Overview
Title
Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing Salamanders Due to Risk of Salamander Chytrid Fungus
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. is making a rule to keep certain types of salamanders from coming to the country because they can carry a bad fungus that makes local salamanders sick. This rule helps make sure our salamanders stay healthy, and scientists can still study them with a special permission.
Summary AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has finalized rules regarding salamanders to protect U.S. ecosystems from the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal). These rules affirm the 2016 interim rule that listed 20 genera of salamanders as injurious and add 16 more genera to the list. The regulation prohibits the import and transport of these genera among certain U.S. jurisdictions, with exceptions for purposes like scientific research. This action aims to prevent the introduction and spread of Bsal, which can have devastating effects on native salamander populations.
Abstract
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is affirming as final the 2016 interim rule that added all species of salamanders from 20 genera to the list of injurious amphibians. Under the injurious wildlife prohibitions of the Lacey Act, this final rule prohibits the importation into the United States and shipment between the continental United States, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States of any live or dead specimen, including hybrids and parts, of those 20 genera of salamanders, except by permit for certain purposes or by Federal agencies solely for their own use. In addition to finalizing the listing of those 20 genera, we are publishing a new interim rule to add to the injurious amphibian list 16 genera that recent studies determined are also carriers of the fungus and to clarify some provisions from the final rule. This interim rule includes any live or dead specimen, hybrid, or parts of the 16 genera and opens a public comment period. We take these actions to protect U.S. ecosystems from the introduction, establishment, and spread of the lethal chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans, which infects and is carried by salamanders, and which is not yet known to be found in the United States.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a final rule concerning the protection of U.S. ecosystems from the salamander chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal). The rule affirms an interim rule from 2016, which had initially added 20 genera of salamanders to the list of injurious species, and now expands this listing by incorporating 16 additional genera. The main goal of these measures is to prevent the fungus’s devastating impact on native salamander populations by prohibiting the import and transportation of these genera across specified regions of the U.S., except for certain situations like scientific research.
General Document Overview
The document is quite extensive and highly technical, detailing the scientific background of the fungus and the potential threats it poses to native wildlife. It emphasizes the importance of preemptive measures to protect U.S. ecosystems. However, much of this text contains specialized language that could be challenging for the general reader to digest without scientific or regulatory expertise.
Issues and Concerns
A significant concern with the document is its complexity and language density, which may hinder public understanding of its content and importance. The document could enhance communication clarity by simplifying sections or using more straightforward language.
Another issue is the lack of transparency concerning long-term monitoring and enforcement costs, which could impose financial obligations. More detailed projections and funding plans would be beneficial for stakeholders and policymakers.
The document also does not provide clear strategies for enforcing the prohibition of transport between jurisdictions, raising potential challenges in implementation. Furthermore, while it acknowledges gaps in scientific research, it fails to propose a specific action plan or timeline to address them.
Moreover, the document's mention of developing a health certification system for Bsal-free salamanders is vague, lacking a clear plan or commitment to explore its feasibility. Additionally, it briefly touches on stimulating Bsal resistance or immunity for potential reintroduction, yet does not detail how such a program would be implemented or funded.
Impacts on the Public and Stakeholders
Public Impact: This rule aims to protect the natural environment and the biodiversity that could be negatively impacted by Bsal. However, its complexity could result in the general public's limited understanding of the regulations or the reasons behind them, potentially affecting community engagement or compliance.
Specific Stakeholder Impact: Scientists and conservationists might view the rule positively, as it acknowledges the need to protect native species and ecosystems. However, some stakeholders, particularly those in the pet and trade industries, could experience adverse economic impacts due to import restrictions. These industries might argue that the financial impact analysis is overly reliant on estimates without detailed methodologies, creating uncertainty about actual compliance costs.
Voluntary Measures and Coordination: The rule references voluntary measures, like those proposed by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), as part of its enforcement approach. However, it lacks a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of these measures. Furthermore, there are insufficient details on how federal, state, and local authorities will coordinate to ensure enforcement and compliance, a critical aspect for the rule's success.
Conclusion
While this rule represents a necessary step to protecting U.S. ecosystems from invasive diseases, the lack of clear strategies for enforcement and its complex legal and scientific language highlights significant areas for improvement. By adopting a more transparent, coordinated approach and clearer communication, the implementation of this rule could be more effective and better understood by the public and affected stakeholders.
Financial Assessment
The document contains numerous financial references and estimates related to the proposed rule on salamander importation and transportation due to the risk of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal). Financial considerations are crucial in understanding the rule's implications, both in terms of costs for industries and potential economic impacts of a Bsal outbreak.
The economic analysis provides a comparison between three alternatives: maintaining the status quo, listing specific genera confirmed to carry Bsal, and listing all salamanders. The costs associated with these alternatives are highlighted with financial estimations such as $3.8 million in damage under certain scenarios and potential industry losses of $10 million to $10.7 million, showcasing how different strategies could impact the economy.
Salamander retail price data received in 2015, adjusted for inflation in 2021 dollars, reveals that each salamander may sell for between $10 and $50, but the wholesale cost per individual might only be $5. Additionally, qPCR testing costs per salamander range from $25 to $65, indicating substantial costs for health certifications if such a system were developed.
While some estimates, like the domestic market's effect at $23,000 per year, are provided, there are substantial uncertainties and assumptions in these projections. These financial figures are central to addressing the issue of transparency and clarity regarding long-term costs and enforcement, highlighting the need for robust and detailed methodologies.
The analysis notes the reliance on voluntary measures, such as those by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), although there are concerns about unbiased evaluations of voluntary ban effectiveness without a comprehensive assessment. It implies a need for financial allocations toward more rigorous enforcement and evaluation measures.
Importantly, the document specifies financial penalties for violating the rule: not more than $5,000 for individuals and not more than $10,000 for organizations, raising questions about whether these amounts are adequate deterrents considering the potential ecological and economic harm from a Bsal outbreak.
Overall, the financial discussions articulate the economic challenges and potential solutions related to preventing the introduction and spread of Bsal in the U.S., while also highlighting key areas where more financial detail and planning are necessary to mitigate the associated risks effectively.
Issues
• The document contains dense and complex language, which might be difficult for the general public to understand. Simplifying sections or using plain language could enhance clarity.
• There is a potential lack of transparency or clarity regarding the long-term costs associated with the monitoring and enforcement of the interim rule. More detailed cost projections and a plan for funding would be helpful.
• The document does not clearly outline specific measures or strategies for enforcing the prohibition of transporting salamanders between the enumerated jurisdictions, which could lead to implementation challenges.
• Although the document acknowledges research gaps and calls for further studies, it might benefit from proposing a clear action plan or timeline for addressing these gaps.
• Language around the potential development of a health certification system for salamanders is vague, with no specific plan or commitment to further explore its feasibility.
• The rule mentions the possibility of reintroducing salamander species to ecosystems once Bsal resistance or immunity is stimulated but does not provide details on how such a program would be implemented or funded.
• The financial impact analysis appears to rely significantly on estimates and assumptions, especially regarding industry losses and compliance costs, without detailed methodologies or justifications.
• There might be potential biases or favoritism observed in how effective voluntary measures are considered, such as the role of PIJAC in voluntary bans, without robust evaluation of those measures' effectiveness.
• The document may not adequately address potential indirect consequences on other industries or ecosystems, such as those involving other amphibians potentially affected by Bsal.
• The document lacks specifics on how it plans to coordinate enforcement and compliance activities between federal, state, and local authorities, which is crucial for effective implementation.