France,
Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the United
Kingdom (Rees 2012).
Potential Introduction and Spread
The wels catfish has not been
introduced to U.S. ecosystems. Potential
pathways of introduction include
stocking for recreational fishing and
aquaculture. This catfish species has
also been introduced for biocontrol of
cyprinid species in Belgium and
through the aquarium and pet trade
(Rees 2012). Wels catfish were
introduced as a biocontrol for cyprinid
fish in the Netherlands, where it became
invasive (Rees 2012). Once introduced,
this fish species can naturally disperse
to connected waterways.
The wels catfish prefers a temperate
climate. This species inhabits a variety
of freshwater and brackish
environments. This species has an
overall high climate match in the United
States with a Climate 6 ratio of 0.302.
High climate matches occur in the Great
Lakes, western mountain States, West
Coast, and southern Alaska. All other
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
regions had a medium or low climate
match.
If introduced, the wels catfish is likely
to establish and spread. This species is
a generalist predator and fast growing,
with proven invasiveness outside of the
native range. Additionally, this species
has a long lifespan (15 to 30 years,
maximum of 80 years) (Kottelat and
Freyhof 2007). This species has an
extremely high reproductive rate
(30,000 eggs per kg of body weight),
with the maximum recorded at 700,000
eggs (Copp et al. 2009). The wels catfish
is highly adaptable to new warmwater
environments, including those with low
dissolved oxygen levels (Rees 2012).
The invasive success of this species is
likely to be further enhanced by
increases in water temperature expected
to occur with climate change (Rahel and
Olden 2008, Britton et al. 2010a).
Potential Impacts to Native Species
(including Threatened and Endangered
Species)
The wels catfish may affect native
species through outcompeting and
preying on native species, transferring
diseases to them, and altering their
habitats. This catfish is a giant predatory
fish (maximum 5 m (16.4 ft), 306 kg (675
lb)) (Copp et al. 2009; Rees 2012) that
will likely compete with other top
trophic-level, native predatory fish for
both food and habitat resources. Stable
isotope analysis, which assesses the
isotopes of carbon and nitrogen from
food sources and consumers to
determine trophic-level cycling,
suggests that the wels catfish has the
same trophic position as the northern
¨
pike (Syvaranta et al. 2010). Thus, U.S.
native species at risk of competition
with the wels catfish are top predatory
piscivores and may include species
such as the northern pike, walleye, and
sauger. Additionally, the wels catfish
can be territorial and unwilling to share
habitat with other fish (Copp et al.
2009).
Typically utilizing an ambush
technique but also known to be an
opportunistic scavenger (Copp et al.
2009), the wels catfish are generalist
predators and may consume native
invertebrates, fish, crayfish, eels, small
mammals, birds (Copp et al. 2009), and
amphibians (Rees 2012). In France, the
stomach contents of wels catfish
revealed a preference for cyprinid fish,
¨
mollusks, and crayfish (Syvaranta et al.
2010). Birds, amphibians, and small
mammals also contributed to the diet of
these catfish (Copp et al. 2009). This
species has been observed beaching
itself to prey on land birds on a river
bank (Cucherousset 2012). Native
cyprinid fish potentially affected
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
include native chub, dace, and minnow
fish species, some of which are federally
endangered or threatened. Native
freshwater mollusks and amphibians
may also be affected, some of which are
also federally endangered or threatened.
Increased predation on native cyprinids,
mollusks, crustaceans, and amphibians
can result in decreased species diversity
and increased food web disruption.
The predatory nature of the wels
catfish may also lead to species
extirpation (local extinction) or the
extinction of native species. In Lake
Bushko (Bosnia), the wels catfish is
linked to the extirpation of the
endangered minnow-nase
(Chondrostoma phoxinus) (Froese and
Pauly 2014m). Although nase species
are native to Europe, the subfamily
Leuciscinae includes several native U.S.
species, such as dace and shiner
species, which may be similar enough to
serve as prey for the catfish.
The wels catfish is a carrier of the
virus that causes SVC and may transmit
this virus to native fish (Hickley and
Chare 2004). The spread of SVC can
deplete native fish stocks and disrupt
the ecosystem food web. SVC
transmission would further compound
adverse effects of both competition and
predation by adding disease to alreadystressed native fish.
Additionally, this catfish species
excretes large amounts of phosphorus
and nitrogen to the freshwater
environment (Schaus et al. 1997,
McIntyre et al. 2008). In France, where
wels catfish are invasive, this large
species aggregates in groups averaging
25 individuals, thus creating the highest
biogeochemical hotspots ever reported
for freshwater systems for phosphorus
ˆ
and nitrogen (Bouletreau et al. 2011).
Excessive nutrient input can disrupt
nutrient cycling and transport
ˆ
(Bouletreau et al. 2011) that can result
in increased eutrophication, increased
frequency of algal blooms, and
decreased dissolved oxygen levels.
These decreases in water quality can
affect both native fish and mollusks.
Potential Impacts to Humans
Wels catfish can achieve a giant size,
have large mouths, and are able to beach
themselves to hunt and return to the
water. There are anecdotal reports of
exceptionally large wels catfish biting or
dragging people into the water, as well
as reports of a human body in a wels
catfish’s stomach, although it is not
known if the person was attacked or
scavenged after drowning (Der Standard
2009; Stephens 2013; National
Geographic 2014). However, we have no
documentation to confirm harm to
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67885
humans and thus do not consider that
wels catfish are injurious to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The wels catfish could impact
agriculture by affecting aquaculture. The
wels catfish may transmit the fish
disease SVC to other cyprinids (Hickley
and Chare 2004, Goodwin 2009). An
SVC outbreak could result in mass
mortalities among farmed fish stocks at
an aquaculture facility.
Factors That Reduce or Remove
Injuriousness for Wels Catfish
Control
An invasive wels catfish population
would be difficult to control or manage
(Rees 2012). We know of no effective
methods of control once this species is
introduced because of its ability to
spread into connected waterways, high
reproductive potential, generalist diet,
and longevity.
Potential Ecological Benefits for
Introduction
We are not aware of any documented
ecological benefits for the introduction
of the wels catfish.
Factors That Contribute to
Injuriousness for the Common Yabby
Current Nonnative Occurrences
The common yabby has moved
throughout Australia, and its nonnative
range extends to New South Wales east
of the Great Dividing Range, Western
Australia, and Tasmania. This crayfish
species was introduced to Western
Australia in 1932, for commercial
farming for food from where it escaped
and established in rivers and irrigation
dams (Souty-Grosset et al. 2006).
Outside of Australia, this species has
been introduced to China, South Africa,
Zambia, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland
(Gherardi 2012) for aquaculture and
fisheries (Gherardi 2012). The first
European introduction occurred in
1983, when common yabbies were
transferred from a California farm to a
pond in Girona, Catalonia (Spain)
(Souty-Grosset et al. 2006). This crayfish
species became established in Spain
after repeated introduction to the
Zaragoza Province in 1984 and 1985
(Souty-Grosset et al. 2006).
Potential Introduction and Spread
The common yabby has not
established a wild population within
the United States. Souty-Grosset et al.
(2006) indicated that the first
introduction of the common yabby to
Europe occurred with a shipment from
a California farm. However, there is no
recent information that indicates that
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
67886
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the common yabby is present or
established in the wild within
California. Primary pathways of
introduction include importation for
aquaculture, aquariums, bait, and
research. Once it is found in the wild,
the yabby can disperse on its own in
water or on land.
The common yabby prefers a tropical
climate but tolerates a wide range of
water temperatures from 1 to 35 °C (34
to 95 °F) (Withnall 2000). This crayfish
can also tolerate both freshwater and
brackish environments with a wide
range of dissolved oxygen
concentrations (Mills and Geddes 1980).
The overall climate match to the United
States was high, with a Climate 6 ratio
of 0.209 with a high climate match to
the central Appalachians and Texas.
If introduced, the common yabby is
likely to establish and spread within
U.S. waters. This crayfish species is a
true diet generalist with a diet of plant
material, detritus, and zooplankton that
varies with seasonality and availability
(Beatty 2005). Additionally, this species
has a quick growth (Beatty 2005) and
maturity rate, high reproductive
potential, and history of invasiveness
outside of the native range. The invasive
range of the common yabby is expected
to expand with climate change
(Gherardi 2012). The yabby can also
hide for years in burrows up to 5 m
(16.4 ft) deep during droughts, thus
essentially being invisible to anyone
looking to survey or control them (NSW
DPI 2015).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Potential Impacts to Native Species
(including Endangered and Threatened
Species)
Potential impacts to native species
from the common yabby include
outcompeting native species for habitat
and food resources, preying on native
species, transmitting disease, and
altering habitat. Competition between
crayfish species is often decided by
body size and chelae (pincer claw) size
(Lynas 2007, Gherardi 2012). The
common yabby has large chelae (Austin
and Knott 1996) and quick growth rate
(Beatty 2005), allowing this species to
outcompete smaller, native crayfish
species. This crayfish species will
exhibit aggressive behavior toward other
crayfish species (Gherardi 2012). In
laboratory studies, the common yabby
successfully evicted the smooth marron
(Cherax cainii) and gilgie (Cherax
quinquecarinatus) crayfish species from
their burrows (Lynas et al. 2007). Thus,
introduced common yabbies may
compete with native crustaceans for
burrowing space and, once established,
aggressively defend their territory.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
The common yabby consumes a
similar diet to other crayfish species,
resulting in competition over food
resources. However, unlike most other
crayfish species, the common yabby
switches to an herbivorous, detritus diet
when preferred prey is unavailable
(Beatty 2006). This prey-switching
allows the common yabby to
outcompete native species (Beatty
2006). If introduced, the common yabby
could affect macroinvertebrate richness,
remove surface sediment deposits
resulting in increased benthic algae, and
compete with native crayfish species for
food, space, and shelter (Beatty 2006).
Forty-eight percent of U.S. native
crayfish are considered imperiled
(Taylor et al. 2007, Johnson et al. 2013).
The yabby’s preference for small fishes,
such as eastern mosquitofish Gambusia
holbrooki (Beatty 2006), could pose a
potential threat to small native fishes.
The common yabby eats plant
detritus, algae and macroinvertebrates
(such as snails) and small fish (Beatty
2006). Increased predation pressure on
macroinvertebrates and fish may reduce
populations to levels that are unable to
sustain a reproducing population.
Reduced populations or the
disappearance of certain native species
further alters trophic-level cycling. For
instance, species of freshwater snails are
food sources for numerous aquatic
animals (fish, turtles) and also may be
used as an indicator of good water
quality (Johnson 2009). However, in the
past century, more than 500 species of
North American freshwater snails have
become extinct or are considered
vulnerable, threatened, or endangered
by the American Fisheries Society
(Johnson et al. 2013). The most
substantial population declines have
occurred in the southeastern United
States (Johnson 2009), where the
common yabby has a medium to high
climate match. Introductions of the
common yabby could further exacerbate
population declines of snail species.
In laboratory simulations, this
crayfish species also exhibited
aggressive and predatory behavior
toward turtle hatchlings (Bradsell et al.
2002). These results spurred concern
about potential aggressive and predatory
interactions in Western Australia
between the invasive common yabby
and that country’s endangered western
swamp turtle (Pseudemydura umbrina)
(Bradsell et al. 2002). There are six
freshwater turtle species that are
federally listed in the United States
(USFWS Final Environmental
Assessment 2016), all within the
yabby’s medium or high climate match.
The common yabby is susceptible to
the crayfish plague (Aphanomyces
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
astaci), which affects European crayfish
stocks (Souty-Grosset et al. 2006). North
American crayfish are known to be
chronic, unaffected carriers of the
crayfish plague (Souty-Grosset et al.
2006). However, the common yabby can
carry other diseases and parasites,
including burn spot disease
Psorospermium sp. (Jones and Lawrence
2001), Cherax destructor bacilliform
virus (Edgerton et al. 2002), Cherax
destructor systemic parvo-like virus
(Edgerton et al. 2002), Pleistophora sp.
microsporidian (Edgerton et al. 2002),
Thelohania sp. (Jones and Lawrence
2001, Edgerton et al. 2002, Moodie et al.
2003), Vavraia parastacida (Edgerton et
al. 2002), Microphallus minutus
(Edgerton et al. 2002), Polymorphus
biziurae (Edgerton et al. 2002), and
many others (Jones and Lawrence 2001,
Longshaw 2011). If introduced, the
common yabby could spread these
diseases among native crayfish species,
resulting in decreased populations and
changes in ecosystem cycling.
The common yabby digs deep
burrows (Withnall 2000). This
burrowing behavior has eroded and
collapsed dam walls for yabby farmers
(Withnall 2000). Increased erosion or
bank collapse results in increased
sedimentation, which increases
turbidity and decreases water quality.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The common yabby’s burrowing
behavior undermines levees, berms, and
earthen dams (Withnall 2000). Several
crayfish species, including the common
yabby, can live in contaminated waters
and accumulate high heavy-metal
contaminants within their tissues (King
et al. 1999, Khan and Nugegoda 2003,
Gherardi 2012, Gherardi 2011). The
contaminants can then pass on to
humans if they eat these crayfish. Heavy
metals vary in toxicity to humans,
ranging from no or little effect to
causing skin irritations, reproductive
failure, organ failure, cancer, and death
(Hu 2002, Martin and Griswold 2009).
While the common yabby may directly
impact human health by transferring
metal contaminants through
consumption (Gherardi 2012) and may
require consumption advisories, these
advisories are not expected to be more
stringent than those for crayfish species
that are not considered injurious and,
thus, we do not find that common yabby
are injurious to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The common yabby may affect
agriculture by decreasing aquaculture
productivity. The common yabby can be
host to a variety of diseases and
parasitic infections, including the
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
crayfish plague, burn spot disease,
Psorospermium sp., and thelohaniasis
(Jones and Lawrence 2001, SoutyGrosset et al. 2006). These diseases and
parasitic infections can be contagious to
other crayfish species (Vogt 1999),
resulting in impaired physiological
functions and death. Crayfish species
(such as red swamp crayfish
(Procambarus clarkii)) are involved in
commercial aquaculture, and increased
incidence of death and disease would
reduce this industry’s productivity and
value.
Factors That Reduce or Remove
Injuriousness for the Common Yabby
Control
In Europe, two nonnative populations
of the common yabby have been
eradicated by introducing the crayfish
plague. Since this plague is not known
to affect North American crayfish
species (although they are carriers), this
tactic may be effective against an
introduced common yabby population
(Souty-Grosset et al. 2006). However,
this control method is not
recommended because it could
introduce the pathogen that causes this
disease into the environment and has
the potential to mutate and harm native
crayfish. Control measures that would
harm native wildlife are not
recommended as mitigation to reduce
the injurious characteristics of this
species and, therefore, do not meet
control measures under the Injurious
Wildlife Evaluation Criteria.
Potential Ecological Benefits for
Introduction
We are not aware of any potential
ecological benefits for introduction of
the common yabby.
Conclusions for the 11 Species
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Crucian Carp
The crucian carp is highly likely to
survive in the United States. This fish
species prefers a temperate climate and
has a native range that extends through
north and central Europe. The crucian
carp has a high climate match
throughout much of the continental
United States, Hawaii, and southern
Alaska. If introduced, the crucian carp
is likely to become established and
spread due to its ability as a habitat
generalist, diet generalist, and
adaptability to new environments, long
lifespan, and proven invasiveness
outside of its native range.
The Service finds the crucian carp to
be injurious to agriculture and to
wildlife and wildlife resources of the
United States because the crucian carp:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
• Is likely to escape or be released
into the wild;
• is able to survive and establish
outside of its native range;
• is successful at spreading its range;
• has negative impacts of
competition, hybridization, and disease
transmission on native wildlife
(including endangered and threatened
species);
• has negative impacts on humans by
reducing wildlife diversity and the
benefits that nature provides; and
• has negative impacts on agriculture
by affecting aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating,
or reducing established populations of
crucian carp, controlling its spread to
new locations, or recovering ecosystems
affected by this species would be
difficult.
Eurasian Minnow
The Eurasian minnow is highly likely
to survive in the United States. This fish
species prefers a temperate climate and
has a current range (native and
nonnative) throughout Eurasia. In the
United States, the Eurasian minnow has
a high climate match to the Great Lakes
region, coastal New England, central
and high Plains, West Coast, and
southern Alaska. If introduced, the
Eurasian minnow is likely to establish
and spread due to its traits as a habitat
generalist, generalist predator,
adaptability to new environments, high
reproductive potential, long lifespan,
extraordinary mobility, social nature,
and proven invasiveness outside of its
native range.
The Service finds the Eurasian
minnow to be injurious to agriculture
and to wildlife and wildlife resources of
the United States because the Eurasian
minnow:
• Is likely to escape or be released
into the wild;
• is able to survive and establish
outside of its native range;
• is successful at expanding its range;
• has negative impacts of
competition, predation, and pathogen or
parasite transmission on native wildlife
(including endangered and threatened
species);
• has negative impacts on humans by
reducing wildlife diversity and the
benefits that nature provides; and
• has negative impacts on agriculture
by affecting aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating,
or reducing established populations of
the Eurasian minnow, controlling its
spread to new locations, or recovering
ecosystems affected by this species
would be difficult.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67887
Prussian Carp
The Prussian carp is highly likely to
survive in the United States. This fish
species prefers a temperate climate and
has a current range (native and
nonnative) that extends throughout
Eurasia. In the United States, the
Prussian carp has a high climate match
to the Great Lakes region, central Plains,
western mountain States, and
California. This fish species has a
medium climate match to much of the
continental United States, southern
Alaska, and regions of Hawaii. Prussian
carp have already established in
southern Canada near the U.S. border,
validating the climate match in northern
regions. If introduced, the Prussian carp
is likely to establish and spread due to
its tolerance to poor-quality
environments, rapid growth rate, ability
to reproduce from unfertilized eggs, and
proven invasiveness outside of its native
range.
The Service finds the Prussian carp to
be injurious to agriculture and to
wildlife and wildlife resources of the
United States because the Prussian carp:
• Is likely to escape or be released
into the wild;
• is able to survive and establish
outside of its native range;
• is successful at spreading its range;
• has negative impacts of
competition, habitat alteration,
hybridization, and disease transmission
on native wildlife (including threatened
and endangered species);
• has negative impacts on humans by
reducing wildlife diversity and the
benefits that nature provides; and
• has negative impacts on agriculture
by affecting aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or
reducing established populations of the
Prussian carp, controlling its spread to
new locations, or recovering ecosystems
affected by this species would be
difficult.
Roach
The roach is highly likely to survive
in the United States. This fish species
prefers a temperate climate and has a
current range (native and nonnative)
throughout Europe, Asia, Australia,
Morocco, and Madagascar. The roach
has a high climate match to southern
and central Alaska, regions of
Washington, the Great Lakes region, and
western mountain States, and a medium
climate match to most of the United
States. If introduced, the roach is likely
to establish and spread due to its highly
adaptive nature toward habitat and diet
choice, high reproductive potential,
ability to reproduce with other cyprinid
species, long lifespan, mobility, and
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
67888
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
proven invasiveness outside of its native
range.
The Service finds the roach to be
injurious to agriculture and to wildlife
and wildlife resources of the United
States because the roach:
• Is likely to escape or be released
into the wild;
• is able to survive and establish
outside of its native range;
• is successful at spreading its range;
• has negative impacts of
competition, predation, hybridization,
altered habitat resources, and disease
transmission on native wildlife
(including endangered and threatened
species);
• has negative impacts on humans by
reducing wildlife diversity and the
benefits that nature provides; and
• has negative impacts on agriculture
by affecting aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or
reducing established populations of the
roach, controlling its spread to new
locations, or recovering ecosystems
affected by this species would be
difficult.
Stone Moroko
The stone moroko is highly likely to
survive in the United States. This fish
species prefers a temperate climate and
has a current range (native and
nonnative) throughout Eurasia, Algeria,
and Fiji. The stone moroko has a high
climate match to the southeastern
United States, Great Lakes region,
central Plains, northern Texas, desert
Southwest, and West Coast. If
introduced, the stone moroko is likely to
establish and spread due to its traits as
a habitat generalist, diet generalist,
rapid growth rate, adaptability to new
environments, extraordinary mobility,
high reproductive potential, high
genetic variability, and proven
invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the stone moroko to
be injurious to agriculture and to
wildlife and wildlife resources of the
United States because the stone moroko
• Is likely to escape or be released
into the wild;
• is able to survive and establish
outside of its native range;
• is successful at spreading its range;
• has negative impacts of
competition, predation, disease
transmission, and habitat alteration on
native wildlife (including threatened
and endangered species);
• has negative impacts on humans by
reducing wildlife diversity and the
benefits that nature provides; and
• has negative impacts on agriculture
by affecting aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or
reducing established populations of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
stone moroko, controlling its spread to
new locations, or recovering ecosystems
affected by this species would be
difficult.
Nile Perch
The Nile perch is highly likely to
survive in the United States. This fish
species is a tropical invasive, and its
current range (native and nonnative)
includes much of central, western, and
eastern Africa. In the United States, the
Nile perch has an overall medium
climate match to the United States.
However, this fish species has a high
climate match to the Southeast,
California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. If introduced, the
Nile perch is likely to establish and
spread due to its nature as a habitat
generalist, generalist predator, long
lifespan, quick growth rate, high
reproductive potential, extraordinary
mobility, and proven invasiveness
outside of its native range.
The Service finds the Nile perch to be
injurious to the interests of wildlife and
wildlife resources of the United States
because the Nile perch:
• Is likely to escape or be released
into the wild;
• is able to survive and establish
outside of its native range;
• is successful at spreading its range;
• has negative impacts of
competition, predation, and habitat
alteration on native wildlife (including
endangered and threatened species);
and
• has negative impacts on humans by
reducing wildlife diversity and the
benefits that nature provides (including
through fisheries).
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or
reducing established populations of the
Nile perch, controlling its spread to new
locations, or recovering ecosystems
affected by this species would be
difficult.
Amur Sleeper
The Amur sleeper is highly likely to
survive in the United States. Although
this fish species’ native range only
includes the freshwaters of China,
Russia, North and South Korea, the
species has a broad invasive range that
extends throughout much of Eurasia.
The Amur sleeper has a high climate
match to the Great Lakes region, central
and high plains, western mountain
States, Maine, northern New Mexico,
and southeast to central Alaska. If
introduced, the Amur sleeper is likely to
establish and spread due to its nature as
a habitat generalist, generalist predator,
rapid growth rate, high reproductive
potential, adaptability to new
environments, extraordinary mobility,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and history of invasiveness outside of
its native range.
The Service finds the Amur sleeper to
be injurious to agriculture and to
wildlife and wildlife resources of the
United States because of the Amur
sleeper’s:
• Past history of being released into
the wild;
• ability to survive and establish
outside of its native range;
• success at spreading its range;
• negative impacts of competition,
predation, and disease transmission on
native wildlife (including endangered
and threatened species);
• negative impacts on humans by
reducing wildlife diversity and the
benefits that nature provides; and
• negative impacts on agriculture by
affecting aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or
reducing established populations of the
Amur sleeper, controlling its spread to
new locations, or recovering ecosystems
affected by this species would be
difficult.
European Perch
The European perch is highly likely to
survive in the United States. This fish
species prefers a temperate climate and
has a current range (native and
nonnative) throughout Europe, Asia,
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa,
and Morocco. In the United States, the
European perch has a medium to high
climate match to the majority of the
United States except the desert
Southwest. This species has especially
high climate matches in the
southeastern United States, Great Lakes
region, central to southern Texas,
western mountain States, and southern
to central Alaska. If introduced, the
European perch is likely to establish
and spread due to its nature as a
generalist predator, ability to adapt to
new environments, ability to
outcompete native species, and proven
invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the European perch
to be injurious to agriculture and to
wildlife and wildlife resources of the
United States because the European
perch:
• Is likely to escape or be released
into the wild;
• is able to survive and establish
outside of its native range;
• is successful at spreading its range;
• has negative impacts of
competition, predation, and disease
transmission on native wildlife
(including endangered and threatened
species);
• has negative impacts on humans by
reducing wildlife diversity and the
benefits that nature provides; and
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
• has negative impacts on agriculture
by affecting aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or
reducing established populations of the
European perch, controlling its spread
to new locations, or recovering
ecosystems affected by this species
would be difficult.
Zander
The zander is highly likely to survive
in the United States. This fish species
prefers a temperate climate and has a
current range (native and nonnative)
throughout Europe, Asia, and northern
Africa. In the United States, the zander
has a high climate match to the Great
Lakes region, northern Plains, western
mountain States, and Pacific Northwest.
Medium climate matches extend from
southern Alaska, western mountain
States, central Plains, and mid-Atlantic,
and New England regions. If introduced,
the zander is likely to establish and
spread due to its nature as a generalist
predator, ability to hybridize with other
fish species, extraordinary mobility,
long lifespan, and proven invasiveness
outside of its native range.
The Service finds the zander to be
injurious to agriculture and to wildlife
and wildlife resources of the United
States because the zander:
• Is likely to escape or be released
into the wild;
• is able to survive and establish
outside of its native range;
• is successful at spreading its range;
• has negative impacts of
competition, predation, parasite
transmission, and hybridization with
native wildlife (including endangered
and threatened species);
• has negative impacts on humans by
reducing wildlife diversity and the
benefits that nature provides; and
• has negative impacts on agriculture
by affecting aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating,
or reducing established populations of
the zander, controlling its spread to new
locations, or recovering ecosystems
affected by this species would be
difficult.
Wels Catfish
The wels catfish is highly likely to
survive in the United States. This fish
species prefers a temperate climate and
has a current range (native and
nonnative) throughout Europe, Asia,
and northern Africa. This fish species
has a high climate match to much of the
United States. Very high climate
matches occur in the Great Lakes region,
western mountain States, and the West
Coast. If introduced, the wels catfish is
likely to establish and spread due to its
traits as a generalist predator, quick
growth rate, long lifespan, high
reproductive potential, adaptability to
new environments, and proven
invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the wels catfish to
be injurious to agriculture and to
wildlife and wildlife resources of the
United States because the wels catfish:
• Is likely to escape or be released
into the wild;
• is able to survive and establish
outside of its native range;
• is successful at spreading its range;
• has negative impacts of
competition, predation, disease
transmission, and habitat alteration on
native wildlife (including endangered
and threatened species);
• has negative impacts on humans by
reducing wildlife diversity and the
benefits that nature provides; and
• has negative impacts on agriculture
by affecting aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or
reducing established populations of the
wels catfish, controlling its spread to
new locations, or recovering ecosystems
affected by this species would be
difficult.
Common Yabby
The common yabby is highly likely to
survive in the United States. This
crustacean species prefers a subtropical
climate and has a current range (native
and nonnative) that extends to
Australia, Europe, China, South Africa,
and Zambia. The common yabby has a
high climate match to the eastern
United States, Texas, and parts of
Washington. If introduced, the common
67889
yabby is likely to establish and spread
due to its traits as a diet generalist,
quick growth rate, high reproductive
potential, and proven invasiveness
outside of its native range.
The Service finds the common yabby
to be injurious to the interests of
agriculture, and to wildlife and the
wildlife resources of the United States
because the common yabby:
• Is likely to escape or be released
into the wild;
• is able to survive and establish
outside of its native range;
• is successful at spreading its range;
• has negative impacts of
competition, predation, and disease
transmission on native wildlife
(including endangered and threatened
species);
• has negative impacts on humans by
reducing wildlife diversity and the
benefits that nature provides; and
• has negative impacts on agriculture
by affecting aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or
reducing established populations of the
common yabby, controlling its spread to
new locations, or recovering ecosystems
affected by this species would be
difficult.
Summary of Injurious Wildlife Factors
Based on the Service’s evaluation of
the criteria for injuriousness,
substantive information we received
during the public comment period and
from the peer reviewers, along with
other available information regarding
the 11 species, the Service concludes
that all 11 species should be added to
the list of injurious species under the
Lacey Act.
The Service used the injurious
wildlife evaluation criteria (see
Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria)
and found that all 11 species are
injurious to wildlife and wildlife
resources of the United States and 10
are injurious to agriculture. Because all
11 species are injurious, the Service is
adding these 11 species to the list of
injurious wildlife under the Act. Table
2 shows a summary of the evaluation
criteria for the 11 species.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF INJURIOUS WILDLIFE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR 11 AQUATIC SPECIES
Factors that contribute to
being considered
injurious
Factors that reduce the
likelihood of being
injurious
Species
Nonnative occurrences
Crucian Carp .......................
Eurasian Minnow .................
Prussian Carp ......................
Roach ..................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
...............
...............
...............
...............
Jkt 238001
Potential for
introduction
and spread
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
PO 00000
...............
...............
...............
...............
Frm 00029
Impacts to
native species 1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
...............
...............
...............
...............
Fmt 4701
Direct impacts
to
humans
No
No
No
No
Sfmt 4700
.................
.................
.................
.................
Impacts to
agriculture 2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
...............
...............
...............
...............
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Control 3
No
No
No
No
.................
.................
.................
.................
Ecological
benefits for
introduction
No.
Negligible.
No.
No.
67890
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF INJURIOUS WILDLIFE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR 11 AQUATIC SPECIES—Continued
Factors that contribute to
being considered
injurious
Factors that reduce the
likelihood of being
injurious
Species
Nonnative occurrences
Stone Moroko ......................
Nile Perch ............................
Amur Sleeper ......................
European Perch ..................
Zander .................................
Wels Catfish ........................
Common Yabby ...................
1 Includes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
Potential for
introduction
and spread
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
Impacts to
native species 1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
Direct impacts
to
humans
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
Impacts to
agriculture 2
Yes ...............
No .................
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
Yes ...............
Control 3
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
Ecological
benefits for
introduction
No.
No.
No.
No.
Negligible.
No.
No.
endangered and threatened species and wildlife and wildlife resources.
includes aquaculture.
if wildlife or habitat damages may occur from control measures being proposed as mitigation.
2 Agriculture
3 Control—‘‘No’’
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Summary of Comments Received on the
Proposed Rule
Peer Review Summary
In accordance with peer review
guidance of the Office of Management
and Budget ‘‘Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review,’’ released
December 16, 2004 (OMB 2004), and
Service guidance, we solicited expert
opinion on information contained in the
October 30, 2015 (80 FR 67026),
proposed rule for 11 species and
supplemental documents from
knowledgeable individuals selected
from specialists in the relevant
taxonomic group and ecologists with
scientific expertise that includes
familiarity with one or more of the
disciplines of invasive species biology,
invasive species risk assessment,
aquatic species biology, aquaculture,
and fisheries. In 2015, we posted our
peer review plan on the Service’s
Headquarters Science Applications Web
site (https://www.fws.gov/science/peer_
review_agenda.html), explaining the
peer review process and providing the
public with an opportunity to comment
on the peer review plan. We received no
comments regarding the peer review
plan. The Service solicited independent
scientific reviewers who submitted
individual comments in written form.
We avoided using individuals who
might have strong support for or
opposition to the subject and
individuals who were likely to
experience personal gain or loss (such
as financial or prestige) because of the
Service’s decision. Department of the
Interior employees were not used as
peer reviewers.
We received responses from the three
peer reviewers we solicited:
• All three answered ‘‘yes’’ to the
following two questions of a general
nature that we posed to them: Did the
Service provide an accurate and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
adequate review and analysis of the
potential effects from the 11 species as
categorized under the injurious wildlife
evaluation criteria? Is the Service’s
analysis of the criteria logical and
supported by evidence?
• The three reviewers also answered
‘‘yes’’ to the following two questions
with one reviewer having one or more
comments on each: Does the science
used and assumptions made support the
conclusions? Did the Service cite
necessary and pertinent literature to
support their scientific analyses?
• Finally, two reviewers answered
‘‘yes’’ to these two questions, while one
answered ‘‘no’’ and provided comments:
Are the uncertainties and assumptions
clearly identified and characterized?
Are the potential implications of the
uncertainties for the technical
conclusions clearly identified?
We also requested that the reviewers
provide comments that were specific to
the proposed rule, the economic
analysis, and the environmental
assessment. We reviewed all comments
for substantive issues and any new
information they provided. We
consolidated the comments and
responses into key issues in this section.
We provided comments and responses
specifically regarding the environmental
assessment at the end of the final
environmental assessment. We revised
the final rule, economic analysis, and
environmental assessment to reflect
peer reviewer comments and new
scientific information where
appropriate.
Peer Review Comments—General (Some
Also Apply to the Environmental
Assessment)
(PR1) Comment: Selection for 11
freshwater animals is directly related to
ERSS output, which is detailed and
defendable. However, several other
species meet the same criteria as those
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
selected. Was there other criteria used to
select the 11 species for this proposed
rule? Based upon these criteria, I would
expect to see many other fish species
proposed for listing as Injurious
Wildlife Species.
Our Response: We agree that other
species are high risk that we did not
evaluate in this rule. Because of the
amount of work required to evaluate
each species and prepare the
documentation, we are not able to
evaluate all the species at one time. We
chose many species in this rule because
of their risk to the Great Lakes region
and Mississippi River Basin, which face
a widespread ecosystem crisis if native
aquatic populations collapse due to
invasions of nonnative fish, mollusks, or
crustaceans, as well as a corresponding
economic crisis if the commercial
fishing industries collapse due to the
same. We plan to evaluate and then
propose for injurious listing more of the
high-risk species as appropriate and as
our resources allow.
(PR2) Comment: What significant
impact could crucian carp have in the
United States? Hybridization with
nonnatives, such as goldfish and
common carp, may not be concerning to
resource managers. Increased turbidity
is a negative impact, but habitat types
that these fish could live in likely have
highly turbid water currently. The
largest concern and the one that makes
me support listing this species is the
documented movement of these fish as
hitchhikers in fish shipments.
Our Response: The crucian carp
possesses many of the strongest traits for
invasiveness. It is a temperate-climate
species, so it has a high climate match
in much of the United States, and it is
adaptable to different environments.
The species is capable of securing a
wide range of food, such as plankton,
benthic invertebrates, and plants. With
this varied diet, crucian carp would
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
directly compete with numerous native
species. Habitat degradation is projected
to be high, with the greatest degradation
in lakes, rivers, and streams with soft
bottom sediments. Reduced light levels
in habitats with submerged aquatic
vegetation would probably cause major
alterations in habitat. Infected crucian
carp may spread SVC to cultured fish
stocks or other cyprinids in U.S. waters
(ERSS 2014 Crucian carp). We
summarized these threats in the draft
environmental assessment (under the
Direct Effects section of Environmental
Consequences for the No Action
alternative). The ability of crucian carp
to hybridize with other cyprinids may
be more of a threat to aquacultured fish
than to native fish, but we also consider
that possibility. Because of these
combined threats we consider the
crucian carp as injurious.
(PR3) Comment: It should be
mentioned that the Prussian carp is
similar to the crucian carp and they are
also known to hybridize. Such a
situation creates added problems, so
listing both under the Lacey Act reduces
confusion with regulations or
prohibitions.
Our Response: Prussian carp are
closely related to crucian carp and
goldfish, and it is likely that they also
would hybridize with closely related
species if given the opportunity. One
paper that documents Carassius
hybridization discovered that the
species identified as gibel (or Prussian)
carp were really crucian carp (Hanfling
and Harley 2003). We are listing the
Prussian carp for other threats, and
while the listing of both species may
indeed reduce confusion with
regulations, that is not a criteria for
listing.
(PR4) Comment: A more recent paper
on the Amur sleeper that includes
mention of its introduction in more
countries than listed in the draft
environmental assessment is
Reshetnikov and Schliewen (2013).
Our Response: We have incorporated
into the rule and the final
environmental assessment the
information of the additional countries
and spread from Reshetnikov and
Schliewen (2013).
(PR5) Comment: Regarding LEMIS
(LEMIS 2016) import records (which are
used in the economic analysis), based
on my own research some species
recorded as being imported are wrongly
identified. Some of the 11 species
targeted here for Lacey Act listing may
be coming into this country from foreign
sources but identified under an
incorrect name. It would be worthwhile
to mention which of the species have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
the greatest chance of being
misidentified.
Our Response: We agree that many
species of fish, including some we are
listing with this final rule, are similar in
appearance to others and could be
misidentified on import. This could
mean that a species listed as injurious
by this rule is imported under a name
of a species that is not regulated. For
example, Crucian and Prussian carp
could be mistaken for goldfish. In fact,
one commenter noted a case where
crucian carp were advertised for sale in
Chicago’s Chinatown, but they were live
goldfish. Nile perch is similar to
barramundi (Lates calcarifer). The
Eurasian minnow superficially
resembles many other cyprinids or
minnows, as do the stone moroko and
the roach. Small wels catfish may be
mistaken for walking catfish (Clarias
spp.). The Amur sleeper may be
confused with other species of its own
family, as well as many species in the
families Eleotridae and Gobiidae. There
are more than 30 species in the genus
Cherax, and they have similar
descriptions. This comment was made
regarding the draft economic analysis,
and therefore, we looked at the effect of
misidentifications on the economic
results. However, the total numbers of
imports of any of the 11 species were so
small that misidentification is likely
insignificant for the economic impact.
With regard to the listing effectiveness,
there will be an increased risk that a
species will be introduced, established,
and spread if an injurious species is
misidentified and still brought into the
U.S. or transported across State lines,
Finally, the fact that a species we are
evaluating for listing resembles another
species (listed or not) does not affect our
final determination. Under the Lacey
Act, we do not have the authority to list
a species due to the similarity of
appearance.
(PR6) Comment: It is the
responsibility of the authors to provide
clear documentation regarding the
biology and known or potential impacts
of these species. I went to one link that
took me to a home page (www.cabi.org/
isc), and I had to search for the paper.
At a minimum, a link should go directly
to the Web site that provides the
supporting information. I prefer
citations of peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles or books. The only
reason to cite a web source is if the
information is not provided in any
published source.
Our Response: The Service has been
searching for several years for a more
efficient method to locate information
that was not published by Americans or
English-speaking authors (and, thus, not
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67891
easy for the Service to locate) on species
that are not native to the United States.
Papers may be published in journals
and reports around the world and in
many languages. One organization, CAB
International (CABI), has helped solve
this problem for us and others by
soliciting an expert to prepare a full
datasheet (report) on a particular
invasive species. This expert gathers the
available papers internationally; CABI
will professionally translate relevant
papers. The resulting datasheet is
reviewed by three other experts. Then
CABI makes the datasheet accessible
worldwide at no cost at https://
www.cabi.org/isc. We used the full
datasheets on all 11 species for basic
information and for leads to find
primary sources. We did verify with the
primary sources that we were able to
locate and that were in English. We
provided the direct links to all 11 of the
CABI datasheets to the peer reviewers.
In the Draft Environmental Assessment,
we provided the link to the CABI Web
site, but we will link directly to the
species for the final rule. Although we
are not required to provide links to all
of the sources we use, we provided a list
of references on www.regulations.gov for
this docket (FWS–HQ–FAC–2013–
0095). We also must maintain a copy of
each source for our records.
(PR7) Comment: Two reviewers noted
that the economic analysis was
redundant with the environmental
assessment. One suggested that the
economic analysis was unnecessary
because of the lack of quantitative
information.
Our Response: The economic analysis
is a stand-alone document developed to
support determinations that are required
for this rulemaking. The analysis
addresses specific topics required by
Executive Order 12866, the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), and other
mandates. We prepared the
environmental assessment in
accordance with the criteria of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The two
documents have different purposes, but
the findings are based on some of the
same information. The economic
analysis interprets the impacts in terms
of benefit-cost analysis and economic
welfare measures. The environmental
assessment describes impacts on the
human environment from the listing
action and other alternatives. At this
time, the actual injury to the United
States from these species is minimal, if
any, so only a qualitative discussion is
possible.
(PR8) Comment: Some sentences are
convoluted, and a few are potentially
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
67892
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
misleading. Clarity could be improved
by simply writing more concisely and
breaking up larger sentences.
Our Response: The commenter gave
no specific examples, but we have
strived to improve the clarity of our
sentences in the rule and supplemental
documents.
(PR9) Comment: Although not a major
problem, it should be noted that more
and more ichthyologists and fish
biologists capitalize the common names
of fishes.
Our Response: The Service chooses to
capitalize only the proper names used to
name species in rulemaking documents,
as we do for all other classes of animals.
(PR10) Comment: The wels catfish is
a large catfish. Its adult and maximum
size should be emphasized, since it is a
predator with a very large mouth. The
subsection relating to potential harm to
humans borders on sensationalism.
Neither of the supporting citations are
scientific publications.
Our Response: We can find no
scientific documentation of human
attacks. However, we mention the
species’ potentially giant size, large
mouth, predatory nature, and ability to
beach itself and then return to the water
as traits that collectively provide the
means to harm humans. While we
mention the anecdotal reports, we have
no documentation to confirm harm to
humans and thus do not consider wels
catfish injurious to humans.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Peer Review Comments—Ecological
Risk Screening Summaries
(PR11) Comment: A reviewer
expressed difficulty in finding more
information in the rule and
supplemental documents regarding the
rapid screening (ERSS) method. The
reviewer located the standard operating
procedures for the rapid screening as
cited in the draft environmental
assessment but found it not sufficiently
informative. For example, the 16 climate
variables were not explained. The
authors should explain what a Climate
6 ratio is.
Our Response: We have added the 16
climate variables in Table 1 under the
heading ‘‘Rapid Screening’’ above, as
well as other information on the rapid
screening method, particularly on
climate matching (Climate 6 ratio). In
addition, we revised the ‘‘Standard
Operating Procedures: Rapid Screening
of Species Risk of Establishment and
Impact in the U.S.’’ (USFWS 2014) to be
more complete and comprehensible
(USFWS 2016).
(PR12) Comment: The authors cite
Bomford (2008) with regard to climate
match. Did they use the adjustments
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Bomford mentions for evaluating fish or
aquatic organisms?
Our Response: We assume that the
reviewer is talking about Bomford’s
algorithm for Australia (Bomford 2008).
We did not use that algorithm, which
includes the raw Climate 6 score, along
with other factors. Instead, we use only
the Climate 6 score, which Bomford said
was shown to be the best predictor of
success of introduction (Howeth et al.
2016).
(PR13) Comment: It would be
worthwhile to mention for any of the 11
species which native species are most
closely related or similar and thus may
be impacted or even replaced.
Our Response: A species does not
need to be closely related or similar to
affect or even replace another. However,
in response to this comment, we have
added relevant information in the rule
and in the environmental assessment
wherever we had such information
available.
Public Comments Summary
We reviewed all 20 comments we
received during the 60-day public
comment period (80 FR 67026; October
30, 2015) for substantive issues and new
information regarding the proposed
designation of the 11 species as
injurious wildlife.
We received comments from State
agencies, regional and U.S.–Canada
governmental alliances, commercial
businesses, industry associations,
conservation organizations,
nongovernmental organizations, and
private citizens. One comment came
from Zambia, and two were anonymous.
Comments received provided a range of
opinions on the proposed listing: (1)
Unequivocal support for the listing with
no additional information included; (2)
unequivocal support for the listing with
additional information provided; (3)
equivocal support for the listing with or
without additional information
included; and (4) unequivocal
opposition to the listing with additional
information included. One comment
was about an unrelated subject and
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
We received public comments
specifically on the rule, but no
comments specifically addressing the
environmental assessment or the
economic analysis. Some commenters
addressed the eight questions we posed
in the proposed rule. We consolidated
comments and responses into key issues
in this section.
Public Comments—General
(1) Comment: Comments from several
alliances and governmental
organizations representing the Great
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Lakes States and the Canadian Province
of Ontario strongly support the listing of
the 11 species. In addition, the States of
Michigan and New York also support
the listing as proposed. New York DEC
states, ‘‘A unified approach between
state, regional and federal actions is the
most effective way to protect the Great
Lakes Basin from AIS.’’ The State of
Louisiana also supports the listing.
Our Response: The Service
appreciates the affirmation that listing
the 11 species will benefit these
widespread and cross-border
jurisdictions.
(2) Comment: A representative of
public zoos and aquaria requests to
continue working with the Service’s
permitting office to ensure that members
can obtain injurious wildlife permits for
educational and scientific purposes in a
timely fashion for these species.
Our Response: The Service will
continue to work with this organization
and others in the permitting process for
educational and scientific purposes, and
in accordance with our regulations, as
we have in the past.
(3) Comment: A commenter suggests
more information could be provided on
the level of additional assessment
beyond the ERSS report that is required
for a national management action, such
as injurious wildlife listing. For
example, a strong and explicit risk
management component, particularly
one involving stakeholders, is lacking.
Our Response: Injurious wildlife
listing is a regulatory action (adds to or
changes an existing regulation). The
Service’s regulatory decision is based on
our injurious wildlife listing criteria,
which include components of risk
assessment and risk management. By
using these criteria, the Service
evaluates factors that contribute to or
remove the likelihood of a species
becoming injurious to the interests
identified under 18 U.S.C. 42.
(4) Comment: A commenter requests
additional explanation of the types of
species that warrant injurious species
listing be added to the Service’s Web
site with careful evaluation of the
proposed criteria to avoid the potential
to set unwarranted precedent or
generate other unintended
consequences.
Our Response: The types of species
we may list as injurious under our
authority are wild mammals, wild birds,
fish, mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians,
reptiles, and the offspring, eggs, or
hybrids of any of the aforementioned,
which are injurious to human beings, to
the interests of agriculture, horticulture,
forestry, or to the wildlife or wildlife
resources of the United States. The
Service uses its Injurious Wildlife
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Evaluation Criteria to evaluate whether
a species does or does not qualify as
injurious under the Act. This
information is posted on https://
www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/
index.html.
(5) Comment: A commenter states that
many regulations involving aquatic
species already exist with individual
States. The State of Florida, for example,
has been conducting risk assessments
on species of concern for decades. These
studies have produced significant data
that may be useful in the Federal
process.
Our Response: The Service welcomes
any such risk assessment from the
States. The public comment period is an
excellent time to submit such
documents because the information can
be used to develop the final rule.
However, we received no risk
assessments for the 11 species during
this public comment period.
(6) Comment: A commenter states that
the barramundi was selected for
aquaculture in Iowa, Florida, and
Massachusetts despite being a high-risk
species as defined in the ‘‘Generic
Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms Risk
Analysis Review Process’’ (ANSTF
1996). They justified this action by
explaining that the species is a
sustainable seafood choice and that the
production facilities must be indoors.
The organization offers assistance to the
Service to obtain information for other
species that could be cultured in the
United States.
Our Response: The Service
understands the need for the
aquaculture industry to provide
sustainable seafood choices. The species
mentioned in the comment is not one of
the proposed species and will not be
affected by this final rule. We selected
the 11 proposed species because they
were high-risk for invasiveness and
because they are not yet cultured in the
United States or, in the case of the Nile
perch (a relative of the barramundi), in
very limited culture. Therefore, the
economic effect on the industry would
be negligible if any. We developed the
ERSS process to assist the industry with
selecting species for culturing that are
low-risk to the environment, and we
encourage any entity that has a need to
import a species not yet commonly in
U.S. trade to select low-risk species to
help avoid unforeseen consequences.
(7) Comment: The Service recently
sought public comment on changes to
the procedures used by the public to
develop and submit petitions to list
species under the authority granted by
the Endangered Species Act. A
proposed change was to require a
petitioner to identify and evaluate State
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
regulations and programs that protect
and conserve species within their
boundaries for the explicit purpose of
providing information that encompasses
Federal, State and private conservation
efforts. We recommend that the Service
adopt a similar approach in evaluating
nonnative species risk.
Our Response: None of the 11 species
in the proposed rule was petitioned for
listing, so this comment is beyond the
scope of this rulemaking. In general, the
public, including State agencies, can
submit this type of information during
the public comment period. We posed
several questions in our proposed rule
that seek this type of information,
including:
(1) What regulations does your State
or Territory have pertaining to the use,
possession, sale, transport, or
production of any of the 11 species in
this proposed rule? What are relevant
Federal, State, or local rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed Federal regulation?
(4) What would it cost to eradicate
individuals or populations of any of the
11 species, or similar species, if found
in the United States? What methods are
effective?
(5) What State-protected species
would be adversely affected by the
introduction of any of the 11 species?
(7) How could the proposed rule be
modified to reduce any costs or burdens
for small entities consistent with the
Service’s requirements?
Public Comments—Ecological Risk
Screening Summaries
(8) Comment: Two State agencies
commented that they utilized the
Service’s ERSSs for supporting
information to assist them in developing
restrictions on potentially invasive
species.
• With support from Michigan’s
Governor, Rick Snyder, and the
Michigan Legislature, Public Act 537 of
2014 was passed requiring the
development of a permitted species list
in Michigan. Additionally, this public
act requires the review of all species
that the Service lists as an injurious
wildlife species. Four of the 11 species
proposed as injurious are currently
listed as prohibited in Michigan (stone
moroko, zander, wels catfish, and the
common yabby). If all 11 species
proposed are approved for listing as
injurious, Michigan will respond by
reviewing the 7 species not currently
regulated in Michigan to consider a
prohibition or restriction.
• New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation’s invasive
species experts reviewed 25 of the 63
high-risk species identified by the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67893
Service during the assessment process
as posing an ecological risk to New York
State. Many of these species were
included on the 6 NYCRR Part 575 list,
Prohibited and Regulated Invasive
Species, which became effective March
2015. NYDEC plans to evaluate the
remaining high-risk species identified
by the Service for future updates to the
regulations.
Our Response: We are pleased that
our efforts to produce the ERSSs are
specifically useful to the States of
Michigan and New York.
(9) Comment: A commenter
understood that the [ERSS]
methodology would be directed at
species not in trade.
Our Response: The ERSSs were not
intended to be specifically for species
not in trade. We do not often know
whether a species is in trade or not in
trade at the time the ERSS is prepared;
that information is discovered during
the rapid screening process itself. We
posted the purpose and uses of the
ERSSs in late 2012 in several places on
the Service’s public Web site, such as:
• The peer review plan for the ERSSs
(‘‘Rapid Screening of Species Risk of
Establishment and Impact in the United
States’’) posted on the Service’s Science
Web site (https://www.fws.gov/science/
pdf/ERSS-Process-Peer-Review-Agenda12-19-12.pdf) has been continuously
available since December 2012 and
states that the ‘‘The Fish and Wildlife
Service has developed a rapid risk
screening process to determine a high,
low, or uncertain level of risk for
imported nonnative species.’’
• The Invasive Species Prevention
page (https://www.fws.gov/
injuriouswildlife/Injurious_
prevention.html) has been continuously
available since December 2012 and
states that ‘‘Some species that we assess
may already be in trade in the United
States but are considered low risk
because they have not become invasive
over a long period. Others may be in
trade and we do not have enough
information to know whether they have
become invasive (these would likely be
uncertain risk). In addition, due to the
large number of species in trade, some
species may be in trade in this country
that we do not know are in trade. Thus,
we are seeking information from the
public as to what species are in trade or
are otherwise present in the United
States.’’
• The Species Ecological Risk
Screening Summaries page (https://
www.fws.gov/fisheries/ANS/species_
erss.html) was posted on November 2,
2015, and gives many examples of
ERSSs of species already in trade in the
United States, so that an agency from an
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
67894
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
as-yet unaffected State may determine if
the climate match would support that
agency taking restrictive action. Those
examples also show species that are low
risk because they have been in U.S.
trade for decades and have not
established.
(10) Comment: Several commenters
stated that a Federal regulatory decision
should not be solely based on the ERSS
model.
Our Response: We agree, and our
determinations are based on more than
the ERSS reports. Our determinations
are based on the ERSS reports, the
Service’s evaluation of the criteria for
injuriousness, substantive information
we received during the public comment
period and from the peer reviewers,
along with other available information
regarding the 11 species. We stated in
the proposed rule under ‘‘How the 11
Species Were Selected for Consideration
as Injurious Species’’ (80 FR 67027;
October 30, 2015) that ‘‘[t]he Service
selected 11 species with a rapid screen
result of ‘‘high risk’’ to consider for
listing as injurious,’’ explaining how we
prioritized which species to evaluate
further. Only species with high-risk
conclusions from ERSSs were
considered for further evaluation in this
rulemaking. In our proposed rule, we
further explained how we got the
information that we used for our
determination (80 FR 67030; October 30,
2015): ‘‘We obtained our information on
a species’ biology, history of
invasiveness, and climate matching
from a variety of sources, including the
U.S. Geological Survey Nonindigenous
Aquatic Species (NAS) database, Centre
for Agricultural Bioscience
International’s Invasive Species
Compendium (CABI ISC), ERSS reports,
and primary literature * * *. The
Service contracted with CABI for many
of the species-specific datasheets that
we used in preparation of this proposed
rule. The datasheets were prepared by
world experts on the species, and each
datasheet was reviewed by expert peer
reviewers. The datasheets served as
sources of compiled information that
allowed us to prepare this proposed rule
efficiently.’’
We further explained how we used
the compiled information in the
evaluation process that we developed
specifically for evaluating species for
listing as injurious (80 FR 67039;
October 30, 2015; see ‘‘Injurious
Wildlife Evaluation Criteria’’) and have
used for previous rules. We used
primary literature extensively, and those
sources are cited in the proposed rule
and listed in the supporting document
‘‘References for Proposed Rule of 11
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Species’’ posted on
www.regulations.gov.
(11) Comment: Clear errors are
present in many of the ERSS reports
regarding climate matching, especially
for tropical species (the commenter
gives the examples of the guppy
(Poecilia reticulata) and the black acara
(Cichlasoma bimaculatum)). Taking
database information at face value,
while often done during rapid screens,
is clearly not appropriate for a risk
analysis that would support national
regulatory decisions.
Our Response: The ERSS process is a
risk screening process that is designed
to be quick and simple. Data are
reviewed and compiled to help us
decide whether a species should be
evaluated more closely. We
acknowledge that an ERSS may miss or
misinterpret data on a species being
assessed. We agree that, for national
regulatory decisions, we should not take
rapid screen information at face value
only. That is why we use many other
sources of information for the
subsequent injurious evaluation
utilizing our injurious wildlife listing
criteria. These results are published in
our rules and often utilize additional
sources of information that may rectify
any errors in the ERSS.
(12) Comment: The ERSS tool has a
methodological bias to return an overall
high-risk assignment due to the
combination of history of invasion and
climate match, while there is only one
combination that will result in a lowrisk designation. With the ease of
obtaining a medium climate match
using this tool, this is an unacceptable
precedent that could lead to proposed
listings of numerous ornamental species
that have been in production in Florida
for decades and are vital to the Florida
aquaculture industry.
Our Response: About 2,000 species
have been assessed for risk using the
ERSS approach; currently most are in
draft needing final review. Only about
10 percent of those 2,000 species are
characterized as high risk. Therefore,
ERSS results are rarely characterizing
species risk as high, even with either
medium or high climate-match scores
for the United States. Unlike some semiquantitative scoring systems that
characterize risk without climate
mapping (such as Fish Invasiveness
Screening Kit (FISK)), the ERSS system
relies on climate-matching that gives a
national score and maps the climate
match for all U.S. States. Maps of
climate match for species whose scores
are medium show locations where
climate match is high. Thus, we do not
rely only on climate scores. Instead, we
rely on climate scores and maps that
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
show locations where climate match is
high. Also, the ERSS system is designed
not to classify any species, regardless of
the climate match score and associated
category, as high risk without a
scientifically defensible history of
invasiveness. For example, the Nile
perch is one of the 10 percent of species
out of the 2,000 species that have been
assessed as high. Although the climate
match score for this species is medium,
the climate match is high in portions of
several U.S. jurisdictions.
An ERSS indicating a high risk for a
species does not mean that the species
will be listed as injurious wildlife. The
ERSS is a way to prioritize species on
which the Service should focus its
regulatory, nonregulatory risk
management, or management actions.
The commenter is correct that a high
history of invasiveness and a high
climate match equals high risk, and that
a high history of invasiveness and a
medium climate match also equals high
risk. The former is clearly reasonable.
However, a high history of invasiveness
and a medium climate match also
produces a high overall risk because the
climate match is conservative for two
reasons. One is that factors other than
climate may limit a species distribution
in its native land, such as the existence
of predators, diseases, and major terrain
barriers that may not be present in the
newly invaded land. Therefore, the
areas at risk of invasion may span a
climate range greater than that extracted
mechanically from the native range
boundaries (Rodda et al. 2011). The
second reason is to err on the side of
protection of natural resources,
especially when the effects of
introduced species are disputed or
unknown. Accepting the higher risk
rating reflects a ‘‘precautionary’’ or
conservative approach and counteracts
the uncertainty often associated with
biological invasions (ANSTF 1996).
The commenter’s concern about
setting a precedent for ornamental
species in production in Florida is
unfounded because the ERSSs merely
provide a way for the Service to focus
its limited resources and regulatory
efforts on species at greatest risk of
adversely affecting human beings, the
interests of agriculture, horticulture,
forestry, or wildlife, or the wildlife
resources of the United States. We will
continue to use more detailed risk
analyses by utilizing the injurious
wildlife listing criteria. These analyses
can be found in this final rule.
(13) Comment: Although the
Ecological Risk Screen Standard
Operating Procedures have been
reviewed by several experts in the field,
some methodological issues could be
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
evaluated to improve the effectiveness
of the tool. It is not clear if this tool has
been thoroughly tested and validated
using a wide range of species across a
continuum of risk such as has been
done with other risk screening tools
(such as Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit
(FISK)). For example, it is common to
test and validate the method by
answering the questions: What
percentage of species considered
invasive does the tool correctly identify
as high risk, and what percentage of
species that are not invasive does it
correctly identify as low risk?
Our Response: The ERSS process is
based on scientific literature and risk
screening approaches, as well as peer
review of those approaches per OMB
policies for influential science. We also
measured the approach in postdiction
on a number of species, including
bighead carps, grass carps, silver carps,
green swordtails, and several species of
snakeheads. Although we did not
compile the postdiction testing into a
final report, the positive results
ultimately led to the Service developing
the ERSS process. The practice of using
history of invasiveness and climate
match to determine risk has been
validated in peer-reviewed studies over
the years. The following are some
examples: Kolar and Lodge (2002) found
that discriminant analysis revealed that
successful fishes in the establishment
stage grew relatively faster, tolerated
wider ranges of temperature and
salinity, and were more likely to have a
history of invasiveness than were failed
fishes. Hayes and Barry (2008) found
that climate and habitat match, history
of successful invasion, and number of
arriving and released individuals are
consistently associated with successful
establishment. Bomford (2003)
recommended that, because a history of
establishing exotic populations
elsewhere is a significant predictor of
establishment success for exotic
mammals and birds introduced to
Australia, this variable should be
considered as a key factor when
assessing the risk that other exotic
species could establish there. Bomford
et al. (2010) later found that ‘‘Relative to
failed species, established species had
better climate matches between the
country where they were introduced
and their geographic range elsewhere in
the world. Established species were also
more likely to have high establishment
success rates elsewhere in the world.’’
Recently, Howeth et al. (2016) showed
that climate match between a species’
native range and the Great Lakes region
predicted establishment success with 75
to 81 percent accuracy.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
(14) Comment: A commenter cites the
risk assessment framework used by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service–
Plant Protection and Quarantine
(USDA–APHIS–PPQ) for determining
the risk of nonnative plants. The
method and variants of it have been
tested by many entities. Additional
expert review and testing of the
Service’s method as well as the
generated ERSS reports would provide
valuable information on the
performance, uses, and limitations of
Ecological Risk Screening.
Our Response: The Service has
conducted its risk analysis (80 FR
67039; October 30, 2015; see ‘‘Injurious
Wildlife Evaluation Criteria’’) based on
factors that are specific to injurious
wildlife listing. The ERSSs are rapid
screens and are used as a way to
prioritize which species to evaluate
further (see our response to Comment
10).
(15) Comment: A commenter opines
that stakeholders from the public and
private sectors with expertise in aquatic
biology and ecology, natural resource
management, biology, and aquaculture
should further analyze screening results
through a comprehensive regulatory risk
analysis. The commenter also
encourages the Service to have the ERSS
reports reviewed by subject matter
experts prior to their release and use in
management decisions.
Our Response: Well before the
publication of the proposed rule for
these 11 species, this commenter had
requested by letter to the Service in
2012 that the Service conduct peer
review under the OMB Peer Review
Guidelines (OMB 2004) on the ERSS
process. We completed that peer review
in 2013. No substantive changes were
needed to the ERSS process. Because
the ERSSs are rapid screens, we believe
that having a good foundation for the
process is sufficient, and that a detailed
peer-review process of individual ERSSs
is not required. These reports are also
publically available, and comments can
be submitted on individual reports at
prevent_invasives@fws.gov.
Public Comments—Nile Perch
(16) Comment: Currently, Florida
Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (FDACS) has
certified aquaculture facilities culturing
Nile perch (Lates niloticus). These farms
are in compliance with current Federal
and State laws. Listing L. niloticus as
injurious species would not further
prevent escapement of these species in
Florida
Our Response: The Service commends
the State of Florida for exemplary
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67895
regulations designed ‘‘to prevent the
escape of all life stages of nonnative
aquatic species into waters of the State’’
(quoted from the comment by FDACS,
December 22, 2015). While we agree
that Florida’s laws may indeed be
sufficient to prevent escape of Nile
perch into Florida’s ecosystems, the
Service must look at a national scale to
ensure that none of the 11 species is
introduced into, becomes established, or
spreads across the United States.
(17) Comment: There may be a
substantial impact to the emerging food
fish aquaculture industry in Florida by
prohibiting the import and interstate
movement of live Lates niloticus (Nile
perch) or their gametes.
Our Response: Neither this
commenter nor the other commenters
that mentioned culturing of Nile perch
in Florida stated how many facilities are
currently raising Nile perch, how many
Nile perch they raise, or their market
value. In fact, the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission
stated in their public comment
(December 29, 2015), ‘‘Food production
in Florida is primarily limited to four
species of tilapia * * *. The number of
aquaculture facilities currently raising
Nile perch is limited at this time.’’
Another commenter stated, ‘‘The Nile
perch [Lates niloticus] is not cultured in
the United States * * *.’’ A third
commenter from Florida discussed the
Nile perch ERSS at length but did not
state whether Nile perch are currently
being cultured in Florida or any State.
We do note that live culturing will not
be prohibited by this rulemaking nor
will the transportation of dead Nile
perch to other States. Export of live fish
directly from a designated port in
Florida will remain unaffected by this
rulemaking as well.
(18) Comment: A commenter with a
national focus states that Nile perch is
not cultured in the United States, and a
Federal rule effectively eliminates any
opportunity to culture this species in
regions where it has little or no chance
of successfully surviving in the wild.
Nile perch is already regulated in the
States and regions of the nation where
it might survive in nature, and,
therefore, a Federal rule is redundant.
Our Response: The commenter did
not provide information on what
regulations currently exist or what
States the commenter thinks species
cannot survive in. In our internet search
for regulations in southern tier States,
we found these States regulate the Nile
perch in some way: Mississippi (MDAC
2016), Arizona (AGFD 2013), and Texas
(TPWD 2016); these States apparently
do not regulate Nile perch: Alabama
(ADCNR 2015), California (CDFW 2013),
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
67896
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Georgia (Justia 2015; not confirmed),
Hawaii (HDOA 2006), Louisiana
(Louisiana 2015), and New Mexico
(NMDGF 2010). Based on this
information, we do not believe that this
Federal rule is redundant.
(19) Comment: Several commenters
disagree with our conclusion that the
Nile perch is highly likely to survive in
the United States and could successfully
reproduce and thrive to yield similar
ecological effects as those in Lake
Victoria (Africa). The ERSS report and
the analysis completed for the Federal
Register notice for this species should
be reviewed and revised. Another
commenter stated that Nile perch is
unlikely to survive outside of captivity
in the United States except in warm
areas, such as southern Florida, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and more questionably
interior portions of southern California.
The ERSS report overestimates the
climate match of this species to include
States along the Gulf of Mexico coast
and central and northern Florida. It is
difficult to visualize the climate match
because climate match maps are on a
global scale.
Our Response: We have checked the
sources we used previously and other
sources for the native and introduced
range of the Nile perch. The Nile perch
is widespread in Africa from
approximately 30° N. in Egypt to
approximately 15° S. in Zambia and in
countries from the Atlantic to the Indian
oceans and the Mediterranean Sea
(Azeroual et al. 2010). The climate
match supports our determination that
the Nile perch is likely to survive in
warmer areas, such as Hawaii and the
insular islands, as well as some
southern States. We also note that some
introduced species have defied the
expected physiological tolerances, such
as the red swamp crayfish, which is
native to the Gulf coastal plain from
New Mexico to the western panhandle
of Florida and north through the
southern Mississippi River drainage to
southern Illinois. The species has been
reported in Alaska, Washington, Maine,
Michigan, Hawaii, and many other
States (Nagy et al. 2016). As a
generalization among taxa, introduced
ranges often reflect a greater climatic
range than was found in the native
range because other dispersal barriers
(biotic and abiotic) may be absent in the
introduced range (Rodda et al. 2011).
(20) Comment: A commenter stated
that the historic claims on our summary
of the Nile perch, that it has decimated
the species of East African lakes to
extinction, are out of date and unproven
and are more likely due to immigration
of large numbers of people, causing
deforestation, eutrophication, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
pollution. Another commenter stated
that many of the impacts to African
lakes discussed in the Nile perch ERSS
are confounded by other elements of
environmental change and are highly
unlikely to occur in the United States.
Our Response: The former commenter
gave no supporting documentation that
is more recent and ‘‘proven’’ to show
that Nile perch are not the cause of the
changes in Lake Victoria. We looked for
more recent studies than in our
proposed rule and found that Gophen’s
plankton and fish community study
(2015) states, ‘‘The concept of the Nile
Perch predation impact and its
ecological implications is also
confirmed by the elimination of the
Haplochromines’s planktivory. * * *
The Lake Victoria ecosystem was
unique included above [sic] 400
endemic species of Haplochromine
fishes. The food web structure was
naturally balanced during that time with
short periods of anoxia in deep waters
and dominance of diatomides algal
species. Nile Perch (Lates niloticus) was
introduced and during the 1980’s
became the dominant fish. The
Haplochromine species were deleted
and the whole ecosystem was modified.
Algal assemblages were changed to
Cyanobacteria, anoxia became more
frequent and in shallower waters.’’ This
statement supports, if not enhances, our
claim that the Nile perch caused the
local extinction of at least 200
haplochromine cichlid fish species,
thereby altering the plankton balance.
We do not dispute that other factors
were also acting on the health of Lake
Victoria in the last few decades, thus
exacerbating the effects of losing so
many native fishes. However, the fact
that so many species’ local extirpation
are directly linked to the Nile perch
meets one of the injurious listing
factors.
The latter commenter states that the
elements of environmental change
(referring to land use changes and
cultural practices) are highly unlikely to
occur in the United States. We agree
with this statement but believe that the
United States also has land use changes
and cultural practices that may be
different but that also lead to adverse
ecological disturbance.
(21) Comment: The distribution of
Nile Perch in its native and introduced
range is primarily within the tropics of
sub-Saharan Africa, a tropical equatorial
rainforest climate zone, with the
exception of the Nile River, which flows
primarily through a hot, desert climate,
and some East African lakes. The
conterminous United States lacks the
tropical equatorial rainforest zone. The
commenter’s own CLIMATCH analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
indicated that almost none of the many
stations distributed across tropical West
Africa and the central tropics
contributed to match in the United
States.
Our Response: Climate match is not
an exact predictor. Factors other than
climate may limit a species’ native
distribution, including the existence of
predators, diseases, and other local
factors (such as major terrain barriers),
which may not be present when a
species is released in a new country.
Therefore, the areas at risk of invasion
often span a climate range greater than
that extracted mechanically from the
native range boundaries. For example,
an aquatic species that was historically
confined to a small watershed may be
able to thrive in larger, dissimilar
watersheds if transported there. For the
Nile perch, the historic range covers a
large area of Africa, in countries from
the western to the eastern coast and
north to the Mediterranean Sea. Habitats
include rivers and lakes of varying sizes
and brackish as well as fresh water. In
our methodology, weather stations
within 50 km (31 mi) of an occurrence
are used in the analysis. We recognize
that this is an unusual circumstance
with the elevated plateau being located
very close to the east African Rift Lakes
and possibly skewing the results.
(22) Comment: The State of Texas
stocked Nile perch in the late 1970s and
early 1980s into reservoirs receiving
heated effluents from power plants. At
least two of the reservoirs were in
southern Texas where the ERSS report
states that there is a good climate match.
These fish failed to establish, and at
least some were thought to have
succumbed to cold temperatures during
plant shutdowns, calling into question
the suitability of the northern Gulf Coast
for Nile Perch.
Our Response: We mentioned the Nile
perch stockings that took place in Texas
in our proposed rule (80 FR 67033,
October 30, 2015). To elaborate, the
State of Texas stocked a mixture of
approximately 70,000 larvae of Lates
spp. (which could be L. angustifrons, L.
maria, or L. niloticus) from 1978 to 1984
in one reservoir (Howells and Garrett
1992). Larvae are very susceptible to
predation or changes in water
chemistry. It is not surprising that they
did not survive. Although there are
many factors to consider, expected
survivorship of stocked larvae is
generally 0.1 percent to 0.001 percent
(pers. comm., Gary Whelan, Program
Manager, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources). A mixture of 1,500
juvenile and adult Lates spp. was
introduced to two reservoirs in Texas
over 6 years (Howells and Garrett 1992).
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
When the State abandoned the project
in 1985, the remaining 14 individuals
(including 6 Nile perch) were stocked in
a third reservoir with no public access.
One was found dead in 1992 after a cold
snap of 5–6 °C (Howells and Garrett
1992). The 14-year-old fish weighed
approximately 27 kg (59.5 lb), up from
5.9 kg (13 lb) when released in 1985
(ibid.). This occurrence does not
constitute establishment of the species,
but it does show that with even a small
number of individuals released, some
can survive. We do not know why the
larvae failed; there may be some other
factor besides the water temperature of
the artificial reservoir, such as water
quality or food supply, or the larvae
may have not been acclimated. As we
stated in the proposed rule and again in
this final rule (see Introduction
Pathways for the 11 Species), propagule
pressure (the frequency of release events
and the numbers of individuals
released) is a major factor in the 11
species establishing in the wild by
increasing the odds of both genders
being released and finding mates and of
those individuals being healthy,
vigorous, and fit (able to leave behind
reproducing offspring). Therefore, a
larger propagule pressure of Nile perch
could be expected to have a higher
chance of establishment.
(23) Comment: It is unclear why the
original CLIMATCH in the ERSS for
Nile Perch included Hawaii and Puerto
Rico, regions that would increase the
Climate 6 match, but did not include
Alaska, a region that would decrease the
match. The supplemental CLIMATCH
map posted online subsequently has
Alaska but was not used to determine
climate match in the proposed rule. The
other species on the proposed list were
evaluated originally for the
conterminous United States in their
ERSS reports but had online
supplemental maps including Alaska
that were used for the climate match in
the proposed rule.
Our Response: We are not clear why
the commenter believes that the
supplemental map was not used to
determine climate match in the
proposed rule. The original Climate 6
match in the ERSSs for all 11 species
were run without Alaska for a different
purpose. We ran the climate matches
again with Alaska, because we needed
to include all States (and we updated
some information), and we used those
scores in the proposed rule. We posted
the revised maps in the docket on
www.regulations.gov and on our Web
site at https://www.fws.gov/
injuriouswildlife/11-freshwaterspecies.html. We utilized the other
ERSS information because it was
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
appropriate for our purpose. The
Climate 6 score in the ERSS is 0.068.
With Alaska added, the Climate 6 score
is 0.038, which is lower as the
commenter correctly predicted, and this
score is what we used in the proposed
and final rule.
(24) Comment: A commenter is
concerned that the ERSS for Nile perch
did not utilize more primary literature.
Information mainly came from
secondary or tertiary source databases
that summarize information on Nile
Perch, and that is what the listing is
based on.
Our Response: The ERSSs are rapid
screens that may use primary,
secondary, or other literature. That
setup serves the purpose of a rapid
screen. The injurious wildlife
evaluations are not based entirely on the
ERSSs. The ERSSs are used as an initial
filter for the Service to decide if a
species warrants further evaluation. The
Service uses that result to prioritize
species that we should put through the
subsequent injurious evaluation
process. As we proceed through the
injurious wildlife evaluation process,
we do utilize primary literature to
support our justification, as is
evidenced by our citations and
‘‘Literature Cited 2015’’ reference list
posted with the docket on
www.regulations.gov. Through the
injurious wildlife evaluation process,
we theoretically could find a
discrepancy with the ERSS that leads us
to remove that species from evaluation
for listing, but that situation did not
happen with this rulemaking. The
primary literature that we have used
supports the ERSSs.
(25) Comment: A commenter has
concerns with listing the Nile perch
because it sets a potential precedent for
listing tropical species, including
important aquaculture and aquarium
fishes.
Our Response: Nile perch would not
be the first tropical-climate fish species
in aquaculture or aquarium trade that
the Service has listed as injurious. In
1969, we listed the entire family
Clariidae (34 FR 19030; November 29,
1969), which includes the walking
catfish (Clarias batrachus) and the
whitespotted clarias (C. fuscus), both of
tropical origin and of food-source value.
It is likely that others of the 100 species
that we listed then also fall into that
category, but the two mentioned were
already in U.S. trade. More recently, we
listed the entire family of snakeheads as
injurious (67 FR 62193; October 4, 2002)
(28 species at the time of listing). All
snakehead species are valued as food
fish in their native lands, and many are
valued as pets outside of their native
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67897
lands. At least 10 snakehead species are
of tropical origin (Courtenay and
Williams 2004).
Public Comments—Zander
(26) Comment: The zander has existed
and even exhibited limited natural
reproduction and recruitment in
Spiritwood Lake, ND, for over two
decades, but it has hardly been
injurious. No hybridization with
walleye has been documented, and no
negative impacts on native species have
occurred. Given their preferred habitats,
zanders would be more suited farther
south in manmade, warm, turbid,
eutrophic reservoirs prevalent across
much of the Great Plains. If State fish
and wildlife agencies want to provide
quality fishing experiences, they could
choose to import eggs and treat them for
pathogens and create triploids to
prevent natural reproduction.
Our Response: We use the term
‘‘injurious’’ specifically for species that
have been through the injurious listing
evaluation process in accordance with
the Act. The commenter’s description of
the zander in Spiritwood Lake not being
injurious likely means the more
common usage of ‘‘injurious’’ that no
specific harms have been detected in
that lake. However, the commenter
states that the zander would be more
suited to warmer waters across much of
the Great Plains, and this statement
supports our determination, assisted by
the climate match, that the zander is
likely to survive, become established,
and spread if introduced across a large
part of the United States.
Triploidy is used for control of other
invasive species and for market
production (such as farmed salmon), but
it is risky as a tool for introducing an
injurious species to new ecosystems.
Because treatments to produce triploids
seldom result in 100 percent triploid
fish, each individual must be verified
triploid before they can be stocked
(Rottman et al. 1991). Some may be
diploids and, therefore, able to
reproduce. Also, triploid fish may grow
larger because the energy normally
needed for reproduction can be
redirected to body growth (Tiwary et al.
2004). Larger growth, especially for a
species that may live up to 20 to 24
years, could have a major negative effect
on aquatic food webs. To our
knowledge, triploidy in zanders has not
been done, and we do not know if there
are approved treatments for pathogens
on zander eggs.
Public Comments—Yabby
(27) Comment: The proposed rule
presents the yabby as a vector for
crayfish plague (Aphanomyces astaci)
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
67898
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
because the fungal disease has the
potential to cause large-scale mortality
of freshwater crayfish in Australia. This
fungus is endemic to the United States,
and crayfish native to the United States
are carriers resistant to the disease.
Because European crayfish are not
resistant to the plague, it is not highly
likely that the yabby will survive in the
United States and very unlikely that the
yabby poses an invasion risk to the
United States.
Our Response: We noted in the
proposed rule that the crayfish plague is
not known to affect North American
crayfish species. We acknowledged the
plague’s potential role as a biological
control of yabbies if the species does
become invasive in the United States.
We also mentioned other pathogens that
yabbies can carry that are more likely to
be problematic for native crayfish. If
yabbies are introduced into ecosystems
with native crayfish, it is possible that
some individuals will succumb to the
crayfish plague. However, yabbies that
do not contract or succumb to the
disease are likely to spread and
establish due to the species’ traits of a
general diet, quick growth rate, high
reproductive potential, and proven
invasiveness outside of its native range.
Because of the injuriousness of the
species, we believe yabbies should be
listed.
Required Determinations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget will review all
significant rules. The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13563
reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866
while calling for improvements in the
nation’s regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that the regulatory system must
allow for public participation and an
open exchange of ideas. We have
developed this rule in a manner
consistent with these principles.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
[SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq.), whenever a Federal agency is
required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final
rule, it must prepare and make available
for public comment a regulatory
flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (that
is, small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of an agency certifies that the rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities (5 U.S.C. 605(b)).
The Service has determined that this
final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Of the 11
species, only one population of one
species (zander) is found in the wild in
one lake in the United States. Of the 11
species, four (crucian carp, Nile perch,
wels catfish, and yabby) have been
imported in only small numbers since
2011; and seven species are not in U.S.
trade. To our knowledge, the total
number of importation events of those 4
species from 2011 to 2015 is 25, with a
declared total value of $5,789.
Therefore, businesses derive little or no
revenue from the sale of the 11 species,
and the economic effect in the United
States of this final rule is negligible for
4 species and nil for 7. The final
economic analysis that the Service
prepared supports this conclusion
(USFWS Final Economic Analysis
2016). In addition, none of the species
requires control efforts, and the rule
would not impose any additional
reporting or recordkeeping
requirements. Therefore, we certify that
this final rulemaking will not have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities, as
defined under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) does not apply to
this final rule since it would not
produce a Federal mandate or have a
significant or unique effect on State,
local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights), the final rule does not
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
have significant takings implications.
Therefore, a takings implication
assessment is not required since this
rule would not impose significant
requirements or limitations on private
property use.
Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this final rule does not
have significant federalism effects. A
federalism summary impact statement is
not required since this rule would not
have substantial direct effects on the
States, in the relationship between the
Federal Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the
Office of the Solicitor has determined
that this final rule does not unduly
burden the judicial system and meets
the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the E.O. The rulemaking has
been reviewed to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, was written to
minimize litigation, provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard, and
promotes simplification and burden
reduction.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final rule does not contain any
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This final rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or
organizations. We may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has reviewed this final
rule in accordance with the criteria of
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
Department of the Interior NEPA
regulations (43 CFR part 46), and the
Departmental Manual in 516 DM 8. This
rulemaking action is being taken to
protect the natural resources of the
United States. A final environmental
assessment and a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) have been
prepared and are available for review by
written request (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) or at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–HQ–FAC–2013–0095. By adding
the 11 species to the list of injurious
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
wildlife, the Service intends to prevent
their introduction and establishment
into the natural areas of the United
States, thus having no significant impact
on the human environment. The final
environmental assessment was based on
the proposed listing of the 11 species as
injurious and was revised based on
comments from peer reviewers and the
public.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175,
and the Department of the Interior’s
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily
acknowledge our responsibility to
communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
We have evaluated potential effects on
federally recognized Indian tribes and
have determined that there are no
potential effects. This final rule involves
the prevention of importation and
interstate transport of 10 live fish
species and 1 crayfish, as well as their
gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids, that are
not native to the United States. We are
unaware of trade in these species by
tribes as these species are not currently
in U.S. trade, or they have been
imported in only small numbers since
2011.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:17 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Effects on Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, or use. Executive Order
13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. This final
rule is not expected to affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy
action and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
References Cited
A complete list of all references used
in this rulemaking is available from
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–HQ–FAC–2013–0095
or from https://www.fws.gov/
injuriouswildlife/.
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule
are the staff of the Branch of Aquatic
Invasive Species at the Service’s
Headquarters (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 16
Fish, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Final Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons discussed within the
preamble, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service amends part 16, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 16—INJURIOUS WILDLIFE
1. The authority citation for part 16
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 42.
2. Amend § 16.13 by revising
paragraph (a)(2)(v) and adding
paragraphs (a)(2)(vi) through (x) to read
as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
67899
§ 16.13 Importation of live or dead fish,
mollusks, and crustaceans, or their eggs.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Any live fish, gametes, viable eggs,
or hybrids of the following species in
family Cyprinidae:
(A) Carassius carassius (crucian carp).
(B) Carassius gibelio (Prussian carp).
(C) Hypophthalmichthys harmandi
(largescale silver carp).
(D) Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
(silver carp).
(E) Hypophthalmichthys nobilis
(bighead carp).
(F) Mylopharyngodon piceus (black
carp).
(G) Phoxinus phoxinus (Eurasian
minnow).
(H) Pseudorasbora parva (stone
moroko).
(I) Rutilus rutilus (roach).
(vi) Any live fish, gametes, viable
eggs, or hybrids of Lates niloticus (Nile
perch), family Centropomidae.
(vii) Any live fish, gametes, viable
eggs, or hybrids of Perccottus glenii
(Amur sleeper), family Odontobutidae.
(viii) Any live fish, gametes, viable
eggs, or hybrids of the following species
in family Percidae:
(A) Perca fluviatilis (European perch).
(B) Sander lucioperca (zander).
(ix) Any live fish, gametes, viable
eggs, or hybrids of Silurus glanis (wels
catfish), family Siluridae.
(x) Any live crustacean, gametes,
viable eggs, or hybrids of Cherax
destructor (common yabby), family
Parastacidae.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 13, 2016.
Karen Hyun,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2016–22778 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\30SER6.SGM
30SER6
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67862-67899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22778]
[[Page 67861]]
Vol. 81
Friday,
No. 190
September 30, 2016
Part VI
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 16
Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing 10 Freshwater Fish and 1 Crayfish;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 67862]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 16
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-FAC-2013-0095; FXFR13360900000-167-FF09F14000]
RIN 1018-AY69
Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing 10 Freshwater Fish and 1
Crayfish
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is amending its
regulations to add to the list of injurious fish the following
freshwater fish species: Crucian carp (Carassius carassius), Eurasian
minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus), Prussian carp (Carassius gibelio), roach
(Rutilus rutilus), stone moroko (Pseudorasbora parva), Nile perch
(Lates niloticus), Amur sleeper (Perccottus glenii), European perch
(Perca fluviatilis), zander (Sander lucioperca), and wels catfish
(Silurus glanis). In addition, the Service also amends its regulations
to add the freshwater crayfish species common yabby (Cherax destructor)
to the list of injurious crustaceans. These listings will prohibit the
importation of any live animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of these
10 fish and 1 crayfish into the United States, except as specifically
authorized. These listings will also prohibit the interstate
transportation of any live animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of
these 10 fish and 1 crayfish between States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the
United States, except as specifically authorized. These species are
injurious to the interests of agriculture or to wildlife or the
wildlife resources of the United States, and the listing will prevent
the purposeful or accidental introduction, establishment, and spread of
these 10 fish and 1 crayfish into ecosystems of the United States.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 31, 2016.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-FAC-2013-0095. Comments and
materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the
preparation of this rule, will also be available for public inspection
by appointment during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Jewell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS-FAC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; 703-
358-2416. If a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) is
required, please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is amending its
regulations to add to the list of injurious fish the following
nonnative freshwater fish species: Crucian carp, Eurasian minnow,
Prussian carp, roach, stone moroko, Nile perch, Amur sleeper, European
perch, zander, and wels catfish. In addition, the Service is amending
its regulations to add the common yabby, a nonnative freshwater
crayfish species, to the list of injurious crustaceans. These listings
prohibit the importation of any live animal, gamete, viable egg, or
hybrid of these 10 fish and 1 crayfish (11 species) into the United
States, except as specifically authorized. These listings also prohibit
the interstate transportation of any live animal, gamete, viable egg,
or hybrid of these 10 fish and 1 crayfish, except as specifically
authorized. With this final rule, the importation and interstate
transportation of any live animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of
these 10 fish and 1 crayfish may be authorized only by permit for
scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes, or without a
permit by Federal agencies solely for their own use. This action is
necessary to protect the interests of agriculture, wildlife, or
wildlife resources from the purposeful or accidental introduction,
establishment, and spread of these 11 species into ecosystems of the
United States.
On October 30, 2015, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (80 FR 67026) to add the 11 species to the list of injurious
fish and crustaceans as injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act (the
Act; 18 U.S.C. 42, as amended) and announced the availability of the
draft economic analysis and the draft environmental assessment of the
proposed rule. The 60-day comment period ended on December 29, 2015. We
also solicited peer review at the same time. In this final rule, we
used public comments and peer review to inform our final
determinations.
The need for the action to add 11 nonnative species to the list of
injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act developed from the Service's
concern that, through our rapid screen process, these 11 species were
categorized as ``high risk'' for invasiveness. A species does not have
to be currently imported or present in the United States for the
Service to list it as injurious. All 11 species have a high climate
match in parts of the United States, a history of invasiveness outside
their native ranges, and, except for one fish species in one lake, are
not currently found in U.S. ecosystems. Nine of the freshwater fish
species (Amur sleeper, crucian carp, Eurasian minnow, European perch,
Prussian carp, roach, stone moroko, wels catfish, and zander) have been
introduced to and established populations within Europe and Asia, where
they have spread and are causing harm. The Nile perch has been
introduced to and become invasive in new areas of central Africa. The
common yabby has been introduced to western Australia and to Europe
where it has established invasive populations. Most of these species
were originally introduced for aquaculture, recreational fishing, or
ornamental purposes. Two of these fish species (the Eurasian minnow and
stone moroko) were accidentally introduced when they were
unintentionally transported in shipments with desirable fish species
stocked for aquaculture or fisheries management.
Based on our evaluation under the Act of all 11 species, the
Service seeks to prevent the introduction, establishment, and spread
within the United States of each species by adding them all to the
Service's lists of injurious wildlife, thus prohibiting both their
importation and interstate transportation. We take this action to
prevent injurious effects, which is consistent with the Lacey Act.
We evaluated the 10 fish and 1 crayfish species using the Service's
Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria. The criteria include the
likelihood and magnitude of release or escape, of survival and
establishment upon release or escape, and of spread from origin of
release or escape. The criteria also examine the effect on wildlife
resources and ecosystems (such as through hybridizing, competition for
food or habitat, predation on native species, and pathogen transfer),
on endangered and threatened species and their respective habitats, and
on human beings, forestry, horticulture, and agriculture. Additionally,
criteria evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of wildlife or habitat
damages resulting from control measures. The analysis using these
criteria serves as a basis for the Service's regulatory decision
regarding injurious wildlife species listings.
Each of these 11 species has a well-documented history of
invasiveness outside of its native range, but not in the United States.
When released into the
[[Page 67863]]
environment, these species have survived and established, expanded
their nonnative range, preyed on native wildlife species, and competed
with native species for food and habitat. Since it would be difficult
to eradicate, manage, or control the spread of these 11 species; it
would be difficult to rehabilitate or recover habitats disturbed by
these species; and because introduction, establishment, and spread of
these 11 species would negatively affect agriculture, and native
wildlife or wildlife resources, the Service is amending its regulations
to add these 11 species as injurious under the Lacey Act. This listing
prohibits the importation and interstate transportation of any live
animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid in the United States, except as
specifically authorized.
The Service solicited three independent scientific peer reviewers
who all submitted individual comments in written form. We also received
comments from 20 State agencies, regional and U.S.-Canada governmental
alliances, commercial businesses, conservation organizations,
nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens during the 60-day
public comment period. We reviewed all comments for substantive issues
and new information regarding the proposed designation of the 11
species as injurious wildlife. None of the peer or public comments
necessitated any substantive changes to the rule, the environmental
assessment, or the economic analysis. Comments received provided a
range of opinions on the proposed listing: (1) Unequivocal support for
the listing with no additional information included; (2) unequivocal
support for the listing with additional information provided; (3)
equivocal support for the listing with or without additional
information included; and (4) unequivocal opposition to the listing
with additional information included. We consolidated comments and our
responses into key issues in the ``Summary of Comments Received on the
Proposed Rule'' section.
This final rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.)
12866. E.O. 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review (Panetta 1993) and the
subsequent document, Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations under
E.O. 12866 (U.S. Office of Management and Budget 1996) require the
Service to ensure that proper consideration is given to the effect of
this final action on the business community and economy. With respect
to the regulations under consideration, analysis that comports with the
Circular A-4 would include a full description and estimation of the
economic benefits and cost associated with the implementation of the
regulations. The economic effects to three groups would be addressed:
(1) Producers; (2) consumers; and (3) society. Of the 11 species, only
one population of one species (zander) is found in the wild in the
United States. Of the 11 species, 4 species (crucian carp, Nile perch,
wels catfish, yabby) have been imported in small numbers since 2011,
and 7 species are not in U.S. trade. To our knowledge, the total number
of importation events of those 4 species from 2011 to 2015 is 25, with
a declared total value of $5,789. Therefore, the economic effect in the
United States is negligible for those four species and nil for the
seven not in trade. The final economic analysis that the Service
prepared supports this conclusion (USFWS Final Economic Analysis 2016).
Previous Federal Actions
On October 30, 2015, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (80 FR 67026) to list the crucian carp, Eurasian minnow,
Prussian carp, roach, stone moroko, Nile perch, Amur sleeper, European
perch, zander, wels catfish, and common yabby to the list of injurious
fish and crustaceans as injurious wildlife under the Act. The proposed
rule established a 60-day comment period ending on December 29, 2015,
and announced the availability of the draft economic analysis and the
draft environmental assessment of the proposed rule. We also solicited
peer review at the same time.
For the injurious wildlife evaluation in this final rule, in
addition to information used for the proposed rule, we considered: (1)
Comments from the public comment period for the proposed rule, (2)
comments from three peer reviewers, and (3) new information acquired by
the Service by the end of the public comment period. We present a
summary of the peer review comments and the public comments and our
responses to them following the Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria section
in this final rule.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
We fully considered comments from the public and the peer reviewers
on the proposed rule. This final rule incorporates changes to our
proposed rule based on the comments we received that are discussed
under Summary of Comments Received on the Proposed Rule and newly
available information that became available after the close of the
comment period. Specifically, we made one change to the common yabby
that did not result in a change to the final determination to that
species but may be worth singling out. We removed ``Potential Impacts
to Humans'' as one of the factors for considering the yabby as
injurious. We found that while the common yabby may directly impact
human health by transferring metal contaminants through consumption and
may require consumption advisories, these advisories are not expected
to be more stringent than those for crayfish species that are not
considered injurious. Therefore, none of the 11 species in this final
rule is being listed as injurious wildlife because of potential impacts
to humans.
Background
The regulations contained in 50 CFR part 16 implement the Act.
Under the terms of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized
to prescribe by regulation those wild mammals, wild birds, fish,
mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring or eggs
of any of the foregoing that are injurious to human beings, to the
interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the
wildlife resources of the United States. The lists of injurious
wildlife species are found in title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at Sec. Sec. 16.11 through 16.15.
The purpose of listing the crucian carp, Eurasian minnow, Prussian
carp, roach, stone moroko, Nile perch, Amur sleeper, European perch,
zander, and wels catfish and the common yabby (hereafter ``11
species'') as injurious wildlife is to prevent the harm that these
species could cause to the interests of agriculture, wildlife, and
wildlife resources through their accidental or intentional
introduction, establishment, and spread into the wild in the United
States. The Service evaluated each of the 11 species individually, and
we determined each species to be injurious based on its own traits.
Consistent with the statutory language and congressional intent, it
is the Service's longstanding and continued position that the Lacey Act
prohibits both the importation into the United States and all
interstate transportation between States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the
United States, including interstate transportation between States
within the Continental United States, of injurious wildlife, regardless
of the preliminary injunction decision in U.S. Association of Reptile
Keepers v. Jewell, No. 13-2007 (D.D.C. May 12, 2015). The
[[Page 67864]]
Service's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 42(a)(1) finds support in the
plain language of the statute, the Lacey Act's purpose, legislative
history, and congressional ratification. First, the statute's use of
the disjunctive ``or'' to separate the listed geographic entities
indicates that each location has independent significance. Second,
Congress enacted the Lacey Act in 1900 for the purpose of, among other
things, regulating the introduction of species in localities, not
merely large territories, where they have not previously existed. See
16 U.S.C. 701. Third, the legislative history of Congress' many
amendments to the Lacey Act since its enactment in 1900 shows that
Congress intended, from the very beginning, for the Service to regulate
the interstate shipment of certain injurious wildlife. Finally, recent
Congresses have made clear that Congress interprets 18 U.S.C. 42(a)(1)
as prohibiting interstate transport of injurious wildlife between the
States within the continental United States. In amending Sec. 42(a)(1)
to add zebra mussels and bighead carp as injurious wildlife without
making other changes to the provision, Congress repeated and ratified
the Service's interpretation of the statute as prohibiting all
interstate transport of injurious species.
The prohibitions on importation and all interstate transportation
are both necessary to prevent the introduction, establishment, and
spread of injurious species that threaten human health or the interests
of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or the wildlife or wildlife
resources of the United States. By listing these 11 species as
injurious wildlife, both the importation into the United States and
interstate transportation between States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the
United States of live animals, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids is
prohibited, except by permit for zoological, educational, medical, or
scientific purposes (in accordance with permit regulations at 50 CFR
16.22), or by Federal agencies without a permit solely for their own
use, upon filing a written declaration with the District Director of
Customs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Inspector at the port of
entry. In addition, no live specimens of these 11 species, gametes,
viable eggs, or hybrids imported or transported under a permit could be
sold, donated, traded, loaned, or transferred to any other person or
institution unless such person or institution has a permit issued by
the Service. The rule would not prohibit intrastate transport of the
listed fish or crayfish species. Any regulations pertaining to the
transport or use of these species within a particular State would
continue to be the responsibility of that State.
How the 11 Species Were Selected for Consideration as Injurious Species
While the Service recognizes that not all nonnative species become
invasive, it is important to have some understanding of the risk that
nonnative species pose to the United States. The Ecological Risk
Screening Summary (ERSS) approach was developed to address the need
described in the National Invasive Species Management Plan (NISC 2008).
The Plan states that prevention is the first-line of defense. One of
the objectives in the Plan is to ``[d]evelop fair and practical
screening processes that evaluate different types of species moving
intentionally in trade.'' The ERSS process, and the associated Risk
Assessment Mapping Program, were peer-reviewed by risk assessment
experts from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Those experts
support the use of those tools for U.S. national risk assessment, and
associated risk management. The Service utilizes a rapid screening
process to provide a prediction of the invasive potential of nonnative
species and to prioritize which species to consider for listing. Rapid
screens categorize risk as either high, low, or uncertain and have been
produced for two thousand foreign aquatic fish and invertebrates for
use by the Service and other entities. Each rapid screen is summarized
in an Ecological Risk Screening Summary (ERSS; see ``Rapid Screening''
below for explanation regarding how these summaries were done). The
Service selected 11 species with a rapid screen result of ``high risk''
to consider for listing as injurious. We put these 11 species through a
subsequent risk analysis to evaluate each species for injuriousness
(see ``Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria'' section below).
These 11 species have a high climate match (see Rapid Screening) in
parts of the United States, a history of invasiveness outside of their
native range (see Need for the Final Rule), are not yet found in U.S.
ecosystems (except for one species in one lake), and have a high degree
of certainty regarding these results. The ERSS reports for each of the
11 species are available on the Service's Web site (https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/Injurious_prevention.html).
The practice of using history of invasiveness and climate match to
determine risk has been validated in peer-reviewed studies over the
years. Here are some examples: Kolar and Lodge (2002) found that
discriminant analysis revealed that successful fishes in the
establishment stage grew relatively faster, tolerated wider ranges of
temperature and salinity, and were more likely to have a history of
invasiveness than were failed fishes. They also correlated traits of
invasiveness with stages of invasion to predict rate of spread for
specific species and predicted that the roach, Eurasian minnow, and
European perch would spread quickly, while the zander would spread
slowly (the other seven species in this final rule were not studied).
Hayes and Barry (2008) found that climate and habitat match, history of
successful invasion, and number of arriving and released individuals
are consistently associated with successful establishment. Bomford et
al. (2010) found that ``Relative to failed species, established species
had better climate matches between the country where they were
introduced and their geographic range elsewhere in the world.
Established species were also more likely to have high establishment
success rates elsewhere in the world.'' Recently, Howeth et al. (2016)
showed that climate match between a species' native range and the Great
Lakes region predicted establishment success with 75 to 81 percent
accuracy.
All 11 species are documented to be highly invasive internationally
(see Species Information for each species). Nine of the freshwater fish
species (Amur sleeper, crucian carp, Eurasian minnow, European perch,
Prussian carp, roach, stone moroko, wels catfish, and zander) have been
introduced and established populations within Europe and Asia. The
Prussian carp was recently found to be established in waterways in
southern Alberta, Canada (Elgin et al. 2014), near the U.S. border.
Another freshwater fish species, the Nile perch, has been introduced to
and become invasive in new areas of central Africa. The freshwater
crayfish, the common yabby, has been introduced to and established
populations in new areas of Australia and in Europe. Most of the 11
species were originally intentionally introduced for aquaculture,
recreational fishing, or ornamental purposes. The Eurasian minnow and
the stone moroko were accidentally mixed with and introduced with
shipments of fish stocked for other intended purposes.
Need for the Final Rule
Consistent with 18 U.S.C. 42, the Service aims to prevent the
introduction, establishment, and spread of all 11 species within the
United States due to concerns regarding the
[[Page 67865]]
potential injurious effects of the 11 species on the interests of
agriculture or to wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States.
The threat posed by these 11 species is evident in their history of
invasiveness (establishment and spread) in other countries and their
high risk of establishment as demonstrated by a high climate match
within the United States.
All of these species have wide distribution ranges where they are
native and where they are invasive, suggesting they are highly
adaptable and tolerant of new environments and opportunistic when
expanding from their native range. Based on the results of rapid
screening assessments and our injurious wildlife evaluation, we
anticipate that these 11 species will become invasive if they are
introduced into waters of the United States. Furthermore, if introduced
and established in one area of the United States, these species could
then spread to other areas of the country through unintentional or
intentional interstate transport, such as for aquaculture, recreational
and commercial fishing, bait, ornamental display, and other possible
uses.
Listing Process
The Service promulgates regulations under the Act in accordance
with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). We
published a proposed rule for public notice and comment. We solicited
peer review under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines
``Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review'' (OMB 2004). We
also prepared a draft economic analysis (including analysis of
potential effects on small businesses) and a draft environmental
assessment, both of which we made available to the public. For this
final rule, we prepared a final economic analysis and a final
environmental assessment.
This final rule is based on an evaluation using the Service's
Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria (see Injurious Wildlife
Evaluation Criteria, below, for more information). We use these
criteria to evaluate whether a species does or does not qualify as
injurious under the Act. These criteria include the likelihood and
magnitude of release or escape, of survival and establishment upon
release or escape, and of spread from origin of release or escape.
These criteria also examine the impact on wildlife resources and
ecosystems (such as through hybridizing, competition for food or
habitat, predation on native species, and pathogen transfer), on
endangered and threatened species and their respective habitats, and on
human beings, forestry, horticulture, and agriculture. Additionally,
criteria evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of wildlife or habitat
damages resulting from measures to control the proposed species. The
analysis using these criteria serves as a basis for the Service's
regulatory decision regarding injurious wildlife species listings. The
objective of such a listing is to prohibit importation and interstate
transportation and thus prevent the species' likely introduction,
establishment, and spread in the wild, thereby preventing injurious
effects consistent with 18 U.S.C. 42.
We evaluated each of the 11 species individually and are listing
all 11 species because we determined each of these species to be
injurious. The final rule contains responses to comments we received on
the proposed rule, states the final decision, and provides the
justification for that decision. Each of the species determined to be
injurious will be added to the list of injurious wildlife found in 50
CFR 16.13.
To assist us with making our determination under the injurious
wildlife evaluation criteria, we used information from available
sources, including the Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International
(CABI) reports (called full datasheets) from their Invasive Species
Compendium (CABI ISC) that were specific to each species for biological
and invasiveness information as well as primary literature and import
data from our Office of Law Enforcement.
Introduction Pathways for the 11 Species
The primary potential pathways for the 11 species into the United
States are through commercial trade in the live animal industry,
including aquaculture, recreational fishing, bait, and ornamental
display. Some could arrive unintentionally in water used to carry other
aquatic species. Aquatic species may be imported into many designated
ports of entry, including Miami, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Dallas-Fort
Worth, Detroit, Chicago, and San Francisco. Once imported, aquatic
species could be transported throughout the country for aquaculture,
recreational and commercial fishing, bait, display, and other possible
uses.
Aquaculture is the farming of aquatic organisms, such as fish,
crustaceans, mollusks, and plants, for food, pets, stocking for
fishing, and other purposes. Aquaculture usually occurs in a controlled
setting where the water is contained, as a pond or in a tank, and is
separate from lakes, ponds, rivers, and other natural waters. The
controlled setting allows the aquaculturist to maintain proper
conditions for each species being raised, which promotes optimal
feeding and provides protection from predation and disease. However,
Bartley (2011) states that aquaculture is the primary reason for the
deliberate movement of aquatic species outside of their range, and
Casal (2006) states that many countries are turning to aquaculture for
human consumption, and that has led to the introduction and
establishment of these species in local ecosystems. Although the farmed
species are normally safely contained, outdoor aquaculture ponds have
often flooded from major rainfall events and merged with neighboring
natural waters, allowing the farmed species to escape by swimming or
floating to nearby watersheds. Once a species enters a watershed, it
has the potential to establish and spread throughout the watershed,
which then increases the risk of spread to neighboring watersheds
through further flooding. Other pathways for aquaculture species to
enter natural waters include intentional stocking programs, and through
unintentional stocking when the species is inadvertently included in a
shipment with an intended species for stocking (Bartley 2011), release
of unwanted ornamental fish, and release of live bait by fishermen.
Stocking for recreational fishing is a common pathway for invasive
species when an aquatic species is released into a water body where it
is not native. Often it takes repeated releases before the fish (or
other animal) becomes established. The type of species that are
typically selected and released for recreational fishing are predatory,
grow quickly and to large sizes, reproduce abundantly, and are
adaptable to many habitat conditions (Fuller et al. 1999). These are
often the traits that also contribute to the species becoming invasive
(Copp et al. 2005c; Kolar and Lodge 2001, 2002).
Live aquatic species, such as fish and crayfish, are frequently
used as bait for recreational and commercial fishing. Generally, bait
animals are kept alive until they are needed, and leftover individuals
may be released into convenient waterbodies (Litvak and Mandrak, 1993;
Ludwig and Leitch, 1996). For example, Kilian et al. (2012) reported
that 65 and 69 percent of Maryland anglers using fishes and crayfishes,
respectively, released their unused bait, and that a nonnative,
potentially invasive species imported into the State as bait is likely
to be released into the wild. Often, these individuals survive,
establish, and cause
[[Page 67866]]
harm to that waterbody (Fuller et al. 1999; Kilian et al. 2012).
Litvak and Mandrak (1993) found that 41 percent of anglers released
live bait after use. Their survey found nearly all the anglers who
released their bait thought they were doing a good thing for the
environment. When the authors examined the purchase location and the
angling destination, they concluded that 18 of the 28 species found in
the dealers' bait tanks may have been used outside their native range.
Therefore, it is not surprising that so many species are introduced in
this manner; Ontario, Canada, alone has more than 65 legal baitfish
species, many of which are not native to some or all of Ontario
(Cudmore and Mandrak 2005). Ludwig and Leitch (1996) concluded that the
probability of at least 1,000 bait release events from the Mississippi
Basin to the Hudson Bay Basin in 1 year is close to 1 (a certainty).
Ornamental aquatic species are species kept in aquaria and aquatic
gardens for display for entertainment or public education. The first
tropical freshwater fishes became available in trade in the United
States in the early 1900s (Duggan 2011), and there is currently a large
variety of freshwater and saltwater fishes in the ornamental trade. The
trade in ornamental crayfish species is more recent but is growing
rapidly (Gherardi 2011). The most sought-after species frequently are
not native to the display area. Ornamental species may accidentally
escape from outdoor ponds into neighboring waterbodies (Andrews 1990;
Fuller et al. 1999; Gherardi 2011). They may also be released outdoors
intentionally when owners no longer wish to maintain them, despite laws
in most States prohibiting release into the wild.
The invasive range of many of the species in this final rule has
expanded through intentional release for commercial and recreational
fishing (European perch, Nile perch, Prussian carp, roach, wels
catfish, zander, and common yabby), as bait (Eurasian minnow, roach,
common yabby), and as ornamental fish (Amur sleeper, stone moroko), and
unintentionally (Amur sleeper, crucian carp, Eurasian minnow, and stone
moroko) with shipments of other aquatic species. All 11 species have
proven that they are capable of naturally dispersing through waterways.
The main factor influencing the chances of these 11 species
establishing in the wild would be the propagule pressure, defined as
the frequency of release events (propagule number) and numbers of
individuals released (propagule size) (Williamson 1996; Colautti and
MacIsaac 2004; Duncan 2011). This factor increases the odds of both
genders being released and finding mates and of those individuals being
healthy and vigorous. After a sufficient number of unintentional or
intentional releases, a species may establish in those regions suitable
for its survival and reproduction. Thus, continuing to allow the
importation and interstate transport of these 11 species subsequently
increases the risk of any of these species becoming established and
spreading in the United States.
An additional factor indicating an invasive species' likelihood of
successful establishment and spread is a documented history of these
same species successfully establishing and spreading elsewhere outside
of their native ranges. All 11 species have been introduced, become
established, and been documented as causing harm in countries outside
of their native ranges. For example, the stone moroko's native range
includes southern and central Japan, Taiwan, Korea, China, and the Amur
River basin (Copp et al. 2010). Since the stone moroko's original
introduction to Romania in the early 1960s, this species has invaded
nearly every European country and additional regions of Asia (Welcomme
1988; Copp et al. 2010; Froese and Pauly 2014g).
The demonstrated ability of each of these species to become
established, spread, and cause harm outside of their native range, in
conjunction with the risk they would pose to U.S. ecosystems, warrants
listing all 11 species as injurious under the Lacey Act. The objective
of this listing is to prohibit importation and interstate
transportation of these species and thus prevent their likely
introduction, establishment, and spread in the wild and associated
harms to the interests of agriculture, or wildlife or wildlife
resources of the United States.
Species Information
We obtained our information on a species' biology, history of
invasiveness, and climate matching from a variety of sources, including
the U.S. Geological Survey Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS)
database, CABI datasheets, ERSS reports, primary literature, and peer
and public comments. We queried the NAS database (https://nas.er.usgs.gov/) to confirm that 10 of the 11 species are not
currently established in U.S. ecosystems. The zander is established in
a lake in North Dakota (Fuller 2009). The CABI ISC (https://www.cabi.org/isc/ isc/) is an encyclopedic resource containing datasheets
on more than 1,500 invasive species and animal diseases. The Service
contracted with CABI for many of the species-specific datasheets that
we used in preparation of this final rule. The datasheets were prepared
by experts on the species, and each datasheet was reviewed by expert
peer reviewers.
Crucian Carp (Carassius carassius)
The crucian carp was first described and cataloged by Linnaeus in
1758, and is part of the order Cypriniformes and family Cyprinidae
(ITIS 2014). The family Cyprinidae, or the carp and minnow family, is a
large and diverse group that includes 2,963 freshwater species (Froese
and Pauly 2014d). The taxonomic status of the crucian carp has been
reported to be confused and it is commonly misidentified with other
Carassius spp. (Godard and Copp 2012).
Native Range and Habitat
The crucian carp inhabits a temperate climate (Riehl and Baensch
1991). The native range includes much of north and central Europe,
extending from the North Sea and Baltic Sea basins across northern
France and Germany to the Alps and through the Danube River basin and
eastward to Siberia (Godard and Copp 2012). The species inhabits
freshwater lakes, ponds, rivers, and ditches (Godard and Copp 2012).
This species can survive in water with low dissolved oxygen levels,
including aquatic environments with greatly reduced oxygen (hypoxic) or
largely devoid of dissolved oxygen (anoxic) (Godard and Copp 2012).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
Crucian carp have been widely introduced to and established in
Croatia, Greece, southern France (Hol[ccaron][iacute]k 1991; Godard and
Copp 2012), Italy, and England (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007), Spain,
Belgium, Israel, Switzerland, Chile, India, Sri Lanka, Philippines
(Hol[ccaron][iacute]k 1991; Froese and Pauly 2014a), and Turkey (Innal
and Erk'akan 2006). In the United States, crucian carp may have been
established within Chicago (Illinois) lakes and lagoons in the early
1900s (Meek and Hildebrand 1910; Schofield et al. 2005), but they
apparently died out because currently no such population exists
(Welcomme 1988; Schofield et al. 2005; Schofield et al. 2013).
Several other fish species, including the Prussian carp, the common
carp (Cyprinus carpio), and a brown variety of goldfish (Carassius
auratus) have been misidentified as crucian carp (Godard and Copp
2012). Crucian carp may have been accidentally introduced to some
regions in misidentified shipments of ornamental fishes (Wheeler 2000;
Hickley and Chare 2004). However, no known populations
[[Page 67867]]
of crucian carp currently exist in the United States.
Biology
Crucian carp generally range from 20 to 45 centimeters (cm) (8 to
18 inches (in)) long with a maximum of 50 cm (19.5 in) (Godard and Copp
2012). Specimens have been reported to weigh up to 3 kilograms (kg)
(6.6 pounds (lb)) (Froese and Pauly 2014a). These fish have an olive-
gray back that transitions into brassy green along the sides and brown
on the body (Godard and Copp 2012).
Crucian carp can live up to 10 years (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007)
and reach sexual maturity at one and a half years but may not begin
spawning until their third year (Godard and Copp 2012). Crucian carp
are batch spawners (release multiple batches of eggs per season) and
may spawn one to three times per year (Aho and Holopainen 2000, Godard
and Copp 2012).
Crucian carp feed during the day and night on plankton, benthic
(bottom-dwelling) invertebrates, plant materials, and detritus (organic
material) (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007).
Crucian carp can harbor the virus causing the fish disease Spring
Viraemia of Carp (SVC) (Ahne et al. 2002) and several parasitic
infections (Dactylogyrus gill flukes disease, Trichodinosis, skin
flukes, false fungal infection (Epistylis sp.), and turbidity of the
skin) (Froese and Pauly 2014b). SVC is a disease that, when found, is
required to be reported to the Office International des Epizooties
(OIE) (World Organisation of Animal Health) (Ahne et al. 2002). The SVC
virus infects carp species but may be transmitted to other fish
species. The virus is shed with fecal matter and urine, and often
infects through waterborne transmission (Ahne et al. 2002).
Additionally, SVC may result in significant morbidity and mortality
with an approximate 70 percent fatality among juvenile fish and 30
percent fatality in adult fish (Ahne et al. 2002). Thus, the spread of
SVC may have serious effects on native fish stocks.
OIE-notifiable diseases affect animal health internationally. OIE-
notifiable diseases meet certain criteria for consequences, spread, and
diagnosis. For the consequences criteria, the disease must have either
been documented as causing significant production losses on a national
or multinational (zonal or regional) level, or have scientific evidence
that indicates that the diseases will cause significant morbidity or
mortality in wild aquatic animal populations, or be an agent of public
health concern. For the spread criteria, the disease's infectious
etiology (cause) must be known or an infectious agent is strongly
associated with the disease (with etiology unknown). In addition for
the spread criteria, there must be a likelihood of international spread
(via live animals and animal products) and the disease must not be
widespread (several countries or regions of countries without specific
disease). For the diagnosis criteria, there must be a standardized,
proven diagnostic test for disease detection (OIE 2012). These
internationally accepted standards, including those that document the
consequences (harm) of certain diseases, offer supporting evidence of
injuriousness.
Invasiveness
This species demonstrates many of the strongest traits for
invasiveness. The crucian carp is capable of securing and ingesting a
wide range of food, has a broad native range, and is highly adaptable
to different environments (Godard and Copp 2012). While foraging along
the substrate, Crucian carp can increase turbidity (cloudiness of
water) in lakes, rivers, and streams with soft bottom sediments.
Increased turbidity reduces light availability to submerged plants and
can result in harmful ecosystem changes, such as to phytoplankton
survival and nutrient cycling. Crucian carp can breed with other carp
species, including the common carp (Wheeler 2000). Hybrids of crucian
carp and common carp can affect fisheries, because such hybrids, along
with the introduced crucian carp, may compete with native species for
food and habitat resources (Godard and Copp 2012).
Eurasian Minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus)
The Eurasian minnow was first described and cataloged by Linnaeus
in 1758, and belongs to the order Cypriniformes and family Cyprinidae
(ITIS 2014). Although Eurasian minnow is the preferred common name,
this fish species is also referred to as the European minnow.
Native Range and Habitat
The Eurasian minnow inhabits a temperate climate, and the native
range includes much of Eurasia within the basins of the Atlantic, North
and Baltic Seas, and the Arctic and the northern Pacific Oceans (Froese
and Pauly 2014e).
Eurasian minnows can be found in a variety of habitats ranging from
brackish (estuarine; slightly salty) to freshwater streams, rivers,
ponds, and lakes located within the coastal zone to the mountains
(Sandlund 2008). In Norway, they are found at elevations up to 2,000 m
(6,562 ft). These minnows prefer shallow lakes or slow-flowing streams
and rivers with stony substrate (Sandlund 2008).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The Eurasian minnow's nonnative range includes parts of Sweden and
Norway, United Kingdom, and Egypt (Sandlund 2008), as well as other
drainages juxtaposed to native waterways. The Eurasian minnow was
initially introduced as live bait, which was the main pathway of
introduction throughout the 1900s (Sandlund 2008). The inadvertent
inclusion of this minnow species in the transport water of brown trout
(Salmo trutta) that were intentionally stocked into lakes for
recreational angling has contributed to their spread (Sandlund 2008).
From these initial stockings, minnows have dispersed naturally
downstream and established in new waterways, and have spread to new
waterways through tunnels constructed for hydropower development. These
minnows have also been purposely introduced as food for brown trout and
to control the Tune fly (in Simuliidae) (Sandlund 2008).
The Eurasian minnow is expanding its nonnative range by
establishing populations in additional waterways bordering the native
range. Waterways near where the minnow is already established are most
at risk (Sandlund 2008).
Biology
The Eurasian minnow has a torpedo-shaped body measuring 6 to 10 cm
(2.3 to 4 in) with a maximum of 15 cm (6 in). Size and growth rate are
both highly dependent on population density and environmental factors
(Lien 1981; Mills 1987, 1988; Sandlund 2008). These minnows have
variable coloration but are often brownish-green on the back with a
whitish stomach and brown and black blotches along the side (Sandlund
2008).
The Eurasian minnow's life-history traits (age, size at sexual
maturity, growth rate, and lifespan) may be highly variable (Mills
1988). Populations residing in lower latitudes often have smaller body
size and younger age of maturity than those populations in higher
altitudes and latitudes (Mills 1988). Maturity ranges from less than 1
year to 6 years of age, with a lifespan as long as 13 to 15 years
(Sandlund 2008). The Eurasian minnow spawns annually with an average
fecundity between 200 to 1,000 eggs (Sandlund 2008).
This minnow usually cohabitates with salmonid fishes (Kottelat and
Freyhof
[[Page 67868]]
2007). The Eurasian minnow feeds mostly on invertebrates (crustaceans
and insect larvae) as well as some algal and plant material (Lien
1981).
Invasiveness
The Eurasian minnow demonstrates many of the strongest traits for
invasiveness. The species is highly adaptable to new environments and
is difficult to control (Sandlund 2008). The species can become
established within varying freshwater systems, including lowland and
high alpine areas, as well as in brackish water (Sandlund 2008).
Introductions of the Eurasian minnow can cause major changes to
nonnative ecosystems by affecting the benthic community (decreased
invertebrate diversity) and disrupting trophic-level structure
(Sandlund 2008). This occurrence affects the ability of native fish to
find food as well as disrupts native spawning. The Eurasian minnow has
been shown to reduce recruitment of brown trout by predation (Sandlund
2008). Although brown trout are not native to the United States, they
are closely related to our native trout and salmon, and thus Eurasian
minnows could be expected to reduce the recruitment of native trout.
In addition, Eurasian minnows are carriers of parasites and have
increased the introduction of parasites to new areas. Such parasites
affected native snails, mussels, and different insects within subalpine
lakes in southern Norway following introduction of the Eurasian minnows
(Sandlund 2008). Additionally, Zietara et al. (2008) used molecular
methods to link the parasite Gyrodactylus aphyae from Eurasian minnows
to the new hosts of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout.
Prussian Carp (Carassius gibelio)
The Prussian carp was first described and catalogued by Bloch in
1782, and belongs to the order Cypriniformes and family Cyprinidae
(ITIS 2014). While some have questioned the taxonomy of Prussian carp,
genetic studies have suggested that it is distinct Carassius species
(Elgin et al. 2014). However, the species is not monophyletic
(characterized by descent from a single ancestral group) and therefore
possibly two distinct species (Kalous et al. 2012, Elgin et al. 2014).
In fact, one clade (represents a single lineage) of Prussian carp is
more closely related to goldfish (C. auratus) than to the second clade
of Prussian carp (Kalous et al. 2012). The Prussian carp is very
similar in appearance to other Carassius spp. and common carp (Cyprinus
carpio), and are often difficult to differentiate (Britton 2011).
Native Range and Habitat
The Prussian carp inhabits a temperate climate (Baensch and Riehl
2004). The species is native to regions of central Europe and eastward
to Siberia. It is also native to several Asian countries, including
China, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Turkey, and Turkmenistan (Britton
2011). The Prussian carp resides in a variety of fresh stillwater
bodies and rivers. This species also inhabits warm, shallow, eutrophic
(high in nutrients) waters with submerged vegetation or regular
flooding events (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007). This species can live in
polluted waters with pollution and low oxygen concentrations (Britton
2011).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The Prussian carp has been introduced to many countries within
central and Western Europe. This species was first introduced to
Belgium during the 1600s and is now prevalent in its freshwater
systems. The Prussian carp was also introduced to Belarus and Poland
during the 1940s for recreational fishing and aquaculture. This carp
species has dispersed and expanded its range using the Vistula and Bug
River basins (Britton 2011). During the mid to late 1970s, this carp
species invaded the Czech Republic river system from the Danube River
via the Morava River. Once in the river system, the fish expanded into
tributary streams and connected watersheds. Throughout its nonnative
range, this species has been stocked with common carp and misidentified
as crucian carp (Britton 2011). From the original stocked site, the
Prussian carp has dispersed both naturally and with human involvement.
The Prussian carp's current nonnative range includes the Asian
countries of Armenia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan and the European countries
of Belarus, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany,
Poland, and Switzerland (Britton 2011). The species has recently
invaded the Iberian Peninsula (Ribeiro et al. 2015). The species was
recently found to be established in waterways in southern Alberta,
Canada (Elgin et al. 2014).
Biology
The Prussian carp has a silvery-brown body with an average length
of 20 cm (7.9 in) and reported maximum length of 35 cm (13.8 in)
(Kottelat and Freyhof 2007, Froese and Pauly 2014c). This species has a
reported maximum weight of 3 kilograms (kg; 6.6 pounds (lb) (Froese and
Pauly 2014c)).
The Prussian carp lives up to 10 years (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007).
This species can reproduce in a way very rare among fish. Introduced
populations often include, or are solely composed of, triploid females
that can undergo natural gynogenesis, allowing them to use the sperm of
other species to activate (but not fertilize) their own eggs (Vetemaa
et al. 2005, Britton 2011). Thus, the eggs are viable without being
fertilized by male Prussian carp.
The Prussian carp is a generalist omnivore and consumes a varied
diet that includes plankton, benthic invertebrates, plant material, and
detritus (Britton 2011).
The parasite Thelohanellus wuhanensis (Wang et al. 2001) and black
spot disease (Posthodiplostomatosis) have been found to affect the
Prussian carp (Markov[iacute]c et al. 2012).
Invasiveness
The Prussian carp is a highly invasive species in freshwater
ecosystems throughout Europe and Asia. This fish species grows rapidly
and can reproduce from unfertilized eggs (Vetemaa et al. 2005).
Prussian carp have been implicated in the decline in both the
biodiversity and population of native fish (Vetemaa et al. 2005, Lusk
et al. 2010). The presence of this fish species has been linked with
increased water turbidity (Crivelli 1995), which in turn alters both
the ecosystem's trophic-level structure and nutrient availability.
Roach (Rutilus rutilus)
The roach was first described and cataloged by Linnaeus in 1758,
and belongs to the order Cypriniformes and family Cyprinidae (ITIS
2014).
Native Range and Habitat
The roach inhabits temperate climates (Riehl and Baensch 1991). The
species' native range includes regions of Europe and Asia. Within
Europe, it is found north of the Pyrenees and Alps and eastward to the
Ural River and Eya drainages (Caspian Sea basin) and within the Aegean
Sea basin and watershed (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007). In Asia, the
roach's native range extends from the Sea of Marmara basin and lower
Sakarya Province (Turkey) to the Aral Sea basin and Siberia (Kottelat
and Freyhof 2007).
This species often resides in nutrient-rich lakes, medium to large
rivers, and backwaters. Within rivers, the roach is limited to areas
with slow currents.
Nonnative Range and Habitat
This species has been introduced to several countries for
recreational fishing
[[Page 67869]]
or as bait. Once introduced, the roach has moved into new water bodies
within the same country (Rocabayera and Veiga 2012). In 1889, the roach
was brought from England to Ireland for use as bait fish. Some of these
fish accidentally escaped into the Cork Blackwater system. After this
initial introduction, this fish species was deliberately stocked in
nearby lakes. The roach has continued its expansion throughout Ireland
watersheds, and by 2000, had invaded every major river system within
Ireland (Rocabayera and Veiga 2012).
This species has been reported as invasive in north and central
Italy, where it was introduced for recreational fishing (Rocabayera and
Veiga 2012). The roach was also introduced to Madagascar, Morocco,
Cyprus, Portugal, the Azores, Spain, and Australia (Rocabayera and
Veiga 2012).
Biology
The roach has an average body length of 25 cm (9.8 in) and reported
maximum length of 50 cm (19.7 in) (Rocabayera and Veiga 2012). The
maximum published weight is 1.84 kg (4 lb) (Froese and Pauly 2014f).
The roach can live up to 14 years (Froese and Pauly 2014f). Male
fish are sexually mature at 2 to 3 years and female fish at 3 to 4
years. A whole roach population typically spawns within 5 to 10 days,
with each female producing 700 to 77,000 eggs (Rocabayera and Veiga
2012). Eggs hatch approximately 12 days later (Kottelat and Freyhoff
2007).
The roach has a general, omnivorous diet, including benthic
invertebrates, zooplankton, plants, and detritus (Rocabayera and Veiga
2012). Of the European cyprinids (carps, minnows, and their relatives),
the roach is one of the most efficient molluscivores (Winfield and
Winfield 1994).
Parasitic infections, including worm cataracts (Diplostomum
spathaceum), black spot disease (diplostomiasis), and tapeworm (Ligula
intestinalis), have all been found associated with the roach
(Rocabayera and Veiga 2012), as has the pathogen bacterium Aeromonas
salmonicida, which causes furunculosis (skin ulcers) in several fish
species (Wiklund and Dalsgaard 1998).
Invasiveness
The main issues associated with invasive roach populations include
competition with native fish species, hybridization with native fish
species, and altered ecosystem nutrient cycling (Rocabayera and Veiga
2012). The roach is a highly adaptive species and adapts to a different
habitat or diet to avoid predation or competition (Winfield and
Winfield 1994).
The roach also has a high reproductive potential and spawns earlier
than some other native fish (Volta and Jepsen 2008, Rocabayera and
Veiga 2012). This trait allows larvae to have a competitive edge over
native fish larvae (Volta and Jepsen 2008).
The roach can hybridize with other cyprinids, including rudd
(Scardinius erythrophthalmus) and bream (Abramis brama), in places
where it has invaded. The new species (roach-rudd cross and roach-bream
cross) then compete for food and habitat resources with both the native
fish (rudd, bream) and invasive fish (roach) (Rocabayera and Veiga
2012).
Within nutrient-rich lakes or ponds, large populations of roach
create adverse nutrient cycling. High numbers of roach consume large
amounts of zooplankton, which results in algal blooms, increased
turbidity, and changes in nutrient availability and cycling (Rocabayera
and Veiga 2012).
Stone Moroko (Pseudorasbora parva)
The stone moroko was first described and cataloged by Temminick and
Schlegel in 1846 and belongs to the order Cypriniformes and family
Cyprinidae (ITIS 2014). Although the preferred common name is the stone
moroko, this fish species is also called the topmouth gudgeon (Froese
and Pauly 2014g).
Native Range and Habitat
The stone moroko inhabits a temperate climate (Baensch and Riehl
1993). Its native range is Asia, including southern and central Japan,
Taiwan, Korea, China, and the Amur River basin. The stone moroko
resides in freshwater lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and irrigation
canals (Copp 2007).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The stone moroko was introduced to Romania in the early 1960s with
a Chinese carp shipment (Copp et al. 2010). By 2000, this fish species
had invaded nearly every other European country and additional
countries in Asia (Copp 2007). This species was primarily introduced
unintentionally with fish shipped purposefully. Natural dispersal also
occurred in most countries (Copp 2007).
Within Asia, the stone moroko has been introduced to Afghanistan,
Armenia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Taiwan, Turkey, and Uzbekistan (Copp
2007). In Europe, this fish species' nonnative range includes Albania,
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands,
Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Ukraine, and the United Kingdom (Copp 2007). The stone moroko has also
been introduced to Algeria and Fiji (Copp 2007).
Biology
The stone moroko is a small fish with an average body length of 8
cm (3.1 in), maximum reported length of 11 cm (4.3 in) (Froese and
Pauly 2014g), and average body mass of 17 to 19 grams (g; 0.04 lb)
(Witkowski 2011). This fish species is grayish black with a lighter
belly and sides. Juveniles have a dark stripe along the side that
disappears with maturity (Witkowski 2011).
This fish species can live up to 5 years (Froese and Pauly 2014g).
The stone moroko becomes sexually mature and begins spawning at 1 year
(Witkowski 2011). Females release several dozen eggs per spawning event
and spawn several times per year. The total number of eggs spawned per
female ranges from a few hundred to a few thousand eggs (Witkowski
2011). Male fish aggressively guard eggs until hatching (Witkowski
2011).
The stone moroko maintains an omnivorous diet of small insects,
fish, mollusks, planktonic crustaceans, fish eggs, algae (Froese and
Pauly 2014g), and plants (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007).
The stone moroko is an unaffected carrier of the pathogenic
parasite Sphaerothecum destruens (Gozlan et al. 2005, Pinder et al.
2005). This parasite is transferred to water from healthy stone
morokos. Once in the water, this parasite has infected Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Atlantic salmon, sunbleak (Leucaspius
delineatus), and fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) (Gozlan et al.
2005). Sphaerothecum destruens infects the internal organs, resulting
in spawning failure, organ failure, and death (Gozlan et al. 2005).
Invasiveness
The stone moroko has proven to be a highly invasive fish,
establishing invasive populations in nearly every European country over
a 40-year span (Copp 2007, Copp et al. 2010). This fish species has
proven to be adaptive and tolerant of a variety of habitats, including
those of poorer quality (Beyer et al. 2007). This species' invasiveness
is further aided by multiple spawning events and the guarding of eggs
by the male until hatching (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007).
In many areas of introduction and establishment (for example,
United
[[Page 67870]]
Kingdom, Italy, China, and Russia), the stone moroko has been linked to
the decline of native freshwater fish populations (Copp 2007). The
stone moroko has been found to dominate the fish community when it
becomes established. Native fishes have exhibited decreased growth rate
and reproduction, and they shifted their diet as a result of food
competition (Britton et al. 2010b).
Additionally, this species is a vector of Sphaerothecum destruens,
which is a documented pathogen of salmonids native to the United States
(Gozlan et al. 2005, Gozlan et al. 2009, Andreou et al. 2011).
Sphaerothecum destruens has caused mortalities in cultured North
American salmon (Andreou et al. 2011).
Nile Perch (Lates niloticus)
The Nile perch was first described and cataloged by Linnaeus in
1758 and is in the order Perciformes and family Centropomidae (ITIS
2014). Although its preferred common name is the Nile perch, it is also
referred to as the African snook and Victoria perch (Witte 2013).
Native Range and Habitat
The Nile perch inhabits a tropical climate with an optimal water
temperature of 28 [deg]C (82[emsp14][deg]F) and an upper lethal
temperature of 38 [deg]C (100 [deg]F) (Kitchell et al. 1997). The
species' native distribution includes much of central, western, and
eastern Africa. The species is common in the Nile, Chad, Senegal,
Volta, and Zaire River basins and brackish Lake Mariout near
Alexandria, Egypt, on the Mediterranean coast (Azeroual et al. 2010,
Witte 2013). Nile perch reside in brackish lakes and freshwater lakes,
rivers, stream, reservoirs, and irrigation channels (Witte 2013).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The Nile perch, which is not native to Lake Victoria in Africa, was
first introduced to the lake in 1954 from nearby Lake Albert. This
species was introduced on the Ugandan side and spread to the Kenyan
side. A breeding population existed in the lake by 1962 (Witte 2013).
The Nile perch was also introduced to Lake Kyoga (1954 and 1955) to
gauge the effects of Nile perch on fish populations similar to that of
Lake Victoria. At the time of introduction, people were unaware that
this species had already been introduced unofficially into Lake
Victoria (Witte 2013). Additional introductions of Nile perch occurred
in 1962 and 1963 in Kenyan and Ugandan waters to promote a commercial
fishery. Since its initial introduction to Lakes Victoria and Kyoga,
this fish species has been accidentally and deliberately introduced to
many of the neighboring lakes and waterways (Witte 2013). The increase
in Nile perch population was first noted in Kenyan waters in 1979, in
Ugandan waters 2 to 3 years later, and in Tanzanian waters 4 to 5 years
later (Witte 2013). There are currently only a few lakes in the area
without a Nile perch population (Witte 2013).
The Nile perch was also introduced into Cuba for aquaculture and
sport in 1982 and 1983 (Welcomme 1988), but we have no information on
the subsequent status.
Nile perch were stocked in Texas waters in 1978, 1979, and 1984
(88, 14, and 26 fish respectively in Victor Braunig Lake); in 1981
(68,119 in Coleto Creek Reservoir); and in 1983 (1,310 in Fairfield
Lake) (Fuller et al. 1999, TPWD 2013a). These introductions were
unsuccessful at establishing a self-sustaining population (Howells
1992, Howells and Garret 1992, Howells 2001). Although the fish did not
establish, biologists in Texas and Florida recommended against stocking
Nile perch because of its ability to tolerate cold winter temperatures
in some local waters, tolerance of salt water, and ability to range
widely in riverine habitats, as well as large size and predatory nature
(Howells and Garret 1992). Today, Nile perch are a prohibited exotic
species in Texas (TPWD 2013b, 2016).
Biology
The Nile perch has a perch-like body with an average body length of
1 meter (m) (3.3 feet (ft)), maximum length of 2 m (6.6 ft) (Ribbink
1987, Froese and Pauly 2014h), and maximum weight of 200 kg (441 lb)
(Ribbink 1987). The Nile perch is gray-blue on the dorsal side with
gray-silver along the flank and ventral side (Witte 2013).
The age of sexual maturity varies with habitat location. Most male
fish become sexually mature before females (1 to 2 years versus 1 to 4
years of age) (Witte 2013). This species spawns throughout the year
with increased spawning during the rainy season (Witte 2013). The Nile
perch produce 3 million to 15 million eggs per breeding cycle (Asila
and Ogari 1988). This high fecundity allows the Nile perch to quickly
establish in new regions with favorable habitats (Ogutu-Ohwayo 1988).
Additionally, the Nile perch's reproductive potential in introduced
habitats is much greater than that of its prey, haplochromine cichlids
(fish from the family Cichlidae), which have a reproductive rate of 13
to 33 eggs per breeding cycle (Goldschmidt and Witte 1990).
Nile perch less than 5 cm eat zooplankton (cladocerans and
copepods) (Witte 2013). Juvenile Nile perch (35 to 75 cm long) feed on
invertebrates, primarily aquatic insects, crustaceans, and mollusks
(Ribbink 1987). Adult Nile perch are primarily piscivorous (fish
eaters), but they also consume large crustaceans (Caridina and
Macrobrachium shrimp) and insects (Witte 2013).
The Nile perch is host to a number of parasites capable of causing
infections and diseases in other species, including sporozoa infections
(Hennegya sp.), Dolops infestation, Ergasilus disease, gonad
nematodosis disease (Philometra sp.), and Macrogyrodactylus and
Diplectanum infestation (Paperna 1996, Froese and Pauly 2014i).
Invasiveness
The Nile perch has been listed as one of the 100 ``World's Worst''
Invaders by the Global Invasive Species Database (https://www.issg.org)
(Snoeks 2010, ISSG 2015). During the 1950s and 1960s, this fish was
introduced to several East African lakes for commercial fishing. This
fish is now prevalent in Lake Victoria and constitutes more than 90
percent of demersal (bottom-dwelling) fish mass within this lake (Witte
2013). Since its introduction, native fish populations have declined or
disappeared (Witte 2013). Approximately 200 native haplochromine
cichlid species have become locally extinct due to predation and
competition (Snoeks 2010, Witte 2013).
According to Gophen (2015), the Lake Victoria ecosystem was unique
and comprised at least 400 endemic species of haplochromine fishes.
Historically, the food web structure was naturally balanced, with short
periods of anoxia in deep waters and dominance of diatomides algal
species. During the 1980s, Nile perch became the dominant fish. The
haplochromine species were depleted, and the whole ecosystem was
modified. Algal assemblages were changed to Cyanobacteria; anoxia
became more frequent and occurred in shallower waters. The effect of
the Nile perch predation and its ecological implications in Lake
Victoria is also confirmed by the elimination of planktivory by the
haplochromine fishery. Consequently, this loss has resulted in
significant shifts to the trophic-level structure and loss of
biodiversity of this lake's ecosystem.
[[Page 67871]]
Amur Sleeper (Perccottus glenii)
The Amur sleeper was first described and cataloged by B.I. Dybowski
in 1877, as part of the order Perciformes and family Odontobutidae
(Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002, ITIS 2014). The Amur sleeper is the
preferred common name of this freshwater fish, but this fish is also
called the Chinese sleeper or rotan (Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002, Froese
and Pauly 2014j). In this final rule, we will refer to the species as
the Amur sleeper.
Native Range and Habitat
The Amur sleeper inhabits a temperate climate (Baensch and Riehl
2004). The species' native distribution includes much of the freshwater
regions of northeastern China, northern North Korea, and eastern Russia
(Reshetnikov and Schliewen 2013). Within China, this species is
predominantly native to the lower to middle region of the Amur River
watershed, including the Zeya, Sunguri, and Ussuri tributaries
(Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002, Grabowska 2011) and Lake Khanka (Courtenay
2006). The Amur sleeper's range extends northward to the Tugur River
(Siberia) (Grabowska 2011) and southward to the Sea of Japan
(Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002, Grabowska 2011). To the west, the species
does not occur in the Amur River upstream of Dzhalinda (Bogutskaya and
Nasaka 2002).
The Amur sleeper inhabits freshwater lakes, ponds, canals,
backwaters, flood plains, oxbow lakes, and marshes (Grabowska 2011).
This fish is a poor swimmer, thriving in slow-moving waters with dense
vegetation and muddy substrate and avoiding main river currents
(Grabowska 2011). The Amur sleeper can live in poorly oxygenated water
and can also survive in dried out or frozen water bodies by burrowing
into and hibernating in the mud (Bogutskaya and Nasaka 2002, Grabowska
2011).
Although the Amur sleeper is a freshwater fish, there are limited
reports of it appearing in saltwater environments (Bogutskaya and
Naseka 2002). These reports seem to occur with flood events and are
likely a consequence of these fish being carried downstream into these
saltwater environments (Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
This species' first known introduction was in western Russia. In
1912, Russian naturalist I.L. Zalivskii brought four Amur sleepers to
the Lisiy Nos settlement (St. Petersburg, Russia) (Reshetnikov 2004,
Grabowska 2011). These four fish were held in aquaria until 1916, when
they were released into a pond, where they subsequently established a
population before naturally dispersing into nearby waterbodies
(Reshetnikov 2004, Grabowska 2011). In 1948, additional Amur sleepers
were introduced to Moscow for use in ornamental ponds by members of an
expedition (Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002, Reshetnikov 2004). These fish
escaped the ponds into which they had been stocked and spread to nearby
waters in the city of Moscow and Moscow Province (Reshetnikov 2004).
Additionally, Amur sleepers were introduced to new areas when they
were unintentionally shipped to fish farms in fish stocks, such as
silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and grass carp
(Ctenopharyngodon idella). From these initial introductions, the Amur
sleepers were able to expand from their native range through escape,
release, and transfer between fish farms (Reshetnikov 2004).
Additionally, Amur sleepers tolerate being transported and have been
moved from one waterbody to another by anglers as bait (Reshetnikov
2004).
The Amur sleeper is an invasive species in western Russia and 16
additional countries: Mongolia, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia,
Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Moldova,
Kazakhstan, Croatia, and recently Germany, where it is dispersing up
the Danube River into western Europe (Reshetnikov and Schliewen 2013).
The Amur sleeper is established within the Baikal, Baltic, and Volga
water basins of Europe and Asia (Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002) and the
Danube of Europe (Reshetnikov and Schliewen 2013). The occurrence of
the Amur sleeper in a far-western region of Europe is highly
troublesome because this invasive and hardy predator represents a major
threat to European freshwater shallow lentic water-body ecosystems
where the Amur sleeper is capable of depleting diversity in species of
macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and fish (Reshetnikov and Schliewen
2013).
Biology
The Amur sleeper is a small- to medium-sized fish with a maximum
body length of 25 cm (9.8 in) (Grabowska 2011) and weight of 250 g (0.6
lb) (Reshetnikov 2003). As with other fish species, both body length
and weight vary with food supply, and larger Amur sleeper specimens
have been reported from its nonnative range (Bogutskaya and Naseka
2002).
Body shape is fusiform with two dorsal fins, short pelvic fins, and
rounded caudal fin (Grabowska 2011). The Amur sleeper has dark
coloration of greenish olive, brownish gray, or dark green with dark
spots and pale yellow to blue-green flecks (Grabowska 2011). Males are
not easily discerned from females except during breeding season.
Breeding males are darker (almost black) with bright blue-green spots
(Grabowska 2011).
The Amur sleeper lifespan is from 7 to 10 years. Within native
ranges, the fish rarely lives more than 4 years, whereas in nonnative
ranges, the fish generally lives longer (Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002,
Grabowska 2011). The fish reaches maturity between 2 and 3 years of age
(Grabowska 2011) and has at least two spawning events per year.
The number of eggs per spawning event varies with female size. In
the Wloclawski Reservoir, which is outside of the Amur sleeper's native
range, the females produced an average of 7,766 eggs per female (range
1,963 to 23,479 eggs) (Grabowska et al. 2011). Male Amur sleepers are
active in prenatal care by guarding eggs and aggressively defending the
nest (Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002, Grabowska et al. 2011).
The Amur sleeper is a voracious, generalist predator that eats
invertebrates (such as freshwater crayfish, shrimp, mollusks, and
insects), amphibian tadpoles, and small fish (Bogutskaya and Naseka
2002). Reshetnikov (2003) found that the Amur sleeper significantly
reduced species diversity of fishes and amphibians where it was
introduced. In some small water bodies, Amur sleepers considerably
decrease the number of species of aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibian
larvae, and fish species (Reshetnikov 2003, Pauly 2014, Kottelat and
Freyhof 2007).
The predators of Amur sleepers include pike, perch, snakeheads
(Channa spp.), and gulls (Laridae) (Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002). It is
believed that this species is primarily controlled by snakeheads in
their native range. Eggs and juveniles are fed on by a variety of
insects (Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002).
The Amur sleeper reportedly has high parasitic burdens of more than
40 parasite species (Grabowska 2011). The host-specific parasites,
including Nippotaenia mogurndae and Gyrodactylus perccotti, have been
transported to new areas along with the introduced Amur sleeper
(Ko[scaron]uthov[aacute] et al. 2004, Grabowska 2011). The cestode
(tapeworm) Nippotaenia mogurndae was first reported in Europe in the
River Latorica in east Slovakia in 1998, after
[[Page 67872]]
this same river was invaded by the Amur sleeper
(Ko[scaron]uthov[aacute] et al. 2004). This parasite may be able to
infect other fish species (Ko[scaron]uthov[aacute] et al. 2008). Thus,
the potential for the Amur sleeper to function as a parasitic host
could aid in the transmission of parasites to new environments and
potentially to new species (Ko[scaron]uthov[aacute] et al. 2008,
Ko[scaron]uthov[aacute] et al. 2009).
Invasiveness
The Amur sleeper is considered one of the most widespread, invasive
fish in European freshwater ecosystems within the last several decades
(Copp et al. 2005a, Grabowska 2011, Reshetnikov and Ficetola 2011).
Reshetnikov and Ficetola (2011) indicate that there are 13 expansion
centers for this fish outside of its native range. Once this species
has been introduced, it has proven to be capable of establishing
sustainable populations (Reshetnikov 2004). Within the Vistula River
(Poland), the Amur sleeper has averaged an annual expansion of its
range by 88 kilometers (km) (54.5 miles (mi) per year) (Grabowska
2011). A recent study (Reshetnikov and Ficetola 2011) suggests many
other regions of Europe and Asia, as well as the northeastern United
States and southeastern Canada, have suitable climates for the Amur
sleeper and are at risk for an invasion.
The Amur sleeper demonstrates many of the strongest traits for
invasiveness: It consumes a highly varied diet, is fast growing with a
high reproductive potential, easily adapts to different environments,
and has an expansive native range and proven history of increasing its
nonnative range by itself and through human-mediated activities
(Grabowska 2011). Where it is invasive, the Amur sleeper competes with
native species for similar habitat and diet resources (Reshetnikov
2003, Kottelat and Freyhof 2007). This fish has also been associated
with the decline in populations of the European mudminnow (Umbra
krameri), crucian carp, and belica (Leucaspius delineates) (Grabowska
2011). This species hosts parasites that may be transmitted to native
fish species when introduced outside of its native range
(Ko[scaron]uthov[aacute] et al. 2008, Ko[scaron]uthov[aacute] et al.
2009)
European Perch (Perca fluviatilis)
The European perch was first described and cataloged by Linnaeus in
1758, and is part of the order Perciformes and family Percidae (ITIS
2014). European perch is the preferred common name, but this species
may also be referred to as the Eurasian perch or redfin perch (Allen
2004, Froese and Pauly 2014).
Native Range and Habitat
The European perch inhabits a temperate climate (Riehl and Baensch
1991, Froese and Pauly 2014). This species' native range extends
throughout Europe and regions of Asia, including Afghanistan, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan
(Froese and Pauly 2014k). The fish resides in a range of habitats that
includes estuaries and freshwater lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams
(Froese and Pauly 2014k).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The European perch has been intentionally introduced to several
countries for recreational fishing, including Ireland (in the 1700s),
Australia (in 1862), South Africa (in 1915), Morocco (in 1939), and
Cyprus (in 1971) (FAO 2014, Froese and Pauly 2014k). This species was
introduced intentionally to Turkey for aquaculture (FAO 2004) and
unintentionally to Algeria when it was included in the transport water
with carp intentionally brought into the country (Kara 2012, Froese and
Pauly 2014k). European perch have also been introduced to China (in the
1970s), Italy (in 1860), New Zealand (in 1867), and Spain (no date) for
unknown reasons (FAO 2014). In Australia, this species was first
introduced as an effort to introduce wildlife familiar to European
colonizers (Arthington and McKenzie 1997). The European perch was first
introduced to Tasmania in 1862, Victoria in 1868, and to southwest
Western Australia in 1892 and the early 1900s (Arthington and McKenzie
1997). This species has now invaded western Victoria, New South Wales,
Tasmania, Western Australia, and South Australian Gulf Coast (NSW DPI
2013). In the 1980s, the European perch invaded the Murray River in
southwestern Australia (Hutchison and Armstrong 1993).
Biology
The European perch has an average body length of 25 cm (10 in) with
a maximum length of 60 cm (24 in) (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007, Froese
and Pauly 2014k) and an average body weight of 1.2 kg (2.6 lb) with a
maximum weight of 4.75 kg (10.5 lb) (Froese and Pauly 2014k). European
perch color varies with habitat. Fish in well-lit shallow habitats tend
to be darker, whereas fish residing in poorly lit areas tend to be
lighter. These fish may also absorb carotenoids (nutrients that cause
color) from their diet (crustaceans), resulting in reddish-yellow color
(Allen 2004). Male fish are not easily externally differentiated from
female fish (Allen 2004).
The European perch lives up to 22 years (Froese and Pauly 2014k),
although the average is 6 years (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007). This fish
may participate in short migrations prior to spawning in February
through July, depending on latitude and altitude (Kottelat and Freyhof
2007). Female fish are sexually mature at 2 to 4 years and males at 1
to 2 years (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007).
The European perch is a generalist predator with a diet of
zooplankton, macroinvertebrates (such as copepods and crustaceans), and
small fish (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007, Froese and Pauly 2014k).
The European perch can also carry the OIE-notifiable disease
epizootic haematopoietic necrosis (EHN) virus (NSW DPI 2013). Several
native Australian fish (including the silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus)
and Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii)) are extremely susceptible to
the virus and have had significant population declines over the past
decades with the continued invasion of European perch (NSW DPI 2013).
Invasiveness
The European perch has been introduced to many new regions through
fish stocking for recreational use. The nonnative range has also
expanded as the fish has swum to new areas through connecting
waterbodies (lakes, river, and streams within the same watershed). In
New South Wales, Australia, these fish are a serious pest and are
listed as Class 1 noxious species (NSW DPI 2013). These predatory fish
have been blamed for the local extirpation of the mudminnow (Galaxiella
munda) (Moore 2008, ISSG 2010) and depleted populations of native
invertebrates and fish (Moore 2008). This species reportedly consumed
20,000 rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fry from an Australian
reservoir in less than 3 days (NSW DPI 2013). The introduction of these
fish in New Zealand and China has severely altered native freshwater
communities (Closs et al. 2003). European perch form dense populations,
forcing them to compete amongst each other for a reduced food supply.
This competition results in stunted fish that are less appealing to the
recreational fishery (NSW DPI 2013).
Zander (Sander lucioperca)
The zander was first described and catalogued by Linnaeus in 1758,
and belongs to the order Perciformes and family Percidae (ITIS 2014).
Although
[[Page 67873]]
its preferred common name in the United States is the zander, this fish
species is also called the pike-perch and European walleye (Godard and
Copp 2011, Froese and Pauly 2014l).
Native Range and Habitat
The zander's native range includes the Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea,
Black Sea, Aral Sea, North Sea, and Aegean Sea basins. In Asia, this
fish is native to Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran,
Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. In Europe, the zander is native to much of
eastern Europe (Albania, Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia,
Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine, and Serbia and Montenegro) and the
Scandinavian Peninsula (Finland, Norway, and Sweden) (Godard and Copp
2011, Froese and Pauly 2014l). The northernmost records of native
populations are in Finland up to 64 [deg]N (Larsen and Berg 2014).
The zander resides in brackish coastal estuaries and freshwater
rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. The species prefers turbid, slightly
eutrophic waters with high dissolved oxygen concentrations (Godard and
Copp 2011). The zander can survive in salinities up to 20 parts per
thousand (ppt), but prefers environments with salinities less than 12
ppt and requires less than 3 ppt for reproduction (Larsen and Berg
2014).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The zander has been repeatedly introduced outside of its native
range for recreational fishing and aquaculture and also to control
cyprinids (Godard and Copp 2011, Larsen and Berg 2014). This species
has been introduced to much of Europe, parts of Asia (China,
Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey), and northern Africa (Algeria, Morocco, and
Tunisia). Within Europe, the zander has been introduced to Belgium,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands,
Portugal, the Azores, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United
Kingdom (Godard and Copp 2011, Froese and Pauly 2014l). In Denmark,
although the zander is native, stocking is not permitted to prevent the
species from being introduced into lakes and rivers where it is not
presently found and where introduction is not desirable (Larsen and
Berg 2014).
The zander has been previously introduced to the United States.
Juvenile zanders were stocked into Spiritwood Lake (North Dakota) in
1989 for recreational fishing (Fuller et al. 1999, Fuller 2009, USGS
NAS 2014). Although previous reports indicated that zanders did not
become established in Spiritwood Lake, there have been documented
reports of captured juvenile zanders from this lake (Fuller 2009). In
2009, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department reported a small,
established population of zanders within Spiritwood Lake (Fuller 2009),
and a zander caught in 2013 was considered the State record (North
Dakota Game and Fish 2013).
Biology
The zander has an average body length of 50 cm (1.6 ft) and maximum
body length of 100 cm (3.3 ft). The maximum published weight is 20 kg
(44 lb) (Froese and Pauly 2014l). The zander has a long, slender body
with yellow-gray fins and dark bands running from the back down each
side (Godard and Copp 2011).
The zander's age expectancy is inversely correlated to its body
growth rate. Slower-growing zanders may live up to 20 to 24 years,
whereas faster-growing fish may live only 8 to 9 years (Godard and Copp
2011). Female zanders typically spawn in April and May and produce
approximately 150 to 400 eggs per gram of body mass. After spawning,
male zanders protect the nest and fan the eggs with their tails (Godard
and Copp 2011).
The zander is piscivorous, and its diet includes smelt (Osmerus
eperlanus), ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), European perch, vendace
(Coregonus albula), roach, and other zanders (Kangur and Kangur 1998).
Several studies have found that zanders can be hosts for multiple
parasites (Godard and Copp 2011). The nematode Anisakis, which is known
to infect humans through fish consumption, has been documented in the
zander (Eslami and Mokhayer 1977, Eslami et al. 2011). A study in the
Polish section of Vistula Lagoon found 26 species of parasites
associated with the zander, which was more than any of the other 15
fish species studied (Rolbiecki 2002, 2006).
Invasiveness
The zander has been intentionally introduced numerous times for
aquaculture, recreational fishing, and occasionally for biomanipulation
to remove unwanted cyprinids (Godard and Copp 2011). Biomanipulation is
the management of an ecosystem by adding or removing species. The
zander migrates for spawning, which further expands its invasive range.
It is a predatory fish that is well-adapted to turbid water and low-
light habitats (Sandstr[ouml]m and Kar[aring]s 2002). The zander
competes with and preys on native fish. The zander is also a vector for
the trematode Bucephalus polymorphus, which has been linked to a
decrease in native French cyprinid populations (Kvach and Mierzejewska
2011).
Wels Catfish (Silurus glanis)
The wels catfish was first described and cataloged by Linnaeus in
1758, and belongs to the order Siluriformes and family Siluridae (ITIS
2014). The preferred common name is the wels catfish, but this fish is
also called the Danube catfish, European catfish, and sheatfish (Rees
2012, Froese and Pauly 2014m).
Native Range and Habitat
The wels catfish inhabits a temperate climate (Baensch and Riehl
2004). The species is native to eastern Europe and western Asia,
including the North Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, and Aral
Sea basins (Rees 2012, Froese and Pauly 2014m). The species resides in
slow-moving rivers, backwaters, shallow floodplain channels, and
heavily vegetated lakes (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007). The wels catfish
has also been found in brackish water of the Baltic and Black Seas
(Froese and Pauly 2014m). The species is a demersal (bottom-dwelling)
species that prefers residing in crevices and root habitats (Rees
2012).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The wels catfish was introduced to the United Kingdom and western
Europe during the 19th century. The species was first introduced to
England in 1880 for recreational fishing at the private Bedford manor
estate of Woburn Abbey. Since then, wels catfish have been stocked both
legally and illegally into many lakes and are now widely distributed
throughout the United Kingdom (Rees 2012). This species was introduced
to Spain, Italy, and France for recreational fishing and aquaculture
(Rees 2012). Wels catfish were introduced to the Netherlands as a
substitute predator to control cyprinid fish populations (De Groot
1985) after the native pike were overfished. The wels catfish has also
been introduced to Algeria, Belgium, Bosnia-Hercegovina, China,
Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Portugal, Syria, and Tunisia,
although they are not known to be established in Algeria or Cyprus
(Rees 2012).
Biology
The wels catfish commonly grows to 3 m (9.8 ft) in body length with
a maximum length of 5 m (16.4 ft) and is Europe's largest freshwater
fish (Rees 2012). The maximum published weight is 306 kg (675 lb) (Rees
2012).
[[Page 67874]]
This species has a strong, elongated, scaleless, mucus-covered body
with a flattened tail. The body color is variable but is generally
mottled with dark greenish-black and creamy-yellow sides. Wels
catfishes possess six barbels; two long ones on each side of the mouth,
and four shorter ones under the jaw (Rees 2012).
Although the maximum reported age is 80 years (Kottelat and Freyhof
2007), the average lifespan of a wels catfish is 15 to 30 years. This
species becomes sexually mature at 3 to 4 years of age. Nocturnal
spawning occurs annually and aligns with optimal temperature and day
length between April and August (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007, Rees 2012).
The number of eggs produced per female, per year is highly variable,
and depends on age, size, geographic location, and other factors.
Studies in Asia have documented egg production of a range of
approximately 8,000 to 467,000 eggs with the maximum reported being
700,000 eggs (Copp et al. 2009). Male fish will guard the nest,
repeatedly fanning their tails to ensure proper ventilation until the
eggs hatch 2 to 10 days later (Copp et al. 2009). Young catfish develop
quickly and, on average, achieve a 38- to 48-cm (15- to 19-in) total
length within their first year (Copp et al. 2009).
This species is primarily nocturnal and will exhibit territorial
behavior (Copp et al. 2009). The wels catfish is a solitary ambush
predator but is also an opportunistic scavenger of dead fish (Copp et
al. 2009). Juvenile catfish typically eat invertebrates. Adult catfish
are generalist predators with a diet that includes fish (at least 55
species), crayfish, small mammals (such as rodents), and waterfowl
(Copp et al. 2009, Rees 2012). Wels catfish have been observed beaching
themselves to prey on land birds located on river banks (Cucherousset
2012).
Juvenile wels catfish can carry the highly infectious SVC (Hickley
and Chare 2004). This disease is recognized worldwide and is classified
as a notifiable animal disease by the World Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE 2014). The wels catfish is also a host to at least 52
parasites, including: Trichodina siluri, Myxobolus miyarii,
Leptorhynchoides plagicephalus and Pseudotracheliastes stellifer, all
of which may be detrimental to native fish survival (Copp et al. 2009).
Invasiveness
The wels catfish is a habitat-generalist that tolerates poorly
oxygenated waters and has been repeatedly introduced to the United
Kingdom and western Europe for aquaculture, research, pest control, and
recreational fishing (Rees 2012). Although this species has been
intentionally introduced for aquaculture and fishing, it has also
expanded its nonnative range by escaping from breeding and stocking
facilities (Rees 2012). This species is tolerant of a variety of warm-
water habitats, including those with low dissolved oxygen levels. The
invasive success of the wels catfish will likely be further enhanced
with the predicted increase in water temperature with climate change (2
to 3 [deg]C by 2050) (Rahel and Olden 2008, Britton et al. 2010a).
The major risks associated with invasive wels catfish to the native
fish population include disease transmission (SVC) and competition for
habitat and prey species (Rees 2012). This fish species also excretes
large amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen (estimated 83- to 286-fold and
17- to 56-fold, respectively) (Boul[ecirc]treau et al. 2011) into the
ecosystem and consequently greatly disrupts nutrient cycling and
transport (Schaus et al. 1997, McIntyre et al. 2008, Boul[ecirc]treau
et al. 2011). Because of their large size, multiple wels catfish in one
location magnify these effects and can greatly increase algae and plant
growth (Boul[ecirc]treau et al. 2011), which reduces water quality.
Common Yabby (Cherax destructor)
Unlike the 10 fish in this rule, the yabby is a crayfish. Crayfish
are invertebrates with hard shells. They can live and breathe
underwater, and they crawl along the substrate on four pairs of walking
legs (Holdich and Reeve 1988); the pincers are considered another pair
of walking legs. The common yabby was first described and cataloged by
Clark in 1936 and belongs to the phylum Arthropoda, order Decapoda, and
family Parastacidae (ITIS 2014). This freshwater crustacean may also be
called the yabby or the common crayfish. The term ``yabby'' is also
commonly used for crayfish in Australia.
Native Range and Habitat
The common yabby is native to eastern Australia and extends from
South Australia, northward to southern parts of the Northern Territory,
and eastward to the Great Dividing Range (Eastern Highlands) (Souty-
Grosset et al. 2006, Gherardi 2012).
The common yabby inhabits temperate and tropical climates. In
aquaculture, the yabby tolerates the wide range of water temperatures
from 1 to 35 [deg]C (34 to 95[emsp14][deg]F), with an optimal water
temperature range of 20 to 25 [deg]C (68 to 77[emsp14][deg]F) (Withnall
2000). Growth halts below 15 [deg]C (59[emsp14][deg]F) and above 34
[deg]C (93[emsp14][deg]F), partial hibernation (decreased metabolism
and feeding) occurs below 16 [deg]C (61[emsp14][deg]F), and death
occurs when temperatures rise above 36 [deg]C (97[emsp14][deg]F)
(Gherardi 2012). The common yabby can also survive drought for several
years by sealing itself in a deep burrow (burrows well over 5 m; 16.4
ft have been found) and aestivating (the crayfish's respiration, pulse,
and digestion nearly cease) (NSW DPI 2015).
This species can tolerate a wide range of dissolved oxygen
concentrations and salinities (Mills and Geddes 1980) but prefers
salinities less than 8 ppt (Withnall 2000, Gherardi 2012). Growth
ceases at salinities above 8 ppt (Withnall 2000). This correlates with
Beatty's (2005) study where all yabbies found in waters greater than 20
ppt were dead. Yabbies have been found in ponds where the dissolved
oxygen was below 1 percent saturation (NSW DPI 2015).
The common yabby resides in a variety of habitats, including desert
mound springs, alpine streams, subtropical creeks, rivers, billabongs
(small lake, oxbow lake), temporary lakes, swamps, farm dams, and
irrigation channels (Gherardi 2012). The yabby is found in mildly
turbid waters and muddy or silted bottoms. The common yabby digs
burrows that connect to waterways (Withnall 2000). Burrowing can result
in unstable and collapsed banks (Gherardi 2012).
Nonnative Range and Habitat
The common yabby is commercially valuable and is frequently
imported by countries for aquaculture, aquariums, and research
(Gherardi 2012); it is raised in aquaculture as food for humans (NSW
DPI 2015). This species has spread throughout Australia, and its
nonnative range extends to New South Wales east of the Great Dividing
Range, Western Australia, and Tasmania. This crayfish species was
introduced to Western Australia in 1932 for commercial aquaculture from
where it escaped and established in rivers and irrigation dams (Souty-
Grosset et al. 2006). Outside of Australia, this species has been
introduced into Italy and Spain where it has become established
(Gherardi 2012). The common yabby has been introduced to China, South
Africa, and Zambia for aquaculture (Gherardi 2012) but has not become
established in the wild in those countries. The first European
introduction occurred in 1983, when common yabbies were transferred
from a California farm to a pond in Girona, Catalonia, Spain (Souty-
Grosset et al. 2006). This crayfish species became established in
Zaragoza Province, Spain, after being introduced
[[Page 67875]]
in 1984 or 1985 (Souty-Grosset et al. 2006).
Biology
The common yabby has been described as a ``baby lobster'' because
of its relatively large body size for a crayfish and because of its
unusually large claws. Yabbies have a total body length up to 15 cm (6
in) with a smooth external carapace (exoskeleton) (Souty-Grosset et al.
2006, Gherardi 2012). Body color can vary with geographic location,
season, and water conditions (Withnall 2000). Most captive-cultured
yabbies are blue-gray, whereas wild yabbies may be green-beige to black
(Souty-Grosset et al. 2006, Withnall 2000). Yabbies in the aquarium
trade can be blue or white and go by the names blue knight and white
ghost (LiveAquaria.com 2014a, b).
Most common yabbies live 3 years with some living up to 6 years
(Souty-Grosset et al. 2006, Gherardi 2012). Females can be
distinguished from males by the presence of gonopores at the base of
the third pair of walking legs; while males have papillae at the base
of the fifth pair of walking legs (Gherardi 2012). The female yabby
becomes sexually mature before it is 1 year old (Gherardi 2012).
Spawning is dependent on day length and water temperatures. When water
temperatures rise above 15 [deg]C (59[emsp14][deg]F), the common yabby
will spawn from early spring to mid-summer. When the water temperature
is consistently between 18 and 20 [deg]C (64 to 68[emsp14][deg]F) with
daylight of more than 14 hours, the yabby will spawn up to five times a
year (Gherardi 2012). Young females produce 100 to 300 eggs per
spawning event, while older (larger) females can produce up to 1,000
eggs (Withnall 2000). Incubation is also dependent on water temperature
and typically lasts 19 to 40 days (Withnall 2000).
The common yabby grows through molting, which is shedding of the
old carapace and then growing a new one (Withnall 2000). A juvenile
yabby will molt every few days, whereas, an adult yabby may molt only
annually or semiannually (Withnall 2000).
The common yabby is an opportunistic omnivore with a carnivorous
summer diet and herbivorous winter diet (Beatty 2005). The diet
includes fish (Gambusia holbrooki), plant material, detritus, and
zooplankton. The yabby is also cannibalistic, especially where space
and food are limited (Gherardi 2012).
The common yabby is affected by at least ten parasites (Jones and
Lawrence 2001), including the crayfish plague (caused by Aphanomyces
astaci), burn spot disease, Psorospermium sp. (a parasite), and
thelohaniasis (Jones and Lawrence 2001, Souty-Grosset et al. 2006,
Gherardi 2012). The crayfish plague is an OIE-reportable disease.
Twenty-three bacteria species have been found in the yabby as well
(Jones and Lawrence 2001).
Invasiveness
The common yabby has a quick growth and maturity rate, high
reproductive potential, and generalist diet. These attributes, in
addition to the species' tolerance for a wide range of freshwater
habitats, make the common yabby an efficient invasive species.
Additionally, the invasive range of the common yabby is expected to
expand with climate change (Gherardi 2012). Yabbies can also live on
land and travel long distances by walking between water bodies
(Gherardi 2011).
The common yabby may reduce biodiversity through competition and
predation with native species. In its nonnative range, the common yabby
has proven to out-compete native crayfish species for food and habitat
(Beatty 2006, Gherardi 2012). Native freshwater crayfish species are
also at risk from parasitic infections from the common yabby (Gherardi
2012).
Summary of the Presence of the 11 Species in the United States
Only one of the 11 species, the zander, is known to be present in
the wild within the United States. There has been a small established
population of zander within Spiritwood Lake (North Dakota) since 1989.
Crucian carp were reportedly introduced to Chicago lakes and lagoons
during the early 1900s. Additionally, Nile perch were introduced to
Texas reservoirs between 1978 and 1985. However, neither the crucian
carp nor the Nile perch established populations, and these two species
are no longer present in the wild in U.S. waters. Although these
species are not yet present in the United States (except for one
species in one lake), all 11 species have a high climate match in parts
of the United States and have been introduced, become established,
spread, and been documented as causing harm in countries outside of
their native ranges in habitats and ecosystems similar to those found
in the United States. Acting now to prohibit both their importation and
interstate transportation and thereby prevent the species' likely
introduction, establishment, and spread in the wild and associated harm
to the interests of agriculture or to wildlife or wildlife resources of
the United States is critical.
Rapid Screening
The first step that the Service performed in selecting species to
evaluate for listing as injurious was to prepare a rapid screen to
assess which species out of thousands of foreign species not yet found
in the United States should be categorized as high-risk of
invasiveness. We compiled the information in Ecological Risk Screening
Summaries (ERSS) for each species to determine the Overall Risk
Assessment of each species.
The Overall Risk Assessment incorporates scores for the history of
invasiveness, climate match between the species' range (native and
invaded ranges) and the United States, and certainty of assessment.
The climate match analysis (Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences
2010) incorporates 16 climate variables (eight for rainfall and eight
for temperature) to calculate climate scores that can be used to
calculate a Climate 6 ratio. The Climate 6 score (or ratio) is
determined by this formula: (Sum of the Counts for Climate Match Scores
6-10)/(Sum of all Climate Match Scores). This ratio was shown to be the
best predictor of success of introduction of exotic freshwater fish
(Bomford 2008). Using the Climate 6 ratio, species can be categorized
as having a low (0.000 to 0.005), medium (greater than 0.005 to less
than 0.103), or high (greater than 0.103) climate match (Bomford 2008;
USFWS 2013b).
The climate match score is a calculation that ranges from 0 to 10.
It compares the 16 climate variables as one point (source climate
station) to another point (target station). The equation calculates a
figurative ``distance'' between every source and target station, then
selects the highest score (best match and closest ``distance''). This
distance is then normalized on a score from 0 to 10 to make it easier
to understand and to calculate ratios. The 16 climate parameters used
to estimate the extent of climatically matched habitat in the CLIMATE
program are in Table 1 (Bomford et al. 2010).
Table 1--The Climate Parameters Used in the CLIMATE Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature parameters ([deg]C) Rainfall parameters (mm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean annual............................... Mean annual.
Minimum of coolest month.................. Mean of wettest month.
Maximum of warmest month.................. Mean of driest month.
[[Page 67876]]
Average range............................. Mean monthly coefficient of
variation.
Mean of coolest quarter................... Mean of coolest quarter.
Mean of warmest quarter................... Mean of warmest quarter.
Mean of wettest quarter................... Mean of wettest quarter.
Mean of driest quarter.................... Mean of driest quarter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We use Climate 6 scores because that system was peer reviewed
(Bomford 2008). In Bomford's seminal risk assessment manual, she
stated, ``The generic model is based on Climate 6 (as opposed to
Climate 5, 7 or 8), since Climate 6 was shown to be the best predictor
of success of introduction,'' referring to exotic freshwater fish. We
believe that the categorical system provided by generating and using
the Climate 6 Ratio is effective for our current needs. For more
information on how the climate match scores are derived, please see the
revised Standard Operating Procedures (USFWS 2016).
As explained in the proposed rule, the Service expanded the source
ranges (native and nonnative distribution) of several species for the
climate match from those listed in the ERSSs. The revised source ranges
included additional locations referenced in FishBase (Froese and Pauly
2014), the CABI ISC, and the Handbook of European Freshwater Fishes
(Kottelat and Freyhof 2007). Additional source points were also
specifically selected for the stone moroko's distribution within the
United Kingdom (Pinder et al. 2005). There were no revisions to the
climate match for the Nile perch, Amur sleeper, or common yabby. The
target range for the climate match included the States, District of
Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The ERSS process was peer-reviewed in 2013 per OMB guidelines (OMB
2004). More information on the ERSS process and its peer review is
posted online at https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/Injurious_prevention.html, https://www.fws.gov/science/pdf/ERSS-Process-Peer-Review-Agenda-12-19-12.pdf, and https://www.fws.gov/science/pdf/ERSS-Peer-Review-Response-report.pdf.
The Overall Risk Assessment was found to be high for all 11
species. All 11 species have a high risk for history of invasiveness.
Overall climate match to the United States ranged from medium for the
Nile perch to high for the remaining nine fish and one crayfish
species. The certainty of assessment (with sufficient and reliable
information) was high for all species.
Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria
Once we determined that all 11 species were good candidates for
further and more in-depth evaluation because of their overall invasive
risk, we used the criteria below to evaluate whether each of these
species qualifies as injurious under the Act. The analysis using these
criteria serve as a general basis for the Service's injurious wildlife
listing decisions. Biologists within the Service evaluate both the
factors that contribute to and the factors that reduce the likelihood
of injuriousness:
(1) Factors that contribute to being considered injurious:
The likelihood of release or escape;
Potential to survive, become established, and spread;
Impacts on wildlife resources or ecosystems through
hybridization and competition for food and habitats, habitat
degradation and destruction, predation, and pathogen transfer;
Impacts to endangered and threatened species and their
habitats;
Impacts to human beings, forestry, horticulture, and
agriculture; and
Wildlife or habitat damages that may occur from control
measures.
(2) Factors that reduce the likelihood of the species being
considered as injurious:
Ability to prevent escape and establishment;
Potential to eradicate or manage established populations
(for example, making organisms sterile);
Ability to rehabilitate disturbed ecosystems;
Ability to prevent or control the spread of pathogens or
parasites; and
Any potential ecological benefits to introduction.
For this final rule, a hybrid is defined as any progeny (offspring)
from any cross involving a parent from 1 of the 11 species. These
progeny would likely have the same or similar biological
characteristics of the parent species (Ellstrand and Schierenbeck 2000,
Mallet 2007), which, according to our analysis, would indicate that
they are injurious to the interests of agriculture, or to wildlife or
wildlife resources of the United States.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Crucian Carp
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This species is not currently found within the United States. The
crucian carp has been introduced and become established in Croatia,
Greece, France, Italy, and England (Crivelli 1995, Kottelat and Freyhof
2007).
Potential Introduction and Spread
Potential pathways of introduction into the United States include
stocking for recreational fishing and through misidentified shipments
of ornamental fish (Wheeler 2000, Hickley and Chare 2004, Innal and
Erk'ahan 2006, Sayer et al. 2011). Additionally, crucian carp may be
misidentified as other carp species, such as the Prussian carp or
common carp, and thus they are likely underreported (Godard and Copp
2012).
The crucian carp prefers a temperate climate (as found in much of
the United States) and tolerates high summer air temperatures (up to 35
[deg]C (95 [deg]F)) and can survive in poorly oxygenated waters (Godard
and Copp 2012). The crucian carp has an overall high climate match with
a Climate 6 ratio of 0.355. This species has a high climate match
throughout much of the Great Lakes region, southeastern United States,
and southern Alaska and Hawaii. Low matches occur in the desert
Southwest.
If introduced, the crucian carp is likely to spread and become
established in the wild due to its ability to be a habitat and diet
generalist and adapt to new environments, its long lifespan (maximum 10
years), and its ability to establish outside of the native range.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
As mentioned previously, the crucian carp can compete with native
fish species, alter the health of freshwater habitats, hybridize with
other invasive and injurious carp species, and serve as a vector of the
OIE-reportable fish disease SVC (Ahne et al. 2002, Godard and Copp
2012). The introduction of crucian carp to the United States could
result in increased competition with native fish species for food
resources (Welcomme 1988). The crucian carp consumes a variety of food
resources, including plankton, benthic invertebrates, plant materials,
and detritus (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007). With this varied diet,
crucian carp would directly compete with numerous native species.
The crucian carp has a broad climate match throughout the country,
and thus its introduction and establishment could further stress the
populations of numerous endangered and threatened amphibian and fish
species through competition for food resources.
The ability of crucian carp to hybridize with other species of
[[Page 67877]]
Cyprinidae (including common carp) may exacerbate competition over
limited food resources and ecosystem changes and, thus, further
challenge native species (including native threatened or endangered
fish species).
Crucian carp harbor the fish disease SVC and additional parasitic
infections. Although SVC also infects other carp species, the virus
causing this disease can also be transmitted through the water column
to native fish species causing fish mortalities. Mortality rates from
SVC have been documented up to 70 percent among juvenile fish and 30
percent among adult fish (Ahne et al. 2002). Therefore, as a vector of
SVC, this fish species may also be responsible for reduced wildlife
diversity. Crucian carp may outcompete native fish species, thus
replacing them in the trophic scheme. Large populations of crucian carp
can result in considerable predation on aquatic plants and
invertebrates. Changes in ecosystem cycling and wildlife diversity may
have negative effects on the aesthetic, recreational, and economic
benefits of the environment.
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the crucian carp being directly harmful to
humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The introduction of crucian carp is likely to affect agriculture by
contaminating commercial aquaculture. This fish species can harbor SVC,
which can infect numerous fish species, including common carp, koi (C.
carpio), crucian carp, bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis),
silver carp, and grass carp (Ahne et al. 2002). This disease can cause
serious fish mortalities, and thus can detrimentally affect the
productivity of several species in commercial aquaculture facilities,
including grass carp, goldfish, koi, fathead minnows (Pimephales
promelas), and golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) (Ahne et al.
2002, Goodwin 2002).
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Crucian Carp
Control
Lab experiments indicate that the piscicide rotenone (a commonly
used natural fish poison) could be used to control a crucian carp
population (Ling 2003). However, rotenone is not target-specific (Wynne
and Masser 2010). Depending on the applied concentration, rotenone
kills other aquatic species in the water body. Some fish species are
more susceptible than others, and the use of this piscicide may kill
native species. Control measures that would harm other wildlife are not
recommended as mitigation plans to reduce the injurious characteristics
of this species and, therefore, do not meet control measures under the
Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria.
No other control methods are known for the crucian carp, but
several other control methods are currently being used or are in
development for introduced and invasive carp species of other genera.
For example, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is developing a method
to orally deliver a piscicide (Micromatrix) specifically to invasive
bighead carp and silver carp (Luoma 2012). This developmental control
measure is expensive and not guaranteed to prove effective for any
carps.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
We are not aware of any documented ecological benefits for the
introduction of crucian carp.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Eurasian Minnow
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This species is not currently found within the United States. The
Eurasian minnow was introduced to new waterways in its native range of
Europe and Asia (Sandlund 2008). This fish species also has been
introduced outside of its native range to new locations within Norway
(Sandlund 2008, Hesthagen and Sandlund 2010).
Potential Introduction and Spread
Likely pathways of introduction include release or escape when used
as live bait, unintentional inclusion in the transport water of
intentionally stocked fish (often with salmonids), and intentional
introduction for vector (insect) management (Sandlund 2008). Once
introduced, this species can spread and establish in nearby waterways.
The Eurasian minnow prefers a temperate climate (Froese and Pauly
2014e). This minnow is capable of establishing in a variety of aquatic
ecosystems ranging from freshwater to brackish water (Sandlund 2008).
The Eurasian minnow has an overall high climate match to the United
States with a Climate 6 ratio of 0.397. The highest climate matches are
in the northern States, including Alaska. The lowest climate matches
are in the Southeast and Southwest.
If introduced to the United States, the Eurasian minnow is highly
likely to spread and become established in the wild due to this
species' traits as a habitat generalist and generalist predator, with
adaptability to new environments, high reproductive potential, long
lifespan, extraordinary mobility, social nature, and proven
invasiveness outside of the species' native range.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Endangered and
Threatened Species)
Introduction of the Eurasian minnow can affect native species
through several mechanisms, including competition over resources,
predation, and parasite transmission. Introduced Eurasian minnows have
a more serious effect in waters with fewer species than those waters
with a more developed, complex fish community (Museth et al. 2007). In
Norway, dense populations of the Eurasian minnow have resulted in an
average 35 percent reduction in recruitment and growth rates in native
brown trout (Museth et al. 2007). In the United States, introduced
Eurasian minnow populations would likely compete with and adversely
affect Atlantic salmon, State-managed brown trout, and other salmonid
species.
Eurasian minnow introductions have also disturbed freshwater
benthic invertebrate communities (N[aelig]stad and Brittain 2010).
Increased predation by Eurasian minnows has led to shifts in
invertebrate populations and changes in benthic diversity (Hesthagen
and Sandlund 2010). Many of the invertebrates consumed by the Eurasian
minnow are also components of the diet of the brown trout, thus
exacerbating competition between the introduced Eurasian minnow and
brown trout (Hesthagen and Sandlund 2010). Additionally, Eurasian
minnows have been shown to consume vendace (a salmonid) larvae (Huusko
and Sutela 1997). If introduced, the Eurasian minnow's diet may include
the larvae of U.S. native salmonids, including salmon and trout species
(Oncorhynchus and Salvelinus spp.).
The Eurasian minnow serves as a host to parasites, such as
Gyrodactylus aphyae, that it can transmit to other fish species,
including salmon and trout (Zietara et al. 2008). Once introduced,
these parasites would likely spread to native salmon and trout species.
Depending on pathogenicity, parasites of the Gyrodactylus species may
cause high fish mortality (Bakke et al. 1992).
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the Eurasian minnow being harmful to humans.
[[Page 67878]]
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The Eurasian minnow may impact agriculture by affecting
aquaculture. This species harbors a parasite that may infect other fish
species and can cause high fish mortality (Bakke et al. 1992). Eurasian
minnow populations can adversely impact both recruitment and growth of
brown trout. Reduced recruitment and growth rates can reduce the
economic value associated with brown trout aquaculture and recreational
fishing.
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Eurasian Minnow
Control
Once introduced, it is difficult and costly to control a Eurasian
minnow population (Sandlund 2008). Eradication may be possible from
small waterbodies in cases where the population is likely to serve as a
center for further spread, but no details are given on how to
accomplish such eradication (Sandlund 2008). Control may also be
possible using habitat modification or biocontrol (introduced
predators); however, we know of no published accounts of long-term
success by either method. Both control measures of habitat modification
and biocontrol cause wildlife or habitat damages and are expensive
mitigation strategies and, therefore, are not recommended or considered
appropriate under the Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria as a risk
management plan for this species.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
There has been one incidence where the Eurasian minnow was
introduced as a biocontrol for the Tune fly (Simuliidae) (Sandlund
2008). However, we do not have information on the success of this
introduction. We are not aware of any other documented ecological
benefits associated with the Eurasian minnow.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Prussian Carp
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This species is not found within the United States. However, it was
recently reported to be established in waterways in southern Alberta,
Canada, which is the first confirmed record in the wild in North
America (Elgin et al. 2014). The Prussian carp has been introduced to
many countries of central and Western Europe. This species' current
nonnative range includes the Asian countries of Armenia, Turkey, and
Uzbekistan and the European countries of Belarus, Belgium, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Poland, and Switzerland
(Britton 2011); it also includes the Iberian Peninsula (Ribeiro et al.
2015).
Potential Introduction and Spread
Potential pathways of introduction include stocking for
recreational fishing and aquaculture. Once introduced, the Prussian
carp will naturally disperse to new waterbodies.
The Prussian carp prefers a temperate climate and resides in a
variety of freshwater environments, including those with low dissolved
oxygen concentrations and increased pollution (Britton 2011). The
Prussian carp has an overall high climate match with a Climate 6 ratio
of 0.414. This fish species has a high climate match to the Great Lakes
region, northern Plains, some western mountain States, and parts of
California. The Prussian carp has a medium climate match to much of the
United States, including southern Alaska and regions of Hawaii. This
species has a low climate match to the southeastern United States,
especially Florida and along the Gulf Coast. This species is not found
within the United States but has been recently discovered as
established in Alberta, Canada (Elgin et al. 2014); the climate match
was run prior to this new information, so the results do not include
any actual locations in North America.
If introduced, the Prussian carp is likely to spread and establish
as a consequence of its tolerance to poor-quality environments, rapid
growth rate, very rare ability to reproduce from unfertilized eggs
(gynogenesis), and proven invasiveness outside of the native range.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
The Prussian carp is closely related and behaviorally similar to
the crucian carp (Godard and Copp 2012). As with crucian carp,
introduced Prussian carp may compete with native fish species, alter
freshwater ecosystems, and serve as a vector for parasitic infections.
Introduced Prussian carp have been responsible for the decreased
biodiversity and overall populations of native fish (including native
Cyprinidae), invertebrates, and plants (Anseeuw et al. 2007, Lusk et
al. 2010). Thus, if introduced to the United States, the Prussian carp
will likely affect numerous native Cyprinid species, including chub,
dace, shiner, and minnow fish species (Froese and Pauly 2014c). Several
of these native Cyprinids, such as the laurel dace (Chrosomus saylori)
and humpback chub (Gila cypha), are listed as endangered or threatened
under the Endangered Species Act.
Prussian carp can alter freshwater habitats. This was documented in
Lake Mikri Prespa (Greece), where scientists correlated increased
turbidity with increased numbers of Prussian carp (Crivelli 1995). This
carp species increased turbidity levels by disturbing sediment during
feeding. These carp also intensively fed on zooplankton, thus resulting
in increased phytoplankton abundance and phytoplankton blooms (Crivelli
1995). Increased turbidity results in imbalances in nutrient cycling
and ecosystem energetics. If introduced to the United States, Prussian
carp could cause increased lake and pond turbidity, increased
phytoplankton blooms, imbalances to ecosystem nutrient cycling, and
altered freshwater ecosystems.
Several different types of parasitic infections, such as black spot
disease (Posthodiplostomatosis) and from the parasite Thelohanellus,
are associated with the Prussian carp (Ondra[ccaron]kov[aacute] et al.
2002, Markov[iacute]c et al. 2012). Black spot disease particularly
affects young fish and can cause physical deformations, decreased
growth, and decrease in body condition (Ondra[ccaron]kov[aacute] et al.
2002). These parasites and the respective diseases may infect and
decrease native fish stocks.
Prussian carp may compete with native fish species and may replace
them in the trophic scheme. Large populations of Prussian carp can
cause heavy predation on aquatic plants and invertebrates (Anseeuw et
al. 2007). Changes in ecosystem cycling and wildlife diversity may have
negative effects on the aesthetic, recreational, and economic benefits
of the environment.
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the Prussian carp being harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The Prussian carp may impact agriculture by affecting aquaculture.
As mentioned in the Potential Impacts to Native Species section,
Prussian carp harbor several types of parasites that may cause physical
deformations, decreased growth, and decrease in body condition
(Ondra[ccaron]kov[aacute] et al. 2002). Impaired fish physiology and
health detract from the productivity and value of commercial
aquaculture.
[[Page 67879]]
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Prussian Carp
Control
We are not aware of any documented control methods for the Prussian
carp. The piscicide rotenone has been used to control the common carp
and crucian carp population (Ling 2003) and may be effective against
Prussian carp. However, rotenone is not target-specific (Wynne and
Masser 2010). Depending on the applied concentration, rotenone kills
other aquatic species in the water body. Some fish species are more
susceptible than others, and, even if effective against Prussian carp,
the use of this piscicide may kill native species (Allen et al. 2006).
Control measures that would harm other wildlife are not recommended as
mitigation to reduce the injurious characteristics of this species and,
therefore, do not meet control measures under the Injurious Wildlife
Evaluation Criteria.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
We are not aware of any documented ecological benefits for the
introduction of the Prussian carp.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Roach
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This species is not found in the United States. The roach has been
introduced and become established in England, Ireland, Italy,
Madagascar, Morocco, Cyprus, Portugal, the Azores, Spain, and Australia
(Rocabayera and Veiga 2012).
Potential Introduction and Spread
Potential introduction pathways include stocking for recreational
fishing and use as bait fish. Once introduced, released, or escaped,
the roach naturally disperses to new waterways within the watershed.
This species prefers a temperate climate and can reside in a
variety of freshwater habitats (Riehl and Baensch 1991). Hydrologic
changes, such as weirs and dams that extend aquatic habitats that are
otherwise scarce, enhance the potential spread of the roach (Rocabayera
and Veiga 2012). The roach has an overall high climate match to the
United States with a Climate 6 ratio of 0.387. Particularly high
climate matches occurred in southern and central Alaska, the Great
Lakes region, and the western mountain States. The Southeast and
Southwest have low climate matches.
If introduced, the roach is likely to spread and establish due to
its highly adaptive nature toward habitat and diet choice, high
reproductive potential, ability to reproduce with other cyprinid
species, long lifespan, and extraordinary mobility. This species has
also proven invasive outside of its native range.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Endangered and
Threatened Species)
Potential effects to native species from the introduction of the
roach include competition over food and habitat resources,
hybridization, altered ecosystem nutrient cycling, and parasite and
pathogenic bacteria transmission. The roach is a highly adaptive
species and will switch between habitats and food sources to best avoid
predation and competition from other species (Winfield and Winfield
1994). The roach consumes an omnivorous generalist diet, including
benthic invertebrates (especially mollusks), zooplankton, plants, and
detritus (Rocabayera and Veiga 2012). With such a varied diet, the
roach would be expected to compete with numerous native fish species
from multiple trophic levels. The trophic level is the position an
organism occupies in a food chain. Such species may include shiners,
daces, chubs, and stonerollers, several of which are federally listed
as endangered or threatened.
Likewise, introduction of the roach would be expected to
detrimentally affect native mollusk species (including mussels and
snails), some of which may be federally endangered or threatened. One
potentially affected species is the endangered Higgins' eye pearly
mussel (Lampsilis higginsii), which is native to the upper Mississippi
River watershed, where there is high climate match for the roach
species. Increased competition with and predation on native species may
alter trophic cycling and diversity of native aquatic species.
The roach can hybridize with other fish species of its subfamily
(Leuciscinae), including rudd and bream (Pitts et al. 1997, Kottelat
and Freyhof 2007). In Ireland, the roach has hybridized with the rudd
(Scardinius erythrophthalmus) and the bream (Abramis brama); all three
are in the subfamily Leuciscinae. Although the bream is not found in
the United States, the rudd is already considered invasive in the Great
Lakes (Fuller et al. 1999, Kapuscinski et al. 2012). Hybrids of roaches
and rudds could exacerbate the potential adverse effects (competition)
of each separate species (Rocabayera and Veiga 2012). Furthermore, the
roach will likely be able to hybridize with some U.S. native species in
the same subfamily, which includes minnows.
Large populations of the roach may alter nutrient cycling in lake
ecosystems. Increased populations of roach may prey heavily on
zooplankton, thus resulting in increased phytoplankton communities and
algal blooms (Rocabayera and Veiga 2012). These changes alter nutrient
cycling and can consequently affect native aquatic species that depend
on certain nutrient balances.
Several parasitic infections, including worm cataracts, black spot
disease, and tapeworms, have been associated with the roach (Rocabayera
and Veiga 2012). The pathogenic bacterium Aeromonas salmonicida also
infects the roach, causing furunculosis (Wiklund and Dalsgaard 1998).
This disease causes skin ulcers and hemorrhaging. The disease can be
spread through a fish's open sore. This disease affects both farmed and
wild fish. The causative bacteria A. salmonicida has been isolated from
fish in U.S. freshwaters (USFWS 2011). The roach may spread these
parasites and bacteria to new environments and native fish species.
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the roach being harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The roach may affect agriculture by decreasing aquaculture
productivity if they are unintentionally introduced into aquaculture
operations in the United States, such as when invaded watersheds flood
aquaculture ponds or by accidentally being included in a shipment of
fish, then outcompeting and preying on the aquacultured fish, spreading
pathogens, or hybridizing with farmed fish. Hybridization can reduce
the reproductive success and productivity of the commercial fisheries
and aquaculture facilities.
Roaches harbor several parasitic infections (Rocabayera and Veiga
2012) that can impair fish physiology and health. The pathogenic
bacterium Aeromonas salmonicida infects the roach, causing furunculosis
(Wiklund and Dalsgaard 1998). The disease can be spread through a
fish's open sore when the bacteria is shed from the ulcerated skin and
survives in water to infect another fish. Introduction and spread of
parasites and pathogenic bacterium to an aquaculture facility can
result in increased incidence of fish disease and mortality and
decreased productivity and value.
[[Page 67880]]
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Roach
Control
An introduced roach population would be difficult to control
(Rocabayera and Veiga 2012). Application of the piscicide rotenone may
be effective for limited populations of small fish. However, rotenone
is not target-specific (Wynne and Masser 2010). Depending on the
applied concentration, rotenone kills other aquatic species in the
water body. Some fish species are more susceptible than others, and the
use of this piscicide may kill native species. Control measures that
would harm other wildlife are not recommended as mitigation to reduce
the injurious characteristics of this species and, therefore, do not
meet control measures under the Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
We are not aware of any documented ecological benefits for the
introduction of the roach.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Stone Moroko
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This fish species is not found within the United States. The stone
moroko has been introduced and become established throughout Europe and
Asia. Within Asia, this fish species is invasive in Afghanistan,
Armenia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Taiwan, Turkey, and Uzbekistan (Copp
2007). In Europe, this fish species' nonnative range includes Albania,
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, the
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom (Copp 2007). The stone
moroko's nonnative range also includes Algeria and Fiji (Copp 2007).
Potential Introduction and Spread
The primary introduction pathways are as unintentional inclusion in
the transport water of intentionally stocked fish shipments for both
recreational fishing and aquaculture, released or escaped bait, and
released or escaped ornamental fish. Once introduced, the stone moroko
naturally disperses to new waterways within a watershed. Since the
1960s, this fish has invaded nearly every European country and many
Asian countries (Copp et al. 2005).
The stone moroko inhabits a temperate climate (Baensch and Riehl
1993) and a variety of freshwater habitats, including those with poor
dissolved oxygen concentrations (Copp 2007). The stone moroko has an
overall high climate match to the United States with a Climate 6 ratio
of 0.557. This species has a high or medium climate match to most of
the United States. The highest matches are in the Southeast, Great
Lakes, central plains, and West Coast.
If introduced, the stone moroko is highly likely to establish and
spread. This fish species is a habitat generalist and diet generalist
and is quick growing, highly adaptable to new environments, and highly
mobile. Additionally, the stone moroko has proven invasive outside of
its native range (Copp 2007, Kottelat and Freyhof 2007, Witkowski 2011,
Yal[ccedil][inodot]n-[Ouml]zdilek et al. 2013).
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Endangered and
Threatened Species)
In much of the stone moroko's nonnative range, the introduction of
this species has been linked to the decline of native freshwater fish
species (Copp 2007). The stone moroko could potentially adversely
affect native species through predation, competition, disease
transmission, and altering freshwater ecosystems (Witkowski 2011).
Stone moroko introductions have mostly originated from
unintentional inclusion in the transport water of intentionally stocked
fish species. In many stocked ponds, the stone moroko actually
outcompetes the farmed fish species for food resources, which results
in decreased production of the farmed fish (Witkowski 2011). The stone
moroko's omnivorous diet includes insects, fish, fish eggs, molluscs,
planktonic crustaceans, algae (Froese and Pauly 2014g), and plants
(Kottelat and Freyhof 2007). With this diet, the stone moroko would
compete with many native U.S. freshwater fish, including minnow, dace,
sunfish, and darter species.
In the United Kingdom, Italy, China, and Russia, the introduction
of the stone moroko correlates with dramatic declines in native fish
populations and species diversity (Copp 2007). The stone moroko first
competes with native fish for food resources and then predates on the
eggs, larvae, and juveniles of these same native fish species (Pinder
2005, Britton et al. 2007). In England, where stone morokos were
introduced, they dominated the fish community quickly, and the other
fish species exhibited decreased growth rates and reproduction, as well
as shifts in their trophic levels (Britton et al. 2010b).
The stone moroko is a vector of the pathogenic, rosette-like agent
Sphaerothecum destruens (Gozlan et al. 2005, Pinder et al. 2005), which
is a documented pathogen of farmed and wild European fish. The stone
moroko is a healthy host for this nonspecific pathogen that could
threaten aquaculture trade, including that of salmonids (Gozlan et al.
2009). This pathogen infects a fish's internal organs causing spawning
failure, organ failure, and death (Gozlan et al. 2005). This pathogen
has been documented as infecting the sunbleak (Leucaspius delineatus),
which are native to eastern Europe, and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), Atlantic salmon, and the fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas), all three of which are native to the United States (Gozlan
et al. 2005).
The stone moroko consumes large quantities of zooplankton. The
declines in zooplankton population results in increased phytoplankton
populations, which in turn causes algal blooms and unnaturally high
nutrient loads (eutrophication). These changes can cause imbalanced
nutrient cycling, decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations, and
adversely impact the health of native aquatic species.
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the stone moroko being harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The stone moroko may affect agriculture by decreasing aquaculture
productivity. This species often contaminates farmed fish stocks and
competes with the farmed species for food resources, resulting in
decreased aquaculture productivity (Witkowski 2011). The stone moroko
is an unaffected carrier of the pathogenic, rosette-like agent
Sphaerothecum destruens (Gozlan et al. 2005, Pinder et al. 2005). This
pathogen is transmitted through water and causes reproductive failure,
disease, and death to farmed fish. This pathogen is not species-
specific and has been known to infect cyprinid and salmonid fish
species. Sphaerothecum destruens is responsible for disease outbreaks
in North American salmonids and causes mortality in both juvenile and
adult fish (Gozlan et al. 2009). If this pathogen was introduced to an
aquaculture facility, it is likely to spread and infect numerous fish,
resulting in high mortality. Further research is needed to ascertain
this pathogen's prevalence in the wild environment (Gozlan et al.
2009).
[[Page 67881]]
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Stone Moroko
Control
An established, invasive stone moroko population would be both
difficult and costly to control (Copp 2007). Additionally, this fish
species has a higher tolerance for the piscicide rotenone than most
other fish belonging to the cyprinid group (Allen et al. 2006).
Application of rotenone for stone moroko control may kill native
aquatic fish species. Control measures that would harm other wildlife
are not recommended as mitigation to reduce the injurious
characteristics of this species and, therefore, do not meet control
measures under the Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
We are not aware of any documented ecological benefits for the
introduction of the stone moroko.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Nile Perch
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This species is not currently found within the United States. The
Nile perch is invasive in the Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ugandan watersheds
of Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga (Africa). This species has also been
introduced to Cuba (Welcomme 1988).
Potential Introduction and Spread
This species was stocked in Texas reservoirs, although this
population failed to establish (Fuller et al. 1999, Howells 2001).
However, with continued release events, we anticipate that the Nile
perch is likely to establish in parts of the United States, including
the Southeast, Southwest, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.
Likely introduction pathways include use for aquaculture and
recreational fishing. Over the past 60 years, the Nile perch has
invaded, established, and become the dominant fish species within this
species' nonnative African range (Witte 2013).
The Nile perch prefers a tropical climate and can inhabit a variety
of freshwater and brackish habitats (Witte 2013). The Nile perch has an
overall medium climate match to the United States with a Climate 6
ratio of 0.038. Of the 11 species in this rule, the Nile perch has the
only overall medium climate match. However, this fish species has a
high climate match to the Southeast (Florida and Gulf Coast), Southwest
(California), Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
If introduced into the United States, the Nile perch is likely to
establish and spread due to this species' nature as a habitat
generalist and generalist predator, long lifespan, quick growth rate,
high reproductive potential, extraordinary mobility, and proven
invasiveness outside of the species' native range (Witte 2013, Asila
and Ogari 1988, Ribbinick 1982).
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Endangered and
Threatened Species)
Potential impacts of introduction of the Nile perch include
outcompeting and preying on native species, altering habitats and
trophic systems, and disrupting ecosystem nutrient cycling. The Nile
perch can produce up to 15 million eggs per breeding cycle (Asila and
Ogari 1988), likely contributing to this species' efficiency and
effectiveness in establishing an introduced population.
Historical evidence from the Lake Victoria (Africa) basin indicate
that the Nile perch outcompeted and preyed on at least 200 endemic fish
species, leading to their extinction (Kaufman 1992, Snoeks 2010, Witte
2013). Many of the affected species were haplochromine cichlid fish
species, and the populations of native lung fish (Protopterus
aethiopicus) and catfish species (Bagrus docmak, Xenoclarias eupogon,
Synodontis victoria) also witnessed serious declines (Witte 2013). By
the late 1980s, only three fish species, including the cyprinid
Rastrineobolas argentea and the introduced Nile perch and Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus), were common in Lake Victoria (Witte 2013).
The haplochromine cichlid species comprised 15 subtrophic groups
with varied food (detritus, phytoplankton, algae, plants, mollusks,
zooplankton, insects, prawns, crabs, fish, and parasites) and habitat
preferences (Witte and Van Oijen 1990, Van Oijen 1996). The depletion
of so many fish species has drastically altered the Lake Victoria
ecosystem's trophic-level structure and biodiversity. These changes
resulted in abnormally high lake eutrophication and frequency of algal
blooms (Witte 2013).
The depletion of the native fish species in Lake Victoria by Nile
perch led to the loss of income and food for local villagers. Nile
perch was not a suitable replacement for traditional fishing. Fishing
for this larger species required equipment that was prohibitively more
expensive, required processing that could not be done by the wife and
children, required the men to be away for extended periods, and
decreased the availability of fish for household consumption (Witte
2013).
If introduced to the United States, Nile perch are expected to prey
on small native fish species, such as mudminnows, cyprinids, sunfishes,
and darters. Nile perch would likely prey on, compete with, and
decrease the species diversity of native cyprinid fish. Nile perch are
expected to compete with larger native fish species, including
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieu), blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), channel
catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and flathead catfish (Pyodictis
olivaris). These native fish species are not only economically
important to both commercial and recreational fishing, but are integral
components of freshwater ecosystems.
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the Nile perch being harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
We are not aware of any reported effects to agriculture. However,
Nile perch may affect aquaculture if they are unintentionally
introduced into aquaculture operations in the United States, such as
when invaded watersheds flood aquaculture ponds or by accidentally
being included in a shipment of fish, by outcompeting and preying on
the aquacultured fish.
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Nile Perch
Control
Nile perch grow to be large fish with a body length of 2 m (6 ft)
and maximum weight of 200 kg (440 lb) (Ribbinick 1987). Witte (2013)
notes that this species would be difficult and costly to control. We
are not aware of any documented reports of successfully controlling or
eradicating an established Nile perch population.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
We are not aware of any documented ecological benefits for the
introduction of the Nile perch.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for the Amur Sleeper
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This species has not been reported within the United States. The
Amur sleeper is invasive in Europe and Asia in the countries of
Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Russia, and
[[Page 67882]]
Mongolia (Froese and Pauly 2014j, Grabowska 2011).
Potential Introduction and Spread
Although the Amur sleeper has not yet been introduced to the United
States, the likelihood of introduction, release, or escape is high as
evidenced by the history of introduction over a broad geographic region
of Eurasia. Since its first introduction outside of its native range in
1916, the Amur sleeper has invaded 15 Eurasian countries and become a
widespread, invasive fish throughout European freshwater ecosystems
(Copp et al. 2005, Grabowska 2011). The introduction of the Amur
sleeper has been attributed to release and escape of aquarium and
ornamental fish, unintentional and intentional release of Amur sleepers
used for bait, and the unintentional inclusion in the transport water
of intentionally stocked fish (Reshetnikov 2004, Grabowska 2011,
Reshetnikov and Ficetola 2011).
Once this species has been introduced, it has proven to be capable
of establishing (Reshetnikov 2004). The established populations can
have rapid rates of expansion. Upon introduction into the Vistula River
in Poland, the Amur sleeper expanded its range by 44 km (27 mi) the
first year and up to 197 km (122 mi) per year thereafter (Grabowska
2011).
Most aquatic species are constrained in distribution by
temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, and lack of flowing water.
However, the Amur sleeper has a wide water temperature preference
(Baensch and Riehl 2004), can live in poorly oxygenated waters, and may
survive in dried-out or frozen water bodies by burrowing into and
hibernating in the mud (Grabowska 2011). The Amur sleeper has an
overall high climate match to the United States with a Climate 6 ratio
of 0.376. The climate match is highest in the Great Lakes region (Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota), central and
high Plains (Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri), western mountain States
(South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado), and
central to eastern Alaska.
If introduced, the Amur sleeper would be expected to establish and
spread in the wild due to this species' ability as a habitat
generalist, generalist predator, rapid growth, high reproductive
potential, adaptability to new environments, extraordinary mobility,
and a history of invasiveness outside of the native range.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Endangered and
Threatened Species)
The Amur sleeper is a voracious generalist predator whose diet
includes crustaceans, insects, and larvae of mollusks, fish, and
amphibian tadpoles (Bogutskaya and Naseka 2002, Reshetnikov 2008).
Increased predation with the introduction of the Amur sleeper has
resulted in decreased species richness and decreased population of
native fish (Grabowska 2011). In some areas, the Amur sleeper's eating
habits have been responsible for the dramatic decline in juvenile fish
and amphibian species (Reshetnikov 2003). Amur sleepers prey on
juvenile stages and can cause decreased reproductive success and
reduced populations of the native fish and amphibians (Mills et al.
2004). Declines in lower trophic-level populations (invertebrates) also
result in increased competition among native predatory fish, including
the European mudminnow (Umbra krameri) (Grabowska 2011).
Two species similar to the European mudminnow, the eastern
mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea) and the central mudminnow (Umbra limi), are
native to the eastern United States. Both of these species are integral
members of freshwater ecosystems, with the eastern mudminnow ranging
from New York to Florida (Froese and Pauly 2014n), and the central
mudminnow residing in the freshwater of the Great Lakes, Hudson Bay,
and Mississippi River basins (Froese and Pauly 2014o). Introduced Amur
sleepers could prey on and reduce the population of native U.S.
mudminnow species.
The introduction or establishment of the Amur sleeper is also
expected to reduce native wildlife biodiversity. In the Selenga River
(Russia), the Amur sleeper competes with the native Siberian roach
(Rutilus rutilus lacustris) and Siberian dace (Leuciscus leuciscus
baicalensis) for food resources. This competition results in decreased
populations of native fish species, which may result in economic losses
and negative effects on commercial fisheries (Litvinov and O'Gorman
1996, Grabowska 2011).
Species similar to Siberian roach and Siberian dace that are native
to the United States include those of the genus Chrosomus, such as the
blackside dace (Chrosomus cumberlandensis), northern redbelly dace (C.
eos), southern redbelly dace (C. erythrogaster), and Tennessee dace (C.
tennesseensis). Like with the Siberian roach and the Siberian dace,
introduced populations of the Amur sleeper may compete with native dace
fish species, resulting in population declines of these native species.
Additionally, the Amur sleeper harbors parasites, including
Nippotaenia mogurndae and Gyrodactylus perccotti. The introduction of
the Amur sleeper has resulted in the simultaneous introduction of both
parasites to the Amur sleeper's nonnative range. These parasites have
expanded their own nonnative range and successfully infected new hosts
of native fish species (Ko[scaron]uthov[aacute] et al. 2008).
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of Amur sleeper being harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The Amur sleeper may affect agriculture by decreasing aquaculture
productivity. This fish species hosts parasites, including Nippotaenia
mogurndae and Gyrodactylus perccotti. These parasites may switch hosts
(Ko[scaron]uthov[aacute] et al. 2008) and infect farmed species
involved in aquaculture. Increased parasite load impairs a fish's
physiology and general health, and consequently may decrease
aquaculture productivity.
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Amur Sleeper
Control
Once introduced and established, it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to control or eradicate the Amur sleeper. All attempts to
eradicate the Amur sleeper once it had established a reproducing
population have been unsuccessful (Litvinov and O'Gorman 1996). Natural
predators include pike, snakeheads, and perch (Bogutskaya and Naseka
2002). Not all freshwater systems have these or similar predatory
species, and thus would allow the Amur sleeper population to be
uncontrolled.
Some studies have indicated that the Amur sleeper may be eradicated
by adding calcium chloride (CaCl2) or ammonium hydroxide
(NH4OH) to the water body (Grabowska 2011). However, this
same study found that the Amur sleeper was one of the most resistant
fish species to either treatment. Thus, the use of either treatment
would likely negatively affect many other native organisms and is not
considered a viable option. Control measures that would harm other
wildlife are not recommended as mitigation to reduce the injurious
characteristics of this species and, therefore, do not meet control
measures under the Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria.
[[Page 67883]]
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
We are not aware of any documented ecological benefits for the
introduction of the Amur sleeper.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for European Perch
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This fish species is not found within the United States. The
European perch has been introduced and become established in several
countries, including Ireland, Italy, Spain, Australia, New Zealand,
China, Turkey, Cyprus, Morocco, Algeria, and South Africa.
Potential Introduction and Spread
The main pathway of introduction is through stocking for
recreational fishing. Once stocked, this fish species has expanded its
nonnative range by swimming through connecting waterbodies to new areas
within the same watershed.
The European perch prefers a temperate climate (Riehl and Baensch
1991, Froese and Pauly 2014k). This species can reside in a wide
variety of aquatic habitats ranging from freshwater to brackish water
(Froese and Pauly 2014k). The European perch has an overall high
climate match to the United States, with a Climate 6 ratio of 0.438,
with locally high matches to the Great Lakes region, central Texas,
western mountain States, and southern and central Alaska. Hawaii ranges
from low to high matches. Much of the rest of the country has a medium
climate match.
If introduced to the United States, the European perch is likely to
spread and establish in the wild as a generalist predator that is able
to adapt to new environments and outcompete native fish species.
Additionally, this species has proven to be invasive outside of its
native range.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
The European perch can impact native species through outcompeting
and preying on them and by transmitting disease. This introduced fish
species competes with other European native species for both food and
habitat resources (Closs et al. 2003) and has been implicated in the
local extirpation (in Western Australia) of the mudminnow (Galaxiella
munda) (Moore 2008, ISSG 2010).
In addition to potentially competing with the native yellow perch
(Perca flavescens), the European perch may also hybridize with this
native species, resulting in irreversible changes to the genetic
structure of this important native species (Schwenk et al. 2008).
Hybridization can reduce the fitness of the native species and, in some
cases, has resulted in drastic population declines causing endangered
classification and even extinction (Mooney and Cleland 2001).
Furthermore, the yellow perch has value for both commercial and
recreational fishing and is also an important forage fish in many
freshwater ecosystems (Froese and Pauly 2014p). Thus, declines in
yellow perch populations can result in serious consequences for upper
trophic-level piscivorous fish. Additionally, European perch can form
dense populations competing with each other to the extent that they
stunt their own growth (NSW DPI 2013).
European perch prey on zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, and fish;
thus, the introduction of this species can significantly alter trophic-
level cycling and affect native freshwater communities (Closs et al.
2003). European perch are reportedly voracious predators that consume
small Australian fish (pygmy perch Nannoperca spp., rainbowfish
(various species), and carp gudgeons Hypseleotris spp.); and the eggs
and fry of silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus), golden perch (Macquaria
ambigua), Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii), and introduced trout
species (rainbow, brook (Salvelinus fontinalis), and brown trout (NSW
DPI 2013)). In one instance, European perch consumed 20,000 newly
released nonnative rainbow trout fry from a reservoir in southwestern
Australia in less than 72 hours (NSW DPI 2013). Rainbow trout are
native to the western United States. If introduced into U.S.
freshwaters, European perch would be expected to prey on rainbow trout
and other native fish.
The European perch can also harbor and spread the viral disease
Epizootic Haematopoietic Necrosis (EHN) (NSW DPI 2013). This virus can
cause mass fish mortalities and affects silver perch, Murray cod,
Galaxias fish, and Macquarie perch (Macquaria australasica) in their
native habitats. The continued spread of this virus (with the
introduction of the European perch) has been partly responsible for
declining populations of native Australian fish species (NSW DPI 2013).
This virus is currently restricted to Australia but could expand its
international range with the introduction of European perch to new
waterways where native species would have no natural resistance.
Potential Impacts to Humans
We have no reports of the European perch being harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The European perch may affect agriculture by decreasing aquaculture
productivity. The European perch may potentially spread the viral
disease EHN (NSW DPI 2013) to farmed fish in aquaculture facilities.
Although this virus is currently restricted to Australia, this disease
can cause mass fish mortalities and is known to affect other fish
species (NSW DPI 2013).
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for European Perch
Control
It would be extremely difficult to control or eradicate a
population of European perch. However, Closs et al. (2003) examined the
feasibility of physically removing (by netting and trapping) European
perch from small freshwater environments. Although these researchers
were able to reduce population numbers through repeated removal
efforts, European perch were not completely eradicated from any of the
freshwater lakes. Biological controls or chemicals might be effective;
however, they would also have lethal effects on native aquatic species.
Control measures that would harm other wildlife are not recommended as
mitigation to reduce the injurious characteristics of this species and,
therefore, do not meet control measures under the Injurious Wildlife
Evaluation Criteria.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
We are not aware of any documented ecological benefits for the
introduction of the European perch.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Zander
Current Nonnative Occurrences
The zander was intentionally introduced into Spiritwood Lake (North
Dakota) in 1989 for recreational fishing. The North Dakota Game and
Fish Department reports that a small, established population occurs in
this lake (Fuller 2009) and that a 32-in (81.3-cm) zander was caught by
an angler in 2013 (North Dakota Game and Fish 2013). This was the
largest zander in the lake reported to date, which could indicate that
the species is finding suitable living conditions. We are not aware of
any other occurrences of zanders within the United States. This fish
species has been introduced and become established through much of
[[Page 67884]]
Europe, regions of Asia (China, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey), and Africa
(Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia). Within Europe, zanders have
established populations in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark,
France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Azores, Slovenia, Spain,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
Potential Introduction and Spread
The zander has been introduced to the United States, and a small
population exists in Spiritwood Lake, North Dakota. Primary pathways of
introduction have originated with recreational fishing and aquaculture
stocking. The zander has also been introduced to control unwanted
cyprinids (Godard and Copp 2011). Additionally, the zander disperse
unaided into new waterways.
The zander prefers a temperate climate (Froese and Pauly 2014l).
This species resides in a variety of freshwater and brackish
environments, including turbid waters with increased nutrient
concentrations (Godard and Copp 2011). The overall climate match to the
United States is high with a Climate 6 ratio of 0.374. The zander has
high climate matches in the Great Lakes region, northern Plains,
western mountain States, and Pacific Northwest. Medium climate matches
include southern Alaska, western mountain States, central Plains, and
mid-Atlantic and New England regions. Low climate matches occur in
Florida, along the Gulf Coast, and desert Southwest regions.
If introduced, the zander would likely establish and spread as a
consequence of its nature as a generalist predator, ability to
hybridize with multiple fish species, extraordinary mobility, long
lifespan (maximum 24 years) (Godard and Copp 2011), and proven
invasiveness outside of the native range.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Endangered and
Threatened Species)
The zander may affect native fish species by outcompeting and
preying on them, transferring pathogens to them, and hybridizing with
them. The zander is a top-level predator and competes with other native
piscivorous fish species. In Western Europe, increased competition from
introduced zanders resulted in population declines of native northern
pike and European perch (Linfield and Rickards 1979). If introduced to
the United States, the zander is projected to compete with native top-
level predators such as the closely related walleye (Sander vitreus),
sauger (Sander canadensis), and northern pike.
The zander's diet includes juvenile smelt, ruffe, European perch,
vendace, roach, and other zanders (Kangur and Kangur 1998). The zander
also feeds on juvenile brown trout and Atlantic salmon (Jepsen et al.
2000; Koed et al. 2002). Increased predation on juvenile and young fish
disrupts the species' life cycle and reproductive success. Decreased
reproductive success results in decreased populations (and sometimes
extinction) (Crivelli 1995) of native fish species. If introduced,
zander could decrease native populations of cyprinids (minnows, daces,
and chub species), salmonids (Atlantic salmon and species of Pacific
salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), and yellow perch.
The zander is a vector for the trematode parasite Bucephalus
polymorphus (Poulet et al. 2009), which has been linked to decreased
native cyprinid populations in France (Lambert 1997, Kvach and
Mierzejewska 2011). This parasite may infect native cyprinid species
and result in their population declines.
The zander can hybridize with both the European perch and Volga
perch (Sander volgensis) (Godard and Copp 2011). Our native walleye and
sauger also hybridize (Hearn 1986, Van Zee et al. 1996, Fiss et al.
1997), providing further evidence that species of this genus can
readily hybridize. Hence, there is concern that zander may hybridize
with walleye (Fuller 2009) and sauger (P. Fuller, pers. comm. 2015).
Zander hybridizing with native species could result in irreversible
changes to the genetic structure of native species (Schwenk et al.
2008). Hybridization can reduce the fitness of a native species and, in
some cases, has resulted in drastic population declines leading to
endangered classification and, in rare cases, even extinction (Mooney
and Cleland 2001).
Potential Impacts to Humans
We are not aware of any documented reports of the zander being
harmful to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The zander may impact agriculture by affecting aquaculture. This
species is a vector for the trematode parasite Bucephalus polymorphus
(Poulet et al. 2009), which has been linked to decreased native
cyprinid populations in France (Lambert 1997, Kvach and Mierzejewska
2011). This parasite may infect and harm native U.S. cyprinid species
involved in the aquaculture industry.
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Zander
Control
An established population of zanders would be both difficult and
costly to control (Godard and Copp 2011). In the United Kingdom (North
Oxford Canal), electrofishing was unsuccessful at eradicating localized
populations of zander (Smith et al. 1996).
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
Zanders have been stocked for biomanipulation of small
planktivorous fish (cyprinid species) in a small, artificial
impoundment in Germany to improve water transparency with some success
(Drenner and Hambright 1999). However, in their discussion on using
zanders for biomanipulation, Mehner et al. (2004) state that the
introduction of nonnative predatory species, which includes the zander
in parts of Europe, is not recommended for biodiversity and
bioconservation purposes. We are not aware of any other documented
ecological benefits of a zander introduction.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Wels Catfish
Current Nonnative Occurrences
This fish species is not found in the wild in the United States.
The wels catfish has been introduced and become established in China;
Algeria, Syria, and Tunisia; and the European countries of Belgium,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy,
Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom (Rees 2012).
Potential Introduction and Spread
The wels catfish has not been introduced to U.S. ecosystems.
Potential pathways of introduction include stocking for recreational
fishing and aquaculture. This catfish species has also been introduced
for biocontrol of cyprinid species in Belgium and through the aquarium
and pet trade (Rees 2012). Wels catfish were introduced as a biocontrol
for cyprinid fish in the Netherlands, where it became invasive (Rees
2012). Once introduced, this fish species can naturally disperse to
connected waterways.
The wels catfish prefers a temperate climate. This species inhabits
a variety of freshwater and brackish environments. This species has an
overall high climate match in the United States with a Climate 6 ratio
of 0.302. High climate matches occur in the Great Lakes, western
mountain States, West Coast, and southern Alaska. All other
[[Page 67885]]
regions had a medium or low climate match.
If introduced, the wels catfish is likely to establish and spread.
This species is a generalist predator and fast growing, with proven
invasiveness outside of the native range. Additionally, this species
has a long lifespan (15 to 30 years, maximum of 80 years) (Kottelat and
Freyhof 2007). This species has an extremely high reproductive rate
(30,000 eggs per kg of body weight), with the maximum recorded at
700,000 eggs (Copp et al. 2009). The wels catfish is highly adaptable
to new warmwater environments, including those with low dissolved
oxygen levels (Rees 2012). The invasive success of this species is
likely to be further enhanced by increases in water temperature
expected to occur with climate change (Rahel and Olden 2008, Britton et
al. 2010a).
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
The wels catfish may affect native species through outcompeting and
preying on native species, transferring diseases to them, and altering
their habitats. This catfish is a giant predatory fish (maximum 5 m
(16.4 ft), 306 kg (675 lb)) (Copp et al. 2009; Rees 2012) that will
likely compete with other top trophic-level, native predatory fish for
both food and habitat resources. Stable isotope analysis, which
assesses the isotopes of carbon and nitrogen from food sources and
consumers to determine trophic-level cycling, suggests that the wels
catfish has the same trophic position as the northern pike
(Syv[auml]ranta et al. 2010). Thus, U.S. native species at risk of
competition with the wels catfish are top predatory piscivores and may
include species such as the northern pike, walleye, and sauger.
Additionally, the wels catfish can be territorial and unwilling to
share habitat with other fish (Copp et al. 2009).
Typically utilizing an ambush technique but also known to be an
opportunistic scavenger (Copp et al. 2009), the wels catfish are
generalist predators and may consume native invertebrates, fish,
crayfish, eels, small mammals, birds (Copp et al. 2009), and amphibians
(Rees 2012). In France, the stomach contents of wels catfish revealed a
preference for cyprinid fish, mollusks, and crayfish (Syv[auml]ranta et
al. 2010). Birds, amphibians, and small mammals also contributed to the
diet of these catfish (Copp et al. 2009). This species has been
observed beaching itself to prey on land birds on a river bank
(Cucherousset 2012). Native cyprinid fish potentially affected include
native chub, dace, and minnow fish species, some of which are federally
endangered or threatened. Native freshwater mollusks and amphibians may
also be affected, some of which are also federally endangered or
threatened. Increased predation on native cyprinids, mollusks,
crustaceans, and amphibians can result in decreased species diversity
and increased food web disruption.
The predatory nature of the wels catfish may also lead to species
extirpation (local extinction) or the extinction of native species. In
Lake Bushko (Bosnia), the wels catfish is linked to the extirpation of
the endangered minnow-nase (Chondrostoma phoxinus) (Froese and Pauly
2014m). Although nase species are native to Europe, the subfamily
Leuciscinae includes several native U.S. species, such as dace and
shiner species, which may be similar enough to serve as prey for the
catfish.
The wels catfish is a carrier of the virus that causes SVC and may
transmit this virus to native fish (Hickley and Chare 2004). The spread
of SVC can deplete native fish stocks and disrupt the ecosystem food
web. SVC transmission would further compound adverse effects of both
competition and predation by adding disease to already-stressed native
fish.
Additionally, this catfish species excretes large amounts of
phosphorus and nitrogen to the freshwater environment (Schaus et al.
1997, McIntyre et al. 2008). In France, where wels catfish are
invasive, this large species aggregates in groups averaging 25
individuals, thus creating the highest biogeochemical hotspots ever
reported for freshwater systems for phosphorus and nitrogen
(Boul[ecirc]treau et al. 2011). Excessive nutrient input can disrupt
nutrient cycling and transport (Boul[ecirc]treau et al. 2011) that can
result in increased eutrophication, increased frequency of algal
blooms, and decreased dissolved oxygen levels. These decreases in water
quality can affect both native fish and mollusks.
Potential Impacts to Humans
Wels catfish can achieve a giant size, have large mouths, and are
able to beach themselves to hunt and return to the water. There are
anecdotal reports of exceptionally large wels catfish biting or
dragging people into the water, as well as reports of a human body in a
wels catfish's stomach, although it is not known if the person was
attacked or scavenged after drowning (Der Standard 2009; Stephens 2013;
National Geographic 2014). However, we have no documentation to confirm
harm to humans and thus do not consider that wels catfish are injurious
to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The wels catfish could impact agriculture by affecting aquaculture.
The wels catfish may transmit the fish disease SVC to other cyprinids
(Hickley and Chare 2004, Goodwin 2009). An SVC outbreak could result in
mass mortalities among farmed fish stocks at an aquaculture facility.
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Wels Catfish
Control
An invasive wels catfish population would be difficult to control
or manage (Rees 2012). We know of no effective methods of control once
this species is introduced because of its ability to spread into
connected waterways, high reproductive potential, generalist diet, and
longevity.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
We are not aware of any documented ecological benefits for the
introduction of the wels catfish.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for the Common Yabby
Current Nonnative Occurrences
The common yabby has moved throughout Australia, and its nonnative
range extends to New South Wales east of the Great Dividing Range,
Western Australia, and Tasmania. This crayfish species was introduced
to Western Australia in 1932, for commercial farming for food from
where it escaped and established in rivers and irrigation dams (Souty-
Grosset et al. 2006). Outside of Australia, this species has been
introduced to China, South Africa, Zambia, Italy, Spain, and
Switzerland (Gherardi 2012) for aquaculture and fisheries (Gherardi
2012). The first European introduction occurred in 1983, when common
yabbies were transferred from a California farm to a pond in Girona,
Catalonia (Spain) (Souty-Grosset et al. 2006). This crayfish species
became established in Spain after repeated introduction to the Zaragoza
Province in 1984 and 1985 (Souty-Grosset et al. 2006).
Potential Introduction and Spread
The common yabby has not established a wild population within the
United States. Souty-Grosset et al. (2006) indicated that the first
introduction of the common yabby to Europe occurred with a shipment
from a California farm. However, there is no recent information that
indicates that
[[Page 67886]]
the common yabby is present or established in the wild within
California. Primary pathways of introduction include importation for
aquaculture, aquariums, bait, and research. Once it is found in the
wild, the yabby can disperse on its own in water or on land.
The common yabby prefers a tropical climate but tolerates a wide
range of water temperatures from 1 to 35 [deg]C (34 to 95 [deg]F)
(Withnall 2000). This crayfish can also tolerate both freshwater and
brackish environments with a wide range of dissolved oxygen
concentrations (Mills and Geddes 1980). The overall climate match to
the United States was high, with a Climate 6 ratio of 0.209 with a high
climate match to the central Appalachians and Texas.
If introduced, the common yabby is likely to establish and spread
within U.S. waters. This crayfish species is a true diet generalist
with a diet of plant material, detritus, and zooplankton that varies
with seasonality and availability (Beatty 2005). Additionally, this
species has a quick growth (Beatty 2005) and maturity rate, high
reproductive potential, and history of invasiveness outside of the
native range. The invasive range of the common yabby is expected to
expand with climate change (Gherardi 2012). The yabby can also hide for
years in burrows up to 5 m (16.4 ft) deep during droughts, thus
essentially being invisible to anyone looking to survey or control them
(NSW DPI 2015).
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Endangered and
Threatened Species)
Potential impacts to native species from the common yabby include
outcompeting native species for habitat and food resources, preying on
native species, transmitting disease, and altering habitat. Competition
between crayfish species is often decided by body size and chelae
(pincer claw) size (Lynas 2007, Gherardi 2012). The common yabby has
large chelae (Austin and Knott 1996) and quick growth rate (Beatty
2005), allowing this species to outcompete smaller, native crayfish
species. This crayfish species will exhibit aggressive behavior toward
other crayfish species (Gherardi 2012). In laboratory studies, the
common yabby successfully evicted the smooth marron (Cherax cainii) and
gilgie (Cherax quinquecarinatus) crayfish species from their burrows
(Lynas et al. 2007). Thus, introduced common yabbies may compete with
native crustaceans for burrowing space and, once established,
aggressively defend their territory.
The common yabby consumes a similar diet to other crayfish species,
resulting in competition over food resources. However, unlike most
other crayfish species, the common yabby switches to an herbivorous,
detritus diet when preferred prey is unavailable (Beatty 2006). This
prey-switching allows the common yabby to outcompete native species
(Beatty 2006). If introduced, the common yabby could affect
macroinvertebrate richness, remove surface sediment deposits resulting
in increased benthic algae, and compete with native crayfish species
for food, space, and shelter (Beatty 2006). Forty-eight percent of U.S.
native crayfish are considered imperiled (Taylor et al. 2007, Johnson
et al. 2013). The yabby's preference for small fishes, such as eastern
mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki (Beatty 2006), could pose a potential
threat to small native fishes.
The common yabby eats plant detritus, algae and macroinvertebrates
(such as snails) and small fish (Beatty 2006). Increased predation
pressure on macroinvertebrates and fish may reduce populations to
levels that are unable to sustain a reproducing population. Reduced
populations or the disappearance of certain native species further
alters trophic-level cycling. For instance, species of freshwater
snails are food sources for numerous aquatic animals (fish, turtles)
and also may be used as an indicator of good water quality (Johnson
2009). However, in the past century, more than 500 species of North
American freshwater snails have become extinct or are considered
vulnerable, threatened, or endangered by the American Fisheries Society
(Johnson et al. 2013). The most substantial population declines have
occurred in the southeastern United States (Johnson 2009), where the
common yabby has a medium to high climate match. Introductions of the
common yabby could further exacerbate population declines of snail
species.
In laboratory simulations, this crayfish species also exhibited
aggressive and predatory behavior toward turtle hatchlings (Bradsell et
al. 2002). These results spurred concern about potential aggressive and
predatory interactions in Western Australia between the invasive common
yabby and that country's endangered western swamp turtle (Pseudemydura
umbrina) (Bradsell et al. 2002). There are six freshwater turtle
species that are federally listed in the United States (USFWS Final
Environmental Assessment 2016), all within the yabby's medium or high
climate match.
The common yabby is susceptible to the crayfish plague (Aphanomyces
astaci), which affects European crayfish stocks (Souty-Grosset et al.
2006). North American crayfish are known to be chronic, unaffected
carriers of the crayfish plague (Souty-Grosset et al. 2006). However,
the common yabby can carry other diseases and parasites, including burn
spot disease Psorospermium sp. (Jones and Lawrence 2001), Cherax
destructor bacilliform virus (Edgerton et al. 2002), Cherax destructor
systemic parvo-like virus (Edgerton et al. 2002), Pleistophora sp.
microsporidian (Edgerton et al. 2002), Thelohania sp. (Jones and
Lawrence 2001, Edgerton et al. 2002, Moodie et al. 2003), Vavraia
parastacida (Edgerton et al. 2002), Microphallus minutus (Edgerton et
al. 2002), Polymorphus biziurae (Edgerton et al. 2002), and many others
(Jones and Lawrence 2001, Longshaw 2011). If introduced, the common
yabby could spread these diseases among native crayfish species,
resulting in decreased populations and changes in ecosystem cycling.
The common yabby digs deep burrows (Withnall 2000). This burrowing
behavior has eroded and collapsed dam walls for yabby farmers (Withnall
2000). Increased erosion or bank collapse results in increased
sedimentation, which increases turbidity and decreases water quality.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The common yabby's burrowing behavior undermines levees, berms, and
earthen dams (Withnall 2000). Several crayfish species, including the
common yabby, can live in contaminated waters and accumulate high
heavy-metal contaminants within their tissues (King et al. 1999, Khan
and Nugegoda 2003, Gherardi 2012, Gherardi 2011). The contaminants can
then pass on to humans if they eat these crayfish. Heavy metals vary in
toxicity to humans, ranging from no or little effect to causing skin
irritations, reproductive failure, organ failure, cancer, and death (Hu
2002, Martin and Griswold 2009). While the common yabby may directly
impact human health by transferring metal contaminants through
consumption (Gherardi 2012) and may require consumption advisories,
these advisories are not expected to be more stringent than those for
crayfish species that are not considered injurious and, thus, we do not
find that common yabby are injurious to humans.
Potential Impacts to Agriculture
The common yabby may affect agriculture by decreasing aquaculture
productivity. The common yabby can be host to a variety of diseases and
parasitic infections, including the
[[Page 67887]]
crayfish plague, burn spot disease, Psorospermium sp., and
thelohaniasis (Jones and Lawrence 2001, Souty-Grosset et al. 2006).
These diseases and parasitic infections can be contagious to other
crayfish species (Vogt 1999), resulting in impaired physiological
functions and death. Crayfish species (such as red swamp crayfish
(Procambarus clarkii)) are involved in commercial aquaculture, and
increased incidence of death and disease would reduce this industry's
productivity and value.
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for the Common Yabby
Control
In Europe, two nonnative populations of the common yabby have been
eradicated by introducing the crayfish plague. Since this plague is not
known to affect North American crayfish species (although they are
carriers), this tactic may be effective against an introduced common
yabby population (Souty-Grosset et al. 2006). However, this control
method is not recommended because it could introduce the pathogen that
causes this disease into the environment and has the potential to
mutate and harm native crayfish. Control measures that would harm
native wildlife are not recommended as mitigation to reduce the
injurious characteristics of this species and, therefore, do not meet
control measures under the Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
We are not aware of any potential ecological benefits for
introduction of the common yabby.
Conclusions for the 11 Species
Crucian Carp
The crucian carp is highly likely to survive in the United States.
This fish species prefers a temperate climate and has a native range
that extends through north and central Europe. The crucian carp has a
high climate match throughout much of the continental United States,
Hawaii, and southern Alaska. If introduced, the crucian carp is likely
to become established and spread due to its ability as a habitat
generalist, diet generalist, and adaptability to new environments, long
lifespan, and proven invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the crucian carp to be injurious to agriculture
and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States because the
crucian carp:
Is likely to escape or be released into the wild;
is able to survive and establish outside of its native
range;
is successful at spreading its range;
has negative impacts of competition, hybridization, and
disease transmission on native wildlife (including endangered and
threatened species);
has negative impacts on humans by reducing wildlife
diversity and the benefits that nature provides; and
has negative impacts on agriculture by affecting
aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or reducing established
populations of crucian carp, controlling its spread to new locations,
or recovering ecosystems affected by this species would be difficult.
Eurasian Minnow
The Eurasian minnow is highly likely to survive in the United
States. This fish species prefers a temperate climate and has a current
range (native and nonnative) throughout Eurasia. In the United States,
the Eurasian minnow has a high climate match to the Great Lakes region,
coastal New England, central and high Plains, West Coast, and southern
Alaska. If introduced, the Eurasian minnow is likely to establish and
spread due to its traits as a habitat generalist, generalist predator,
adaptability to new environments, high reproductive potential, long
lifespan, extraordinary mobility, social nature, and proven
invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the Eurasian minnow to be injurious to
agriculture and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States
because the Eurasian minnow:
Is likely to escape or be released into the wild;
is able to survive and establish outside of its native
range;
is successful at expanding its range;
has negative impacts of competition, predation, and
pathogen or parasite transmission on native wildlife (including
endangered and threatened species);
has negative impacts on humans by reducing wildlife
diversity and the benefits that nature provides; and
has negative impacts on agriculture by affecting
aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or reducing established
populations of the Eurasian minnow, controlling its spread to new
locations, or recovering ecosystems affected by this species would be
difficult.
Prussian Carp
The Prussian carp is highly likely to survive in the United States.
This fish species prefers a temperate climate and has a current range
(native and nonnative) that extends throughout Eurasia. In the United
States, the Prussian carp has a high climate match to the Great Lakes
region, central Plains, western mountain States, and California. This
fish species has a medium climate match to much of the continental
United States, southern Alaska, and regions of Hawaii. Prussian carp
have already established in southern Canada near the U.S. border,
validating the climate match in northern regions. If introduced, the
Prussian carp is likely to establish and spread due to its tolerance to
poor-quality environments, rapid growth rate, ability to reproduce from
unfertilized eggs, and proven invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the Prussian carp to be injurious to agriculture
and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States because the
Prussian carp:
Is likely to escape or be released into the wild;
is able to survive and establish outside of its native
range;
is successful at spreading its range;
has negative impacts of competition, habitat alteration,
hybridization, and disease transmission on native wildlife (including
threatened and endangered species);
has negative impacts on humans by reducing wildlife
diversity and the benefits that nature provides; and
has negative impacts on agriculture by affecting
aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or reducing established
populations of the Prussian carp, controlling its spread to new
locations, or recovering ecosystems affected by this species would be
difficult.
Roach
The roach is highly likely to survive in the United States. This
fish species prefers a temperate climate and has a current range
(native and nonnative) throughout Europe, Asia, Australia, Morocco, and
Madagascar. The roach has a high climate match to southern and central
Alaska, regions of Washington, the Great Lakes region, and western
mountain States, and a medium climate match to most of the United
States. If introduced, the roach is likely to establish and spread due
to its highly adaptive nature toward habitat and diet choice, high
reproductive potential, ability to reproduce with other cyprinid
species, long lifespan, mobility, and
[[Page 67888]]
proven invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the roach to be injurious to agriculture and to
wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States because the roach:
Is likely to escape or be released into the wild;
is able to survive and establish outside of its native
range;
is successful at spreading its range;
has negative impacts of competition, predation,
hybridization, altered habitat resources, and disease transmission on
native wildlife (including endangered and threatened species);
has negative impacts on humans by reducing wildlife
diversity and the benefits that nature provides; and
has negative impacts on agriculture by affecting
aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or reducing established
populations of the roach, controlling its spread to new locations, or
recovering ecosystems affected by this species would be difficult.
Stone Moroko
The stone moroko is highly likely to survive in the United States.
This fish species prefers a temperate climate and has a current range
(native and nonnative) throughout Eurasia, Algeria, and Fiji. The stone
moroko has a high climate match to the southeastern United States,
Great Lakes region, central Plains, northern Texas, desert Southwest,
and West Coast. If introduced, the stone moroko is likely to establish
and spread due to its traits as a habitat generalist, diet generalist,
rapid growth rate, adaptability to new environments, extraordinary
mobility, high reproductive potential, high genetic variability, and
proven invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the stone moroko to be injurious to agriculture
and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States because the
stone moroko
Is likely to escape or be released into the wild;
is able to survive and establish outside of its native
range;
is successful at spreading its range;
has negative impacts of competition, predation, disease
transmission, and habitat alteration on native wildlife (including
threatened and endangered species);
has negative impacts on humans by reducing wildlife
diversity and the benefits that nature provides; and
has negative impacts on agriculture by affecting
aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or reducing established
populations of the stone moroko, controlling its spread to new
locations, or recovering ecosystems affected by this species would be
difficult.
Nile Perch
The Nile perch is highly likely to survive in the United States.
This fish species is a tropical invasive, and its current range (native
and nonnative) includes much of central, western, and eastern Africa.
In the United States, the Nile perch has an overall medium climate
match to the United States. However, this fish species has a high
climate match to the Southeast, California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands. If introduced, the Nile perch is likely to
establish and spread due to its nature as a habitat generalist,
generalist predator, long lifespan, quick growth rate, high
reproductive potential, extraordinary mobility, and proven invasiveness
outside of its native range.
The Service finds the Nile perch to be injurious to the interests
of wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States because the
Nile perch:
Is likely to escape or be released into the wild;
is able to survive and establish outside of its native
range;
is successful at spreading its range;
has negative impacts of competition, predation, and
habitat alteration on native wildlife (including endangered and
threatened species); and
has negative impacts on humans by reducing wildlife
diversity and the benefits that nature provides (including through
fisheries).
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or reducing established
populations of the Nile perch, controlling its spread to new locations,
or recovering ecosystems affected by this species would be difficult.
Amur Sleeper
The Amur sleeper is highly likely to survive in the United States.
Although this fish species' native range only includes the freshwaters
of China, Russia, North and South Korea, the species has a broad
invasive range that extends throughout much of Eurasia. The Amur
sleeper has a high climate match to the Great Lakes region, central and
high plains, western mountain States, Maine, northern New Mexico, and
southeast to central Alaska. If introduced, the Amur sleeper is likely
to establish and spread due to its nature as a habitat generalist,
generalist predator, rapid growth rate, high reproductive potential,
adaptability to new environments, extraordinary mobility, and history
of invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the Amur sleeper to be injurious to agriculture
and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States because of
the Amur sleeper's:
Past history of being released into the wild;
ability to survive and establish outside of its native
range;
success at spreading its range;
negative impacts of competition, predation, and disease
transmission on native wildlife (including endangered and threatened
species);
negative impacts on humans by reducing wildlife diversity
and the benefits that nature provides; and
negative impacts on agriculture by affecting aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or reducing established
populations of the Amur sleeper, controlling its spread to new
locations, or recovering ecosystems affected by this species would be
difficult.
European Perch
The European perch is highly likely to survive in the United
States. This fish species prefers a temperate climate and has a current
range (native and nonnative) throughout Europe, Asia, Australia, New
Zealand, South Africa, and Morocco. In the United States, the European
perch has a medium to high climate match to the majority of the United
States except the desert Southwest. This species has especially high
climate matches in the southeastern United States, Great Lakes region,
central to southern Texas, western mountain States, and southern to
central Alaska. If introduced, the European perch is likely to
establish and spread due to its nature as a generalist predator,
ability to adapt to new environments, ability to outcompete native
species, and proven invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the European perch to be injurious to agriculture
and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States because the
European perch:
Is likely to escape or be released into the wild;
is able to survive and establish outside of its native
range;
is successful at spreading its range;
has negative impacts of competition, predation, and
disease transmission on native wildlife (including endangered and
threatened species);
has negative impacts on humans by reducing wildlife
diversity and the benefits that nature provides; and
[[Page 67889]]
has negative impacts on agriculture by affecting
aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or reducing established
populations of the European perch, controlling its spread to new
locations, or recovering ecosystems affected by this species would be
difficult.
Zander
The zander is highly likely to survive in the United States. This
fish species prefers a temperate climate and has a current range
(native and nonnative) throughout Europe, Asia, and northern Africa. In
the United States, the zander has a high climate match to the Great
Lakes region, northern Plains, western mountain States, and Pacific
Northwest. Medium climate matches extend from southern Alaska, western
mountain States, central Plains, and mid-Atlantic, and New England
regions. If introduced, the zander is likely to establish and spread
due to its nature as a generalist predator, ability to hybridize with
other fish species, extraordinary mobility, long lifespan, and proven
invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the zander to be injurious to agriculture and to
wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States because the
zander:
Is likely to escape or be released into the wild;
is able to survive and establish outside of its native
range;
is successful at spreading its range;
has negative impacts of competition, predation, parasite
transmission, and hybridization with native wildlife (including
endangered and threatened species);
has negative impacts on humans by reducing wildlife
diversity and the benefits that nature provides; and
has negative impacts on agriculture by affecting
aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or reducing established
populations of the zander, controlling its spread to new locations, or
recovering ecosystems affected by this species would be difficult.
Wels Catfish
The wels catfish is highly likely to survive in the United States.
This fish species prefers a temperate climate and has a current range
(native and nonnative) throughout Europe, Asia, and northern Africa.
This fish species has a high climate match to much of the United
States. Very high climate matches occur in the Great Lakes region,
western mountain States, and the West Coast. If introduced, the wels
catfish is likely to establish and spread due to its traits as a
generalist predator, quick growth rate, long lifespan, high
reproductive potential, adaptability to new environments, and proven
invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the wels catfish to be injurious to agriculture
and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States because the
wels catfish:
Is likely to escape or be released into the wild;
is able to survive and establish outside of its native
range;
is successful at spreading its range;
has negative impacts of competition, predation, disease
transmission, and habitat alteration on native wildlife (including
endangered and threatened species);
has negative impacts on humans by reducing wildlife
diversity and the benefits that nature provides; and
has negative impacts on agriculture by affecting
aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or reducing established
populations of the wels catfish, controlling its spread to new
locations, or recovering ecosystems affected by this species would be
difficult.
Common Yabby
The common yabby is highly likely to survive in the United States.
This crustacean species prefers a subtropical climate and has a current
range (native and nonnative) that extends to Australia, Europe, China,
South Africa, and Zambia. The common yabby has a high climate match to
the eastern United States, Texas, and parts of Washington. If
introduced, the common yabby is likely to establish and spread due to
its traits as a diet generalist, quick growth rate, high reproductive
potential, and proven invasiveness outside of its native range.
The Service finds the common yabby to be injurious to the interests
of agriculture, and to wildlife and the wildlife resources of the
United States because the common yabby:
Is likely to escape or be released into the wild;
is able to survive and establish outside of its native
range;
is successful at spreading its range;
has negative impacts of competition, predation, and
disease transmission on native wildlife (including endangered and
threatened species);
has negative impacts on humans by reducing wildlife
diversity and the benefits that nature provides; and
has negative impacts on agriculture by affecting
aquaculture.
In addition, preventing, eradicating, or reducing established
populations of the common yabby, controlling its spread to new
locations, or recovering ecosystems affected by this species would be
difficult.
Summary of Injurious Wildlife Factors
Based on the Service's evaluation of the criteria for
injuriousness, substantive information we received during the public
comment period and from the peer reviewers, along with other available
information regarding the 11 species, the Service concludes that all 11
species should be added to the list of injurious species under the
Lacey Act.
The Service used the injurious wildlife evaluation criteria (see
Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria) and found that all 11 species
are injurious to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States
and 10 are injurious to agriculture. Because all 11 species are
injurious, the Service is adding these 11 species to the list of
injurious wildlife under the Act. Table 2 shows a summary of the
evaluation criteria for the 11 species.
Table 2--Summary of Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria for 11 Aquatic Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factors that contribute to being considered injurious Factors that reduce the
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- likelihood of being injurious
---------------------------------
Species Nonnative Potential for Impacts to Direct impacts Impacts to Ecological
occurrences introduction and native species to humans agriculture \2\ Control \3\ benefits for
spread \1\ introduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crucian Carp................. Yes............. Yes............. Yes............. No.............. Yes............ No............. No.
Eurasian Minnow.............. Yes............. Yes............. Yes............. No.............. Yes............ No............. Negligible.
Prussian Carp................ Yes............. Yes............. Yes............. No.............. Yes............ No............. No.
Roach........................ Yes............. Yes............. Yes............. No.............. Yes............ No............. No.
[[Page 67890]]
Stone Moroko................. Yes............. Yes............. Yes............. No.............. Yes............ No............. No.
Nile Perch................... Yes............. Yes............. Yes............. No.............. No............. No............. No.
Amur Sleeper................. Yes............. Yes............. Yes............. No.............. Yes............ No............. No.
European Perch............... Yes............. Yes............. Yes............. No.............. Yes............ No............. No.
Zander....................... Yes............. Yes............. Yes............. No.............. Yes............ No............. Negligible.
Wels Catfish................. Yes............. Yes............. Yes............. No.............. Yes............ No............. No.
Common Yabby................. Yes............. Yes............. Yes............. No.............. Yes............ No............. No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes endangered and threatened species and wildlife and wildlife resources.
\2\ Agriculture includes aquaculture.
\3\ Control--``No'' if wildlife or habitat damages may occur from control measures being proposed as mitigation.
Summary of Comments Received on the Proposed Rule
Peer Review Summary
In accordance with peer review guidance of the Office of Management
and Budget ``Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,''
released December 16, 2004 (OMB 2004), and Service guidance, we
solicited expert opinion on information contained in the October 30,
2015 (80 FR 67026), proposed rule for 11 species and supplemental
documents from knowledgeable individuals selected from specialists in
the relevant taxonomic group and ecologists with scientific expertise
that includes familiarity with one or more of the disciplines of
invasive species biology, invasive species risk assessment, aquatic
species biology, aquaculture, and fisheries. In 2015, we posted our
peer review plan on the Service's Headquarters Science Applications Web
site (https://www.fws.gov/science/peer_review_agenda.html), explaining
the peer review process and providing the public with an opportunity to
comment on the peer review plan. We received no comments regarding the
peer review plan. The Service solicited independent scientific
reviewers who submitted individual comments in written form. We avoided
using individuals who might have strong support for or opposition to
the subject and individuals who were likely to experience personal gain
or loss (such as financial or prestige) because of the Service's
decision. Department of the Interior employees were not used as peer
reviewers.
We received responses from the three peer reviewers we solicited:
All three answered ``yes'' to the following two questions
of a general nature that we posed to them: Did the Service provide an
accurate and adequate review and analysis of the potential effects from
the 11 species as categorized under the injurious wildlife evaluation
criteria? Is the Service's analysis of the criteria logical and
supported by evidence?
The three reviewers also answered ``yes'' to the following
two questions with one reviewer having one or more comments on each:
Does the science used and assumptions made support the conclusions? Did
the Service cite necessary and pertinent literature to support their
scientific analyses?
Finally, two reviewers answered ``yes'' to these two
questions, while one answered ``no'' and provided comments: Are the
uncertainties and assumptions clearly identified and characterized? Are
the potential implications of the uncertainties for the technical
conclusions clearly identified?
We also requested that the reviewers provide comments that were
specific to the proposed rule, the economic analysis, and the
environmental assessment. We reviewed all comments for substantive
issues and any new information they provided. We consolidated the
comments and responses into key issues in this section. We provided
comments and responses specifically regarding the environmental
assessment at the end of the final environmental assessment. We revised
the final rule, economic analysis, and environmental assessment to
reflect peer reviewer comments and new scientific information where
appropriate.
Peer Review Comments--General (Some Also Apply to the Environmental
Assessment)
(PR1) Comment: Selection for 11 freshwater animals is directly
related to ERSS output, which is detailed and defendable. However,
several other species meet the same criteria as those selected. Was
there other criteria used to select the 11 species for this proposed
rule? Based upon these criteria, I would expect to see many other fish
species proposed for listing as Injurious Wildlife Species.
Our Response: We agree that other species are high risk that we did
not evaluate in this rule. Because of the amount of work required to
evaluate each species and prepare the documentation, we are not able to
evaluate all the species at one time. We chose many species in this
rule because of their risk to the Great Lakes region and Mississippi
River Basin, which face a widespread ecosystem crisis if native aquatic
populations collapse due to invasions of nonnative fish, mollusks, or
crustaceans, as well as a corresponding economic crisis if the
commercial fishing industries collapse due to the same. We plan to
evaluate and then propose for injurious listing more of the high-risk
species as appropriate and as our resources allow.
(PR2) Comment: What significant impact could crucian carp have in
the United States? Hybridization with nonnatives, such as goldfish and
common carp, may not be concerning to resource managers. Increased
turbidity is a negative impact, but habitat types that these fish could
live in likely have highly turbid water currently. The largest concern
and the one that makes me support listing this species is the
documented movement of these fish as hitchhikers in fish shipments.
Our Response: The crucian carp possesses many of the strongest
traits for invasiveness. It is a temperate-climate species, so it has a
high climate match in much of the United States, and it is adaptable to
different environments. The species is capable of securing a wide range
of food, such as plankton, benthic invertebrates, and plants. With this
varied diet, crucian carp would
[[Page 67891]]
directly compete with numerous native species. Habitat degradation is
projected to be high, with the greatest degradation in lakes, rivers,
and streams with soft bottom sediments. Reduced light levels in
habitats with submerged aquatic vegetation would probably cause major
alterations in habitat. Infected crucian carp may spread SVC to
cultured fish stocks or other cyprinids in U.S. waters (ERSS 2014
Crucian carp). We summarized these threats in the draft environmental
assessment (under the Direct Effects section of Environmental
Consequences for the No Action alternative). The ability of crucian
carp to hybridize with other cyprinids may be more of a threat to
aquacultured fish than to native fish, but we also consider that
possibility. Because of these combined threats we consider the crucian
carp as injurious.
(PR3) Comment: It should be mentioned that the Prussian carp is
similar to the crucian carp and they are also known to hybridize. Such
a situation creates added problems, so listing both under the Lacey Act
reduces confusion with regulations or prohibitions.
Our Response: Prussian carp are closely related to crucian carp and
goldfish, and it is likely that they also would hybridize with closely
related species if given the opportunity. One paper that documents
Carassius hybridization discovered that the species identified as gibel
(or Prussian) carp were really crucian carp (Hanfling and Harley 2003).
We are listing the Prussian carp for other threats, and while the
listing of both species may indeed reduce confusion with regulations,
that is not a criteria for listing.
(PR4) Comment: A more recent paper on the Amur sleeper that
includes mention of its introduction in more countries than listed in
the draft environmental assessment is Reshetnikov and Schliewen (2013).
Our Response: We have incorporated into the rule and the final
environmental assessment the information of the additional countries
and spread from Reshetnikov and Schliewen (2013).
(PR5) Comment: Regarding LEMIS (LEMIS 2016) import records (which
are used in the economic analysis), based on my own research some
species recorded as being imported are wrongly identified. Some of the
11 species targeted here for Lacey Act listing may be coming into this
country from foreign sources but identified under an incorrect name. It
would be worthwhile to mention which of the species have the greatest
chance of being misidentified.
Our Response: We agree that many species of fish, including some we
are listing with this final rule, are similar in appearance to others
and could be misidentified on import. This could mean that a species
listed as injurious by this rule is imported under a name of a species
that is not regulated. For example, Crucian and Prussian carp could be
mistaken for goldfish. In fact, one commenter noted a case where
crucian carp were advertised for sale in Chicago's Chinatown, but they
were live goldfish. Nile perch is similar to barramundi (Lates
calcarifer). The Eurasian minnow superficially resembles many other
cyprinids or minnows, as do the stone moroko and the roach. Small wels
catfish may be mistaken for walking catfish (Clarias spp.). The Amur
sleeper may be confused with other species of its own family, as well
as many species in the families Eleotridae and Gobiidae. There are more
than 30 species in the genus Cherax, and they have similar
descriptions. This comment was made regarding the draft economic
analysis, and therefore, we looked at the effect of misidentifications
on the economic results. However, the total numbers of imports of any
of the 11 species were so small that misidentification is likely
insignificant for the economic impact. With regard to the listing
effectiveness, there will be an increased risk that a species will be
introduced, established, and spread if an injurious species is
misidentified and still brought into the U.S. or transported across
State lines, Finally, the fact that a species we are evaluating for
listing resembles another species (listed or not) does not affect our
final determination. Under the Lacey Act, we do not have the authority
to list a species due to the similarity of appearance.
(PR6) Comment: It is the responsibility of the authors to provide
clear documentation regarding the biology and known or potential
impacts of these species. I went to one link that took me to a home
page (www.cabi.org/isc), and I had to search for the paper. At a
minimum, a link should go directly to the Web site that provides the
supporting information. I prefer citations of peer[hyphen]reviewed
scientific journal articles or books. The only reason to cite a web
source is if the information is not provided in any published source.
Our Response: The Service has been searching for several years for
a more efficient method to locate information that was not published by
Americans or English-speaking authors (and, thus, not easy for the
Service to locate) on species that are not native to the United States.
Papers may be published in journals and reports around the world and in
many languages. One organization, CAB International (CABI), has helped
solve this problem for us and others by soliciting an expert to prepare
a full datasheet (report) on a particular invasive species. This expert
gathers the available papers internationally; CABI will professionally
translate relevant papers. The resulting datasheet is reviewed by three
other experts. Then CABI makes the datasheet accessible worldwide at no
cost at https://www.cabi.org/isc. We used the full datasheets on all 11
species for basic information and for leads to find primary sources. We
did verify with the primary sources that we were able to locate and
that were in English. We provided the direct links to all 11 of the
CABI datasheets to the peer reviewers. In the Draft Environmental
Assessment, we provided the link to the CABI Web site, but we will link
directly to the species for the final rule. Although we are not
required to provide links to all of the sources we use, we provided a
list of references on www.regulations.gov for this docket (FWS-HQ-FAC-
2013-0095). We also must maintain a copy of each source for our
records.
(PR7) Comment: Two reviewers noted that the economic analysis was
redundant with the environmental assessment. One suggested that the
economic analysis was unnecessary because of the lack of quantitative
information.
Our Response: The economic analysis is a stand-alone document
developed to support determinations that are required for this
rulemaking. The analysis addresses specific topics required by
Executive Order 12866, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), and other mandates. We prepared the
environmental assessment in accordance with the criteria of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The
two documents have different purposes, but the findings are based on
some of the same information. The economic analysis interprets the
impacts in terms of benefit-cost analysis and economic welfare
measures. The environmental assessment describes impacts on the human
environment from the listing action and other alternatives. At this
time, the actual injury to the United States from these species is
minimal, if any, so only a qualitative discussion is possible.
(PR8) Comment: Some sentences are convoluted, and a few are
potentially
[[Page 67892]]
misleading. Clarity could be improved by simply writing more concisely
and breaking up larger sentences.
Our Response: The commenter gave no specific examples, but we have
strived to improve the clarity of our sentences in the rule and
supplemental documents.
(PR9) Comment: Although not a major problem, it should be noted
that more and more ichthyologists and fish biologists capitalize the
common names of fishes.
Our Response: The Service chooses to capitalize only the proper
names used to name species in rulemaking documents, as we do for all
other classes of animals.
(PR10) Comment: The wels catfish is a large catfish. Its adult and
maximum size should be emphasized, since it is a predator with a very
large mouth. The subsection relating to potential harm to humans
borders on sensationalism. Neither of the supporting citations are
scientific publications.
Our Response: We can find no scientific documentation of human
attacks. However, we mention the species' potentially giant size, large
mouth, predatory nature, and ability to beach itself and then return to
the water as traits that collectively provide the means to harm humans.
While we mention the anecdotal reports, we have no documentation to
confirm harm to humans and thus do not consider wels catfish injurious
to humans.
Peer Review Comments--Ecological Risk Screening Summaries
(PR11) Comment: A reviewer expressed difficulty in finding more
information in the rule and supplemental documents regarding the rapid
screening (ERSS) method. The reviewer located the standard operating
procedures for the rapid screening as cited in the draft environmental
assessment but found it not sufficiently informative. For example, the
16 climate variables were not explained. The authors should explain
what a Climate 6 ratio is.
Our Response: We have added the 16 climate variables in Table 1
under the heading ``Rapid Screening'' above, as well as other
information on the rapid screening method, particularly on climate
matching (Climate 6 ratio). In addition, we revised the ``Standard
Operating Procedures: Rapid Screening of Species Risk of Establishment
and Impact in the U.S.'' (USFWS 2014) to be more complete and
comprehensible (USFWS 2016).
(PR12) Comment: The authors cite Bomford (2008) with regard to
climate match. Did they use the adjustments Bomford mentions for
evaluating fish or aquatic organisms?
Our Response: We assume that the reviewer is talking about
Bomford's algorithm for Australia (Bomford 2008). We did not use that
algorithm, which includes the raw Climate 6 score, along with other
factors. Instead, we use only the Climate 6 score, which Bomford said
was shown to be the best predictor of success of introduction (Howeth
et al. 2016).
(PR13) Comment: It would be worthwhile to mention for any of the 11
species which native species are most closely related or similar and
thus may be impacted or even replaced.
Our Response: A species does not need to be closely related or
similar to affect or even replace another. However, in response to this
comment, we have added relevant information in the rule and in the
environmental assessment wherever we had such information available.
Public Comments Summary
We reviewed all 20 comments we received during the 60-day public
comment period (80 FR 67026; October 30, 2015) for substantive issues
and new information regarding the proposed designation of the 11
species as injurious wildlife.
We received comments from State agencies, regional and U.S.-Canada
governmental alliances, commercial businesses, industry associations,
conservation organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private
citizens. One comment came from Zambia, and two were anonymous.
Comments received provided a range of opinions on the proposed listing:
(1) Unequivocal support for the listing with no additional information
included; (2) unequivocal support for the listing with additional
information provided; (3) equivocal support for the listing with or
without additional information included; and (4) unequivocal opposition
to the listing with additional information included. One comment was
about an unrelated subject and beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
We received public comments specifically on the rule, but no
comments specifically addressing the environmental assessment or the
economic analysis. Some commenters addressed the eight questions we
posed in the proposed rule. We consolidated comments and responses into
key issues in this section.
Public Comments--General
(1) Comment: Comments from several alliances and governmental
organizations representing the Great Lakes States and the Canadian
Province of Ontario strongly support the listing of the 11 species. In
addition, the States of Michigan and New York also support the listing
as proposed. New York DEC states, ``A unified approach between state,
regional and federal actions is the most effective way to protect the
Great Lakes Basin from AIS.'' The State of Louisiana also supports the
listing.
Our Response: The Service appreciates the affirmation that listing
the 11 species will benefit these widespread and cross-border
jurisdictions.
(2) Comment: A representative of public zoos and aquaria requests
to continue working with the Service's permitting office to ensure that
members can obtain injurious wildlife permits for educational and
scientific purposes in a timely fashion for these species.
Our Response: The Service will continue to work with this
organization and others in the permitting process for educational and
scientific purposes, and in accordance with our regulations, as we have
in the past.
(3) Comment: A commenter suggests more information could be
provided on the level of additional assessment beyond the ERSS report
that is required for a national management action, such as injurious
wildlife listing. For example, a strong and explicit risk management
component, particularly one involving stakeholders, is lacking.
Our Response: Injurious wildlife listing is a regulatory action
(adds to or changes an existing regulation). The Service's regulatory
decision is based on our injurious wildlife listing criteria, which
include components of risk assessment and risk management. By using
these criteria, the Service evaluates factors that contribute to or
remove the likelihood of a species becoming injurious to the interests
identified under 18 U.S.C. 42.
(4) Comment: A commenter requests additional explanation of the
types of species that warrant injurious species listing be added to the
Service's Web site with careful evaluation of the proposed criteria to
avoid the potential to set unwarranted precedent or generate other
unintended consequences.
Our Response: The types of species we may list as injurious under
our authority are wild mammals, wild birds, fish, mollusks,
crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring, eggs, or hybrids
of any of the aforementioned, which are injurious to human beings, to
the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to the
wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States. The Service uses
its Injurious Wildlife
[[Page 67893]]
Evaluation Criteria to evaluate whether a species does or does not
qualify as injurious under the Act. This information is posted on
https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/.
(5) Comment: A commenter states that many regulations involving
aquatic species already exist with individual States. The State of
Florida, for example, has been conducting risk assessments on species
of concern for decades. These studies have produced significant data
that may be useful in the Federal process.
Our Response: The Service welcomes any such risk assessment from
the States. The public comment period is an excellent time to submit
such documents because the information can be used to develop the final
rule. However, we received no risk assessments for the 11 species
during this public comment period.
(6) Comment: A commenter states that the barramundi was selected
for aquaculture in Iowa, Florida, and Massachusetts despite being a
high-risk species as defined in the ``Generic Nonindigenous Aquatic
Organisms Risk Analysis Review Process'' (ANSTF 1996). They justified
this action by explaining that the species is a sustainable seafood
choice and that the production facilities must be indoors. The
organization offers assistance to the Service to obtain information for
other species that could be cultured in the United States.
Our Response: The Service understands the need for the aquaculture
industry to provide sustainable seafood choices. The species mentioned
in the comment is not one of the proposed species and will not be
affected by this final rule. We selected the 11 proposed species
because they were high-risk for invasiveness and because they are not
yet cultured in the United States or, in the case of the Nile perch (a
relative of the barramundi), in very limited culture. Therefore, the
economic effect on the industry would be negligible if any. We
developed the ERSS process to assist the industry with selecting
species for culturing that are low-risk to the environment, and we
encourage any entity that has a need to import a species not yet
commonly in U.S. trade to select low-risk species to help avoid
unforeseen consequences.
(7) Comment: The Service recently sought public comment on changes
to the procedures used by the public to develop and submit petitions to
list species under the authority granted by the Endangered Species Act.
A proposed change was to require a petitioner to identify and evaluate
State regulations and programs that protect and conserve species within
their boundaries for the explicit purpose of providing information that
encompasses Federal, State and private conservation efforts. We
recommend that the Service adopt a similar approach in evaluating
nonnative species risk.
Our Response: None of the 11 species in the proposed rule was
petitioned for listing, so this comment is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. In general, the public, including State agencies, can
submit this type of information during the public comment period. We
posed several questions in our proposed rule that seek this type of
information, including:
(1) What regulations does your State or Territory have pertaining
to the use, possession, sale, transport, or production of any of the 11
species in this proposed rule? What are relevant Federal, State, or
local rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed
Federal regulation?
(4) What would it cost to eradicate individuals or populations of
any of the 11 species, or similar species, if found in the United
States? What methods are effective?
(5) What State-protected species would be adversely affected by the
introduction of any of the 11 species?
(7) How could the proposed rule be modified to reduce any costs or
burdens for small entities consistent with the Service's requirements?
Public Comments--Ecological Risk Screening Summaries
(8) Comment: Two State agencies commented that they utilized the
Service's ERSSs for supporting information to assist them in developing
restrictions on potentially invasive species.
With support from Michigan's Governor, Rick Snyder, and
the Michigan Legislature, Public Act 537 of 2014 was passed requiring
the development of a permitted species list in Michigan. Additionally,
this public act requires the review of all species that the Service
lists as an injurious wildlife species. Four of the 11 species proposed
as injurious are currently listed as prohibited in Michigan (stone
moroko, zander, wels catfish, and the common yabby). If all 11 species
proposed are approved for listing as injurious, Michigan will respond
by reviewing the 7 species not currently regulated in Michigan to
consider a prohibition or restriction.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's
invasive species experts reviewed 25 of the 63 high-risk species
identified by the Service during the assessment process as posing an
ecological risk to New York State. Many of these species were included
on the 6 NYCRR Part 575 list, Prohibited and Regulated Invasive
Species, which became effective March 2015. NYDEC plans to evaluate the
remaining high-risk species identified by the Service for future
updates to the regulations.
Our Response: We are pleased that our efforts to produce the ERSSs
are specifically useful to the States of Michigan and New York.
(9) Comment: A commenter understood that the [ERSS] methodology
would be directed at species not in trade.
Our Response: The ERSSs were not intended to be specifically for
species not in trade. We do not often know whether a species is in
trade or not in trade at the time the ERSS is prepared; that
information is discovered during the rapid screening process itself. We
posted the purpose and uses of the ERSSs in late 2012 in several places
on the Service's public Web site, such as:
The peer review plan for the ERSSs (``Rapid Screening of
Species Risk of Establishment and Impact in the United States'') posted
on the Service's Science Web site (https://www.fws.gov/science/pdf/ERSS-Process-Peer-Review-Agenda-12-19-12.pdf) has been continuously
available since December 2012 and states that the ``The Fish and
Wildlife Service has developed a rapid risk screening process to
determine a high, low, or uncertain level of risk for imported
nonnative species.''
The Invasive Species Prevention page (https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/Injurious_prevention.html) has been continuously
available since December 2012 and states that ``Some species that we
assess may already be in trade in the United States but are considered
low risk because they have not become invasive over a long period.
Others may be in trade and we do not have enough information to know
whether they have become invasive (these would likely be uncertain
risk). In addition, due to the large number of species in trade, some
species may be in trade in this country that we do not know are in
trade. Thus, we are seeking information from the public as to what
species are in trade or are otherwise present in the United States.''
The Species Ecological Risk Screening Summaries page
(https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ANS/species_erss.html) was posted on
November 2, 2015, and gives many examples of ERSSs of species already
in trade in the United States, so that an agency from an
[[Page 67894]]
as-yet unaffected State may determine if the climate match would
support that agency taking restrictive action. Those examples also show
species that are low risk because they have been in U.S. trade for
decades and have not established.
(10) Comment: Several commenters stated that a Federal regulatory
decision should not be solely based on the ERSS model.
Our Response: We agree, and our determinations are based on more
than the ERSS reports. Our determinations are based on the ERSS
reports, the Service's evaluation of the criteria for injuriousness,
substantive information we received during the public comment period
and from the peer reviewers, along with other available information
regarding the 11 species. We stated in the proposed rule under ``How
the 11 Species Were Selected for Consideration as Injurious Species''
(80 FR 67027; October 30, 2015) that ``[t]he Service selected 11
species with a rapid screen result of ``high risk'' to consider for
listing as injurious,'' explaining how we prioritized which species to
evaluate further. Only species with high-risk conclusions from ERSSs
were considered for further evaluation in this rulemaking. In our
proposed rule, we further explained how we got the information that we
used for our determination (80 FR 67030; October 30, 2015): ``We
obtained our information on a species' biology, history of
invasiveness, and climate matching from a variety of sources, including
the U.S. Geological Survey Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS)
database, Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International's Invasive
Species Compendium (CABI ISC), ERSS reports, and primary literature * *
*. The Service contracted with CABI for many of the species-specific
datasheets that we used in preparation of this proposed rule. The
datasheets were prepared by world experts on the species, and each
datasheet was reviewed by expert peer reviewers. The datasheets served
as sources of compiled information that allowed us to prepare this
proposed rule efficiently.''
We further explained how we used the compiled information in the
evaluation process that we developed specifically for evaluating
species for listing as injurious (80 FR 67039; October 30, 2015; see
``Injurious Wildlife Evaluation Criteria'') and have used for previous
rules. We used primary literature extensively, and those sources are
cited in the proposed rule and listed in the supporting document
``References for Proposed Rule of 11 Species'' posted on
www.regulations.gov.
(11) Comment: Clear errors are present in many of the ERSS reports
regarding climate matching, especially for tropical species (the
commenter gives the examples of the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) and the
black acara (Cichlasoma bimaculatum)). Taking database information at
face value, while often done during rapid screens, is clearly not
appropriate for a risk analysis that would support national regulatory
decisions.
Our Response: The ERSS process is a risk screening process that is
designed to be quick and simple. Data are reviewed and compiled to help
us decide whether a species should be evaluated more closely. We
acknowledge that an ERSS may miss or misinterpret data on a species
being assessed. We agree that, for national regulatory decisions, we
should not take rapid screen information at face value only. That is
why we use many other sources of information for the subsequent
injurious evaluation utilizing our injurious wildlife listing criteria.
These results are published in our rules and often utilize additional
sources of information that may rectify any errors in the ERSS.
(12) Comment: The ERSS tool has a methodological bias to return an
overall high-risk assignment due to the combination of history of
invasion and climate match, while there is only one combination that
will result in a low-risk designation. With the ease of obtaining a
medium climate match using this tool, this is an unacceptable precedent
that could lead to proposed listings of numerous ornamental species
that have been in production in Florida for decades and are vital to
the Florida aquaculture industry.
Our Response: About 2,000 species have been assessed for risk using
the ERSS approach; currently most are in draft needing final review.
Only about 10 percent of those 2,000 species are characterized as high
risk. Therefore, ERSS results are rarely characterizing species risk as
high, even with either medium or high climate-match scores for the
United States. Unlike some semi-quantitative scoring systems that
characterize risk without climate mapping (such as Fish Invasiveness
Screening Kit (FISK)), the ERSS system relies on climate-matching that
gives a national score and maps the climate match for all U.S. States.
Maps of climate match for species whose scores are medium show
locations where climate match is high. Thus, we do not rely only on
climate scores. Instead, we rely on climate scores and maps that show
locations where climate match is high. Also, the ERSS system is
designed not to classify any species, regardless of the climate match
score and associated category, as high risk without a scientifically
defensible history of invasiveness. For example, the Nile perch is one
of the 10 percent of species out of the 2,000 species that have been
assessed as high. Although the climate match score for this species is
medium, the climate match is high in portions of several U.S.
jurisdictions.
An ERSS indicating a high risk for a species does not mean that the
species will be listed as injurious wildlife. The ERSS is a way to
prioritize species on which the Service should focus its regulatory,
nonregulatory risk management, or management actions. The commenter is
correct that a high history of invasiveness and a high climate match
equals high risk, and that a high history of invasiveness and a medium
climate match also equals high risk. The former is clearly reasonable.
However, a high history of invasiveness and a medium climate match also
produces a high overall risk because the climate match is conservative
for two reasons. One is that factors other than climate may limit a
species distribution in its native land, such as the existence of
predators, diseases, and major terrain barriers that may not be present
in the newly invaded land. Therefore, the areas at risk of invasion may
span a climate range greater than that extracted mechanically from the
native range boundaries (Rodda et al. 2011). The second reason is to
err on the side of protection of natural resources, especially when the
effects of introduced species are disputed or unknown. Accepting the
higher risk rating reflects a ``precautionary'' or conservative
approach and counteracts the uncertainty often associated with
biological invasions (ANSTF 1996).
The commenter's concern about setting a precedent for ornamental
species in production in Florida is unfounded because the ERSSs merely
provide a way for the Service to focus its limited resources and
regulatory efforts on species at greatest risk of adversely affecting
human beings, the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or
wildlife, or the wildlife resources of the United States. We will
continue to use more detailed risk analyses by utilizing the injurious
wildlife listing criteria. These analyses can be found in this final
rule.
(13) Comment: Although the Ecological Risk Screen Standard
Operating Procedures have been reviewed by several experts in the
field, some methodological issues could be
[[Page 67895]]
evaluated to improve the effectiveness of the tool. It is not clear if
this tool has been thoroughly tested and validated using a wide range
of species across a continuum of risk such as has been done with other
risk screening tools (such as Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK)).
For example, it is common to test and validate the method by answering
the questions: What percentage of species considered invasive does the
tool correctly identify as high risk, and what percentage of species
that are not invasive does it correctly identify as low risk?
Our Response: The ERSS process is based on scientific literature
and risk screening approaches, as well as peer review of those
approaches per OMB policies for influential science. We also measured
the approach in postdiction on a number of species, including bighead
carps, grass carps, silver carps, green swordtails, and several species
of snakeheads. Although we did not compile the postdiction testing into
a final report, the positive results ultimately led to the Service
developing the ERSS process. The practice of using history of
invasiveness and climate match to determine risk has been validated in
peer-reviewed studies over the years. The following are some examples:
Kolar and Lodge (2002) found that discriminant analysis revealed that
successful fishes in the establishment stage grew relatively faster,
tolerated wider ranges of temperature and salinity, and were more
likely to have a history of invasiveness than were failed fishes. Hayes
and Barry (2008) found that climate and habitat match, history of
successful invasion, and number of arriving and released individuals
are consistently associated with successful establishment. Bomford
(2003) recommended that, because a history of establishing exotic
populations elsewhere is a significant predictor of establishment
success for exotic mammals and birds introduced to Australia, this
variable should be considered as a key factor when assessing the risk
that other exotic species could establish there. Bomford et al. (2010)
later found that ``Relative to failed species, established species had
better climate matches between the country where they were introduced
and their geographic range elsewhere in the world. Established species
were also more likely to have high establishment success rates
elsewhere in the world.'' Recently, Howeth et al. (2016) showed that
climate match between a species' native range and the Great Lakes
region predicted establishment success with 75 to 81 percent accuracy.
(14) Comment: A commenter cites the risk assessment framework used
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service-Plant Protection and Quarantine (USDA-APHIS-PPQ) for
determining the risk of nonnative plants. The method and variants of it
have been tested by many entities. Additional expert review and testing
of the Service's method as well as the generated ERSS reports would
provide valuable information on the performance, uses, and limitations
of Ecological Risk Screening.
Our Response: The Service has conducted its risk analysis (80 FR
67039; October 30, 2015; see ``Injurious Wildlife Evaluation
Criteria'') based on factors that are specific to injurious wildlife
listing. The ERSSs are rapid screens and are used as a way to
prioritize which species to evaluate further (see our response to
Comment 10).
(15) Comment: A commenter opines that stakeholders from the public
and private sectors with expertise in aquatic biology and ecology,
natural resource management, biology, and aquaculture should further
analyze screening results through a comprehensive regulatory risk
analysis. The commenter also encourages the Service to have the ERSS
reports reviewed by subject matter experts prior to their release and
use in management decisions.
Our Response: Well before the publication of the proposed rule for
these 11 species, this commenter had requested by letter to the Service
in 2012 that the Service conduct peer review under the OMB Peer Review
Guidelines (OMB 2004) on the ERSS process. We completed that peer
review in 2013. No substantive changes were needed to the ERSS process.
Because the ERSSs are rapid screens, we believe that having a good
foundation for the process is sufficient, and that a detailed peer-
review process of individual ERSSs is not required. These reports are
also publically available, and comments can be submitted on individual
reports at prevent_invasives@fws.gov.
Public Comments--Nile Perch
(16) Comment: Currently, Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (FDACS) has certified aquaculture facilities
culturing Nile perch (Lates niloticus). These farms are in compliance
with current Federal and State laws. Listing L. niloticus as injurious
species would not further prevent escapement of these species in
Florida
Our Response: The Service commends the State of Florida for
exemplary regulations designed ``to prevent the escape of all life
stages of nonnative aquatic species into waters of the State'' (quoted
from the comment by FDACS, December 22, 2015). While we agree that
Florida's laws may indeed be sufficient to prevent escape of Nile perch
into Florida's ecosystems, the Service must look at a national scale to
ensure that none of the 11 species is introduced into, becomes
established, or spreads across the United States.
(17) Comment: There may be a substantial impact to the emerging
food fish aquaculture industry in Florida by prohibiting the import and
interstate movement of live Lates niloticus (Nile perch) or their
gametes.
Our Response: Neither this commenter nor the other commenters that
mentioned culturing of Nile perch in Florida stated how many facilities
are currently raising Nile perch, how many Nile perch they raise, or
their market value. In fact, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission stated in their public comment (December 29, 2015), ``Food
production in Florida is primarily limited to four species of tilapia *
* *. The number of aquaculture facilities currently raising Nile perch
is limited at this time.'' Another commenter stated, ``The Nile perch
[Lates niloticus] is not cultured in the United States * * *.'' A third
commenter from Florida discussed the Nile perch ERSS at length but did
not state whether Nile perch are currently being cultured in Florida or
any State. We do note that live culturing will not be prohibited by
this rulemaking nor will the transportation of dead Nile perch to other
States. Export of live fish directly from a designated port in Florida
will remain unaffected by this rulemaking as well.
(18) Comment: A commenter with a national focus states that Nile
perch is not cultured in the United States, and a Federal rule
effectively eliminates any opportunity to culture this species in
regions where it has little or no chance of successfully surviving in
the wild. Nile perch is already regulated in the States and regions of
the nation where it might survive in nature, and, therefore, a Federal
rule is redundant.
Our Response: The commenter did not provide information on what
regulations currently exist or what States the commenter thinks species
cannot survive in. In our internet search for regulations in southern
tier States, we found these States regulate the Nile perch in some way:
Mississippi (MDAC 2016), Arizona (AGFD 2013), and Texas (TPWD 2016);
these States apparently do not regulate Nile perch: Alabama (ADCNR
2015), California (CDFW 2013),
[[Page 67896]]
Georgia (Justia 2015; not confirmed), Hawaii (HDOA 2006), Louisiana
(Louisiana 2015), and New Mexico (NMDGF 2010). Based on this
information, we do not believe that this Federal rule is redundant.
(19) Comment: Several commenters disagree with our conclusion that
the Nile perch is highly likely to survive in the United States and
could successfully reproduce and thrive to yield similar ecological
effects as those in Lake Victoria (Africa). The ERSS report and the
analysis completed for the Federal Register notice for this species
should be reviewed and revised. Another commenter stated that Nile
perch is unlikely to survive outside of captivity in the United States
except in warm areas, such as southern Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico,
and more questionably interior portions of southern California. The
ERSS report overestimates the climate match of this species to include
States along the Gulf of Mexico coast and central and northern Florida.
It is difficult to visualize the climate match because climate match
maps are on a global scale.
Our Response: We have checked the sources we used previously and
other sources for the native and introduced range of the Nile perch.
The Nile perch is widespread in Africa from approximately 30[deg] N. in
Egypt to approximately 15[deg] S. in Zambia and in countries from the
Atlantic to the Indian oceans and the Mediterranean Sea (Azeroual et
al. 2010). The climate match supports our determination that the Nile
perch is likely to survive in warmer areas, such as Hawaii and the
insular islands, as well as some southern States. We also note that
some introduced species have defied the expected physiological
tolerances, such as the red swamp crayfish, which is native to the Gulf
coastal plain from New Mexico to the western panhandle of Florida and
north through the southern Mississippi River drainage to southern
Illinois. The species has been reported in Alaska, Washington, Maine,
Michigan, Hawaii, and many other States (Nagy et al. 2016). As a
generalization among taxa, introduced ranges often reflect a greater
climatic range than was found in the native range because other
dispersal barriers (biotic and abiotic) may be absent in the introduced
range (Rodda et al. 2011).
(20) Comment: A commenter stated that the historic claims on our
summary of the Nile perch, that it has decimated the species of East
African lakes to extinction, are out of date and unproven and are more
likely due to immigration of large numbers of people, causing
deforestation, eutrophication, and pollution. Another commenter stated
that many of the impacts to African lakes discussed in the Nile perch
ERSS are confounded by other elements of environmental change and are
highly unlikely to occur in the United States.
Our Response: The former commenter gave no supporting documentation
that is more recent and ``proven'' to show that Nile perch are not the
cause of the changes in Lake Victoria. We looked for more recent
studies than in our proposed rule and found that Gophen's plankton and
fish community study (2015) states, ``The concept of the Nile Perch
predation impact and its ecological implications is also confirmed by
the elimination of the Haplochromines's planktivory. * * * The Lake
Victoria ecosystem was unique included above [sic] 400 endemic species
of Haplochromine fishes. The food web structure was naturally balanced
during that time with short periods of anoxia in deep waters and
dominance of diatomides algal species. Nile Perch (Lates niloticus) was
introduced and during the 1980's became the dominant fish. The
Haplochromine species were deleted and the whole ecosystem was
modified. Algal assemblages were changed to Cyanobacteria, anoxia
became more frequent and in shallower waters.'' This statement
supports, if not enhances, our claim that the Nile perch caused the
local extinction of at least 200 haplochromine cichlid fish species,
thereby altering the plankton balance. We do not dispute that other
factors were also acting on the health of Lake Victoria in the last few
decades, thus exacerbating the effects of losing so many native fishes.
However, the fact that so many species' local extirpation are directly
linked to the Nile perch meets one of the injurious listing factors.
The latter commenter states that the elements of environmental
change (referring to land use changes and cultural practices) are
highly unlikely to occur in the United States. We agree with this
statement but believe that the United States also has land use changes
and cultural practices that may be different but that also lead to
adverse ecological disturbance.
(21) Comment: The distribution of Nile Perch in its native and
introduced range is primarily within the tropics of sub-Saharan Africa,
a tropical equatorial rainforest climate zone, with the exception of
the Nile River, which flows primarily through a hot, desert climate,
and some East African lakes. The conterminous United States lacks the
tropical equatorial rainforest zone. The commenter's own CLIMATCH
analysis indicated that almost none of the many stations distributed
across tropical West Africa and the central tropics contributed to
match in the United States.
Our Response: Climate match is not an exact predictor. Factors
other than climate may limit a species' native distribution, including
the existence of predators, diseases, and other local factors (such as
major terrain barriers), which may not be present when a species is
released in a new country. Therefore, the areas at risk of invasion
often span a climate range greater than that extracted mechanically
from the native range boundaries. For example, an aquatic species that
was historically confined to a small watershed may be able to thrive in
larger, dissimilar watersheds if transported there. For the Nile perch,
the historic range covers a large area of Africa, in countries from the
western to the eastern coast and north to the Mediterranean Sea.
Habitats include rivers and lakes of varying sizes and brackish as well
as fresh water. In our methodology, weather stations within 50 km (31
mi) of an occurrence are used in the analysis. We recognize that this
is an unusual circumstance with the elevated plateau being located very
close to the east African Rift Lakes and possibly skewing the results.
(22) Comment: The State of Texas stocked Nile perch in the late
1970s and early 1980s into reservoirs receiving heated effluents from
power plants. At least two of the reservoirs were in southern Texas
where the ERSS report states that there is a good climate match. These
fish failed to establish, and at least some were thought to have
succumbed to cold temperatures during plant shutdowns, calling into
question the suitability of the northern Gulf Coast for Nile Perch.
Our Response: We mentioned the Nile perch stockings that took place
in Texas in our proposed rule (80 FR 67033, October 30, 2015). To
elaborate, the State of Texas stocked a mixture of approximately 70,000
larvae of Lates spp. (which could be L. angustifrons, L. maria, or L.
niloticus) from 1978 to 1984 in one reservoir (Howells and Garrett
1992). Larvae are very susceptible to predation or changes in water
chemistry. It is not surprising that they did not survive. Although
there are many factors to consider, expected survivorship of stocked
larvae is generally 0.1 percent to 0.001 percent (pers. comm., Gary
Whelan, Program Manager, Michigan Department of Natural Resources). A
mixture of 1,500 juvenile and adult Lates spp. was introduced to two
reservoirs in Texas over 6 years (Howells and Garrett 1992).
[[Page 67897]]
When the State abandoned the project in 1985, the remaining 14
individuals (including 6 Nile perch) were stocked in a third reservoir
with no public access. One was found dead in 1992 after a cold snap of
5-6 [deg]C (Howells and Garrett 1992). The 14-year-old fish weighed
approximately 27 kg (59.5 lb), up from 5.9 kg (13 lb) when released in
1985 (ibid.). This occurrence does not constitute establishment of the
species, but it does show that with even a small number of individuals
released, some can survive. We do not know why the larvae failed; there
may be some other factor besides the water temperature of the
artificial reservoir, such as water quality or food supply, or the
larvae may have not been acclimated. As we stated in the proposed rule
and again in this final rule (see Introduction Pathways for the 11
Species), propagule pressure (the frequency of release events and the
numbers of individuals released) is a major factor in the 11 species
establishing in the wild by increasing the odds of both genders being
released and finding mates and of those individuals being healthy,
vigorous, and fit (able to leave behind reproducing offspring).
Therefore, a larger propagule pressure of Nile perch could be expected
to have a higher chance of establishment.
(23) Comment: It is unclear why the original CLIMATCH in the ERSS
for Nile Perch included Hawaii and Puerto Rico, regions that would
increase the Climate 6 match, but did not include Alaska, a region that
would decrease the match. The supplemental CLIMATCH map posted online
subsequently has Alaska but was not used to determine climate match in
the proposed rule. The other species on the proposed list were
evaluated originally for the conterminous United States in their ERSS
reports but had online supplemental maps including Alaska that were
used for the climate match in the proposed rule.
Our Response: We are not clear why the commenter believes that the
supplemental map was not used to determine climate match in the
proposed rule. The original Climate 6 match in the ERSSs for all 11
species were run without Alaska for a different purpose. We ran the
climate matches again with Alaska, because we needed to include all
States (and we updated some information), and we used those scores in
the proposed rule. We posted the revised maps in the docket on
www.regulations.gov and on our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/11-freshwater-species.html. We utilized the other
ERSS information because it was appropriate for our purpose. The
Climate 6 score in the ERSS is 0.068. With Alaska added, the Climate 6
score is 0.038, which is lower as the commenter correctly predicted,
and this score is what we used in the proposed and final rule.
(24) Comment: A commenter is concerned that the ERSS for Nile perch
did not utilize more primary literature. Information mainly came from
secondary or tertiary source databases that summarize information on
Nile Perch, and that is what the listing is based on.
Our Response: The ERSSs are rapid screens that may use primary,
secondary, or other literature. That setup serves the purpose of a
rapid screen. The injurious wildlife evaluations are not based entirely
on the ERSSs. The ERSSs are used as an initial filter for the Service
to decide if a species warrants further evaluation. The Service uses
that result to prioritize species that we should put through the
subsequent injurious evaluation process. As we proceed through the
injurious wildlife evaluation process, we do utilize primary literature
to support our justification, as is evidenced by our citations and
``Literature Cited 2015'' reference list posted with the docket on
www.regulations.gov. Through the injurious wildlife evaluation process,
we theoretically could find a discrepancy with the ERSS that leads us
to remove that species from evaluation for listing, but that situation
did not happen with this rulemaking. The primary literature that we
have used supports the ERSSs.
(25) Comment: A commenter has concerns with listing the Nile perch
because it sets a potential precedent for listing tropical species,
including important aquaculture and aquarium fishes.
Our Response: Nile perch would not be the first tropical-climate
fish species in aquaculture or aquarium trade that the Service has
listed as injurious. In 1969, we listed the entire family Clariidae (34
FR 19030; November 29, 1969), which includes the walking catfish
(Clarias batrachus) and the whitespotted clarias (C. fuscus), both of
tropical origin and of food-source value. It is likely that others of
the 100 species that we listed then also fall into that category, but
the two mentioned were already in U.S. trade. More recently, we listed
the entire family of snakeheads as injurious (67 FR 62193; October 4,
2002) (28 species at the time of listing). All snakehead species are
valued as food fish in their native lands, and many are valued as pets
outside of their native lands. At least 10 snakehead species are of
tropical origin (Courtenay and Williams 2004).
Public Comments--Zander
(26) Comment: The zander has existed and even exhibited limited
natural reproduction and recruitment in Spiritwood Lake, ND, for over
two decades, but it has hardly been injurious. No hybridization with
walleye has been documented, and no negative impacts on native species
have occurred. Given their preferred habitats, zanders would be more
suited farther south in manmade, warm, turbid, eutrophic reservoirs
prevalent across much of the Great Plains. If State fish and wildlife
agencies want to provide quality fishing experiences, they could choose
to import eggs and treat them for pathogens and create triploids to
prevent natural reproduction.
Our Response: We use the term ``injurious'' specifically for
species that have been through the injurious listing evaluation process
in accordance with the Act. The commenter's description of the zander
in Spiritwood Lake not being injurious likely means the more common
usage of ``injurious'' that no specific harms have been detected in
that lake. However, the commenter states that the zander would be more
suited to warmer waters across much of the Great Plains, and this
statement supports our determination, assisted by the climate match,
that the zander is likely to survive, become established, and spread if
introduced across a large part of the United States.
Triploidy is used for control of other invasive species and for
market production (such as farmed salmon), but it is risky as a tool
for introducing an injurious species to new ecosystems. Because
treatments to produce triploids seldom result in 100 percent triploid
fish, each individual must be verified triploid before they can be
stocked (Rottman et al. 1991). Some may be diploids and, therefore,
able to reproduce. Also, triploid fish may grow larger because the
energy normally needed for reproduction can be redirected to body
growth (Tiwary et al. 2004). Larger growth, especially for a species
that may live up to 20 to 24 years, could have a major negative effect
on aquatic food webs. To our knowledge, triploidy in zanders has not
been done, and we do not know if there are approved treatments for
pathogens on zander eggs.
Public Comments--Yabby
(27) Comment: The proposed rule presents the yabby as a vector for
crayfish plague (Aphanomyces astaci)
[[Page 67898]]
because the fungal disease has the potential to cause large-scale
mortality of freshwater crayfish in Australia. This fungus is endemic
to the United States, and crayfish native to the United States are
carriers resistant to the disease. Because European crayfish are not
resistant to the plague, it is not highly likely that the yabby will
survive in the United States and very unlikely that the yabby poses an
invasion risk to the United States.
Our Response: We noted in the proposed rule that the crayfish
plague is not known to affect North American crayfish species. We
acknowledged the plague's potential role as a biological control of
yabbies if the species does become invasive in the United States. We
also mentioned other pathogens that yabbies can carry that are more
likely to be problematic for native crayfish. If yabbies are introduced
into ecosystems with native crayfish, it is possible that some
individuals will succumb to the crayfish plague. However, yabbies that
do not contract or succumb to the disease are likely to spread and
establish due to the species' traits of a general diet, quick growth
rate, high reproductive potential, and proven invasiveness outside of
its native range. Because of the injuriousness of the species, we
believe yabbies should be listed.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866
while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to
promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible,
and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that the regulatory system must allow for public participation
and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner
consistent with these principles.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5
U.S.C. 601, et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (that is, small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 605(b)).
The Service has determined that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Of the 11 species, only one population of one species (zander) is found
in the wild in one lake in the United States. Of the 11 species, four
(crucian carp, Nile perch, wels catfish, and yabby) have been imported
in only small numbers since 2011; and seven species are not in U.S.
trade. To our knowledge, the total number of importation events of
those 4 species from 2011 to 2015 is 25, with a declared total value of
$5,789. Therefore, businesses derive little or no revenue from the sale
of the 11 species, and the economic effect in the United States of this
final rule is negligible for 4 species and nil for 7. The final
economic analysis that the Service prepared supports this conclusion
(USFWS Final Economic Analysis 2016). In addition, none of the species
requires control efforts, and the rule would not impose any additional
reporting or recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, we certify that
this final rulemaking will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities, as defined under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) does not
apply to this final rule since it would not produce a Federal mandate
or have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), the final
rule does not have significant takings implications. Therefore, a
takings implication assessment is not required since this rule would
not impose significant requirements or limitations on private property
use.
Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this final rule does
not have significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required since this rule would not have substantial
direct effects on the States, in the relationship between the Federal
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this final rule does not unduly burden the judicial
system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the
E.O. The rulemaking has been reviewed to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, was written to minimize litigation, provides a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and
promotes simplification and burden reduction.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final rule does not contain any collections of information
that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This final rule will not impose recordkeeping
or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. We may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the
criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.), Department of the Interior NEPA regulations (43 CFR part 46),
and the Departmental Manual in 516 DM 8. This rulemaking action is
being taken to protect the natural resources of the United States. A
final environmental assessment and a finding of no significant impact
(FONSI) have been prepared and are available for review by written
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-FAC-2013-0095. By adding
the 11 species to the list of injurious
[[Page 67899]]
wildlife, the Service intends to prevent their introduction and
establishment into the natural areas of the United States, thus having
no significant impact on the human environment. The final environmental
assessment was based on the proposed listing of the 11 species as
injurious and was revised based on comments from peer reviewers and the
public.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. We have evaluated potential effects on
federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are
no potential effects. This final rule involves the prevention of
importation and interstate transport of 10 live fish species and 1
crayfish, as well as their gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids, that are
not native to the United States. We are unaware of trade in these
species by tribes as these species are not currently in U.S. trade, or
they have been imported in only small numbers since 2011.
Effects on Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This final rule is not
expected to affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
References Cited
A complete list of all references used in this rulemaking is
available from https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-FAC-
2013-0095 or from https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/.
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff of the Branch
of Aquatic Invasive Species at the Service's Headquarters (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 16
Fish, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Final Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons discussed within the preamble, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service amends part 16, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 16--INJURIOUS WILDLIFE
0
1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 42.
0
2. Amend Sec. 16.13 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(v) and adding
paragraphs (a)(2)(vi) through (x) to read as follows:
Sec. 16.13 Importation of live or dead fish, mollusks, and
crustaceans, or their eggs.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Any live fish, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids of the
following species in family Cyprinidae:
(A) Carassius carassius (crucian carp).
(B) Carassius gibelio (Prussian carp).
(C) Hypophthalmichthys harmandi (largescale silver carp).
(D) Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (silver carp).
(E) Hypophthalmichthys nobilis (bighead carp).
(F) Mylopharyngodon piceus (black carp).
(G) Phoxinus phoxinus (Eurasian minnow).
(H) Pseudorasbora parva (stone moroko).
(I) Rutilus rutilus (roach).
(vi) Any live fish, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids of Lates
niloticus (Nile perch), family Centropomidae.
(vii) Any live fish, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids of Perccottus
glenii (Amur sleeper), family Odontobutidae.
(viii) Any live fish, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids of the
following species in family Percidae:
(A) Perca fluviatilis (European perch).
(B) Sander lucioperca (zander).
(ix) Any live fish, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids of Silurus
glanis (wels catfish), family Siluridae.
(x) Any live crustacean, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids of Cherax
destructor (common yabby), family Parastacidae.
* * * * *
Dated: September 13, 2016.
Karen Hyun,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2016-22778 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P