Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 36755 

[FR Doc. 2018–16266 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2016–0076; 

4500030115] 

RIN 1018–BC82 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Five Poecilotheria Tarantula 

Species From Sri Lanka 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

endangered species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, for the following five 

tarantula species from Sri Lanka: 

Poecilotheria fasciata, P. ornata, P. 

smithi, P. subfusca, and P. vittata. The 

effect of this regulation will be to add 

these species to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

August 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov at docket number 

FWS–HQ–ES–2016–0076. Comments 

and materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Morgan, Chief, Branch of Delisting and 

Foreign Species, Ecological Services, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 

5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 

22041–3803; telephone, 703–358–2171. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

a species may be protected through 

listing as an endangered species or 

threatened species if it meets the 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

‘‘threatened species’’ under the Act. 

Listing a species as an endangered or 

threatened species can only be 

completed by issuing a rule. 

What this document does. This rule 

will add the following five tarantula 

species to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 

17.11(h)) as endangered species: 

Poecilotheria fasciata, P. ornata, P. 

smithi, P. subfusca, and P. vittata. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we use the best available scientific 

and commercial data to determine 

whether a species meets the definition 

of a ‘‘threatened species’’ or an 

‘‘endangered species’’ because of any 

one or more of the following five factors 

or the cumulative effects thereof: (A) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) Disease or 

predation; (D) The inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

that P. fasciata, P. ornata, P. smithi, P. 

subfusca, and P. vittata are in danger of 

extinction because of ongoing habitat 

loss and degradation and the cumulative 

effects of this and other threat factors. 

One species, P. smithi, is also in danger 

of extinction because of the effects of 

stochastic (random) processes. 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought comments from independent 

peer reviewers to ensure that our 

designation is based on scientifically 

sound data and analyses. We invited 

these peer reviewers to comment on our 

listing proposal. We also considered all 

comments and information received 

from the public during the comment 

period. 

Previous Federal Action 

We received a petition, dated October 

29, 2010, from WildEarth Guardians 

requesting that the following 11 

tarantula species in the genus 

Poecilotheria be listed under the Act as 

endangered or threatened: Poecilotheria 

fasciata, P. formosa, P. 

hanumavilasumica, P. metallica, P. 

miranda, P. ornata, P. pederseni, P. 

rufilata, P. smithi, P. striata, and P. 

subfusca. The petition identified itself 

as such and included the information as 

required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). We 

published a 90-day finding on December 

3, 2013 (78 FR 72622), indicating that 

the petition presents substantial 

scientific and commercial information 

indicating that listing these 11 species 

may be warranted. At that time we also 

(1) notified the public that we were 

initiating a review of the status of these 

species to determine if listing them is 

warranted, (2) requested from the public 

scientific and commercial data and 

other information regarding the species, 

and (3) notified the public that at the 

conclusion of our review of the status of 

these species, we would issue a 12- 

month finding on the petition, as 

provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

We published a 12-month finding and 

proposed rule for listing the five 

Poecilotheria species that are endemic 

to Sri Lanka (Poecilotheria fasciata, P. 

ornata, P. pederseni, P. smithi, and P. 

subfusca) on December 14, 2016 (81 FR 

90297). In our 12-month finding and 

proposed rule we determined that these 

five species were in danger of extinction 

throughout their ranges and proposed 

listing them as endangered under the 

Act. We requested input from the 

public, range country, other interested 

parties, and peer reviewers during a 60- 

day public comment period that ended 

February 13, 2017. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In preparing this final rule, we 

reviewed and fully considered 

comments from the public and peer 

reviewers on the proposed rule. This 

final rule incorporates minor changes to 

our proposed listing based on the 

comments we received (See: Summary 

of Comments and Recommendations). 

Background 

Taxonomy and Species Descriptions 

Poecilotheria is a genus of arboreal 

spiders endemic to Sri Lanka and India. 

The genus belongs to the family 

Theraphosidae, often referred to as 

tarantulas, within the infraorder 

Mygalomorphae. As with most 

theraphosid genera, Poecilotheria is a 

poorly understood genus. The taxonomy 

has never been studied using modern 

DNA technology; therefore, species 

descriptions are based solely on 

morphological characteristics. 

Consequently, there have been several 

revisions, additions, and subtractions to 

the list of Poecilotheria species over the 

last 20 years (Nanayakkara 2014a, pp. 

71–72; Gabriel et al. 2013, entire). 

The World Spider Catalog (2017, 

unpaginated; 2016, unpaginated) 

currently recognizes 14 species of 

Poecilotheria. The Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System 

currently identifies 16 species in the 

genus, based on the 2011 version of the 

same catalog. Because the World Spider 

Catalog is the widely accepted authority 

on spider taxonomy, we consider the 

Poecilotheria species recognized by the 

most recent (2017) version of this 

catalog to be valid. Based on the World 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
36756 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Spider Catalog, all five of the species 

addressed in this rule are considered 

valid taxon, although P. pederseni is 

now considered a junior synonym to the 

currently accepted name P. vittata. 

Therefore, in the remainder of this 

document we refer to this species as P. 

vittata. Further, all five of these species 

have multiple common names (see 

WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 4); thus, 

we refer to them by their scientific 

names throughout this document. 

Poecilotheria species are among the 

largest spiders in the world, with body 

lengths of 4 to 9 centimeters (1.5 to 3.5 

inches) and maximum adult leg spans 

varying from 15 to 25 centimeters (6 to 

10 inches) (Nanayakkara 2014a, pp. 94– 

129; Molur et al. 2006, p. 23). They are 

known for their fast movements and 

potent venom that, in humans, typically 

causes extended muscle cramps and 

severe pain (Fuchs 2014, p. 75; 

Nanayakkara and Adikaram 2013, p. 

53). They are hairy spiders and have 

striking coloration, with dorsal color 

patterns of gray, black, brown, and in 

one case, a metallic blue. Ventral 

coloration of either sex is typically more 

of the same with the exception of the 

first pair of legs, which in some species 

bear bright yellow to orange aposematic 

(warning) markings that are visible 

when the spider presents a defensive 

display. Mature spiders exhibit some 

sexual dimorphism with mature males 

having a more drab coloration and being 

significantly smaller than the adult 

females (Siliwal 2017, unpaginated; 

Nanayakkara 2014a, entire; Pocock 

1899, pp. 84–86). 

The primary characteristics used to 

distinguish Poecilotheria species are 

ventral leg markings (Gabriel 2010 p. 13, 

citing several authors). Some authors 

indicate that identification via leg 

markings is straightforward for most 

Poecilotheria species (Nanayakkara 

2014a, pp. 74–75; Gabriel 2011a, p. 25). 

However, the apparent consistent leg 

patterns observed in adults of a species 

could also be a function of specimens 

being collected from a limited number 

of locations (Morra 2013, p. 129). During 

surveys, researchers found more 

variation than suggested by published 

species descriptions and indicated that 

identifying Poecilotheria species is not 

as straightforward as suggested by 

current descriptions (Molur et al. 2003, 

unpaginated). Immature spiders 

(juveniles) lack the variation in coloring 

found in adults. As a result, they are 

difficult to differentiate visually; genetic 

analysis may be the only way to reliably 

identify juveniles to species (Longhorn 

2014a, unpaginated). 

Captive Poecilotheria 

Most captive individuals of 

Poecilotheria species are in the pet 

trade; few specimens of the species 

addressed in this rule are held in zoos 

(Species360 2017, unpaginated). 

Poecilotheria species are commonly 

bred in captivity by amateur hobbyists 

as well as vendors, and are available as 

captive-bred young in the pet trade in 

the United States, Europe, and 

elsewhere (see Trade). However, while 

rearing and keeping of captive 

individuals by hobbyists and vendors 

has provided information on life history 

of these species, we are not aware of any 

existing conservation programs for these 

species, including any in which 

specimens held or sold as pets 

contribute to the viability of these 

species within their native ranges in the 

wild. 

Individuals of these species that are 

held or sold as pets hold limited 

conservation value to the species in the 

wild because they are not genetically 

managed for conservation purposes. 

Individuals in the pet trade descend 

from wild individuals from unknown 

locations, have undocumented lineages, 

come from limited stock (e.g., see 

Gabriel 2012, p. 18), and are bred 

without knowledge or consideration of 

their genetics. They also likely include 

an unknown number of hybrid 

individuals resulting from intentional 

crosses, or unintentional crosses 

resulting from confusion and difficulty 

in species taxonomy and identification 

(Gabriel 2011a, pp. 25–26; Gabriel et al. 

2005, p. 4; Gabriel 2003, pp. 89–90). 

Further, many are likely several 

generations removed from wild 

ancestors and thus may be adversely 

affected by inbreeding or maladapted to 

conditions in the wild. In short, captive 

individuals held or sold as pets do not 

adhere to the IUCN guidelines for 

reintroductions and other conservation 

translocations (IUCN 2013, entire). 

Further, we are not aware of any 

captive-breeding programs for 

Poecilotheria that adhere to IUCN 

guidelines. 

Because (1) the purpose of our status 

assessments is to determine the status of 

the species in the wild, (2) we are not 

aware of any information indicating that 

captive individuals are contributing to 

the conservation of these species in the 

wild, and (3) captive individuals held or 

sold as pets have limited value for 

conservation programs or for 

reintroduction purposes, we place little 

weight on the status of captive 

individuals in our assessment of the 

status of the five Poecilotheria species 

addressed in this rule. 

Tarantula General Biology 

Tarantulas possess life-history traits 

markedly different from most spiders 

and other arthropods (Bond et al. 2006, 

p. 145). They are long-lived, have 

delayed sexual maturity, and most are 

habitat specialists that are extremely 

sedentary. They also have poor 

dispersal ability because their mode of 

travel is limited to walking, and they 

typically do not move far from the area 

in which they are born. As a result, the 

distribution of individuals tends to be 

highly clumped in suitable 

microhabitats (a smaller habitat within 

a larger habitat), populations are 

extremely genetically structured 

(genetically subdivided; gene 

frequencies differ across the 

population), and the group shows a high 

level of endemism (species restricted to 

a particular geographical location) 

(Ferreti et al. 2014, p. 2; Hedin et al. 

2013, p. 509, citing several sources; 

Bond et al. 2006, pp. 145–146, citing 

several sources). 

Tarantulas are primarily nocturnal 

and typically lead a hidden life, 

spending much of their time concealed 

inside burrows or crevices (retreats) that 

provide protection from predators and 

the elements (Foelix 2011, p. 14; Molur 

et al. 2003, unpaginated; Gallon 2000, 

unpaginated). They are very sensitive to 

vibrations and climatic conditions, and 

usually do not come out of their retreats 

in conditions like rains, wind, or 

excessive light, or when they detect 

movement outside their retreat (Molur 

et al. 2003, unpaginated). Tarantulas are 

generalist predators that sit and wait for 

passing prey near the entrance of their 

retreats (Gallon 2000, unpaginated). 

With the exception of reproductive 

males that wander in search of females 

during the breeding season, they leave 

their retreat only briefly for capturing 

prey, and quickly return to it at the 

slightest vibration or disturbance (Foelix 

2011, p. 14; Stotley and Shillington 

2009, pp. 1210–1211; Molur et al. 2003, 

unpaginated). Tarantulas generally 

inhabit a suitable retreat for extended 

periods and may use the same retreat for 

years (Stotley and Shilling 2009, pp. 

1210–1211; Stradling 1994, p. 87). Most 

tarantulas are solitary, with one spider 

occupying a retreat (Gallon 2000, 

unpaginated). 

The lifestyle of adult male tarantulas 

differs from that of adult females and 

juveniles. Females and juveniles are 

sedentary, spending most of their time 

in or near their retreat. Adult females 

are long-lived and continue to grow, 

molt, and reproduce for several years 

after reaching maturity (Ferreti et al. 

2014, p. 2, citing several sources; Costa 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 36757 

and Perez-Miles 2002, p. 585, citing 

several sources; Gallon 2000, 

unpaginated). They are capable of 

producing one brood per year, although 

they do not always do so (Ferreti et al. 

2014, p. 2; Stradling 1994, pp. 92–96). 

Males have shorter lifespans than 

females and, after reaching maturity, no 

longer molt and usually only live one or 

two breeding seasons (Costa and PerezMiles 2002, p. 585, Gallon 2000, 

unpaginated). Further, on reaching 

maturity, males leave their retreats to 

wander in search of receptive females 

with which to mate (Stotley and 

Shillington 2009, pp. 1210–1211). Males 

appear to search the landscape for 

females randomly and, at short range, 

may be able to detect females through 

contact sex-pheromones on silk 

deposited by the female at the entrance 

of her retreat (Ferreti et al. 2013, pp. 88, 

90; Janowski-Bell and Horner 1999, pp. 

506, 509; Yanez et al. 1999, pp. 165– 

167; Stradling 1994, p. 96). Males may 

cover relatively large areas when 

searching for females. Males of a 

ground-dwelling temperate species 

(Aphonopelma anax) are reported 

covering search areas up to 29 ha (72 

acres), though the mean size of areas 

searched is much smaller (1.1 ± 0.5 ha 

one year and 8.8 ± 2.5 ha another year) 

(Stotley and Shillington 2009, p. 1216). 

When a male locates a receptive 

female, the two will mate in or near the 

entrance to the female’s retreat. After 

mating, the female returns to her retreat 

where she eventually lays eggs within 

an egg-sac and tends the eggs until they 

hatch. Spiderlings reach maturity in one 

or more years (Gallon 2000, 

unpaginated). 

Poecilotheria Biology 

Limited information is available on 

Poecilotheria species in the wild. While 

they appear to be typical tarantulas in 

many respects, they differ from most 

tarantulas in that they are somewhat 

social (discussed below) and reside in 

trees rather than ground burrows (see 

Microhabitat). 

Poecilotheria species are patchily 

distributed (Siliwal et al. 2008, p. 8) and 

prey on a variety of insects, including 

winged termites, beetles, grasshoppers, 

and moths, and occasionally small 

vertebrates (Das et al. 2012, entire; 

Molur et al. 2006, p. 31; Smith et al. 

2001, p. 57). 

We are not aware of any information 

regarding the reproductive success of 

wild Poecilotheria species. However, 

reproduction may be greatly reduced 

during droughts (Smith et al. 2001, pp. 

46, 49). Additionally, given the 

apparently random searching for 

females by male tarantulas, successful 

mating of females likely depends on the 

density of males in the vicinity. In a 

study conducted on an arboreal tropical 

tarantula (Avicularia avicularia in 

Trinidad), less than half of adult females 

produced eggs in the same year despite 

the fact that they were in close 

proximity to each other and exhibited 

the same weight gain, possibly due to a 

failure to mate (Stradling 1994, p. 96). 

Time to maturity in Poecilotheria 

species varies and is influenced by the 

temperature at which the young are 

raised and amount of food provided 

(Gabriel 2006, entire). Based on 

observations of captive Poecilotheria, 

males mature from spiderlings to adults 

in 11 to16 months (Gabriel 2011b, p. 

101; Gabriel 2005, entire). Females 

mature in 14 to 48 months and generally 

live an additional 60 to 85 months after 

maturing (Cowper 2017, unpaginated; 

Weaver 2017, unpaginated; Gabriel 

2012, p. 19; Government of Sri Lanka 

and Government of the United States 

2000, p. 3), although they have been 

reported living up to 14 years (Gallon 

2012, p. 69). Females lay about 50 to 

100 eggs, 5 to 6 months after mating 

(Nanayakarra 2014a, p. 79; Gabriel 

2011b, entire; Gabriel 2005, p. 101). In 

captivity, generation time appears to be 

roughly 2–3 years (see Gabriel 2011b, 

entire; Gabriel 2006, p. 96; Gabriel 2005, 

entire). While captive individuals 

provide some indication of potential 

growth, longevity, and reproductive 

capacity of wild individuals, these 

variables are likely to vary with 

conditions in the wild. Poecilotheria are 

ectotherms and, as such, their 

physiological and developmental 

processes including growth and 

reproduction are strongly influenced by 

body temperature and it is likely that 

captive-rearing of these species is 

primarily done under ideal 

environmental conditions for 

reproduction and growth. 

Unlike most tarantulas, which are 

solitary, most Poecilotheria species 

display a degree of sociality. Adult 

females often share their retreat with 

their spiderlings. Eventually as the 

young mature, they disperse to find 

denning areas of their own. 

Occasionally young remain on their 

natal tree to breed, or three to four adult 

females will share the same retreat 

(Nanayakkara 2014a, pp. 74, 80). These 

semi-social behaviors are believed to be 

a response to a lack of availability of 

suitable habitat (trees) in which 

individuals can reside (Nanayakkara 

2014a, pp. 74, 80; Gallon 2000, 

unpaginated). 

Poecilotheria Habitat 

Microhabitat 

Poecilotheria occupy preexisting 

holes or crevices in trees or behind 

loose tree bark (Molur et al. 2006, p. 31; 

Samarawckrama et al. 2005; Molur et al. 

2003 unpaginated; Kirk 1996, pp. 22– 

23). Individuals of some species are also 

occasionally found in grooves or 

crevices in or on other substrates such 

as rocks or buildings that are close to 

wooded areas (Samarawckrama et al. 

2005, pp. 76, 83; Molur et al. 2003, 

unpaginated). In a survey in Sri Lanka, 

89 percent (31) of Poecilotheria spiders 

were found in or on trees, while 11 

percent (4) were found in or on 

buildings (Samarawckrama et al. 2005, 

p. 76). Poecilotheria species are said to 

have a preference for residing in old, 

established trees with naturally 

occurring burrows (Nanayakkara 2014a, 

p. 86). Some species also appear to 

prefer particular tree species 

(Nanayakkara 2014a, p. 84; 

Samarawckrama et al. 2005, p. 76). 

Macrohabitat 

Most Poecilotheria species occur in 

forested areas, although some 

occasionally occur in other treed 

habitats such as plantations 

(Nanayakkara 2014a, p. 86; Molur et al. 

2006, p. 10; Molur et al 2003, entire; 

Smith et al. 2001, entire). Poecilotheria 

are less abundant in degraded forest 

(Molur et al. 2004, p. 1665). Less 

complex, degraded forests may contain 

fewer trees that provide adequate 

retreats for these species and less cover 

for protection from predators and the 

elements. Trees with broad, dense 

canopy cover likely provide 

Poecilotheria in hotter, dryer habitats 

protection from heat and desiccation 

(Siliwal 2008, pp. 12, 15). We provide 

additional, species-specific information 

on habitat below. 

Sri Lanka 

Sri Lanka is an island nation about 

65,610 square kilometers (km 2) (25,332 

square miles (mi 2)) in area (Weerakoon 

2012, p. xvii), or about the size of West 

Virginia (Fig. 1). The variation in 

topography, soils, and rainfall on the 

island has resulted in a diversity of 

ecosystems with high levels of species 

endemism (Government of Sri Lanka 

(GOSL) 2014, pp. xiv–xv). Sri Lanka, 

together with the Western Ghats of 

India, is identified as a global 

biodiversity hotspot, and is among the 

eight ‘‘hottest hotspots,’’ (Myers et al. 

2000, entire). 

Sri Lanka consists of a mountainous 

region (central highlands), reaching 

2,500 meters (8,202 feet) in elevation, in 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
36758 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

the south-central part of the island 

surrounded by broad lowland plains 

(GOSL 2012, p. 2a–3–141) (Fig. 2). The 

country has a tropical climate 

characterized by two major monsoon 

periods: the southwest monsoon from 

May to September and the northeast 

monsoon from December to February 

(GOSL 2012, pp. 7–8). 

Sri Lanka’s central highlands create a 

rain shadow effect that gives rise to two 

pronounced climate zones—the wet 

zone and dry zone—and a less extensive 

intermediate zone between the two 

(Ministry of Environment–Sri Lanka 

(MOE) 2010, pp. 21–22) (Fig. 2). Small 

arid zones also occur on the 

northwestern and southeastern ends of 

the country (Nanayakkara 2014a, p. 22). 

Annual rainfall ranges from less than 

1,000 millimeters (mm) (39.4 inches 

(in)) in the arid zone to over 5,000 mm 

(197 in) in the wet zone of the central 

highlands (Jayatillake et al. 2005, pp. 

66–67). Mean annual temperature 

ranges from 27 degrees Celsius (°C) (80.6 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) in the lowlands 

to 15 °C (59 ;°F) in the highlands 

(Eriyagama et al. 2010, p. 2). 

The wet zone is located in the 

southwestern quarter of the island, 

where high annual rainfall is 

maintained throughout the year by rain 

received during both monsoons and 

during inter-monsoonal periods (MOE 

2010, pp. 21–22) (Fig. 2). The wet zone 

is divided into low, mid, and montane 

regions based on altitude. The dry zone, 

in which most of the land area of Sri 

Lanka occurs, is spread over much of 

the lowland plains and is subjected to 

several months of drought (MOE 2010, 

pp. 21–22) (Fig. 2). Most of the rain in 

this zone comes from the northeast 

monsoon and inter-monsoonal rains 

(MOE 2010, pp. 21–22; Malgrem 2003, 

p. 1236). Characteristic forest types 

occur within each of the different 

climate zones. 

Species-Specific Information 

Each of the five species addressed in 

this finding is endemic to Sri Lanka and 

has a range restricted to a particular 

region and one or two of Sri Lanka’s 

climate zones (Nanayakkara 2014a, pp. 

84–85) (Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Due to their 

secretive and nocturnal habits, 

sensitivity to vibrations, and their 

occurrence in structurally complex 

habitat (forest), Poecilotheria species are 

difficult to detect (Molur et al. 2003, 

unpaginated). Therefore, reported 

ranges are possibly smaller than the 

actual ranges of these species. However, 

surveys for these species were 

conducted at many locations throughout 

the country during 2009–2012 by 

Nanayakkara et al. (2012, entire), and 

we consider the locations reported in 

Nanayakkara (2014a, entire) to reflect 

the best available information 

concerning the ranges of these species. 

Historical ranges for the five species 

addressed in this rule are unknown. 

Further, information on species 

abundance or population dynamics is 

not available on any of the five species; 

therefore, population trends are 

unknown. However, based upon the 

multitude of threats acting on these 

species, especially extensive and 

ongoing habitat loss and degradation, 

experts believe populations are 

declining, and that these species are 

very likely to go extinct within the next 

two or three decades (Nanayakkara and 

Adikaram 2013, p. 54). We are not 

aware of any existing conservation 

programs for these species. All five 

species are categorized on the National 

Red List of Sri Lanka as Endangered or 

Critically Endangered based on their 

area of occupancy (Critically 

Endangered: less than 10 km 2; 

Endangered: less than 500 km 2) and 

distribution (Critically Endangered: 

severely fragmented or known to exist at 

only a single location; Endangered: 

severely fragmented or known to exist at 

no more than five locations), and the 

status (continuing decline, observed, 

inferred or projected, in the area, extent, 

or quality, or any combination of the 

three) of their habitat (MOE 2012, p. 55; 

IUCN 2001, entire). 

For locations discussed in speciesspecific information below, see Fig. 1. 

For locations of the ranges of the 

different species, see Fig. 2. 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 36759 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULESER31JY18.001</GPH>

N 

.+ n...ru 

0 10 20 

Fiaare 1 .. Districts aad Climate 

Zoaes of Sri Laaka. 

40 60 

Legend Districts 

.. Wet Zone 1. Jaffna 

Intennediate Zone 2. Killinochchi 

DiyZone 3. Mullaitivu 

--Sri Lanka Districts 4· Mannar 

I Miles 

80 

Source: 

5. Vavuniya 

6. Trincomalee 

7. Anuradhapura 

8. Puttalam 

9. Kurunegala 

10. Matale 

ll. Polonnamwa 

12. Baticaloa 

13. Ampara 

14. Badulla 

15. Kandy 

16. Kegalle 

17. Gampaha 

18. Colombo 

19. Kalutara 

20. Ratnapura 

21. Nuwara Eliya 

22. Moneragala 

23. Hambantota 

24. Matara 

25. Galle 

Clunda, T., 0. Hilfllherger, and J. Gilligan. 2016. 

Spatiotemporal patterns of agricultural drougbt 

in Sri Lanka; 1881-2010. Int. J. ClimatoL 36: 

563·575. 
36760 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

P. fasciata 

Poecilotheria fasciata occurs in 

forests below 200-m elevation in Sri 

Lanka’s dry and intermediate zones 

north of Colombo and is also sometimes 

found in coconut plantations in this 

region (Nanayakkara 2014a, p. 96; 

Nanayakkara 2014b, unpublished data; 

Smith et al. 2001, entire). The species 

has a broad but patchy distribution and 

is estimated to occupy less than 500 

km2 (193 mi2) of its range (MOE 2012, 

p. 55; Smith et al. 2001, p. 48). The area, 

extent, or quality (or a combination 

thereof) of P. fasciata’s habitat is in 

continuing decline, and the species is 

categorized on the National Red List of 

Sri Lanka as Endangered (MOE 2012, p. 

55). 

The only detailed record of the 

species’ occurrence is provided by 

Smith et al. (2001, entire), where 

Poecilotheria fasciata colonized a 

coconut plantation following a 

prolonged drought. While P. fasciata in 

dry and intermediate zone forests, 

including those surrounding the 

coconut plantation, were found to be 

emaciated and without spiderlings, 

those in the irrigated plantation were 

found to have spiderlings in their 

retreats and wider abdomens. Smith et 

al. argue that P. fasciata was able to 

colonize the plantation due to the 

occurrence of P. fasciata in the adjacent 

remnant forest, the presence of coconut 

trees that were infested with weevils 

and subsequently fed on by 

woodpeckers that created holes suitable 

for P. fasciata retreats, and plantation 

irrigation that resulted in an abundant 

prey base for the species. The P. fasciata 

population in the plantation was 

apparently established in the 1980s and 

persisted until at least 2000 (Smith et al. 

2001, pp. 49, 52). 

During recent surveys, P. fasciata 

were detected at nine locations—two in 

coconut plantations and seven in forest 

locations. Greater than 20 adults and 

100 juveniles were found in coconut 

plantations, and greater than 30 adults 

and no juveniles were found in forest 

locations (Nanayakkara 2014b, 

unpublished data). Although no 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULESER31JY18.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 36761 

juveniles were detected in forest 

habitats during these surveys, recent 

observations of P. fasciata juveniles in 

forest habitat have been reported 

(Nanayakkara 2014a, p. 96; 

Kumarasinghe et al. 2013, p. 10). 

Therefore, based on the observations of 

Smith et al. described above, it is 

possible that the lack of juveniles 

detected in forests during recent surveys 

was due to drought conditions during 

the survey period. As indicated above, 

island-wide surveys for Poecilotheria 

were conducted during 2009–2012, and 

droughts occurred in 2010 and 2012 in 

the region in which P. fasciata occurs 

(Integrated Regional Information 

Network 2012, unpaginated; Disaster 

Management Center, Sri Lanka 2010, p. 

12). However, while juveniles were 

detected only in coconut plantations 

during these surveys, numbers found in 

coconut and forest habitat cannot be 

directly compared because surveys were 

designed for determining distribution 

rather than species abundance or 

density. For instance, juveniles may be 

more difficult to detect in forest habitat 

than in coconut plantations, or a greater 

area of coconut plantations may have 

been searched compared to forest 

habitat. 

P. ornata 

Poecilotheria ornata is found in the 

plains and hills of the lowland wet zone 

in southwestern Sri Lanka (Nanayakkara 

2014a, pp. 112–113; Smith et al. 2002, 

p. 90). It is one of the few solitary 

species in the genus (Nanayakkara 

2014a, p. 112). In recent surveys, 23 

adults and no juveniles were detected at 

4 locations (Nanayakkara 2014b, 

unpublished data). Poecilotheria ornata 

is estimated to occupy less than 500 

km2 (193 mi2) of its range (MOE 2012, 

p. 55), and the area, extent, or quality 

(or a combination thereof) of the 

species’ habitat is in continuing decline. 

Poecilotheria ornata is categorized on 

the National Red List of Sri Lanka as 

Endangered (MOE 2012, p. 55). 

P. smithi 

Poecilotherai smithi is found in the 

central highlands, in Kandy and Matale 

districts (Nanayakkara et al. 2013, pp. 

73–74). It was originally found in the 

wet zone at mid elevations (Kirk 1996, 

p. 23), although it is described as a 

montane species (Jacobi 2005, entire; 

Smith et al. 2002, p. 92). Poecilotheria 

smithi appears to be very rare 

(Nanayakkara et al. 2013, p. 73; Gabriel 

et al. 2005, p. 4) and is considered 

‘‘highly threatened’’ (Nanayakkara et al. 

2013, p. 73). The species was described 

in 1996, and, despite several efforts to 

locate the species during the past 20 

years, few individuals have been found 

(Nanayakkara et al. 2013, pp. 73–74; 

Gabriel et al. 2005, pp. 6–7). In 2005, 

three adult females and four spiderlings 

were reported in the Haragama, Kandy 

district, an area described as severely 

impacted by several anthropogenic 

factors (Nanayakkara et al. 2013, p. 74; 

Gabriel et al. 2005, pp. 6–7). During 

surveys conducted in several areas of 

the country during 2003–2005, no P. 

smithi were found (Samarawckrama et 

al. 2005, entire). Finally, during recent 

surveys, the species was found at two 

locations with seven adults and nine 

juveniles detected (Nanayakkara 2014b, 

unpublished data). Prior to these recent 

surveys, the species was known only 

from the Haragama, Kandy district. 

However, the species was recently 

found about 31 km (19.3 mi) away from 

Haragama, in three trees within a 5-km2

(1.9-mi2) area of highly disturbed 

habitat (Nanayakkara et al. 2013, p. 74). 

Poecilotheria smithi was estimated to 

occupy less than 10 km2 (3.9 mi2) of its 

range (MOE 2012, p. 55) but a recently 

reported location in Matale district 

increases the known area of occupancy 

by 5 km2 (1.9 mi2). The area, extent, or 

quality (or a combination thereof) of the 

species’ habitat is considered to be in 

continuing decline, and the species is 

categorized on the National Red List of 

Sri Lanka as Critically Endangered 

(MOE 2012, p. 55). 

P. subfusca 

Poecilotheria subfusca occurs in the 

wet zone of the central highlands of Sri 

Lanka, in two disjunct regions: the 

montane region above 1,500-m elevation 

in Nuwara Eliya and Badulla districts; 

and at 500 to 600 m (1,640 to 1,968 ft) 

elevation in Kegalla, Kandy, and Matale 

districts (Nanayakkara 2014a, pp. 101– 

102, 116; Smith et al. 2002, entire). 

During recent surveys, P. subfusca 

was found at 10 locations, and a total of 

25 adult and 56 juvenile P. subfusca 

were detected (Nanayakkara 2014b, 

unpublished data). The area of the range 

occupied by P. subfusca is less than 500 

km2 (193 mi2) (MOE 2012, p. 55). 

Further, the area, extent, or quality (or 

a combination thereof) of P. subfusca’s 

habitat is in continuing decline 

throughout its range, and the species is 

categorized on the National Red List of 

Sri Lanka as Endangered (MOE 2012, p. 

55). 

P. vittata 

Poecilotheria vittata occurs in the 

arid, dry, and intermediate zones of 

Hambantota and Monaragala districts in 

southeastern Sri Lanka (Kekulandala 

and Goonatilake 2015, unpaginated; 

Nanayakkara 2014a, pp. 106–107). The 

species’ preferred habitat is Manilkara 

hexandra (Palu) trees (Nanayakkara 

2014a, p. 106), a dominant canopy tree 

species in Sri Lanka’s dry forest 

(Gunarathne and Perera 2014, p. 15). In 

recent surveys, the species was found at 

4 locations, and 15 adults and 7 

juveniles of P. vittata were detected 

(Nanayakkara 2014b, unpublished data). 

Poecilotheria vittata is estimated to 

occupy less than 500 km2 (193 mi2) of 

its range (MOE 2012, p. 55), and the 

area, extent, or quality (or a combination 

thereof) of the species’ habitat is 

considered to be in continuing decline. 

Poecilotheria vittata is categorized on 

the National Red List of Sri Lanka as 

Endangered (MOE 2012, p. 55). 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

The Act directs us to determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any one or more of five factors or the 

cumulative effects thereof: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) Disease or 

predation; (D) The inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. In this 

section, we summarize the biological 

condition of the species and its 

resources, and the influences on these to 

assess the species’ overall viability and 

the risks to that viability. 

Habitat Loss and Degradation 

Habitat loss and degradation are 

considered primary factors negatively 

affecting Poecilotheria species 

(Nanayakkara and Adikaram 2013, pp. 

53–54; MOE 2012, p. 55; Molur et al. 

2008, pp. 1–2). Forest loss and 

degradation are likely to negatively 

impact the five species addressed in this 

rule in several ways. First, forest loss 

and degradation directly eliminate or 

reduce the availability of trees required 

by Poecilotheria species for 

reproduction, foraging, and protection 

(Samarawckrama et al. 2005, p. 76; 

Smith et al. 2002, entire). Second, due 

to the limited ability of Poecilotheria 

species to travel, as well as their 

sedentary habits, forest loss and 

degradation are also likely to result in 

direct mortality of individuals or 

populations, via physical trauma caused 

by the activities that result in forest loss 

and degradation, or the intentional 

killing of these spiders when they are 

encountered by humans during these 

activities (see Intentional Killing). Such 

mortality affects these species’ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
36762 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

abundances and distributions, and also 

their genetic diversity. Tarantulas have 

highly structured populations (See 

Tarantula General Biology) and, 

consequently, the loss of a local 

population of a species—due to habitat 

loss or any other factor—equates to a 

loss of unique genetic diversity (Bond et 

al. 2006, p. 154, citing several sources). 

Finally, the loss of forest also often 

results in fragmented habitat. Due to the 

limited dispersal ability of these 

species, forest fragmentation is likely to 

isolate Poecilotheria populations, which 

increases their vulnerability to 

stochastic processes (see Stochastic 

Processes), and may also expose 

wandering males and dispersing 

juveniles to increased mortality from 

intentional killing or predation when 

they attempt to cross between forest 

fragments (Bond et al. 2006, p. 155) (see 

Intentional Killing). 

Deforestation 

Forests covered almost the entire 

island of Sri Lanka a few centuries ago 

(Mattsson et al. 2012, p. 31). However, 

extensive deforestation occurred during 

the British colonial period (1815–1948) 

as a result of forest-clearing for 

establishment of plantation crops such 

as tea and coffee, and also exploitation 

for timber, slash-and-burn agriculture (a 

method of agriculture in which natural 

vegetation is cut down and burned to 

clear the land for planting), and land 

settlement. In 1884, about midway 

through the British colonial period, 

closed-canopy (dense) forest covered 84 

percent of the country and was reduced 

to 44 percent by 1956 (GOSL 2012, p. 

2a-3–145; Nanayakkara 1996, in Mattson 

et al. 2012, p. 31). Deforestation 

continued after independence as the 

result of timber extraction, slash-andburn agriculture, human settlements, 

national development projects, and 

encroachment (GOSL 2012, pp. 2a-3– 

144–145; Perera et al. 2012, p. 165). As 

a result, dense forest cover (canopy 

density greater than 70 percent) 

declined by half in about 50 years, to 22 

percent in 2010 (GOSL 2012, pp. 51, 2a3–145; Nanayakkara 1996, in Mattson et 

al. 2012, p. 31). Open-canopy forest 

(canopy density less than 70 percent) 

covered an additional 6.8 percent of the 

country in 2010 for an overall forest 

cover of 28.6 percent (GOSL 2012, p. 

51). 

The extent of deforestation differed in 

the three climate zones of the country. 

The impacts of anthropogenic factors on 

forests in the wetter regions of the 

island have been more extensive due to 

the higher density of the human 

population in these regions. The human 

population density in the wet zone is 

650 people per km2 (1,684 per mi2) 

compared to 170 people per km2 (440 

per km2) in the dry zone and 329 per 

km2 (852 per mi2) nationally (GOSL 

2012, p. 8). Currently about 13 percent 

of the wet zone, 15 percent of the 

intermediate zone, and 29 percent of the 

dry zone are densely forested (Table 1). 

Recent information on forest cover in 

the different climate zones is provided 

in three reports (GOSL 2015, GOSL 

2012, and FAO 2015a), all of which 

provide information from the Forest 

Department of Sri Lanka. One report 

(GOSL 2015) provides a map of the 

change in forest cover between 1992 and 

2010 and a qualitative assessment of 

these changes. The others (GOSL 2012 

and FAO 2015a) provide quantitative 

information on the area of forest cover 

by forest type for 1992, 1999, and 2010. 

These latter two reports differ slightly in 

their presentation of information but 

contain identical data on natural forest 

cover. However, the Forest Department 

of Sri Lanka used different rainfall 

criteria to separate dry and intermediate 

zone forests, and different altitude 

criteria to separate montane and 

submontane forests, in different years 

(see climate zone and forest definitions 

in FAO 2015a, p. 6; GOSL 2012, p. 51; 

FAO 2005, p. 7; FAO 2001, pp. 16, 53). 

Therefore, we combined the information 

on intermediate and dry zone forests, 

and the information on montane and 

submontane forests (see 81 FR 90307, 

Table 4). We discuss the information on 

forest cover from the various sources by 

climate zone below. 

Wet Zone Forest 

Wet zone forests in Sri Lanka are 

categorized as montane, submontane, or 

lowland forest, based on elevation. Very 

little wet zone forest remains in Sri 

Lanka. Currently, montane and 

submontane forests combined covers 

only about 733 km2 (283 mi2) and is 

severely fragmented (GOSL 2012, pp. 

51, 2a-3–142). The area remained 

relatively stable from 1992 to 2010 (81 

FR 90307; GOSL 2012, p. 51). More 

recent evidence indicates these forests 

are currently declining: firewood 

collection, cutting of trees for other 

domestic purposes, and gem mining are 

ongoing in these forests, and large areas 

were recently illegally cleared for 

vegetable cultivation (Wijesundara 

2012, p. 182). While these forests are 

protected in Sri Lanka, administering 

agencies do not have sufficient 

resources to prevent these activities 

(Wijesundara 2012, p. 182). 

The area of lowland wet zone forests 

(lowland rainforest) declined from 1992 

to 2010. Remaining lowland rainforests 

are severely fragmented, exist primarily 

as small, isolated patches, and declined 

by 13% (183 km2)(71 mi2)) during the 

18-year period, though the rate of loss 

slowed considerably during the latter 

half of this period (81 FR 90307, Table 

4; GOSL 2012, p. 2a-3–142; Lindstrom et 

al. 2012, p. 681). Changes in forest cover 

show low levels of deforestation 

throughout the lowland rainforest 

region from 1992 to 2010, and a 

deforestation ‘‘hotspot’’ on the border of 

Kalutara and Ratnapura districts, which 

is within the range of P. ornata (Fig. 1, 

Fig. 2) (GOSL 2015, unpaginated). 

Dry and Intermediate Zone Forests 

Dry and intermediate zone forests, 

which include most open-canopy forest 

(Mattsson et al. 2012, p. 30), declined by 

8% (1,372 km2 (530 mi2)) between 1992 

and 2010 (81 FR 90307, Table 4). The 

rate of deforestation nationwide during 

this period was highest in 

Anuradhapura and Moneragala districts, 

in which large portions of the ranges of 

P. fasciata and P. vittata occur (see Fig. 

1, Fig. 2) (GOSL 2015, unpaginated). 

Further, deforestation hotspots have 

been found in other districts where 

these species occur, including Puttalam 

and Hambantota (GOSL 2015, 

unpaginated). Natural regeneration of 

dry forest species is poor, and dry zone 

forests are heavily degraded as a result 

of activities such as frequent shifting 

cultivation and timber logging (Perera 

2012, p. 165, citing several sources). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 36763 

TABLE 1—THE TOTAL AREA OF SRI LANKA’S CLIMATE ZONES, AND THE COVERAGE OF DENSE FOREST (CANOPY COVER

GREATER THAN 70 PERCENT) WITHIN EACH ZONE IN 2010, BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN 81 FR 90302, 

TABLE 2 AND GOSL 2012, P. 51 

Climate zones of Sri Lanka Area 1 (km2) 

Area covered with 

dense (canopy 

cover greater than 

70 percent) 

closed-canopy forest in 2010 (km2) 

Proportion 

(percent) with 

dense 

forest 2

Wet Zone ................................................................................................................... 15,090 1,966 13 

Intermediate Zone ...................................................................................................... 7,873 1,179 15 

Dry Zone .................................................................................................................... 39,366 3 11,238 29 

Arid Zone ................................................................................................................... 3,281 .............................. ..............................

1 Calculated based on proportion of land area in each climate zone as provided in 81 FR 90302, Table 2, and a total land area of 65,610 km2. 2Original extent of forest cover is unknown. However, each zone was likely close to 100% forested because dense forest covered 84% of the 

island in 1884, following several decades of deforestation. 3Figure is for dry monsoon forest and riverine forest. It does not include mangrove forests. 

Forest Conservation Measures 

Sri Lanka has taken steps in recent 

decades to conserve its forests, and 

these efforts have contributed to the 

slowing of deforestation in the country 

(GOSL 2012, pp. 54–55). In 1990, the 

country imposed a moratorium on 

logging in all natural forests, marked 

most reserve boundaries to stem 

encroachments, and implemented 

management plans for forest and 

wildlife reserves, which became legal 

requirements under the Forest 

Ordinance Amendment Act No. 65 of 

2009 and the Fauna and Flora 

Ordinance Amendment Act No. 22 of 

2009 (GOSL 2014, p. 26). The 

government also encourages community 

participation in forest and protected 

area management, has implemented 

programs to engage residents in 

community forestry to reduce 

encroachment of cash crops and tea in 

the wet zone and slash-and-burn 

agriculture in the dry zone, and 

encourages use of non-forest lands and 

private woodlots for meeting the 

demands for wood and wood products 

(GOSL 2014, p. 26). In addition to these 

efforts, between 12 percent (GOSL 2015, 

unpaginated) and 28 percent (GOSL 

2014, pp. xvi, 23) of the country’s land 

area is reported to be under protected 

area status. 

Although considerable efforts have 

been undertaken in Sri Lanka in recent 

years to stop deforestation and forest 

degradation, these processes are ongoing 

(see Current and Future Forest Trends). 

The assessment of the status of natural 

forests during the Species Red List 

assessments in 2012 indicate that, 

despite advances in forest conservation 

in the country, many existing threats 

continue to impact forest habitats 

(GOSL 2014, p. 26). While laws and 

regulations are in place to address 

deforestation, several factors inhibit 

their implementation (GOSL 2012, pp. 

55, 2a-3–148–150). For instance, lack of 

financial assistance for protected area 

management, increasing demand for 

land, and unplanned, after-the-fact 

legalization of land encroachments, 

result in further loss of the forest habitat 

of the five species addressed in this 

finding (GOSL 2014, p. 22; GOSL 2011, 

unpaginated). Also, government 

agencies have poor coordination with 

respect to forest conservation— 

conservation agencies are not always 

adequately consulted on initiatives to 

develop forested land (GOSL 2014, p. 

22; MOE 2010, p. 31). Finally, many 

protected areas within the wet zone are 

small, degraded, and isolated (GOSL 

2014, p. 31). 

Current and Future Forest Trends 

The current drivers of deforestation 

and forest degradation in Sri Lanka 

include a variety of factors such as 

small-scale encroachments, illicit timber 

harvesting, forest fires, destructive 

mining practices, and clearing of forest 

for developments, settlements, and 

agriculture (GOSL 2012, p. 12). These 

stressors are exacerbated by a large, 

dense human population that is 

projected to increase from 20.7 million 

in 2015 to 21.5 million in 2030 (United 

Nations 2015, p. 22). While the majority 

of remaining forested areas are 

protected, further population growth is 

likely to result in reduction of forested 

areas because (1) Sri Lanka already has 

a very high human density (329 people 

per km2 (852 per mi2)), (2) increases in 

the population will elevate an already 

high demand for land, and (3) little nonforested land is available for expansion 

of housing, development, cash crops, or 

subsistence agriculture (GOSL 2012, pp. 

8, 14, 58). Most (72%) of the population 

of Sri Lanka is rural, dependence on 

agriculture for subsistence is 

widespread, and the rate of population 

growth is higher in rural areas. This 

results in an increasing demand in the 

country for land for subsistence 

(Lindstrom et al. 2012, p. 680; GOSL 

2011, unpaginated). 

The current drivers of deforestation 

and forest degradation are exacerbated 

by high economic returns from illicit 

land conversions, lack of alternative 

livelihood opportunities for those 

practicing slash-and-burn agriculture 

and, in the dry zone, poverty and the 

weak implementation of land-use policy 

(GOSL 2012, pp. 14–15). Further, in the 

30 years prior to 2009, Sri Lanka was 

engaged in a civil war, which was 

fought primarily in the dry zone of the 

northern and eastern regions of the 

country, many areas of which were 

inaccessible. The war, along with a 

reduced rate of development in the 

country as a whole during this period, 

may have helped limit deforestation 

rates (GOSL 2012, pp. 48, 56–57). 

Overall, deforestation and forest 

degradation in Sri Lanka are ongoing, 

although recent rates of deforestation 

are much lower than during the mid- to 

late-20th century—the rate of 

deforestation during 1992–2010 was 71 

km2 (27.4 mi2) per year, compared to 

400 km2 (154 mi2) per year during 

1956–1992 (GOSL 2015, unpaginated). 

However, since the end of Sri Lanka’s 

civil war in 2009, the government has 

been implementing an extensive 10-year 

development plan with the goal of 

transforming the country into a global 

economic and industrial hub 

(Buthpitiya 2013, p. ii; Central Bank of 

Sri Lanka 2012, p. 67; Ministry of 

Finance and Planning–Sri Lanka 

(MOFP) 2010, entire). The plan includes 

large infrastructure projects throughout 

the country (MOFP 2010, entire). 

Projects include, among other things, 

development of seaports, airports, 

expressways, railways, industrial parks, 

power plants, and water management 

systems that will allow for planned 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
36764 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

expansion of agriculture, and many of 

these projects have already started 

(Buthpitiya 2013, pp. 5–6; Central Bank 

of Sri Lanka 2012, p. 67; MOFP 2010, 

entire). They also include projects 

located within the ranges of all five 

species addressed in this finding, 

although the plan does not provide the 

amount of area that will be impacted by 

these projects (Fig. 2 and MOFP 2010, 

pp. 63, 93, 101, 202–298). For example, 

a new dam project within the range of 

P. smithi will submerge one of the two 

sites at which the species is found 

(Nanayakkara 2017, unpaginated). The 

rate of loss of natural forest (primary 

forest and other naturally regenerated 

forest) increased from 60 km2 (23 mi2) 

per year during 2000–2010 to 86 km2

(33 mi2) per year during 2010–2015 

(FAO 2015b, pp. 44, 50). As post-war 

reconstruction and development 

continues in Sri Lanka, deforestation 

and forest degradation can be expected 

to rise (GOSL 2012, p. 2a–3–146). 

Coconut Plantations 

Coconut is grown throughout Sri 

Lanka. Most (57 percent) of the area 

under coconut cultivation is in the 

intermediate and wet zones north of 

Colombo (MOE 2011, p. 14), which 

overlaps with the southern portion of 

the range of P. fasciata. As indicated 

above, P. fasciata are sometimes found 

in coconut plantations in Sri Lanka, 

although the extent to which coconut 

plantations contribute to sustaining 

viable populations of these species is 

unknown. The ability of coconut 

plantations to contribute to conservation 

of P. fasciata is limited because: (1) 

Tarantulas are poor dispersers (see 

Tarantula General Biology); (2) 

colonization of coconut plantations by 

the species appears to depend on the 

occurrence of occupied natural forest in 

relatively close proximity to coconut 

plantations (Smith et al. 2001, entire); 

and (3) very little natural forest remains 

in the coconut-growing region in which 

P. fasciata occurs (Fig. 2 and GOSL 

2015, unpaginated; MOE 2014, p. 94). 

The aerial extent of coconut 

cultivation in Sri Lanka has varied 

between about 3,630 and 4,200 km2

(1,402 and 1,622 mi2) since 2005 

(Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2014, 

Statistical Appendix, Table 13), with no 

clear directional trend. However, due to 

the rising human population and 

resulting escalating demand for land in 

Sri Lanka, plantations have become 

increasingly fragmented due to 

conversion of these lands to housing 

(GOSL 2014, pp. 26–27). As indicated 

above, due to their limited dispersal 

ability, forest fragmentation is likely to 

isolate Poecilotheria populations, which 

increases their vulnerability to 

stochastic processes (see Stochastic 

Processes), and may also expose 

wandering males and dispersing 

juveniles to increased mortality from 

intentional killing or predation when 

they attempt to cross between forest 

fragments (Bond et al. 2006, p. 155) (see 

Intentional Killing). Thus, even though 

P. fasciata uses coconut plantations to 

some extent, fragmentation of this 

habitat is likely to isolate populations 

and increase their vulnerability to 

stochastic processes, intentional killing, 

and predation. 

Summary 

Sri Lanka has lost most of its forest 

cover due to a variety of factors over the 

past several decades. Very little (1,966 

km2 (759 mi2)) wet zone forest—in 

which the ranges of P. ornata, P. smithi, 

and P. subfusca occur—remains in the 

country. The remainder is highly 

fragmented and continues to be 

deforested. Only about 35 percent 

(16,872 km2 (6,514 mi2)) of dense and 

open canopy dry and intermediate zone 

forests—in which the ranges of P. 

fasciata and P. vittata occur—remain, 

deforestation in these forests is ongoing, 

and recent rates of deforestation in the 

country have been highest in regions 

constituting large portions of the ranges 

of these two species. Forest cover 

continues to decline at a rate of 86 km2

(33 mi2) per year, and the rate of loss is 

higher in the dry zone than the wet 

zone. While the current rate of forest 

loss is much lower than in the previous 

century, the rate of loss of natural forest 

is increasing and is anticipated to 

increase in the future with the country’s 

emphasis on development and the 

projected population increase of 

800,000 people. While coconut 

plantations provide additional habitat 

for one species (P. fasciata) in some 

areas, these plantations are becoming 

increasingly fragmented due to demand 

for housing. 

Tarantulas have sedentary habits, 

limited dispersal ability, and highly 

structured populations. Therefore, loss 

of habitat has likely resulted in direct 

loss of individuals or populations and, 

consequently, a reduction in the 

distribution and genetic diversity of 

these species. The distribution of these 

species is already limited—each 

currently occupies less than 500 km2

(193 mi2) or, for P. smithi, less than 10 

to 15 km2 (3.9 to 5.8 mi2) of its range— 

and deforestation continues within the 

ranges of all five species discussed in 

this finding. Further, the limited 

distribution of these species is likely 

continuing to decline with ongoing loss 

of habitat. We conclude that habitat loss 

is likely currently having significant 

negative impacts on the viability of 

these species because: (1) These species 

have very small distributions; (2) little 

forest remains in Sri Lanka; (3) 

remaining habitat is fragmented; and (4) 

deforestation is ongoing within these 

species’ ranges. 

Pesticides 

Pesticides are identified as a threat to 

Poecilotheria species in Sri Lanka 

(Nanayakkara 2014b, unpublished data; 

Gabriel 2014, unpaginated). The five 

species addressed in this finding could 

potentially be exposed to pesticides via 

pesticide drift into forests that are 

adjacent to crop-growing areas; by 

traveling over pesticide-treated land 

when dispersing between forest patches; 

or by consuming prey that have been 

exposed to pesticides. Populations of 

these species could potentially be 

directly affected by pesticides through 

increased mortality or through sublethal 

effects such as reduced fecundity, 

fertility, and offspring viability, and 

changes in sex ratio, behavior, and 

dispersal (Nash et al. 2010, p. 1694, 

citing several sources). Poecilotheria 

species may also be indirectly affected 

by pesticides if pesticides reduce or 

deplete available prey species. 

Over 100 pesticide (herbicide, 

fungicide, and insecticide) active 

ingredients are registered for use in Sri 

Lanka. Among the most commonly used 

insecticides are carbofuran, diazinon, 

and chloropyrifos (Padmajani et al. 

2014, pp. 11–12). These are broadspectrum, neurotoxic insecticides, 

which tend to have very negative effects 

on nontarget organisms (Pekar 2013, p. 

415). Further, sit-and-wait predators 

appear to be more sensitive to 

insecticide applications than webmaking spiders (Pekar 1999, p. 1077). 

The use of pesticides in Sri Lanka has 

been increasing steadily since the 1950s 

(Selvarajah and Thiruchelvam 2007, p. 

381). Pesticide imports into Sri Lanka 

increased by 50 percent in 2011 

compared to 2006 (Padmajani et al. 

2014, p. 11). The level of misuse and 

overuse of pesticides in Sri Lanka is 

high. Depending on region and crop 

species, 33 to 60 percent of Sri Lankan 

farmers use greater amounts, higher 

concentrations, or more frequent 

applications of pesticides (or a 

combination of these) than is 

recommended (Padmajani et al. 2014, 

pp. 13, 31, citing several sources). 

The susceptibility of spiders to the 

direct effects of different pesticides 

varies with pesticide type and 

formulation, spider species, 

development stage, sex, and abiotic and 

biotic conditions at the time of pesticide 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 36765 

application (Pekar 2013, pp. 416–417). 

Further, different classes of pesticides 

can cause different sublethal effects. For 

instance, activities such as movement, 

prey capture, reproduction, 

development, and defense are 

particularly disrupted by neurotoxic 

formulations because they are governed 

by complex neural interactions. 

However, spiders can potentially 

recover from sublethal effects over 

several days (Pekar 2013, p. 417), 

although the effects are complicated by 

the potential for cumulative effects of 

multiple applications across a season 

(Nash et al. 2010, p. 1694). 

We are not aware of any information 

on the population-level effects of 

pesticides on Poecilotheria species. 

However, given the large proportion of 

Sri Lanka’s human population that is 

reliant on farming, the high level of 

misuse and overuse of pesticides in the 

country, and the broad-spectrum and 

high level of toxicity of the insecticides 

commonly used in the country, it is 

likely that the species addressed in this 

finding are directly or indirectly 

negatively affected by pesticides to 

some extent. Therefore, while the 

population-level effects of pesticides on 

the five species addressed in this 

finding are uncertain, the effects of 

pesticides likely exacerbate the effects 

of other threats acting on these species. 

Climate Change 

The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 

warming of the climate system is 

unequivocal (IPCC 2013, p. 4). 

Numerous long-term climate changes 

have been observed including changes 

in land surface temperatures, 

precipitation patterns, ocean 

temperature and salinity, sea ice extent, 

and sea level (IPCC 2013, pp. 4–12). 

Various types of changes in climate can 

have direct or indirect effects on 

species. These effects may be positive, 

neutral, or negative and they may 

change over time, depending on the 

species and other relevant 

considerations, such as the effects of 

interactions of climate with other 

variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) 

(IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). However, 

a large fraction of terrestrial and 

freshwater species face increased 

extinction risk under projected climate 

change during and beyond the current 

century, especially as climate change 

interacts with habitat modification and 

other factors such as overexploitation, 

pollution, and invasive species (Settele 

et al. 2014, p. 275). 

Maintenance of body temperature and 

water retention by spiders is critical to 

their survival. All spiders, including 

Poecilotheria, are ectotherms; therefore, 

their body temperature varies with that 

of their environment. While spiders 

keep body temperature within tolerable 

limits through behaviors such as moving 

into shade when temperatures rise (Pulz 

1987, pp. 27, 34–35), they are 

susceptible to rapid fluctuations in body 

temperature and severe depletion of 

body water stores due to their relatively 

low body mass and high surface-tovolume ratio (Pulz 1987, p. 27). 

Tropical ectotherms evolved in an 

environment of relatively low inter- and 

intra-annual climate variability, and 

already live near their upper thermal 

limits (Settele et al. 2014, p. 301; 

Deutsch et al. 2008, p. 6669). Their 

capacity to acclimate is generally low. 

They have small thermal safety margins, 

and small amounts of warming may 

decrease their ability to perform basic 

physiological functions such as 

development, growth, and reproduction 

(Deutsch et al. 2008, pp. 6668–6669, 

6671). Evidence also indicates they may 

have low potential to increase their 

resistance to desiccation (drying out) 

(Schilthuizen and Kellerman 2014, p. 

61, citing several sources). 

The general trend in temperature in 

Sri Lanka over the past several decades 

is that of increasing temperature, 

although with considerable variation 

between locations in rates and 

magnitudes of change (De Costa 2008, p. 

87; De Silva et al. 2007, p. 21, citing 

several sources). Over the six to ten 

decades prior to 2007, temperatures 

have increased within all climate zones 

of the country, although rates of 

increase vary from 0.065 °C (0.117 °F) 

per decade in Ratnapura (an increase of 

0.65 °C (1.17 °F) during the 97-year 

period analyzed) in the lowland wet 

zone, to 0.195 °C (0.351 °F) per decade 

in Anuradhapura (an increase of 1.50 °C 

(2.70 °F) during the 77-year period 

analyzed) in the dry zone. In the 

montane region, temperatures increased 

at a rate of 0.141 °C (0.254 °F) per 

decade at Nuwara Eliya to 0.191 °C 

(0.344 °F) per decade at Badulla 

(increases of 1.09 and 1.47 °C (1.96 and 

2.65 °F) during the 77-year period 

analyzed, respectively) (De Costa 2008, 

p. 68). The rate of warming has 

increased in more recent years—overall 

temperature in the country increased at 

a rate of 0.003 °C (0.005 °F) per year 

during 1896–1996, 0.016 °C (0.029 °F) 

per year during 1961–1990, and 0.025 

°C (0.045 °F) per year during 1987–1996 

(Eriyagama et al. 2010, p. 2, citing 

several sources). Depending on future 

climate scenarios, temperatures are 

projected to increase by 2.93 to 5.44 °C 

(5.27 to 9.49 °F) by the end of the 

current century in South Asia (Cruz et 

al. 2007, in Eriyagama et al. 2010, p. 6). 

Downscaled projections for Sri Lanka 

using regional climate models report 

increases of 2.0 to 4.0 °C (3.6 to 7.2 °F) 

by 2100, while statistical downscaling 

of global climate models report 

increases of 0.9 to 3 °C (1.62 to 5.4 °F) 

by 2100 and 1.2 to 1.3 °C (2.16 to 

2.34 °F) by 2050 (Eriyagama et al. 2010, 

p. 6, citing several sources). 

Trends in rainfall have been 

decreasing in Sri Lanka over the past 

several decades (see De Costa 2008, p. 

87; De Silva et al. 2007, p. 21, citing 

several sources) although, according to 

the Climate Change Secretariat of Sri 

Lanka (2015, p. 19), there is no 

consensus on this fact. However, 

authors appear to agree that the 

intensity and frequency of extreme 

events such as droughts and floods have 

increased (Imbulana et al. 2016 and 

Ratnayake and Herath 2005, in Climate 

Change Secretariat of Sri Lanka 2015, p. 

19). 

Rainfall in Sri Lanka is highly 

variable from year to year, across 

seasons and across locations within any 

given year (Jayatillake et al. 2005, p. 70). 

Statistically significant declines in 

rainfall have been observed for the 

period 1869–2007 at Anuradhapura in 

the northern dry zone (12.92 mm (0.51 

in) per decade), and Badulla, Kandy, 

and Nuwara Eliya (19.16, 30.50, and 

51.60 mm (0.75, 1.20, and 2.03 in) per 

decade, respectively) in the central 

highlands (De Costa 2008, p. 77). 

Significant declines have also been 

observed in more recent decades at 

Kurunegala in western Sri Lanka’s 

intermediate zone (120.57 mm (4.75 in) 

per decade during 1970–2007) and 

Ratnapura (41.02 mm (1.61 in) per 

decade during 1920–2007) (De Costa 

2008, p. 77). Further, a significant trend 

of decreasing rainfall with increasing 

temperature exists at Anuradhapura, 

Kurunegala, and Nuwara Eliya (De Costa 

2008, pp. 79–81). Patterns of future 

rainfall in the country are highly 

uncertain—studies provide variable and 

conflicting projections (Eriyagama et al. 

p. 6, citing several sources). However, 

an increased frequency of dry periods 

and droughts are expected (MOE 2010, 

p. 35). 

While observed and projected changes 

in temperature and precipitation could 

potentially be within the tolerance 

limits of the Poecilotheria species 

addressed in this finding, it is possible 

that climate change could directly 

negatively affect these species through 

rising land surface temperatures, 

changes in the amount and pattern of 

precipitation, and increases in the 

frequency and intensity of extreme 

climate events such as heat waves or 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
36766 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

droughts. It is also possible that climate 

change could indirectly negatively affect 

these species by adversely impacting 

populations of their insect prey, which 

are also tropical ectotherms. The only 

detailed observations of a Sri Lankan 

Poecilotheria species indicated that P. 

fasciata found in natural forest were 

emaciated and without spiderlings 

during an extended drought, while 

those found in an irrigated plantation 

had wider girths and spiderlings (see 

Species-Specific Information) (Smith et 

al. 2001, entire). The lack of 

reproduction in natural forest during 

drought may have been due to 

desiccation stress or lack of available 

prey, or both, as a result of low moisture 

levels. 

While at least one of the species 

addressed in this finding (P. fasciata) 

appears to be vulnerable to drought, the 

responses of the five Poecilotheria 

species to observed and projected 

climate change in Sri Lanka are largely 

unknown. However, the climate in Sri 

Lanka has already changed considerably 

in all climate zones of the country, and 

continues to change at an increasing 

rate. These species evolved in specific, 

relatively stable climates and, because 

they are tropical ectotherms, may be 

sensitive to changing environmental 

conditions, particularly temperature and 

moisture (Deutsch et al. 2008, pp. 6668– 

6669; Schilthuizen and Kellerman 2014, 

pp. 59–61, citing several sources). 

Moreover, because they have poor 

dispersal ability, Peocilotheria are 

unlikely to be able to escape changing 

climate conditions via range shifts. 

Therefore, while population-level 

responses of the five species addressed 

in this finding to observed and projected 

changes in climate are not certain, the 

stress imposed on these species by 

increasing temperatures and changing 

patterns of precipitation is likely 

exacerbating the effects of other factors 

acting on these species such as 

stochastic events and habitat loss and 

degradation. This is especially the case 

for P. fasciata because (1) the frequency 

and intensity of droughts have increased 

and are expected to continue increasing, 

(2) the species fails to reproduce in 

natural forest during extended droughts, 

and (3) although P. fasciata is also 

known to inhabit irrigated coconut 

plantations, most populations have been 

found in natural forest. 

Trade 

Poecilotheria species are popular in 

trade due to their striking coloration and 

large size (Nanayakkara 2014a, p. 86; 

Molur et al. 2006, p. 23). In 2000, 

concerned about increasing trade in 

these species, Sri Lanka and the United 

States co-sponsored a proposal to 

include the genus in Appendix II of the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES) (Government of Sri Lanka 

and Government of the United States 

2000, entire). However, at the 11th 

Conference of the Parties, the proposal 

was criticized as containing too little 

information on international trade and 

on the limits of the distribution of the 

genus. It was further noted that the 

genus was primarily threatened by 

habitat destruction, and was not 

protected by domestic legislation in 

India. Also, the delegation of Sri Lanka 

promised to list the genus in Appendix 

III if the proposal failed. No consensus 

was reached on the proposal and a vote 

failed to achieve the required two-thirds 

majority—there were 49 votes in favor, 

30 against, and 27 abstentions—and the 

proposal was therefore rejected 

(Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora 2000, p. 50). None of the five 

species addressed in this rule are 

currently listed in the CITES 

Appendices (Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 2017, 

p. 48). 

Collection of Poecilotheria specimens 

from the wild could have significant 

negative impacts on Poecilotheria 

populations. Due to the patchy 

distributions and poor dispersal abilities 

of tarantulas, collection of several 

individuals from a single location could 

potentially reduce the abundance or 

distribution of a species, especially 

those with restricted distributions 

(Molur et al. 2006, p. 14; West et al. 

2001, unpaginated). Further, because 

tarantula populations are highly 

structured, loss of individuals from a 

single location could result in 

significant loss of that species’ genetic 

diversity (Bond 2006, p. 154). Collection 

of a relatively large number of 

individuals from a single population 

could also alter population 

demographics such that the survival of 

a species or population is more 

vulnerable to the effects of other factors, 

such as habitat loss. 

Collection of species from the wild for 

trade often begins when a new species 

is described or when a rare species has 

been rediscovered. Alerted to a new or 

novel species, collectors arrive at the 

reported location and set out collecting 

the species from the wild (Molur et al. 

2006, p. 15; Stuart et al. 2006, entire). 

For tarantulas, adult females may be 

especially vulnerable to collection 

pressures as collectors often attempt to 

capture females, which produce young 

that can be sold (Capannini 2003, p. 

107). Collectors then sell the collected 

specimens or their offspring to 

hobbyists who captive-rear the species 

and provide the pet trade with captivebred specimens (Gabriel 2014, 

unpaginated; Molur et al. 2006, p. 16). 

Thus, more individuals are likely to be 

captured from the wild during the 

period in which captive-breeding stocks 

are being established, in other words, 

prior to the species becoming broadly 

available in trade (Gabriel 2014, 

unpaginated). 

All five of the endemic Sri Lankan 

species addressed in this rule are bred 

by hobbyists and vendors and are 

available in the pet trade as captive-bred 

individuals in the United States, 

Europe, and elsewhere (see Herndon 

2014, pers. comm.; Elowsky 2014, 

unpaginated; Gabriel 2014, unpaginated; 

Longhorn 2014a, unpaginated; 

Longhorn 2014b, unpaginated; 

Mugleston 2014, unpaginated; Service 

2012, in litt.). We are not aware of any 

information on numbers of these species 

in domestic trade within the United 

States or numbers solely in foreign trade 

outside the United States. The Service’s 

Law Enforcement Management 

Information System contains 

information on U.S. international trade 

in three of these species—P. fasciata, P. 

ornata, and P. vittata (it does not 

currently collect information on P. 

smithi or P. subfusca). Four hundred 

individuals of these species were legally 

imported into, or exported or reexported from, the United States during 

2007–2012; 298 were imported into, and 

106 were exported or re-exported from, 

the United States. 

Captive-bred individuals appear to 

supply the majority of the current legal 

trade in these species in the United 

States. Of the 400 individuals legally 

imported into, or exported or reexported from, the United States during 

2007–2012, 392 (98 percent) were 

declared as captive-bred (Service 2012, 

in litt.). However, wild individuals of at 

least some of these species are still 

being collected (Nanayakkara 2014a, p. 

86; Nanayakkara 2014b, unpublished 

data; Service 2012, in litt.). Two sources 

indicate that there is evidence of illegal 

smuggling from Sri Lanka, although 

they do not provide details (see 

Nanayakkara 2014, p. 85; 

Samarawckrama et al. 2005, p. 76). 

Further, of the 400 individuals of Sri 

Lankan Poecilotheria imported into, or 

exported or re-exported from, the 

United States during 2007–2012, 8 P. 

vittata were declared as wild-caught. It 

is possible that additional wild-caught 

individuals of the five species addressed 

in this rule were (or are) not included 

in this total because they are imported 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 36767 

into the United States illegally, or 

imported into other countries. For 

example, some wild-caught specimens 

are imported into Europe (Merzlak 2017, 

unpaginated; Corcoran, 2016, 

unpaginated), although specific 

information on this activity is not 

available. 

Sri Lanka prohibits the commercial 

collection and exportation of all 

Poecilotheria species, under the Sri 

Lanka Flora and Fauna Protection 

(Amendment) Act, No. 22 of 2009, 

which is part of the Fauna and Flora 

Protection Ordinance No. 2 (1937) (DLA 

Piper 2015, p. 392; Government of Sri 

Lanka and Government of the United 

States 2000, p. 5). However, 

enforcement is weak and influenced by 

corruption (DLA Piper 2015, p. 392; 

GOSL 2012, p. 2a–3–149). 

In sum, individuals of at least some of 

these species are currently being 

collected from the wild. However, the 

extent to which this activity is occurring 

is unknown, as is the extent to which 

these species have been, or are being, 

affected by collection. Based on the 

available information on U.S. imports, 

exports, and re-exports, a small amount 

of trade occurs in wild specimens of 

these species. However, it is likely that 

more wild specimens enter Europe or 

Asia than the United States due to the 

closer proximity of Sri Lanka to Europe 

and Asia and consequent increased ease 

of travel and transport of specimens. 

Further, even small amounts of 

collection of species with small 

populations can have a negative impact 

on these species. Given that collection 

of at least some of these species from the 

wild continues to occur, it is likely that 

collection for trade is exacerbating 

population effects of other factors 

negatively impacting these species, such 

as stochastic events, habitat loss, and 

habitat degradation. 

Intentional Killing 

Poecilotheria spiders are feared by 

humans in Sri Lanka and, as a result, are 

usually killed when encountered 

(Kekulandala and Goonatilake 2015, 

unpaginated; Nanayakkara 2014a, p. 86; 

Gabriel 2014, unpaginated; Smith et al. 

2001, p. 49). Intentional killing of 

Poecilotheria spiders may negatively 

impact these five species by raising 

mortality rates in these species’ 

populations to such an extent that 

populations decline or are more 

vulnerable to the effects of other factors, 

such as habitat loss. Adult male 

Poecilotheria are probably more 

vulnerable to being intentionally killed 

because they wander in search of 

females during the breeding season (see 

Tarantula General Biology) and thus are 

more likely to be encountered by 

people. Consequently, intentional 

killing could potentially reduce the 

density of males in an area. Because the 

mating of a female depends on a male 

finding her, and males search for 

females randomly, a reduction in the 

density of males could result in a 

reduction in the percent of females 

laying eggs in any given year (Stradling 

1994, p. 96) and, consequently, a lower 

population growth rate. 

We do not have any information on 

the number of individuals of these five 

species that are intentionally killed by 

people. However, in areas where these 

species occur, higher human densities 

are likely to result in higher human 

contact with these species and, 

consequently, higher numbers of spiders 

killed. The human population density 

in Sri Lanka is much higher in the wet 

zone (see Habitat Loss and 

Degradation). Therefore, it is likely that 

P. ornata, P. smithi, and P. subfusca are 

affected by intentional killing more than 

P. fasciata and P. vittata. Although we 

do not have any information indicating 

the numbers of individuals of these 

species that are intentionally killed each 

year, it is likely that such killing is 

exacerbating the negative effects of other 

factors on these species’ populations, 

such as habitat loss and degradation. 

Stochastic (Random) Events and 

Processes 

Species endemic to small regions, or 

known from few, widely dispersed 

locations, are inherently more 

vulnerable to extinction than 

widespread species because of the 

higher risks from localized stochastic 

(random) events and processes, such as 

floods, fire, landslides, and drought 

(Brooks et al. 2008, pp. 455–456; 

Mangel and Tier 1994, entire; Pimm et 

al. 1988, p. 757). These problems can be 

further magnified when populations are 

very small, due to genetic bottlenecks 

(reduced genetic diversity resulting 

from fewer individuals contributing to 

the species’ overall gene pool) and 

random demographic fluctuations 

(Lande 1988, pp. 1455–1458; Pimm et 

al. 1988, p. 757). Species with few 

populations, limited geographic area, 

and a small number of individuals face 

an increased likelihood of stochastic 

extinction due to changes in 

demography, the environment, genetics, 

or other factors, in a process described 

as an extinction vortex (a mutual 

reinforcement that occurs among biotic 

and abiotic processes that drives 

population size downward to 

extinction) (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, pp. 

24–25). The negative impacts associated 

with small population size and 

vulnerability to random demographic 

fluctuations or natural catastrophes can 

be further magnified by synergistic 

interactions with other threats. 

P. smithi is known from very few 

widely dispersed locations and is likely 

very rare (see Species-Specific 

Information). Therefore, it is highly 

likely that P. smithi is extremely 

vulnerable to stochastic processes and 

that the species is highly likely 

negatively impacted by these processes. 

The remaining four species have narrow 

ranges within specific climate zones of 

Sri Lanka. It is unclear whether the 

range sizes of these four are so small 

that stochastic processes on their own 

are likely to have significant negative 

impacts on these species. However, 

stochastic processes may have negative 

impacts on these species in combination 

with other factors such as habitat loss, 

because habitat loss can further 

fragment and isolate populations. 

Determinations 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we determine whether a species 

meets the definition of a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ or an ‘‘endangered species’’ 

because of any one or more of the 

following five threat factors or the 

cumulative effects thereof: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) Disease or 

predation; (D) The inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available on P. fasciata, P. ornata, P. 

subfusca, P. smithi, and P. vittata. While 

information on species abundance or 

population dynamics is not available on 

these species, the best available 

information indicates these species’ 

populations have experienced extensive 

declines in the past and their 

populations continue to decline. 

Tarantulas have limited dispersal ability 

and sedentary habits; therefore, the loss 

of habitat (Factor A) likely results in 

direct loss of individuals or populations 

and, consequently, a reduction in the 

distribution of the species. As a result, 

the extensive loss of forest (71 percent 

in the dry zone, 85 percent in the 

intermediate zone, and 87 percent in the 

wet zone) has reduced the amount of 

habitat where the species may remain, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
36768 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

and their populations will likely 

continue to decline with ongoing 

deforestation. Further, because these 

species likely have highly structured 

populations, reductions in these 

species’ populations have likely 

resulted in coincident loss of these 

species’ unique genetic diversities, 

eroding the adaptive and evolutionary 

potential of these species (Bond 2006, p. 

154). 

All five Sri Lankan Poecilotheria 

species have restricted ranges within 

specific regions and climates of Sri 

Lanka and are currently estimated to 

occupy areas of less than 500 km2 (193 

mi2), and less than 10–15 km2 (4–6 mi2) 

for P. smithi. Due to the life-history 

traits of tarantulas—restricted range, 

sedentary habits, poor dispersal ability, 

and structured populations—these 

species are vulnerable to habitat loss. 

Extensive habitat loss (Factor A) has 

already occurred in all the climate zones 

in which these species occur, and 

deforestation is ongoing in the country. 

Further, the cumulative effects of 

changing climate, intentional killing, 

pesticides, capture for the pet trade, and 

stochastic processes are likely 

significantly exacerbating the effects of 

habitat loss. 

Therefore, for the following reasons 

we conclude populations of P. fasciata, 

P. ornata, P. subfusca, P. smithi, and P. 

vittata have been and continue to be 

significantly reduced to the extent that 

the viability of each of these five species 

is significantly compromised: 

(1) These species are closely tied to 

their habitats, little of their forest habitat 

remains, deforestation is ongoing in 

these habitats, and these species are 

vulnerable to habitat loss; 

(2) these species’ have poor dispersal 

ability, are unlikely to be able to escape 

changing climate conditions via range 

shifts, and Sri Lanka’s climate is 

changing at increasing rates; 

(3) the cumulative effects of climate 

change, intentional killing, pesticides, 

capture for the pet trade, and stochastic 

processes are likely significantly 

exacerbating the effects of habitat loss; 

and 

(4) P. smithi is known from few 

locations, is likely rare, and very likely 

vulnerable to stochastic processes. 

The Act defines an endangered 

species in section 3(6) of the Act as any 

species that is ‘‘in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a threatened species in 

section 3(20) of the Act as any species 

that is ‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ 

Based on the factors described above 

and their impacts on P. fasciata, P. 

ornata, P. smithi, P. subfusca, and P. 

vittata, we find the following factors to 

be threats to these species (i.e., factors 

contributing to the risk of extinction of 

these species): Loss of habitat (Factor A; 

all five species), stochastic processes 

(Factor E; P. smithi), and the cumulative 

effects (Factor E; all five species) of 

these and other threats including 

climate change, intentional killing, 

pesticide use, and capture for the pet 

trade. Furthermore, despite laws in 

place to protect these five species and 

the forest and other habitat they depend 

on, these threats continue (Factor D), in 

part due to lack of resources and 

challenges to enforcement. We consider 

the risk of extinction of these five 

species to be high because these species 

are vulnerable to habitat loss, this 

process is ongoing, and these species 

have limited potential to recolonize 

reforested areas or move to more 

favorable climate. We find that P. 

fasciata, P. ornata, P. smithi, P. 

subfusca, and P. vittata are presently in 

danger of extinction throughout their 

ranges based on the likely severity and 

immediacy of threats currently 

impacting these species, and we are 

listing these five tarantula species as 

endangered in accordance with sections 

3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that 

a threatened species status is not 

appropriate for these species because of 

their restricted ranges, limited 

distributions, and vulnerability to 

extinction and because the threats are 

ongoing throughout their ranges at a 

level that places these species in danger 

of extinction now, even without the 

worsening of the threats, that, as 

discussed above, is likely. 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Because we have determined 

that P. fasciata, P. ornata, P. smithi, P. 

subfusca, and P. vittata are endangered 

throughout all of their ranges, we do not 

need to conduct an analysis of whether 

there is any significant portion of their 

ranges where these species are in danger 

of extinction or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future. This is consistent 

with the Act because when we find that 

a species is currently in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range 

(i.e., meets the definition of an 

endangered species), the species is 

experiencing high-magnitude threats 

across its range or threats are so high in 

particular areas that they severely affect 

the species across its range. Therefore, 

the species is in danger of extinction 

throughout every portion of its range 

and an analysis of whether there is any 

significant portion of the range that may 

be in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so would not result in a 

different outcome. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition of conservation status, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing encourages 

and results in public awareness and 

conservation actions by Federal and 

State governments in the United States, 

foreign governments, private agencies 

and groups, and individuals. 

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 

and as implemented by regulations at 50 

CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies 

to evaluate their actions that are to be 

conducted within the United States or 

upon the high seas, with respect to any 

species that is listed as an endangered 

or threatened species. Because P. 

fasciata, P. ornata, P. smithi, P. 

subfusca, and P. vittata are not native to 

the United States, no critical habitat is 

being designated with this rule. 

Regulations implementing the 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or to 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a proposed Federal action 

may adversely affect a listed species, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into formal consultation with the 

Service. Currently, with respect to P. 

fasciata, P. ornata, P. smithi, P. 

subfusca, and P. vittata, no Federal 

activities are known that would require 

consultation. 

Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the 

provision of limited financial assistance 

for the development and management of 

programs that the Secretary of the 

Interior determines to be necessary or 

useful for the conservation of 

endangered or threatened species in 

foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) 

of the Act authorize the Secretary to 

encourage conservation programs for 

foreign listed species, and to provide 

assistance for such programs, in the 

form of personnel and the training of 

personnel. 

Section 9 of the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

17.21 set forth a series of general 

prohibitions that apply to all 

endangered wildlife. These 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 36769 

prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for 

any person subject to the jurisdiction of 

the United States to ‘‘take’’ (which 

includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect; or to attempt any of these) 

endangered wildlife within the United 

States or upon the high seas. It is also 

illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 

transport, or ship any such wildlife that 

has been taken illegally. In addition, it 

is illegal for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to 

import; export; deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce, by any means whatsoever 

and in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. Certain exceptions apply 

to employees of the Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, other 

Federal land management agencies, and 

State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. No permit is 

required for activities that do not 

constitute prohibited acts. Regulations 

governing permits for endangered 

species are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. 

With regard to endangered wildlife, a 

permit may be issued for the following 

purposes: For scientific purposes, to 

enhance the propagation or survival of 

the species, and for incidental take in 

connection with otherwise lawful 

activities. The Service may also register 

persons subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States through its captive-bredwildlife (CBW) program if certain 

established requirements are met under 

the CBW regulations. 50 CFR 17.21(g). 

Through a CBW registration, the Service 

may allow a registrant to conduct 

certain otherwise prohibited activities 

under certain circumstances to enhance 

the propagation or survival of the 

affected species: Take; export or reimport; deliver, receive, carry, transport 

or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce, in the course of a 

commercial activity; or sell or offer for 

sale in interstate or foreign commerce. A 

CBW registration may authorize 

interstate purchase and sale only 

between entities that both hold a 

registration for the taxon concerned. 

The CBW program is available for 

species having a natural geographic 

distribution not including any part of 

the United States and other species that 

the Director has determined to be 

eligible by regulation. The individual 

specimens must have been born in 

captivity in the United States. There are 

also certain statutory exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

December 14, 2016 (81 FR 90297), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by February 13, 2017. We also 

contacted appropriate scientific experts 

and organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. We did not receive any 

requests for a public hearing. All 

substantive information provided 

during comment periods has either been 

incorporated directly into this final 

determination or is addressed below. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinion 

from four knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with Poecilotheria species or 

other tarantulas, their habitats and 

biological needs, and stressors acting on 

their populations. We received 

responses from two of the peer 

reviewers from whom we requested 

comments. One did not review the rule 

but provided additional information 

regarding a threat to the habitat of P. 

smithi, and we have incorporated this 

information into this final rule. The 

second peer reviewer supported our 

determinations based on our assessment 

of some threats, but disagreed with our 

assessment of others. This peer reviewer 

also provided a technical correction 

pertaining to our physical description of 

Poecilotheria species, and we have 

incorporated this information into this 

final rule. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

and new information regarding the 

listing of the five species addressed in 

this rule. Peer reviewer comments are 

addressed in the following summary 

and incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. 

(1) Comment: Citing the taxonomic 

revision done by Gabriel et al. (2013, 

entire), and the World Spider Catalog, 

the peer reviewer states that P. vittata is 

not endemic to Sri Lanka, but rather that 

P. vittata was synonymized with the 

Indian species P. striata and recently 

removed from this synonymy. 

Our response: Gabriel et al. (2013, 

entire) not only remove P. vittata from 

synonymy with the Indian species P. 

striata, but also show P. vittata to be the 

senior synonym of P. pederseni. 

Further, the World Spider Catalog 

(2017, unpaginated) recognizes this 

synonymy, identifying P. pederseni as a 

synonym of P. vittata. Therefore, in this 

final rule we retain the taxonomy 

provided in our proposed rule. 

(2) Comment: The peer reviewer 

indicated that our conclusions regarding 

the effects of climate change and 

pesticides on these species are 

speculative because no studies have 

been conducted on the effects of these 

factors on Poecilotheria species. The 

peer reviewer also indicates that 

Poecilotheria are unlikely to come in 

direct contact with pesticides because 

they live in forests, which are not 

generally sprayed, and are nocturnal so 

are not active when spraying occurs. 

The peer reviewer indicates that studies 

on spiders in agroecosystems show 

spiders that do not have direct contact 

with pesticides survive. However, the 

peer reviewer did not provide any new 

information or evidence supporting her 

assertions. 

Our response: While no studies have 

been carried out specifically assessing 

the effects of stress factors on any 

Poecilotheria species, the Act requires 

that we make our determination of 

species status based on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

at the time of our rulemaking. In 

conducting our assessment of the 

statuses of these species, we reviewed 

all relevant information available to us, 

including information submitted to us 

following the initiation of the 12-month 

status reviews for these species. We 

subsequently based our conclusions 

regarding the factors affecting these five 

species on the best available 

information. We acknowledged in our 

proposed rule that the population-level 

effects of climate change and pesticides 

on these species are uncertain. 

However, as indicated in our proposed 

rule, the best available information 

indicates that these stressors are likely 

negatively affecting these species, either 

directly or indirectly, to some extent. 

Consequently, it is reasonable to 

conclude, as we did in our proposed 

rule, that pesticides and climate change 

likely exacerbate the effects of other 

stressors acting on these species. 

Therefore, because we based our 

conclusions on the best available 

information, and the peer reviewer 

provided no evidence or new 

information for our review, we did not 

revise our conclusions regarding the 

effects of climate change or pesticides 

on these five species. 

We cannot assess the studies to which 

the reviewer refers regarding the effects 

of pesticides on spiders because the 

reviewer did not provide copies of these 

studies or the citations for them. 

Further, while we agree that some 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
36770 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

members of these species’ populations 

are unlikely to have direct contact with 

pesticides, we do not agree that is the 

case for all members, particularly those 

inhabiting fragmented forests or 

remnant forest patches. As indicated in 

our proposed rule, these species could 

be exposed to pesticides via pesticide 

drift into forests that are adjacent to 

crop-growing areas, by traveling over 

pesticide treated land when dispersing 

between forest patches, or by consuming 

prey that have been exposed to 

pesticides (see Pesticides). Also, the 

most commonly used insecticides in Sri 

Lanka—carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, and 

diazinon—can remain active in the 

environment for days after application 

(Kamrin 1997, in Christensen et al. 

2009, unpaginated; Karmin 1997, in 

Harper et al. 2009, unpaginated; U.S. 

National Library of Medicine 1995, in 

EXTOXNET 1996, unpaginated). 

Therefore, these five species could be 

directly and negatively affected by these 

pesticides after spraying occurs. They 

could also be indirectly affected by 

pesticides through consumption of 

contaminated prey, or reduction or 

depletion of prey populations. Taken 

together, and considering the extent of 

pesticide use and misuse in the country, 

it is likely that the five species 

addressed in this rule are directly or 

indirectly negatively affected by 

pesticides to some extent and that these 

effects likely exacerbate the effects of 

other threats acting on these species. 

Public Comments 

We received 115 public comments on 

the proposed listing of these species, 

most from people involved in the 

tarantula hobby as owners, breeders, or 

sellers. We reviewed all comments 

received from the public for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the listing of the five species addressed 

in this rule. Public comments are 

addressed in the following summary 

and incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. A few commenters 

provided new information on 

Poecilotheria biology or trade, and we 

have incorporated this information into 

the corresponding sections of this rule. 

(1) Comment: Several commenters 

questioned certain information in our 

proposed rule. Several claimed that we 

inaccurately characterized the degree or 

effects (or both) of inbreeding or 

maladaptation in captive specimens of 

these species. Another questioned our 

assessment of the ability of these species 

to adapt to changing climate in Sri 

Lanka. Many of these commenters cited 

their own anecdotal observations of 

captive specimens to support their 

claims while the remaining commenters 

provided no new information. A few 

other commenters claimed, more 

generally, that we used outdated 

references or erroneous information, or 

misrepresented the findings of cited 

authors. However, these commenters 

also provided no new references or 

information supporting their claims. 

Our Response: The Act requires that 

we use the best available scientific and 

commercial data to determine if a 

species meets the definition of a 

‘‘threatened species’’ or an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ because of any one or a 

combination of the five factors found in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act. This analysis 

includes an analysis of the extent to 

which captive-held members of a 

species create or contribute to threats to 

the species (for example, by fueling 

trade) or the extent to which captiveheld members of a species remove or 

reduce threats to the species by 

contributing to the conservation of the 

species (for example, by providing 

specimens for population augmentation 

or reintroduction). In conducting our 

analysis, we reviewed all relevant 

information available to us on these 

species, including information 

submitted to us following the initiation 

of the 12-month status reviews for these 

species. We based our proposed rule, 

including the discussion and 

conclusions regarding captive 

Poecilotheria, on the best scientific and 

commercial data available to us at the 

time of our proposed rule. In addition, 

we reviewed all comments and 

information submitted by the public and 

peer reviewers during the public 

comment period for our proposed rule 

and base this final rule on the best 

available information. 

Although some commenters provided 

anecdotal observations of captive 

specimens to support their assertions 

regarding the effects of inbreeding and 

maladaptation in captive specimens, or 

the ability of captive specimens to adapt 

to climate conditions, observations of 

health or survivability in captive 

conditions are not informative to 

predicting health or survivability in 

wild conditions because selection 

pressures in the wild differ greatly from 

those in captivity. Therefore, in this 

final rule we did not change any of our 

conclusions on these topics. However, 

we revised the section on Captive 

Poecilotheria to clarify the bases of our 

conclusions. 

(2) Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that we did not consider the 

knowledge or efforts of hobbyists in our 

proposal. 

Our Response: As required by the Act, 

we based our determinations on the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available. In doing so, we reviewed all 

information available to us on these 

species, including information 

submitted to us by the public following 

initiation of our 12-month status 

reviews for these species. This included 

information and dozens of articles from 

hobbyist publications. Further, we cited 

several of these sources in our proposal 

and retained these citations in this final 

rule. 

(3) Comment: Some commenters 

believe that we inaccurately suggested 

in our proposed rule that all captivebred specimens of these species have 

limited value to the conservation of 

these species—that all are inbred, 

maladapted to conditions in the wild, or 

hybridized—and that we did not 

acknowledge the knowledge and good 

practices of reputable breeders. A few 

suggest that genetic tests could 

determine which captives could 

potentially be useful for a conservation 

breeding program. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

level of knowledge and care taken by 

reputable hobbyists when breeding 

these species. However, we 

acknowledged the uncertainties 

pertaining to the levels of inbreeding 

and hybridization in pet trade 

specimens in our proposed rule by 

indicating that captive individuals of 

these species ‘‘may be inbred or 

maladapted to conditions in the wild’’ 

and ‘‘likely include an unknown 

number of hybrids’’ (see Captive 

Poecilotheria). Further, as indicated 

above, we have revised the section on 

captive Poecilotheria to clarify the bases 

of our conclusions. With respect to 

determining the genetic appropriateness 

of captive specimens for conservation 

via genetic testing, the Act requires us 

to make our decision based on the best 

available information at the time we 

make our decision, and we are not 

aware of any genetic studies on any 

individuals of these species, captive or 

wild. Even if such information existed, 

we have no information indicating that 

pet trade specimens are contributing to 

the conservation of these species in the 

wild, for instance, as part of a 

reintroduction program. Therefore, we 

have not changed our conclusions 

regarding captive specimens of these 

species. 

(4) Comment: A few commenters 

assert that the extent of hybridization of 

these species in the pet trade is likely 

low because tarantula hobbyists are 

strongly opposed to hybridization of 

species, and because breeders can 

distinguish between species of adult 

specimens and take care not to crossbreed them. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 36771 

Our Response: Again, we appreciate 

the level of knowledge and care taken 

by reputable hobbyists when breeding 

these species. However, because (1) 

genetic studies have not been conducted 

on any of these species, (2) evidence 

indicates that hybrids do occur in the 

hobby, (3) hybridization may not be 

visually apparent in captive individuals, 

and (4) the lineages of pet trade 

specimens of these species are not 

documented, the extent of hybridization 

in any particular captive specimen—be 

it high, low, or nonexistent—is 

unknown. 

(5) Comment: Several commenters 

believe that captive-bred specimens in 

the pet trade are beneficial or necessary 

to the conservation of these species. 

They believe captive-bred specimens 

provide a safety net for these species to 

prevent extinction, increase public 

awareness, provide for education and 

research, supply zoos, and take the 

collection pressure off wild populations 

by fulling the demand for these species 

as pets. Two commenters assert that 

these species are not in danger of 

extinction because many exist in 

captivity. 

Our Response: The goal of the Act is 

survival and recovery of endangered 

and threatened species and the 

ecosystems on which they depend. 

Therefore, when analyzing threats to a 

species, we focus our analysis on threats 

acting upon its survival in the wild, 

generally within the native range of the 

species. In our assessment of the status 

of a species, the extent to which captiveheld members of a species create or 

contribute to threats to the species (for 

example, by fueling trade) or the extent 

to which captive-held members of a 

species remove or reduce threats to the 

species by contributing to the 

conservation of the species in the wild 

(for example, by providing specimens 

for population augmentation or 

reintroduction) is part of the analysis we 

conduct under section 4(a)(1) of the Act 

to determine if the species meets the 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species. Further, the Act 

requires that we make our decision 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available at the time 

our decision is made. As indicated in 

our proposed rule, we are not aware of 

any existing conservation programs for 

these species or information indicating 

that pet trade specimens contribute to 

the viability of these species within 

their native ranges in the wild, and have 

clarified this in revisions to the Captive 

Poecilotheria section of this rule. We 

also determined that pet trade 

specimens likely hold limited value to 

the conservation of these species in the 

wild. However, we acknowledge that 

some pet trade specimens could 

potentially contribute to the 

conservation of these species in the wild 

if, for example, they became part of a 

genetically managed conservation 

breeding program. Persons seeking to 

engage in otherwise prohibited activities 

with endangered wildlife for scientific 

purposes or to enhance the propagation 

or survival of these species may seek 

authorization from the Service (see 

Available Conservation Measures). 

We also have no information 

indicating that current or future 

education or research efforts are being 

conducted or planned with captive-bred 

pet trade specimens of these species for 

conservation purposes, or any evidence 

that populations in the wild are 

benefiting from current education or 

research efforts using captive-bred pet 

trade specimens. The best scientific and 

commercial data available indicate that 

as of September 2017 there were only 19 

specimens in captivity in zoos 

worldwide (11 P. fasciata, 1 P. ornata, 

2 P. vitatta, 5 P. subfusca) (Species360 

2017, unpaginated). 

With respect to trade, certain 

prohibitions, certain exceptions, and 

other conservation measures established 

through the Act are available for 

endangered species upon listing (see 

Available Conservation Measures). 

Therefore, they are provided by law to 

fulfill the purposes and policy of the 

Act. The effects of legal trade of a 

species on wild populations and market 

demand for that species is a complex 

phenomenon influenced by a variety of 

factors (Bulte and Damania 2005, entire; 

Fischer 2004, entire), and we are not 

aware of any evidence indicating that 

the pet trade of captive-bred specimens 

of these species are benefitting wild 

populations. 

(6) Comment: One commenter 

expressed concern that listing these 

species as endangered would likely 

result in their extinction due to forcing 

breeders to stop breeding unless they 

apply for a permit. The commenter also 

indicated that specimens possessed by 

hobbyists that are unable to be used in 

repopulation efforts would not fall 

under the protections of the Act because 

they are ‘‘unpure specimens’’. 

Our Response: As explained in 

response to comments below, captive 

breeding and many activities related to 

captive breeding are not prohibited 

under the Act. Persons seeking to 

engage in activities that are not 

prohibited under the Act do not need a 

permit under the Act. While we are not 

certain how this commenter defines 

‘‘unpure’’, the protections of the Act 

apply to all members of these five 

species as explained in response to 

comments below. We recommend that 

breeding records be maintained to show 

parentage. 

(7) Comment: Several commenters 

requested we exempt captive-bred 

specimens and their offspring from 

possession and interstate sales 

regulations, allowing ownership and 

interstate trade of these species to occur 

without obtaining a permit under the 

Act. 

Our Response: Because we 

determined that all five of these species 

meet the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ under the Act, section 9(a)(1) 

of the Act and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.21 set forth a 

series of general prohibitions that apply 

to all members of each of these species, 

whether captive or wild. The 

prohibitions cannot be revised through 

a regulation under section 4(d) of the 

Act, because such regulations apply to 

threatened species. The Act also does 

not allow for captive-bred specimens of 

these listed species to be assigned 

separate legal status from their wild 

counterparts. However, no permit is 

required for activities that do not 

constitute prohibited acts. As noted in 

response to comments below, the Act 

does not prohibit captive breeding of 

listed species and also does not prohibit 

a number of activities related to captive 

breeding, such as ownership. 

Furthermore, we may authorize 

otherwise prohibited activities for 

scientific purposes or to enhance the 

propagation or survival of these species, 

in accordance with the Act and our 

regulations (see Available Conservation 

Measures). 

(8) Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that, rather than list these 

species as endangered species under the 

Act, we instead take another action such 

as: List them in a CITES Appendix, list 

them as threatened species with a 

section 4(d) rule that allows interstate 

trade, do not list them at all, or focus on 

ameliorating threats within these 

species’ native ranges rather than on 

regulating domestic trade. 

Our Response: When we receive a 

petition to list a species under the Act, 

we are required to make a determination 

as to whether that species meets the 

Act’s definition of a threatened species 

or an endangered species. We are 

required to do this based solely on the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, as it relates to the five listing 

factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

When we determine that a species meets 

the Act’s definition of a threatened 

species or endangered species, we must 

list that species accordingly under the 

Act. We determined that these species 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
36772 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

meet the definition of endangered 

species, and as such we must list them 

as endangered species. The Act and our 

regulations provide prohibitions and 

other conservation measures that apply 

to all endangered species as described 

above (see Available Conservation 

Measures). Because we found that 

listing these species as endangered is 

warranted, not listing them is not an 

option. We also cannot list them as 

threatened species with a section 4(d) 

rule because we found that they are 

endangered, not threatened species. 

Furthermore, because we found them 

warranted for listing, not listing them is 

not feasible. Finally, CITES has a 

different process and set of criteria for 

listing species in the CITES Appendices 

that is independent of listing under the 

Act. The portion of the comment 

suggesting a CITES listing is outside the 

scope of this agency action to consider 

whether these species should be listed 

as endangered species under the Act. 

(9) Comment: One commenter asked 

how to acquire a permit for exemption 

from the prohibitions of the Act and 

how often permits need to be renewed. 

Our Response: Information regarding 

permits for activities related to these 

five species can be obtained at our 

International Affairs program website at 

https://www.fws.gov/international/. 

(10) Comment: Several commenters 

believe that trade in these species has 

little or no effect on wild populations 

and provided various reasons, 

including: They had never seen, or 

heard of others seeing, a wild-caught 

specimen; the captive stock is selfsustaining; wild-caught specimens are 

frowned upon in the hobby; and there 

is no financial incentive for the trade of 

wild-caught specimens. Others contend 

that listing and/or regulating trade in 

the United States is not necessary or 

useful because U.S. trade does not affect 

wild populations and because the 

primary threats to these species occur 

outside U.S. jurisdiction, in Sri Lanka. 

Our Response: Evidence shows that 

wild-caught specimens of some of these 

species occur in trade (see Trade). 

Although the amount of trade in wildcaught specimens in the United States 

appears to be small, this does not mean 

trade, or U.S. trade, has no, or even 

little, effect on wild populations. As 

indicated in our proposed rule, 

collection of small numbers of 

individuals of these species could 

potentially have significant negative 

effects on wild populations of these 

species. With respect to U.S. 

jurisdiction and the regulation of trade, 

the Act requires the Service to 

determine if species qualify as 

endangered or threatened species 

regardless of whether a species is native 

to the United States. The protections of 

the Act include prohibitions on certain 

activities including import, export, take, 

and certain commercial activity in 

interstate or foreign commerce (see 

Available Conservation Measures). By 

regulating these activities, the Act helps 

to ensure that people under the 

jurisdiction of the United States do not 

contribute to the further decline of 

listed species. 

(11) Comment: Several commenters 

raise concerns that listing would 

provide a disincentive to captivebreeding these species. 

Our Response: It is not our intention 

to cause difficulties for breeders of these 

species or a decline in the pool of 

captive-held specimens. The Act does 

not prohibit or ‘‘ban’’ captive breeding 

of listed species. The Act also does not 

prohibit a number of activities related to 

captive breeding. For example, 

ownership, possession, or keeping of a 

listed species that was legally acquired 

and not taken in violation of the Act is 

not prohibited by the Act—nor is 

interstate transport of animals that are 

not for sale, not offered for sale, or not 

transported in the course of a 

commercial activity. Further, while the 

Act prohibits harassment of listed 

species (via the definition of ‘‘take’’), 

our regulations specify that, when 

captive animals are involved, 

harassment does not include generally 

accepted animal husbandry practices 

that meet or exceed AWA standards, 

breeding procedures, or provisions of 

veterinary care for confining, 

tranquilizing, or anesthetizing, when 

such practices, procedures, or 

provisions are not likely to result in 

injury (see the definition of harass at 50 

CFR 17.3). In addition, activities that do 

not adversely affect these species, such 

as observations in behavioral research, 

are not considered take. Activities that 

are not prohibited by the Act do not 

require a permit under the Act. 

The protections of the Act for 

endangered species include prohibitions 

on certain activities with any member of 

the listed species including import, 

export, take, and certain commercial 

activity in interstate or foreign 

commerce (see Available Conservation 

Measures). Permits may be issued to 

carry out otherwise prohibited 

activities, for scientific purposes or to 

enhance the propagation or survival of 

the species. For example, a permit could 

potentially be issued for import or 

export of captive-bred specimens if the 

activity were determined to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species. 

Section 10(g) of the Act provides that 

any person claiming the benefit of any 

exemption or permit under the Act shall 

have the burden of proving that the 

exemption or permit is applicable, has 

been granted, and was valid and in force 

at the time of an alleged violation. 

While the Service may have information 

available to it that may assist in making 

required determinations prior to 

authorizing otherwise prohibited 

activities with listed species, the burden 

is on the applicant to provide necessary 

information for the Service to issue a 

permit. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with listing 

a species as an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

in Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2016–0076 

and upon request from the Branch of 

Foreign Species, Ecological Services 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are the staff members of the Branch of 

Foreign Species, Ecological Services, 

Falls Church, VA. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245; unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h), add the following 

entries to the List of Endangered and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 36773 

Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical 

order under Arachnids: 

■ a. Spider, ivory ornamental tiger; 

■ b. Spider, ornate tiger; 

■ c. Spider, Pedersen’s tiger; 

■ d. Spider, Smith’s tiger; and 

■ e. Spider, Sri Lanka ornamental tiger. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

*******

ARACHNIDS

* * * * * * * 

Spider, ivory ornamental tiger .......... Poecilotheria subfusca ........ Wherever found ................... E 83 FR [Insert Federal Register 

page where the document begins], 7/31/2018. 

*******

Spider, ornate tiger .......................... Poecilotheria ornata ............. Wherever found ................... E 83 FR [Insert Federal Register 

page where the document begins], 7/31/2018. 

Spider, Pedersen’s tiger ................... Poecilotheria vittata ............. Wherever found ................... E 83 FR [Insert Federal Register 

page where the document begins], 7/31/2018. 

Spider, Smith’s tiger ......................... Poecilotheria smithi ............. Wherever found ................... E 83 FR [Insert Federal Register 

page where the document begins], 7/31/2018. 

*******

Spider, Sri Lanka ornamental tiger .. Poecilotheria fasciata .......... Wherever found ................... E 83 FR [Insert Federal Register 

page where the document begins], 7/31/2018. 

*******

* * * * * 

Dated: May 29, 2018. 

James W. Kurth, 

Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Exercising the Authority of the 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16359 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 217 

[Docket No. 170908887–8622–02] 

RIN 0648–BH24 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to U.S. Navy Pier 

Construction Activities at Naval 

Submarine Base New London 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Upon application from the 

U.S. Navy (Navy), NMFS is issuing 

regulations under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act for the taking of marine 

mammals incidental to the pier 

construction activities conducted at the 

Naval Submarine Base New London in 

Groton, Connecticut, over the course of 

five years (2020–2025). These 

regulations allow NMFS to issue a Letter 

of Authorization (LOA) for the 

incidental take of marine mammals 

during the specified construction 

activities carried out during the rule’s 

period of effectiveness, set forth the 

permissible methods of taking, set forth 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat, and set forth requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of the incidental take. 

DATES: Effective March 1, 2020 through 

February 28, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: To obtain an electronic 

copy of the Navy’s LOA application or 

other referenced documents, visit the 

internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental/construction.htm. In 

case of problems accessing these 

documents, please call the contact listed 

below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS; phone: (301) 427– 

8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Regulatory 

Action 

This final rule establishes a 

framework under the authority of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to allow 

for the authorization of take of marine 

mammals incidental to the Navy’s 

construction activities related to marine 

structure maintenance and pile 

replacement at a facility in Groton, 

Connecticut. 

We received an application from the 

Navy requesting five-year regulations 

and authorization to take multiple 

species of marine mammals. Take 

would occur by Level A and Level B 

harassment incidental to impact and 

vibratory pile driving. Please see 

‘‘Background’’ below for definitions of 

harassment. 

Legal Authority for the Proposed Action 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the 

Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region for up to five years 

if, after notice and public comment, the 

agency makes certain findings and 

issues regulations that set forth 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES