Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing 10 Freshwater Fish and 1 Crayfish, 67862-67899 [2016-22778]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[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