[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36755-36773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16359]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 36756]]

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

[[Page 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 Perez-Miles 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 <plus-minus> 0.5 ha one year and 8.8 <plus-minus> 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

[[Page 36758]]

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 ([deg]C) (80.6 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) in the lowlands to 
15 [deg]C (59 ;[deg]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 species-specific information below, see 
Fig. 1. For locations of the ranges of the different species, see Fig. 
2.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 36759]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31JY18.001


[[Page 36760]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31JY18.002

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 km\2\ (193 mi\2\) 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

[[Page 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 km\2\ (193 mi\2\) 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-km\2\ (1.9-mi\2\) area of highly 
disturbed habitat (Nanayakkara et al. 2013, p. 74).
    Poecilotheria smithi was estimated to occupy less than 10 km\2\ 
(3.9 mi\2\) of its range (MOE 2012, p. 55) but a recently reported 
location in Matale district increases the known area of occupancy by 5 
km\2\ (1.9 mi\2\). 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 km\2\ (193 mi\2\) (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 km\2\ 
(193 mi\2\) 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'

[[Page 36762]]

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-and-burn 
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, 2a-3-145; 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 km\2\ (1,684 per mi\2\) 
compared to 170 people per km\2\ (440 per km\2\) in the dry zone and 
329 per km\2\ (852 per mi\2\) 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 km\2\ (283 mi\2\) 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 km\2\)(71 mi\2\)) 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 km\2\ (530 
mi\2\)) 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).

[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Area covered with
                                                                              dense (canopy
                                                                              cover greater        Proportion
               Climate zones of Sri Lanka                 Area \1\ (km\2\)   than 70 percent)    (percent) with
                                                                              closed-canopy     dense forest \2\
                                                                              forest in 2010
                                                                                 (km\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 km\2\.
\2\ Original 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.
\3\ Figure 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 km\2\ 
(852 per mi\2\)), (2) increases in the population will elevate an 
already high demand for land, and (3) little non-forested 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 km\2\ (27.4 mi\2\) per year, compared to 400 km\2\ 
(154 mi\2\) 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

[[Page 36764]]

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 km\2\ (23 mi\2\) 
per year during 2000-2010 to 86 km\2\ (33 mi\2\) 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 km\2\ (1,402 and 1,622 mi\2\) 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 km\2\ (759 
mi\2\)) 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 km\2\ (6,514 mi\2\)) 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 km\2\ (33 mi\2\) 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 km\2\ (193 mi\2\) or, for P. 
smithi, less than 10 to 15 km\2\ (3.9 to 5.8 mi\2\) 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 broad-spectrum, 
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 
web-making 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

[[Page 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-to-volume 
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 [deg]C (0.117[emsp14][deg]F) per decade in Ratnapura 
(an increase of 0.65 [deg]C (1.17[emsp14][deg]F) during the 97-year 
period analyzed) in the lowland wet zone, to 0.195 [deg]C 
(0.351[emsp14][deg]F) per decade in Anuradhapura (an increase of 1.50 
[deg]C (2.70[emsp14][deg]F) during the 77-year period analyzed) in the 
dry zone. In the montane region, temperatures increased at a rate of 
0.141 [deg]C (0.254[emsp14][deg]F) per decade at Nuwara Eliya to 0.191 
[deg]C (0.344[emsp14][deg]F) per decade at Badulla (increases of 1.09 
and 1.47 [deg]C (1.96 and 2.65[emsp14][deg]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 [deg]C (0.005[emsp14][deg]F) per year 
during 1896-1996, 0.016 [deg]C (0.029[emsp14][deg]F) per year during 
1961-1990, and 0.025 [deg]C (0.045[emsp14][deg]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 [deg]C (5.27 to 9.49[emsp14][deg]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 [deg]C (3.6 to 
7.2[emsp14][deg]F) by 2100, while statistical downscaling of global 
climate models report increases of 0.9 to 3 [deg]C (1.62 to 
5.4[emsp14][deg]F) by 2100 and 1.2 to 1.3 [deg]C (2.16 to 
2.34[emsp14][deg]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

[[Page 36766]]

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 captive-bred 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 re-exported 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 re-exported 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

[[Page 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[acute] 
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,

[[Page 36768]]

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 km\2\ (193 mi\2\), and less 
than 10-15 km\2\ (4-6 mi\2\) 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

[[Page 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-bred-wildlife (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 re-import; 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

[[Page 36770]]

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 captive-held 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 captive-bred 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 cross-breed them.

[[Page 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 captive-held 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

[[Page 36772]]

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 self-sustaining; 
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 wild-caught 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 captive-breeding 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

0
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.


0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), add the following entries to the List of 
Endangered and

[[Page 36773]]

Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under Arachnids:
0
a. Spider, ivory ornamental tiger;
0
b. Spider, ornate tiger;
0
c. Spider, Pedersen's tiger;
0
d. Spider, Smith's tiger; and
0
e. Spider, Sri Lanka ornamental tiger.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  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