[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3330-3366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1155]
[[Page 3329]]
Vol. 77
Monday,
No. 14
January 23, 2012
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 16
Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing Three Python Species and One
Anaconda Species as Injurious Reptiles; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 3330]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 16
RIN 1018-AV68
[FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015; FXFR13360900000N5-123-FF09F14000]
Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing Three Python Species and One
Anaconda Species as Injurious Reptiles
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is amending its
regulations under the Lacey Act to add Python molurus (which includes
Burmese python Python molurus bivittatus and Indian python Python
molurus molurus), Northern African python (Python sebae), Southern
African python (Python natalensis), and yellow anaconda (Eunectes
notaeus) to the list of injurious reptiles. By this action, the
importation into the United States and interstate transportation
between States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States of any live
animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of these four constrictor snakes
is prohibited, except by permit for zoological, education, medical, or
scientific purposes (in accordance with permit regulation) or by
Federal agencies without a permit solely for their own use. The best
available information indicates that this action is necessary to
protect the interests of human beings, agriculture, wildlife, and
wildlife resources from the purposeful or accidental introduction and
subsequent establishment of these large nonnative constrictor snake
populations into ecosystems of the United States.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 23, 2012.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and the associated final economic analysis,
regulatory flexibility analysis, and environmental assessment are
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015. Comments and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule, are
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015; they are also available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the South
Florida Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559; telephone (772) 562-3909
ext. 256; facsimile (772) 562-4288.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Supervisor, South Florida Ecological
Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1339 20th Street, Vero
Beach, FL 32960-3559; telephone (772) 562-3909 ext. 256. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal Action
On June 23, 2006, the Service received a petition from the South
Florida Water Management District (District) requesting that Burmese
pythons be considered for inclusion in the injurious wildlife
regulations under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42, as amended; the Act).
The District was concerned about the number of Burmese pythons (Python
molurus bivittatus) found in Florida, particularly in Everglades
National Park and on the District's widespread property in South
Florida.
The Service published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register
(73 FR 5784; January 31, 2008) soliciting available biological,
economic, and other information and data on the Python, Boa, and
Eunectes genera for possible addition to the list of injurious wildlife
under the Act and provided a 90-day public comment period. The Service
received 1,528 comments during the public comment period that closed
April 30, 2008. We reviewed all comments received for substantive
issues and information regarding the injurious nature of species in the
Python, Boa, and Eunectes genera. Of the 1,528 comments, 115 provided
economic, ecological, and other data responsive to the 10 specific
questions in the notice of inquiry. Most individuals submitting
comments responded to the notice of inquiry as though it was a proposed
rule to list constrictor snakes in the Python, Boa, and Eunectes genera
as injurious under the Act. As a result, most comments expressed either
opposition or support for listing the large constrictor snakes species
and did not provide substantive information. We considered the
information provided in the 115 applicable comments in the preparation
of the draft environmental assessment, draft economic analysis, and the
proposed rule.
On March 12, 2010, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (75 FR 11808) to list Python molurus (which includes Burmese
and Indian pythons), reticulated python (Broghammerus reticulatus or
Python reticulatus), Northern African python (Python sebae), Southern
African python (Python natalensis), boa constrictor (Boa constrictor),
yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), DeSchauensee's anaconda (Eunectes
deschauenseei), green anaconda (Eunectes murinus), and Beni anaconda
(Eunectes beniensis) as injurious reptiles under the Act. The proposed
rule established a 60-day comment period ending on May 11, 2010, and
announced the availability of the draft economic analysis and the draft
environmental assessment of the proposed rule. At the request of the
public, we reopened the comment period for an additional 30 days ending
on August 2, 2010 (75 FR 38069; July 1, 2010).
For the injurious wildlife evaluation in this final rule, in
addition to information used for the proposed rule, we considered a
wide range of information, including: (1) Substantive comments from two
public comment periods for the proposed rule, (2) comments from five
peer reviewers, and (3) new information acquired by the Service. From
this information, we determined that four of the nine proposed species
warrant listing as injurious at this time. In addition, we made
improvements to the supplementary information to support and explain
this decision.
We present a summary of the peer review comments and the public
comments following the Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria section for four
of the nine proposed species. The explanations in the sections on
biology and evaluation of the four species will make many of the
answers to the comments self-evident.
A major source of biological, management, and invasion risk
information that we used for the proposed rule and this final rule was
derived from the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) ``Giant
Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and an Establishment
Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, and the
Boa Constrictor'' hereafter referred to as ``Reed and Rodda 2009.''
This document was prepared at the request of the Service and the
National Park Service; it can be viewed at the following Internet
sites: http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015
and http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/
[[Page 3331]]
Publications/pub--abstract.asp?PubID=22691.
After full consideration of public comments and relevant factors,
the Service is moving forward with publication of a final rule for the
four species (Burmese python [including Indian python], Northern
African python, Southern African python, and yellow anaconda. Five
additional species (reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green
anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa constrictor) are not being listed at
this time and remain under consideration.
Background
Purpose of Listing as Injurious
The purpose of listing the Burmese python and its conspecifics
(that is, belonging to the same species; hereafter referred to
collectively as Burmese pythons unless otherwise noted), Northern
African python (Python sebae), Southern African python (Python
natalensis), and yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) (hereafter,
collectively the four large constrictor snakes) as injurious wildlife
is to prevent the accidental or intentional introduction of and the
possible subsequent establishment of populations of these snakes in the
wild in the United States.
Why the Four Species Were Selected for Consideration as Injurious
Species
The Service has had the authority to list species as injurious
under the Act since the 1940s. However, we have been criticized for not
listing species before they became a problem (Fowler et al. 2007). The
Burmese python-the subject of the original petition here-is one example
of a species that may not have become so invasive in Florida if it had
been listed before it had become established. With this final rule, we
are attempting to prevent the further spread of the Burmese python and
the specified other large constrictor snakes into other vulnerable
areas of the United States.
Furthermore, we have the authority under the Act to list wild
mammals, wild birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, mollusks, and
crustaceans that are injurious even if they are not currently in trade
or known to exist in the United States. Thus, we can be proactive and
not wait until a species is already established. As noted in the
National Invasive Species Management Plan (National Invasive Species
Council 2008), ``prevention is the first line of defense'' and ``can be
the most cost-effective approach because once a species becomes
widespread, controlling it may require significant and sustained
expenditures.'' This is why we are listing one species that is not yet
found in the United States but which has the requisite injurious
traits.
Two of the four largest snakes in the world (with maximum lengths
well exceeding 6 m [20 ft]) are the Burmese python and Northern African
python; both are present in international trade (although imports of
the Burmese python are higher than those of the Northern African
python). The Burmese python and the Northern African python are
established in south Florida. The Northern and Southern African pythons
are closely related and have similar appearances. While the Northern
African python is documented on import records as being imported and
the Southern African python is not, we believe that some snakes
reported as Northern African pythons may have actually been Southern,
and that importers may want to switch to the next most similar species
(Southern) if the Northern African python became listed as injurious.
Thus, we evaluated the Southern African python on its own traits.
None of the four species is native to the United States. The
Service is striving to prevent the introduction and establishment of
all four species into new areas of the United States, due to concerns
about the injurious effects of all four species, consistent with 18
U.S.C. 42.
All four species were evaluated and found to be injurious because
there is a suitable climate match in parts of the United States to
support them; they are likely to escape captivity; they are likely to
prey on and compete with native species (including threatened and
endangered species); it would be difficult to prevent, eradicate, or
reduce large populations; and other factors that are explained in the
sections Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Burmese Python
and for the other three species. All four species were placed in the
highest category of overall risk in Reed and Rodda's report (2009)
evaluating the risks of the nine proposed species.
Need for the Final Rule
Under the Lacey Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to
prescribe by regulation those wild mammals, wild birds, fish, mollusks,
crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring or eggs of any of
the foregoing that are injurious to human beings, to the interests of
agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or to the wildlife or wildlife
resources of the United States, including the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession. We have
determined that these four species of large constrictor snakes are
injurious.
Thousands of Burmese pythons are now established in the Everglades
and preying on many imperiled species and other wildlife. In addition,
Northern African pythons are known to be established and breeding in
South Florida. Yellow anacondas have also been reported in the wild in
Florida. Burmese pythons, African pythons, and yellow anacondas have
been reported in the wild in Puerto Rico. The Southern African python
exhibits many of the same biological characteristics as the Northern
African python that poses a risk of establishment and negative effects
in the United States. The threat posed by the Burmese python and the
three other large constrictor snakes will be explained in detail below
under Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Burmese Python and
each of the other species.
The USGS risk assessment used a method called ``climate matching''
to estimate those areas of the United States exhibiting climates
similar to those experienced by the species in their respective native
ranges (Reed and Rodda 2009). Considerable uncertainties exist about
the native range limits of many of the giant constrictors, and a myriad
of factors other than climate can influence whether a species could
establish a population in a particular location. Nonetheless, this
method represents the most accurate means to predict and anticipate
where a nonnative species would be able to survive and establish
populations within the United States.
Some interested parties, including other scientists such as Pyron
et al. (2008), criticized Reed and Rodda's (2009) climate-matching
method. In response, the authors published a clarification of how they
used the model (Rodda et al. 2011). This paper more clearly explained
Reed and Rodda's (2009) method and compared that method to Pyron et
al.'s (2008) method for analyzing potential invasiveness for the
Burmese python. We mention a few of Rodda et al.'s (2011) findings
here:
Pyron et al. (2008) incorrectly rejected many sites that
are suitable for Burmese python invasion because their use of an
excessive number of parameters actually ended up acting as filters.
Using too many filters means that too many sites that are truly at risk
of python introduction get filtered out.
Additionally, in the new paper the authors eliminated four
data points of blood pythons (a different species than Burmese pythons)
that Pyron et al. (2008) used erroneously. This
[[Page 3332]]
significantly changed the area that Burmese pythons could invade, even
using the MaxEnt computer program as Pyron et al. (2008) used it.
Information theory suggests 10 parameters as the
appropriate number to use in a study like this; the Pyron et al. (2008)
model, however, used 60. With this number the parameters essentially
become constraints, and skew the accuracy of the data so that the
resulting model is not scientifically sound.
The new USGS paper highlights the statistical dangers
inherent in indiscriminately searching for correlations among a large
number of possible parameters.
Factors other than climate may limit a species' native
distribution, including the existence of predators, diseases, and other
local factors (such as major terrain barriers), which may not be
present when a species is released in a new country. Therefore, the
areas at risk of invasion often span a climate range greater than that
extracted mechanically from the native range boundaries, as was done by
Pyron et al. (2008).
The new paper does not change the previous USGS risk assessment, or
the Service's interpretation of the USGS risk assessment, that Burmese
pythons could find suitable climatic conditions in roughly a third of
the United States.
While we acknowledge that uncertainty exists, these tools also
serve as a useful predictor to identify vulnerable ecosystems at risk
from injurious wildlife prior to the species actually becoming
established (Lodge et al. 2006). Based on climate alone, many species
of large constrictors are likely to be limited to the warmest areas of
the United States, including parts of Florida, extreme south Texas,
Hawaii, and insular territories. For a few species, larger areas of the
southern United States appear to have suitable climatic conditions
according to Reed and Rodda's (2009) climate-matching method.
The record cold temperatures in South Florida during January of
2010 produced the coldest 12-day period since at least 1940, according
to the National Weather Service in Miami (NOAA 2010). A record low was
set for 12 consecutive days with the temperature at or below 45 [deg]F
(7.2 [deg]C) in West Palm Beach and Naples. Other minimum temperatures
were broken in Moorehaven, tied in Fort Lauderdale, and the coldest in
Miami since 1940. Despite the record cold, we know that many pythons
survived in Florida. Large constrictors of several species continue to
be present and to breed in south Florida. If thermoregulatory behavior
or tolerance to cold is genetically based, we would expect large
constrictor snake populations to persist, rebound, and possibly
increase their genetic fitness and temperature tolerance as a result of
natural selection pressures resulting from cold weather conditions such
as those that occurred in south Florida in January 2010 (Dorcas et al.
2011).
Two studies by scientists from several research institutions,
including the University of Florida, studied the effects of the 2010
winter cold weather on Burmese pythons. In Mazzotti et al. 2010, the
authors noted that all populations of large-bodied pythons and boa
constrictors inhabiting areas with cool winters, including northern
populations of Burmese pythons in their native range, appeared to rely
on use of refugia (safe locations) to escape winter temperatures.
Pythons can seek such refugia as underground burrows, deep water in
canals, or similar microhabitats to escape the cold temperatures. Those
snakes that survived in Florida were apparently able to maintain body
temperatures using microhabitat features of the landscape (Mazzotti et
al. 2010).
Dorcas et al. (2011) studied the cold tolerance of Burmese pythons
taken directly from the Everglades and placed in enclosures in South
Carolina. While all of the snakes in this study died, the Service finds
the risk to more temperate regions still of concern and a listing of
this species as an injurious species is still warranted. The authors
state that their results suggest that Burmese pythons from the
population currently established in Florida are capable of withstanding
conditions substantially cooler that those typically experienced in
southern Florida, but may not be able to survive severe winters in
regions as temperate as central South Carolina. They noted that some
snakes currently inhabiting Florida could survive typical winters in
areas of the southeastern United States more temperate than the region
currently inhabited by pythons. The authors also noted that, if
thermoregulatory behavior is heritable, selection for appropriate
thermoregulatory behavior will be strong as pythons expand their range
northward through the Florida peninsula. Consequently, future
generations of pythons may be better equipped to invade temperate
regions than those currently inhabiting southern Florida, particularly
given the climate flexibility exhibited by the Burmese python in its
native range (as analyzed through USGS' climate-matching predictions in
the United States).
The Service and Everglades National Park asked USGS to assess the
risk of invasion of nine species of snakes to assist in the Service's
determination of injuriousness. Of the nine large constrictor snakes
assessed by Reed and Rodda (2009) (Burmese python (which the authors
refer to as Indian python), reticulated python, Northern African
python, Southern African python, boa constrictor, yellow anaconda,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda), five were
shown to pose a high risk to the health of the ecosystem, including the
Burmese python, Northern African python, Southern African python,
yellow anaconda, and boa constrictor. The remaining four large
constrictors--the reticulated python, green anaconda, Beni anaconda,
and DeSchauensee's anaconda--were shown to pose a medium risk. None of
the large constrictors that the USGS assessed was classified as low
overall risk. A rating of low overall risk is considered as acceptable
risk and the organism(s) of little concern (ANSTF 1996). See Lacey Act
Evaluation Criteria below for an explanation how USGS assessed risk.
There is a high probability that the four large constrictors
evaluated in this final rule, if released or escaped into the wild,
will establish populations within their respective thermal and
precipitation limits due to common life-history traits that make them
successful invaders. These traits include being habitat generalists
(able to utilize a wide variety of habitats) that are tolerant of
urbanization and capacity to hunt and eat a wide range of size-
appropriate vertebrates (reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians, and
fish; Reed and Rodda 2009). These large constrictors are highly
adaptable to new environments and opportunistic in expanding their
geographic range. Furthermore, since they are a novel (new to the
system) predator at the top of the food chain, they can threaten the
stability of native ecosystems by altering the ecosystem's form,
function, and structure.
These four species are cryptically marked, which makes them
difficult to detect in the field, complicating efforts to identify the
range of populations or deplete populations through visual searching
and removal of individuals. There are currently no tools available that
would appear adequate for eradication of an established population of
giant snakes once they have spread over a large area. Therefore,
preventing the introduction into the United States and dispersal to new
areas of these invasive species is of critical importance to the health
and welfare of native wildlife.
[[Page 3333]]
For the purposes of this rule, a hybrid is any progeny from any
cross involving parents of one or more species from the four
constrictor snakes evaluated in this rule. Such progeny are likely to
possess the same biological characteristics of the parent species that,
through our analysis, leads us to find that they are injurious to
humans and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
Anderson and Stebbins (1954) stated that hybrids may have caused the
rapid evolution of plants and animals under domestication, and that, in
the presence of new or greatly disturbed habitats, some hybrid
derivates would have been at a selective advantage. Facon et al. (2005)
stated that invasions may bring into contact related taxa that have
been isolated for a long time. Facon et al. (2005) also stated that
hybridization between two invasive taxa has been documented, and that
in all these cases, hybrids outcompeted their parental taxa. Ellstrand
and Schierenbeck (2000) concluded that dispersal of organisms and
habitat disturbance by humans both act to accelerate the process of
hybridization and increase the opportunities for hybrid lineages to
take hold.
Furthermore, snakes in general have been found to harbor ticks
(such as the nonnative African tortoise tick) that cause heartwater
disease (from the bacterium Cowdria ruminantium). Heartwater disease,
although harmless to its reptilian hosts, can be fatal to livestock and
related wild hoofed mammals, such as white-tailed deer. According to
the USDA (March 2000), ``Heartwater disease is an acute, infectious
disease of ruminants, including cattle, sheep, goats, white-tailed
deer, and antelope. This disease has a 60 percent or greater mortality
rate in livestock and a 90 percent or greater mortality rate in white-
tailed deer.'' The ticks have been found in Florida. Agricultural
agencies are trying to stop the spread of the ticks as a way of
stopping the deadly disease. This rule will help to stop the spread
into and around the United States of the ticks and other disease
vectors that may be carried by these four species of nonnative
constrictor snakes.
Listing Process
The regulations contained in 50 CFR part 16 implement the Act.
Under the terms of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized
to prescribe by regulation those wild mammals, wild birds, fish,
mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring or eggs
of any of the foregoing that are injurious to human beings, to the
interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or to the wildlife
or wildlife resources of the United States. The lists of injurious
wildlife species are found at 50 CFR 16.11-16.15.
In this final rule, we evaluated each of the four species of
constrictor snake species individually and determined each species to
be injurious. As of the effective date of the listing, therefore, their
importation into, or transportation between, the States, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or
possession of the United States by any means whatsoever is prohibited,
except by permit for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific
purposes (in accordance with permit regulations at 50 CFR 16.22), or by
Federal agencies without a permit solely for their own use, upon filing
a written declaration with the District Director of Customs and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Inspector at the port of entry. This
rule does not prohibit intrastate (within State boundaries) transport
of the listed constrictor snake species. Any regulations pertaining to
the transport or use of these species within a particular State will
continue to be the responsibility of that State.
We used the Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria as a guide to evaluate
whether a species does or does not qualify as injurious under the Act.
The analysis developed using the criteria serves as a basis for the
Service's regulatory decision regarding injurious wildlife species
listings. A species does not have to be established, currently
imported, or present in the wild in the United States for the Service
to list it as injurious. The objective of such a listing would be to
prevent that species' importation and likely establishment in the wild,
thereby preventing injurious effects consistent with 18 U.S.C. 42.
Introduction Pathways for Large Constrictor Snakes
For the four constrictor snakes analyzed in this final rule, the
primary pathway for the entry into the United States is the commercial
pet trade. In the last few decades, most introductions of large
constrictor snakes have been associated with the international trade in
reptiles as pets. This trade includes wild-caught snakes, captive-bred,
or captive-hatched juveniles from areas within their native countries.
In their native ranges, a species may be captured in the wild and
directly exported to the United States or other destination country, or
wild-caught snakes may be kept in the country of origin to breed for
export of subsequent generations. The main ports of entry for
constrictor snakes are Miami, Los Angeles, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Baltimore,
Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, and Houston. From there, many of the
live snakes are transported to animal dealers, who then transport the
snakes to pet retailers. Large constrictor snakes are also bred in the
United States and sold within the country.
A typical pathway of a large constrictor snake includes a pet
store. Often, a person will purchase a hatchling snake (0.55 meters (m)
[(22 inches (in)]) at a pet store or reptile show for as little as $25.
The hatchling grows rapidly, even when fed conservatively, so a strong
escape-proof enclosure is necessary. All snakes are adept at escaping,
and constrictors are especially powerful when it comes to breaking out
of cages. In captivity, they are most frequently fed pre-killed mice,
rats, rabbits, and chickens. A tub of fresh water is needed for the
snake to drink and soak in. As the snake grows too big for a tub in its
enclosure, the snake will need to soak in increasingly larger
containers, such as a bathtub. Under captive conditions, pythons will
grow very fast. After 1 year, a python may be 2 m (7 ft) and after 5
years it could be 7.6 m (25 ft), depending on how often it is fed and
other aspects of husbandry. A Burmese python, for example, will grow to
more than 6 m (20 ft) long, weigh 90 kilograms (kg; 200 pounds (lbs)),
live more than 25 years, and must be fed rabbits and the like.
Owning a giant snake is a difficult, long-term, and somewhat
expensive responsibility. This is one reason that some snakes are
released by their owners into the wild when they can no longer care for
them. Other snakes may escape from inadequate enclosures. This is a
common pathway for large constrictor snakes to enter the ecosystem
(Fujisaki et al. 2009). The trade in constrictor snakes is
international as well as domestic. From 1999 to 2010, more than 1.9
million live constrictor snakes of 12 species were imported into the
United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). Besides the
species proposed for listing, these included ball python (Python
regius), a blood python (P. curtus), another blood python (P.
brongersmai), Borneo python (P. breitensteini), Timor python (P.
timoriensis), and Angolan python (P. anchietae), none of which have
been proposed for listing as injurious. From 1999 to 2010,
approximately 96,000 large constrictor snakes of four species listed by
this rule were imported into the United States (Service's final
economic analysis 2012). Of all the constrictor snake species imported
into the United States, the selection of nine constrictor snakes for
evaluation as
[[Page 3334]]
injurious wildlife in the proposed rule was based on concern over the
giant size of these particular snakes combined with their quantity in
international trade or their potential for trade. The world's four
largest species of snakes (Burmese python, Northern African python,
reticulated python, and green anaconda) were selected, as well as
similar and closely related species and the boa constrictor. These
large constrictor snakes constitute a high risk of injuriousness in
relation to those taxa with lower trade volumes; are massive, with
maximum lengths exceeding 6 m (20 ft; except for boas up to 4 m (13
ft)); and have a high likelihood of establishment in various habitats
of the United States. The Southern African python and yellow anaconda
exhibit many of the same biological characteristics associated with a
risk of establishment and negative effects in the United States.
The strongest factor influencing the chances of these large
constrictors establishing in the wild are the number of release events
and the numbers of individuals released (Bomford et al. 2009; 2005). A
release event is when a nonnative species is either intentionally or
unintentionally let loose in the wild. With a sufficient number of
either intentional or unintentional release events, these species will
likely become established in ecosystems with suitable conditions for
survival and reproduction. For nonnative species to cause economic or
ecological harm, they must first be transported out of their native
range and released within a novel locality, establish a self-sustaining
population in this new location, and expand their geographical range
beyond the point of initial establishment. Releases of large numbers of
individuals should enable the incipient (newly forming), nonnative
population to withstand the inevitable decreases in survival or
reproduction caused by the environment or demographic accidents. The
release of many individuals into one location essentially functions as
a source pool of immigrants, thus sustaining an incipient population
even if the initial release was of insufficient size (or badly timed)
to facilitate long-term establishment. Natural disasters, such as
Hurricane Andrew in 1992, may have provided a mechanism for the
accidental release of snakes, especially in light of large numbers of
juvenile pythons frequently held by breeders and importers prior to
sale and distribution (Willson et al. 2010).
Large or consistent releases of individuals into one location
should enable the incipient population to overcome behavioral
limitations or other problems associated with small population sizes.
This is likely the case at Everglades National Park, where the core
nonnative Burmese python population in Florida is now located.
Therefore, allowing unregulated importation and interstate transport of
these nonnative species will increase the risk of these new species
becoming established through increased opportunities for release. The
release of large constrictor snakes at different times and locations
improves the chance of their successful establishment.
Released snakes may be single snakes that eventually find other
snakes of the same or opposite sex. As a first step in understanding
the ecology of these snakes and their potential impact on the
Everglades ecosystem, the National Park Service began tracking pythons
using radio-telemetry in the fall of 2005. The radio-tagged pythons
have since demonstrated that female pythons make few long-distance
movements throughout the year, while males roam widely in search of
females during the breeding season (December-April). These results
indicate an ability to move long distances in search of prey and mates.
Pythons have a ``homing'' ability: after being released far from where
they were captured, they returned long distances (up to 78 kilometers
(km); 48 miles (mi)) in only a few months. These findings suggest that
pythons searching for a suitable home range have the potential to
colonize areas far from where they were released (Snow 2008; Harvey et
al. 2008).
A second factor that is strongly and consistently associated with
the success of an invasive species' establishment is a history of the
species successfully establishing elsewhere outside its native range.
Burmese pythons have already become established in the United States
(see Current Nonnative Occurrences for Burmese python below).
Therefore, we know that Burmese pythons can become established outside
of their native range. The Northern African python is established west
of Miami, Florida, in the vicinity known as the Bird Drive Basin
Recharge Area (see Current Nonnative Occurrences for Northern African
python below). Therefore, we know that Northern African pythons can
also establish outside of their native range.
A third factor strongly associated with establishment success is
having a good climate or habitat match between where the species
naturally occurs and where it is introduced. Exotic (nonnative)
reptiles and amphibians have a greater chance of establishing if they
are introduced to an area with a climate that closely matches that of
their original range. Species that have a large range over several
climatic zones are predicted to be strong future invaders. The
suitability of a country's climate for the establishment of a species
can be quantified on a broad scale by measuring the climate match
between that country and the geographic range of a species. Climate
matching only sets the broad parameters for determining if an area is
suitable for a nonnative large constrictor snake to establish. These
three factors have all been consistently demonstrated to increase the
chances of establishment by all invasive vertebrate taxa, including the
four large constrictor snakes in this final rule (Bomford 2008, 2009).
However, as stated above, a species does not have to be
established, currently imported, or present in the wild in the United
States for the Service to determine that it is injurious. The objective
of such a listing is to prevent that species' importation and likely
establishment in the wild, thereby preventing injurious effects
consistent with 18 U.S.C. 42.
Species Information
Burmese Python (Python molurus, Including Indian Python)
Native Range
Before laying out the native range of the Burmese python, we need
to clarify our position on the taxonomy and nomenclature of this
species. The taxonomy has been debated for almost 100 years, some
scientists arguing for full species status for the Burmese python and
some placing it as a subspecies of the Indian python. Reed and Rodda
(2009) stated that, at times, Python molurus has been divided into
subspecies recognizable primarily by color. Please see our response to
Peer Review comment 3 (PR3) below for a detailed explanation of the
taxonomic debate and our rationale for using Python molurus to include
Burmese and Indian pythons. For the reasons stated in that response, we
have no basis to assume that the ecological behavior of Burmese python
P. m. bivittatus is independent of that of Indian python P. m. molurus.
Furthermore, even a finding of ecological independence of P. m.
bivittatus would not appreciably alter either the likelihood of its
establishment in the United States or the cold tolerance of the whole
species Python molurus, which was the taxon analyzed in the risk
assessment (Reed and Rodda 2009; G. Rodda, pers. comm. 2009).
Therefore, for the purposes of this rulemaking, the Service has
determined that the Burmese python
[[Page 3335]]
should be able to survive in relatively similar conditions as the
Indian python.
The nomenclature of Python molurus varies somewhat as well. The
most widely used common name for the entire species P. molurus is
Indian python, with P. molurus bivittatus routinely distinguished as
the Burmese python. Other common names include Indian rock python,
Asian rock python, and rock python. Because the pet trade is composed
almost entirely of P. m. bivittatus, most popular references simply use
Burmese python. In addition, the subspecies Python m. molurus is listed
as endangered in its native lands under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) under the common name of
Indian python. Python m. molurus is also listed by the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) under Appendix I (which ``lists species that are the most
endangered among CITES-listed animals and plants'') but uses no common
name. Except for Python m. molurus, which, as just stated, is listed in
Appendix I, all species and subspecies of Pythonidae are listed in
CITES Appendix II (which ``lists species that are not necessarily now
threatened with extinction but that may become so unless trade is
closely controlled''). This rule lists all members of Python molurus as
injurious under the Lacey Act. However, hereafter in this rule, we
refer to the species as a whole under the common name of Burmese python
(unless specifically noted as Indian), because of its occurrence in
trade.
Python molurus ranges widely over southern and southeastern Asia
(Reed and Rodda 2009). In its native range, the Burmese python occurs
in virtually every habitat from lowland tropical rainforest (Indonesia
and southeastern Asia) to thorn-scrub desert (Pakistan) and grasslands
(Sumbawa, India) to warm, temperate, montane forests (Nepal and China)
(Reed and Rodda 2009). This species inhabits an extraordinary range of
climates, including both temperate and tropical, as well as both very
wet and very dry environments (Reed and Rodda 2009).
Biology
The Burmese python's life history is fairly representative of large
constrictors because juveniles are relatively small when they hatch,
but nevertheless are independent from birth, grow rapidly, and mature
in a few years. Mature males search for mates, and the females wait for
males to find them during the mating season, then lay eggs to repeat
the cycle. Female Burmese pythons do not need to copulate with males to
fertilize their eggs. Instead, a female apparently can fertilize her
own eggs with her own genetic material, though it is not known how
often this occurs in the wild. Several studies of captives reported
viable eggs from females kept for many years in isolation (Reed and
Rodda 2009).
Like all pythons, the Burmese python is oviparous (lays eggs). In a
sample of eight clutches discovered in southern Florida (one nest and
seven gravid females), the average clutch size was 36 eggs, but pythons
have been known to lay as many as 107 eggs in one clutch. Adult females
from recent captures in Everglades National Park have been found to be
carrying more than 85 eggs (Harvey et al. 2008).
The Burmese python is one of the largest snakes in the world,
considering overall mass and length; it reaches lengths of up to 7 m
(23 ft) and weights of over 90 kg (almost 200 lbs). Hatchlings range in
length from 50 to 80 centimeters (cm) (19 to 31 inches (in)) and can
more than double in size within the first year (Harvey et al. 2008). As
with all snakes, pythons grow throughout their lives (Reed and Rodda
2009). Reed and Rodda (2009) cite Bowler (1977) for two records of
captive Burmese pythons living more than 28 years (up to 34 years, 2
months for one snake that was already an adult when acquired).
Like all of the large constrictors, Burmese pythons are extremely
cryptic in coloration. They are silent hunters that lie in wait along
pathways used by their prey and then ambush them; they kill by wrapping
their muscular bodies around their victims, squeezing tighter as the
prey exhales until the victims suffocate. The snakes blend into their
surroundings so well that observers have released marked snakes for
research purposes and lost sight of them 5 feet away (A. Roybal, pers.
comm. 2010).
With only a few reported exceptions, Burmese pythons eat a wide
variety of terrestrial vertebrates (lizards, frogs, crocodilians,
snakes, birds, and mammals). All constrictor snake species (especially
the smaller-sized individuals) are capable of climbing trees to access
roosting birds and bats. Many birds nest or feed on the ground, and
these are easy prey for constrictor snakes. Special attention has been
paid to the large maximum size of prey taken from python stomachs, both
in their native range in Asia and in the United States. The most well-
known large prey items include alligators, antelopes, dogs, deer,
jackals, goats, porcupines, wild boars, pangolins, bobcats, pea fowl,
frigate birds, great blue herons, langurs, and flying foxes; a leopard
has even been reported as prey (Reed and Rodda 2009). To accommodate
the large size of prey, Burmese pythons have the ability to grow
stomach tissue quickly to digest a large meal (Reed and Rodda 2009).
The methods of predation used by the Burmese python (whether sit-and-
wait or actively hunting, or whether diurnal or nocturnal), as well as
the other three species of large constrictor snakes in this final rule,
work as well in their native ranges as in the United States.
Ectoparasites (including ticks of the genus Amblyomma) were
collected from wild-caught, free-ranging exotic reptiles examined in
Florida from 2003 to 2008 (Corn et al. 2011). This was the first report
of collections of neotropical ticks from wild-caught Burmese pythons.
From limited wild-caught, free-ranging exotic reptiles in Florida
(including ball and Burmese pythons), ticks and mites were native to
North America, Latin America, and Africa from reptiles native to Asia,
Africa, and Central and South America. This study suggests the
diversity of reptile ectoparasites introduced and established in
Florida and the new host-parasite relationships that have developed
among exotic and native ectoparasites and established exotic reptiles.
Several studies (Burridge et al. 2000, Kenny et al. 2004, Reeves et al.
2006) have shown disease agents in the ticks that travel
internationally on reptiles, which may serve in the introduction of
disease agents that could impact the health of local wildlife, domestic
animals, and humans (Corn et al. 2011).
Northern African Python (Python sebae)
Native Range
Python sebae and Python natalensis are closely related, large-
bodied pythons of similar appearance found in sub-Saharan Africa (Reed
and Rodda 2009). The most common English name for this species complex
has been African rock python. After P. sebae was split from P.
natalensis, some authors added ``Northern'' or ``Southern'' as a prefix
to this common name. Reed and Rodda (2009) adopted Broadley's (1999)
recommendations and refer to these snakes as the Northern and Southern
African pythons; hereafter, we refer to them as Northern and Southern
African pythons, or occasionally as African pythons or African rock
pythons.
Northern African pythons range from the coasts of Kenya and
Tanzania across much of central Africa to Mali and Mauritania, as well
as north to Ethiopia and perhaps Eritrea; in arid zones, their range is
apparently limited to the
[[Page 3336]]
vicinity of permanent water (Reed and Rodda 2009). In Nigeria, Northern
African pythons are reported from suburban, forest, pond and stream,
and swamp habitats, including extensive use of Nigerian mangrove
habitats. In the arid northern parts of its range, Northern African
pythons appear to be limited to wetlands, including the headwaters of
the Nile, isolated wetlands in the Sahel of Mauritania and Senegal, and
the Shabelle and Jubba Rivers of Somalia (Reed and Rodda 2009). The
Northern African python inhabits regions with some of the highest mean
monthly air temperatures identified for any of the large constrictors,
with means of greater than 35 [deg]C (95[emsp14][deg]F) in arid
northern localities (Reed and Rodda 2009).
Biology
Northern African pythons are primarily ambush foragers, lying in
wait for prey in burrows, along animal trails, and in water. Northern
African pythons are oviparous. Branch (1988) reports that an
``average'' female of 3 to 4 m (10 to 13 ft) total length would be
expected to lay 30 to 40 eggs, while others report an average clutch of
46 eggs, individual clutches from 20 to ``about 100,'' and clutch size
increasing correspondingly in relation to the body length of the female
(Pope 1961). In captivity, Northern African pythons have lived for 27
years (Snider and Bowler 1992). As with most of the large constrictors,
adult African pythons primarily eat endothermic (warm-blooded) prey
(mammals and birds) from a wide variety of taxa. African pythons have
consumed such animals as goats, dogs, and domestic turkeys.
Southern African Python (Python natalensis)
Native Range
The Southern African python is found from Kenya southwest to Angola
and south through parts of Namibia and much of eastern South Africa.
Distribution of the species overlaps somewhat with Northern African
pythons, although the southern species tends to inhabit higher
elevations in regions where both species occur (Reed and Rodda 2009).
Biology
Python sebae and Python natalensis are closely related, large-
bodied pythons of similar appearance. In fact, taxonomists have lumped
and split the species together several times since Python natalensis
was described (Reed and Rodda 2009); see ``Native Range'' section above
under ``Northern African Python (Python sebae)'' for further
explanation of the nomenclature.
Little is known about Southern African pythons, although we know
that they are oviparous. As with most of the large constrictors, adult
African pythons primarily eat endothermic prey from a wide variety of
taxa. The Southern African pythons consume a variety of prey types that
includes those listed for Northern African pythons.
Yellow Anaconda (Eunectes notaeus)
Native Range
The yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) has a larger distribution in
subtropical and temperate areas of South America than the
DeSchauensee's anaconda and has received more scientific attention. The
yellow anaconda appears to be restricted to swampy, seasonally flooded,
or riverine habitats throughout its range. The primarily nocturnal
anaconda species tends to spend most of its life in or around water.
The yellow anaconda exhibits a fairly temperate climate range,
including localities with cold-season monthly mean temperatures around
10 [deg]C (50[emsp14][deg]F) and no localities with monthly means
exceeding 30 [deg]C (86[emsp14][deg]F) in the warm season (Reed and
Rodda 2009).
Biology
The yellow anaconda bears live young (ovoviviparous). The recorded
number of yellow anaconda offspring usually range from 10 to 37, with a
known maximum of 56. In captivity, yellow anacondas have lived for more
than 20 years. These anacondas are considerably smaller than the
closely related green anaconda. Female yellow anacondas from Argentina
measured a maximum length of 3.8 m (12.5 ft) and maximum weight of 29
kg (69.9 lbs); males reached 2.93 m (9.6 ft) and 10.5 kg (23.1 lbs)
(Reed and Rodda 2009). The largest yellow anacondas found in the wild
were about 4 m (13.1 ft). They have been reported to exceed those
measurements in captivity.
Yellow anacondas appear to be generalist predators (able to prey on
a wide variety of vertebrates). The anacondas in general, including
this species, exhibit among the broadest diet range of any snake,
including ectotherms (cold-blooded animals: lizards, crocodilians,
turtles, snakes, fish) and endotherms (birds, mammals).
Summary of the Presence of the Four Constrictor Snakes in the United
States
Of the four constrictor snake species that we are listing as
injurious, three have been reported in the wild in the United States
and two have been confirmed as reproducing in the wild in the United
States (see Current Nonnative Occurrences below); three have been
imported commercially into the United States during the period 1999 to
2010 (Table 1). Species ``reported in the wild'' are ones that have
been found in the wild but without proof to date that they have
reproduced in the wild. The greatest opportunity for preventing a
species from becoming injurious is to stop a species from entering the
wild; the second greatest opportunity is before a species becomes
established in the wild (reported but not reproducing); and the
smallest opportunity is when a species has become established
(reproducing in the wild).
Table 1--Four Species of Large Constrictor Snakes and Whether They Have Been Reported in the Wild in the United
States, Are Known To Be Reproducing in the Wild in the United States, or Have Been Imported for Trade (1999 to
2010)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported in the wild in Reproducing in the wild Imported into U.S. for
Species U.S.? in U.S.? trade?*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burmese python................. Yes...................... Yes...................... Yes.
Northern African python........ Yes...................... Yes ***.................. Yes.
Southern African python........ No....................... No....................... Unknown.**
Yellow anaconda................ Yes...................... No....................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data from Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS; USFWS 2011).
** It is possible that this species has been imported into the United States incorrectly identified as one of
the other species listed by this rule; however none have been reported.
*** Reed et al. 2010.
[[Page 3337]]
Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria
We use the criteria below to evaluate whether a species does or
does not qualify as injurious under the Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C. 42. The
analysis that is developed using these criteria serves as a general
basis for the Service's regulatory decision regarding injurious
wildlife species listings (not just for the four snake species being
listed by this final rule). Biologists within the Service who are
knowledgeable about a species being evaluated assess both the factors
that contribute to and the factors that reduce the likelihood of
injuriousness.
(1) Factors that contribute to being considered injurious:
The likelihood of release or escape;
Potential to survive, become established, and spread;
Impacts on wildlife resources or ecosystems through
hybridization and competition for food and habitats, habitat
degradation and destruction, predation, and pathogen transfer;
Impact to threatened and endangered species and their
habitats;
Impacts to human beings, forestry, horticulture, and
agriculture; and
Wildlife or habitat damages that may occur from control
measures.
(2) Factors that reduce the likelihood of the species being
considered as injurious:
Ability to prevent escape and establishment;
Potential to eradicate or manage established populations
(for example, making organisms sterile);
Ability to rehabilitate disturbed ecosystems;
Ability to prevent or control the spread of pathogens or
parasites; and
Any potential ecological benefits to introduction.
To obtain some of the information for the above criteria, we
referred to Reed and Rodda (2009). Reed and Rodda (2009) developed the
Organism Risk Potential scores for each species using a widely utilized
risk assessment procedure that was published by the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force, called ``Generic nonindigenous aquatic organisms
risk analysis review process (for estimating risk associated with the
introduction of nonindigenous aquatic organisms and how to manage that
risk)'' (ANSTF 1996). The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force was
created under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control
Act of 1990 (NANPCA). Congress enacted NANPCA to provide a way for
government agencies to develop a national program to reduce the risk of
unintentional introductions, ensure prompt detection and response, and
control established species.
The ANSTF (1996) procedure incorporates four factors associated
with probability of establishment and three factors associated with
consequences of establishment, with the combination of these factors
resulting in an overall Organism Risk Potential (ORP) for each species.
For the four constrictor snakes, the risk of establishment was high.
For the four constrictor snakes, the consequences of establishment
range from medium (yellow anaconda) to high (Burmese python, Northern
African python, and Southern African python). The overall ORP, which is
derived from an algorithm of both probability of establishment and
consequences of establishment, was found to be high for all four
species.
Certainties were highly variable within each of the seven elements
or factors of the risk assessment mentioned above, varying from very
uncertain to very certain. In general, the highest certainties were
associated with species unequivocally established in Florida (such as
Burmese python and Northern African python) because of enhanced
ecological information on these species from studies in both their
native range and in Florida. The way in which these subscores are
obtained and combined is set forth in an algorithm created by the ANSTF
(Table 2).
Table 2--The Algorithm That the ANSTF (1996) Defined for Combining the
Two Primary Subscores
[Reed and Rodda 2009].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequences of Organism Risk
Probability of establishment establishment Potential (ORP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High............................ High.............. High.
Medium.......................... High.............. High.
Low............................. High.............. Medium.
High............................ Medium............ High.
Medium.......................... Medium............ Medium.
Low............................. Medium............ Medium.
High............................ Low............... Medium.
Medium.......................... Low............... Medium.
Low............................. Low............... Low.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar algorithms are used for deriving the primary subscores from
the secondary subscores. However, the scores are fundamentally
qualitative, in the sense that there is no unequivocal threshold that
is given in advance to determine when a given risk passes from being
low to medium, and so forth. Therefore, we viewed the process as one of
providing relative ranks for each species. Thus, a high ORP score
indicates that such a species would likely entail greater consequences
or greater probability of establishment than would a species whose ORP
was medium or low (that is, high > medium > low). High-risk species
include the four species being designated as injurious by this
rulemaking: Burmese pythons, Northern and Southern African pythons, and
yellow anacondas. High-risk species, if established in this country,
would put larger portions of the U.S. mainland and insular territories
at risk, constitute a greater ecological threat, or are more common in
trade and commerce.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Burmese Python
Current Nonnative Occurrences
The Burmese python has been captured in many areas in Florida (see
Figure 5 in the final environmental assessment). In South Florida, more
than 1,300 live and dead Burmese pythons, including gravid females,
have been removed from in and around Everglades National Park in the
last 11 years by authorized agents, park staff, and park partners,
indicating that they are already established (National Park Service
2010). In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Burmese python has been
collected or reported (eight individuals collected, including a 3-m
(10-ft) albino) from the municipality of Adjuntas, the northern region
of the island (Arecibo), the eastern region of the island (Humacao),
and southeastern region of the island (Guayama) (A. Atienza, pers.
comm. 2010; J. Saliva, pers. comm. 2009; USGS 2007).
Newspaper accounts from 1980 to 2010 report that numerous Burmese
pythons have escaped captivity or were spotted in the wild in the
following States (HSUS 2009; 2010): Arkansas, California, Georgia,
Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia. This illustrates that the potential for
release or escape is not confined to Florida and Puerto Rico but could
occur in many States. See the section ``Introduction Pathways for Large
Constrictor Snakes'' for the explanation of how release events are
relevant to the potential establishment of Burmese pythons.
Potential Introduction and Spread
The likelihood of release or escape from captivity of Burmese
python is high as evidenced by the number of reports from Florida and
Puerto Rico (National Park Service 2010; J. Saliva, pers. comm. 2009;
HSUS 2010; USGS 2007). When Burmese pythons escape captivity or are
released into the wild, many have survived and are likely to
[[Page 3338]]
continue to survive and become established with or without reproducing.
For example, in the past 11 years, more than 1,300 Burmese pythons have
been removed from just Everglades National Park and vicinity (National
Park Service 2010), and others have been captured from other natural
areas on the west side of South Florida, the Florida Keys (Higgins,
pers. comm. 2009), and farther north on the peninsula, including
Sarasota and Indian River County (M. Lowman, pers. comm. 2009; B.
Dangerfield, pers. comm. 2010).
Moreover, released Burmese pythons would likely disperse to areas
of the United States with a suitable climate. See ``Introduction
Pathways for Large Constrictor Snakes'' section above for the
explanation of how the snakes would spread. These areas were determined
in the risk assessment (Reed and Rodda 2009) for all four constrictor
snakes by comparing the type of climate the species inhabited in their
native ranges to areas of similar climate in the United States (climate
matching). Due to the wide rainfall tolerance and extensive semi-
temperate range of Burmese python, large areas of the southern United
States mainland appear to have a climate suitable for survival of this
species. Areas of the United States that are climatically matched at
present include along the coasts and across the south from Delaware to
Oregon, as well as most of California, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South and North
Carolina. In addition to these areas of the U.S. mainland, the
territories of Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Virgin
Islands, and Puerto Rico appear to have suitable climates. Areas of the
State of Hawaii with elevations under about 2,500 m (8,202 ft) would
also appear to be climatically suitable. Burmese pythons are highly
likely to spread and become established in the wild due to common
traits shared by the giant constrictors: Rapid growth to a large size
with production of many offspring; ability to survive under a range of
habitat types and conditions (habitat generalist); behaviors that allow
escape from freezing temperatures; ability to adapt to live in urban
and suburban areas; ability to disperse long distances (Harvey et al.
2008); and tendency to be well-concealed ambush predators.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
As discussed above under Biology, the Burmese python grows to
lengths greater than 7 m (23 ft) and can weigh up to 90 kg (200 lbs).
This is longer than any native terrestrial predator (including bears)
in the United States and its territories and heavier than most native
predators (including black bears). Burmese pythons can be so large that
they can prey on alligators, which are among the largest native
predators in the Southeast (Harvey et al. 2008, Reed and Rodda 2009,
National Geographic 2006).
In comparison with the Burmese python, the largest snake native to
the continental United States is much smaller. The largest native snake
is the indigo snake (Drymarchon corais), attaining a maximum length of
about 2.5 m (8 ft) (Monroe and Monroe 1968). The endangered Puerto
Rican boa's (Epicrates inornatus) maximum size is approximately 2 m
(6.5 ft) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). A subspecies of the
indigo snake is the eastern indigo snake (D. corais couperi), which
grows to a similar maximum length. The eastern indigo snake inhabits
Georgia and Florida and is listed as federally threatened by the
Service.
Unlike prey species in the Burmese python's native range, none of
our native species has evolved defenses to avoid predation by such a
large snake. Thus, native wildlife anywhere in the United States would
be very likely to fall prey to Burmese pythons (or any of the other six
constrictor snakes). At all life stages, Burmese pythons can and will
compete for food with native species; in other words, baby pythons will
eat small prey, and the size of their prey will increase as they grow.
Based on an analysis of their diets in Florida, Burmese pythons, once
they are introduced and established, may outcompete native predators
(such as the federally listed Florida panther, eastern indigo snake,
native boas, hawks), feeding on the same prey and thereby reducing the
supply of prey for the native predators.
Burmese pythons are generalist predators that consume a wide
variety of mammal and bird species, as well as reptiles, amphibians,
and occasionally fish. This constrictor can easily adapt to prey on
novel wildlife (species that they are not familiar with), and they need
no special adaptations to hunt, capture, and consume them. Pythons in
Florida have consumed prey as large as white-tailed deer and adult
American alligators. Three federally endangered Key Largo woodrats
(Neotoma floridana smalli) were eaten by a Burmese python in the wild
in the Florida Keys in 2007. The extremely small number of remaining
Key Largo woodrats suggests that the current status of the species is
precarious (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008); this means that a new
predator that has been confirmed to prey on the endangered woodrats is
a serious threat to the continued existence of the species. Dove et al.
(2011) found 25 species of birds representing 9 avian orders from
remains in digestive tracts of 85 Burmese pythons (Python molurus
bivittatus) collected in Everglades National Park; this included the
federally endangered wood stork and 4 species of State concern.
The United States, particularly the Southeast, has a diverse faunal
community that is potentially vulnerable to predation by the Burmese
python. Juveniles of these large constrictors will climb trees and
rocks to remove prey from bird nests and capture perching or sleeping
birds. Most of the South has suitable climate and habitat for Burmese
pythons. The greatest biological impact of an introduced predator, such
as the Burmese python, is the likely loss of imperiled native species.
Based on the food habits and habitat preferences of the Burmese python
in its native range, the species is likely to invade the habitat, prey
on, and further threaten most of the federally threatened or endangered
fauna in climate-suitable areas of the United States.
Burmese pythons are also likely to decrease the populations of
numerous potential candidates for Federal protection by hunting and
eating them. Candidate species are plants and animals for which the
Service has sufficient information on their biological status and
threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act, but for which development of a proposed listing
regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities.
The final environmental assessment includes lists of species that
are federally or State threatened or endangered in some climate-
suitable States and territories: Florida, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands. Other States have federally or State threatened
or endangered species that would be suitable prey for large constrictor
snakes, including the Burmese python. These lists include only the
species of the sizes and types that would be expected to be directly
affected by predation by Burmese pythons and the other large
constrictors. For example, plants and marine species are excluded. In
Florida, 14 bird species, 15 mammals, and 2 reptiles that are
threatened or endangered could be preyed upon by Burmese pythons or be
outcompeted by them for prey. Hawaii has 34 bird species and 1 mammal
that
[[Page 3339]]
are threatened or endangered that would be at risk of predation. Puerto
Rico has eight bird species and eight reptile species that are
threatened or endangered that would be at risk of predation. The Virgin
Islands has one bird species and three reptiles that are threatened or
endangered that would be at risk of predation. Guam has six bird
species and two mammals that are threatened or endangered that would be
at risk of predation.
Due to the wide rainfall tolerance and extensive semi-temperate
native range of P. molurus, large areas of the southern U.S. mainland
appear to have a climate suitable for survival of this species. Please
refer to the Final Environmental Assessment for the climate suitability
maps for each large constrictor snake species. U.S. areas climatically
matched at present ranged up the east and west coasts and across the
interior south from Virginia to California, and throughout most of
California, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, and South and North Carolina. In addition to the
mapped areas of the United States mainland, the territories of Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Puerto
Rico appear to have suitable climate. Areas of the State of Hawaii with
elevations under about 2,500 m (8,202 ft) also appear to be
climatically suitable. While we did not itemize the federally
threatened and endangered species from California, Texas, and other
States, there are likely several hundred species in those and other
States that would be at risk from Burmese pythons. According to the
climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), threatened and
endangered species from all of Florida, most of Hawaii, and all of
Puerto Rico would be at risk from the establishment of Burmese pythons.
In addition, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other territories would
have suitable habitat and climate to support Burmese pythons, and these
also have federally threatened and endangered species that would be at
risk if Burmese pythons became established.
The likelihood and magnitude of the effect on threatened and
endangered species is high. Burmese pythons are thus highly likely to
negatively affect threatened and endangered birds and mammals, as well
as unlisted native species. Consistent with the language of the Lacey
Act authorizing the listing of ``species'' and with prior
administrative practice of listing only species or higher taxonomic
units, we evaluated the species Python molurus as a whole, instead of
evaluating the subspecies Python molurus bivittatus (Burmese python),
which was the taxon originally petitioned for listing by the South
Florida Water Management District. We determined that the species
should be listed. As stated above under ``Native Range,'' the cold
tolerance for both subspecies is similar, so the climate match (one of
the evaluation criteria) determined in Reed and Rodda (2009) (also G.
Rodda, pers. comm. 2009) is as applicable to each subspecies as it is
to the species as a whole.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The introduction or establishment of Burmese pythons may have
negative impacts on humans primarily from the loss of native wildlife
biodiversity, as discussed above. These losses would affect the
aesthetic, recreational, educational, and economic values currently
provided by native wildlife and healthy ecosystems.
Human fatalities from nonvenomous snakes in the wild are rare,
probably only a few per year worldwide (Reed and Rodda 2009). Although
attacks on people by Burmese pythons are improbable, they are possible
given the large size that some individual snakes can reach. However,
the only human deaths in the United States from Burmese pythons that we
are aware of were from captive snakes (in Colorado, Florida, Missouri,
and Pennsylvania; HSUS 2010).
Ectoparasites (including ticks in the genus Amblyomma) were
collected from wild-caught, free-ranging exotic reptiles examined in
Florida from 2003 to 2008 (Corn et al. 2011). This was the first report
of collections of Neotropical ticks from wild-caught Burmese pythons,
Python molurus bivittatus. The only known vectors capable of
transmitting Cowdria ruminantium (which causes heartwater disease) are
13 species of ticks in the genus Amblyomma (Deem 1998). Heartwater
disease is a devastating disease of livestock (including cattle, sheep,
and goats) in Africa (Deem 1998). From limited wild-caught, free-
ranging exotic reptiles in Florida (including ball and Burmese
pythons), ticks and mites were native to North America, Latin America,
and Africa from reptiles native to Asia, Africa, and Central and South
America. These reports suggest the diversity of reptile ectoparasites
introduced and established in Florida and the new host-parasite
relationships that have developed among exotic and native ectoparasites
and established exotic reptiles. Several studies (Burridge et al. 2000,
Kenny et al. 2004, Reeves et al. 2006) have shown disease agents in the
ticks that travel internationally on reptiles, which may serve in the
introduction of disease agents that could impact the health of local
wildlife, domestic animals, and humans (Corn et al. 2011). A
potentially devastating impact to the nation's agriculture could occur
if the deadly cattle disease heartwater or some other tick-borne
disease were to become established in the United States and be
transmissible through reptile ticks (Reed and Rodda 2009). African tick
species that use pythons as hosts may be vectors of heartwater, and
these ticks have been observed to transfer to other hosts, including
other giant constrictors, other reptiles, and dogs. Because multiple
python species are held captive together in the commercial trade, such
transmission provides opportunities to occur prior to retail sales
(Reed and Rodda 2009).
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Burmese Python
Control
No effective tools are currently available to detect and remove
large constrictor populations. Traps with drift fences or barriers are
the best option, but their use on a large scale is prohibitively
expensive, largely because of the labor cost of baiting, checking, and
maintaining the traps daily. Additionally, some areas cannot be
effectively trapped due to the expanse of the area and type of terrain,
the distribution of the target species, and the effects on any
nontarget species (that is, they trap native wildlife as well). While
the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and State of
Florida entities have conducted some research on control tools, there
are currently no such tools available that would be adequate for
eradication of an established population of large constrictor snakes,
such as the Burmese python, once they have spread over a large area.
Efforts to eradicate the Burmese python in Florida have become
increasingly intense as the species is reported in new locations across
the State with ``python catch'' training sessions scheduled in
locations necessary to keep the expansion to a minimum. Natural
resource management agencies are expending scarce resources to devise
methods to capture or otherwise control any large constrictor snake
species. These agencies recognize that control of large constrictor
snakes (as major predators) on lands that they manage is necessary to
prevent the likely adverse impacts to
[[Page 3340]]
the ecosystems occupied by the invasive snakes.
The final economic analysis was prepared for the constrictor snakes
(USFWS January 2012) and provides the following information about the
expenditures for research and eradication in Florida, primarily for
Burmese pythons, which provides some indication of the efforts to date.
The Service spent about $600,000 over a 3-year period (2007 to 2009) on
python trap design, deployment, and education in the Florida Keys to
prevent the potential extinction of the endangered Key Largo woodrat
(Neotoma floridana smalli) at Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
The South Florida Water Management District spent $334,000 between 2005
and 2009 and anticipates spending an additional $156,600 on research,
salaries, and vehicles in the next several years. An additional
$300,000 will go for the assistance of USDA, Wildlife Services (part of
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). The USDA Wildlife
Research Center (Gainesville, Florida, Field Station) has spent $15,800
from 2008 to 2009 on salaries, travel, and supplies. The USGS, in
conjunction with the University of Florida, has spent more than $1.5
million on research, radio telemetry, and the development, testing, and
implementation of constrictor snake traps. Miami-Dade County Parks and
Recreation Department, Natural Areas Management and Department of
Environmental Resources Management have spent $60,875 annually on
constrictor snake issues. The National Park Service has spent $317,000
annually on various programs related to constrictor snake issues in
Everglades National Park. All these expenditures total $5.7 million
from 2005 to approximately 2012, or roughly an average of $720,000 per
year. Despite this investment, all of these efforts have failed to
provide a method for eradicating large constrictor snakes in Florida.
Kraus (2009) exhaustively reviewed the literature on invasive
herpetofauna. While he found a few examples of local populations of
amphibians that had been successfully eradicated, he found no such
examples for reptiles. He also states that, ``Should an invasive
[nonnative] species be allowed to spread widely, it is usually
impossible--or at best very expensive--to eradicate it.'' The Burmese
python is unlikely to be one of those species that could be eradicated.
Eradication will almost certainly be unachievable for a species
that is hard to detect and remove at low densities, which is the case
with all of the four large constrictor snakes. They are well-
camouflaged and stealthy, and, therefore, nearly impossible to see in
the wild. Most of the protective measures available to prevent the
escape of Burmese pythons are currently (and expected to remain) cost-
prohibitive and labor-intensive. Even with protective measures in
place, the risks of accidental escape are not likely to be eliminated.
Since effective measures to prevent the establishment in new locations
or eradicate, manage, or control the spread of established populations
of the Burmese python are not currently available, the ability to
rehabilitate or recover ecosystems disturbed by the species is low.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
While the introduction of a faunal biomass could potentially
provide a food source for some native carnivores, species native to the
United States are unlikely to possess the ability to hunt such large,
camouflaged snakes and would not likely turn to large constrictor
snakes as a food source. The risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh
this unlikely benefit; however, juvenile constrictor snakes could fall
prey to native wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, coyotes, and
birds of prey (hawks, owls, eagles). In addition, a large constrictor
snake could prey on other invasive, nonnative species, such as green
iguanas, feral hogs, and black rats. However, the effect on the
populations of these feral hogs, rats, and other such nonnative species
is likely to be negligible. Conversely, the effect of predation on rare
species is greater, because any decrease in populations of rare species
makes it less likely for the population to rebound. Therefore, the
small possible benefits of having large constrictor snakes as predators
in the United States do not warrant encouraging their establishment.
There are no other potential ecological benefits for the
introduction of Burmese pythons into the United States.
Conclusion
The Burmese python is one of the largest snakes in the world,
reaching lengths of up to 7 m (23 ft) and weights of over 90 kg (almost
200 lbs). This is longer than any native, terrestrial animal in the
United States, including alligators, and three times longer than the
longest native snake species. Native fauna have no experience defending
against this type of novel, giant predator. Hatchling Burmese pythons
are about the size of average adult native snakes and can more than
double in size within the first year. In addition, Burmese pythons
reportedly can fertilize their own eggs and have viable eggs after
several years in isolation. Even one female Burmese python that escapes
captivity could produce dozens of large young at one time (average
clutch size is 36, with a known clutch of 107). Furthermore, a healthy
individual is likely to live for 20 to 30 years. Even a small number of
pythons in a small area, such as one of the Florida Keys or insular
islands, could cause unacceptable effects on federally threatened or
endangered species. There are currently no effective control methods
for Burmese pythons, nor are any anticipated in the near future.
Therefore, because Burmese pythons have already established
populations in some areas of the United States; are likely to spread
from their current established range to new natural areas in the United
States; are likely to become established in disjunct areas of the
United States with suitable climate and habitat if released there; are
likely to prey on and compete with native species (including threatened
and endangered species); are likely to be disease vectors for livestock
or native wildlife; cannot be easily eradicated, prevented from
establishing, or reduced from large populations or new locations; and
are likely to disturb ecosystems beyond the point of recoverability,
the Service finds the Burmese python and its conspecifics to be
injurious to humans, agricultural interests, and to wildlife and
wildlife resources of the United States.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Northern African Python
Current Nonnative Occurrences
Several Northern African pythons have been found in Florida and
elsewhere in the United States--most of these are assumed to be escaped
or released pets (Reed and Rodda 2009). From 2005 to 2009, adults and
hatchlings have been captured, confirming the presence of a population
of Northern African pythons along the western border of Miami, adjacent
to the Everglades (Reed et al. 2010). From May 2009 to January 2010,
four specimens were found by herpetologists and the Miami-Dade County
Anti-Venom Response Unit, including hatchlings and adults collected
from an area of about 2 km (1.6 mi) in diameter known as the Bird Drive
Recharge Basin (Miami-Dade County) (Reed et al. 2010). In 2009,
evidence pointed to the presence of a breeding population of Northern
African pythons along the
[[Page 3341]]
western border of Miami adjacent to the Everglades. Recently,
observations and removals of multiple adults, a gravid female, and
hatchlings suggest the presence of a reproducing population of Northern
African pythons (Reed et al. 2010). One Northern African python has
also been collected on State Road 72 approximately 6.43 km (4 mi) east
of Myakka River State Park, Sarasota County, Florida (K. Krysko, pers.
comm. 2010).
In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Northern African pythons have
been found in the western region of the island (Mayaguez), the San Juan
metro area, and the southern region of the island (Guayama) (J. Saliva,
pers. comm. 2009).
Potential Introduction and Spread
Northern African pythons have escaped captivity or been released
into the wild in Florida and Puerto Rico and are likely to continue to
escape and be released into the wild. Based on Reed and Rodda (2009),
extrapolation of climate matching from the native range of Northern
African pythons and then mapped to the United States includes a large
portion of peninsular Florida, extreme south Texas, most of Hawaii, and
Puerto Rico. Northern African pythons are highly likely to spread and
become established in the wild due to common traits shared by the giant
constrictors, including rapid growth to a large size with production of
many offspring; ability to survive under a range of habitat types and
conditions (habitat generalist); behaviors that allow them to escape
freezing temperatures; ability to live in urban and suburban areas;
ability to disperse long distances; and ability to conceal themselves
and ambush prey.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
Northern African pythons are highly likely to prey on native
species, including threatened and endangered species. As with most of
the giant constrictors, adult African pythons primarily eat endothermic
prey from a wide variety of taxa. Adverse effects of Northern African
pythons on selected threatened and endangered species are likely to be
moderate to high.
Please see Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including
Threatened and Endangered Species) under Factors that Contribute to the
Injuriousness for Burmese Python for a description of the impacts that
Northern African pythons would have on native species. These impacts
are applicable to Northern African pythons by comparing their prey type
with the suitable climate areas and the listed species found in those
areas; suitable climate areas and the listed species can be found in
the final environmental assessment.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009),
threatened and endangered species and other native species from parts
of Florida, most of Hawaii, and all of Puerto Rico would be at risk
from the establishment of Northern African pythons. In addition, we
assume that Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other territories would
have suitable habitat and climate to support Northern African pythons,
and these also have federally threatened and endangered species that
would be at risk if Northern African pythons became established.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The introduction or establishment of Northern African pythons may
have negative impacts on humans primarily from the loss of native
wildlife biodiversity, as discussed above. These losses would affect
the aesthetic, recreational, and economic values currently provided by
native wildlife and healthy ecosystems. Educational values would also
be diminished through the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem health.
African pythons (both wild and captive-bred) are noted for their bad
temperament and readiness to bite if harassed by people. Although
African pythons can easily kill an adult person, attacks on humans are
uncommon (Reed and Rodda 2009). We do not have any confirmed human
fatalities in the United States from Northern African pythons.
Diseases borne by ticks could potentially impact U.S. agricultural
industries. One serious possibility is heartwater disease, a
potentially catastrophic disease of hoofed animals (including cattle)
that is vectored by ticks found on African pythons (such as Python
sebae), but the ticks are capable of transferring to other species of
the genus Python in captivity (Reed and Rodda 2009). Northern and
Southern African pythons are known hosts of some of these ticks,
including Amblyomma nuttalli, Amblyomma marmoreum, Amblyomma sparsum,
Aponomma exornatum, Aponomma flavomaculatum, and Aponomma latum
(Burridge 2001).
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Northern African Python
Control
As with the other giant constrictors, once introduced into the
wild, eradication, management, or control of the spread of Northern
African pythons will be highly unlikely. Please see the Control section
for the Burmese python for reasons why the Northern African pythons
would be difficult to control, all of which apply to this large
constrictor.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
While the introduction of a faunal biomass could potentially
provide a food source for some native carnivores, species native to the
United States are unlikely to possess the hunting ability for such
large, camouflaged snakes and would not likely turn to large
constrictor snakes as a food source. The risks to native wildlife
greatly outweigh this unlikely benefit; however, juvenile snakes could
fall prey to native wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, coyotes, and
birds of prey (hawks, owls, eagles). In addition, a large constrictor
snake could prey on other nonnative species such as green iguanas,
feral hogs, and black rats. There are no other potential ecological
benefits from the introduction into the United States or establishment
in the United States of Northern African pythons.
Conclusion
Northern African pythons are long-lived (some have lived in
captivity for 27 years). The species feeds primarily on warm-blooded
prey (mammals and birds). Northern African pythons have been found to
be reproducing in Florida. Therefore, they pose a risk to native
wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. African pythons
(both wild and captive-bred) are noted for their bad temperament and
have reportedly also attacked humans.
Because Northern African pythons are likely to escape or be
released into the wild if imported to the United States; are likely to
spread from their current established range to new natural areas in the
United States with suitable habitats; are likely to prey on native
species (including threatened and endangered species); are likely to be
disease vectors for livestock; and because it would be difficult to
eradicate or reduce large populations, or recover ecosystems disturbed
by the species, the Service finds the Northern African python to be
injurious to humans, agricultural interests, and to wildlife and
wildlife resources of the United States.
[[Page 3342]]
Factors that Contribute to Injuriousness of the Southern African Python
Current Nonnative Occurrences
Occurrences of the Southern African python in the United States are
unknown.
Potential Introduction and Spread
Southern African pythons are large-bodied constrictors that are
closely related to Northern African pythons. Because they are so
similar to Northern African pythons, they possess the same traits that
enable them to be likely to escape or be released into the wild if
imported into the United States. Southern African pythons may be
substituted for Northern African pythons in the pet trade because of
these similarities.
The Southern African python climate match extends slightly farther
to the north in Florida than the Northern African python and also
includes Texas from the Big Bend region to the southeasternmost extent
of the State, as well as parts of Puerto Rico and Hawaii. If Southern
African pythons escape or are intentionally released, they are likely
to survive or become established within their respective thermal and
precipitation limits. Within these limits, Southern African pythons are
highly likely to spread and become established in the wild due to
common traits shared by the giant constrictors, including rapid growth
to a large size with production of many offspring; are capable of
surviving under a range of habitat types and conditions (habitat
generalist); have behaviors that allow them to escape freezing
temperatures; can live in urban and suburban areas; can disperse long
distances; and are well-concealed ambush predators.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
Southern African pythons are highly likely to prey on native
species, including threatened and endangered species. As with most of
the giant constrictors, adult African pythons primarily eat endothermic
prey from a wide variety of taxa. Adverse effects of Southern African
pythons on selected threatened and endangered species are likely to be
moderate to high.
Please see Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including
Threatened and Endangered Species) under Factors that Contribute to the
Injuriousness for Burmese Python for a description of the impacts that
Southern African pythons would have on native species. These impacts
are applicable to Southern African pythons by comparing their prey type
with the suitable climate areas and the listed species found in those
areas; suitable climate areas and the listed species can be found in
the final environmental assessment.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009),
threatened and endangered species and other native species from parts
of Florida, Texas, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico would be at risk from the
establishment of Southern African pythons. In addition, we assume that
Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other territories would have
suitable habitat and climate to support Southern African pythons, and
these also have federally threatened and endangered species that would
be at risk if Southern African pythons became established.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The introduction or establishment of Southern African pythons may
have negative impacts on humans primarily from the loss of native
wildlife biodiversity, as discussed above. These losses would affect
the aesthetic, recreational, and economic values currently provided by
native wildlife and healthy ecosystems. Educational values would also
be diminished through the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem health.
African pythons (both wild and captive-bred) are noted for their
bad temperament and readiness to bite if harassed by people. Although
African pythons can easily kill an adult person, attacks on humans are
uncommon (Reed and Rodda 2009).
Diseases borne by ticks could potentially impact U.S. agricultural
industry. One serious possibility is heartwater disease, a potentially
catastrophic disease of hoofed animals (including cattle) that is
vectored by ticks found on African pythons (such as Python sebae), but
the ticks are capable of transferring to other species of the genus
Python in captivity (Reed and Rodda 2009). Northern and Southern
African pythons are known hosts of some of these ticks, including
Amblyomma nuttalli, Amblyomma marmoreum, Amblyomma sparsum, Aponomma
exornatum, Aponomma flavomaculatum, and Aponomma latum (Burridge 2001).
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Southern African Python
Control
As with the other giant constrictors, once introduced into the
wild, the eradication, management, or control of the spread of Southern
African pythons will be highly unlikely. Please see the Control section
for the Burmese python for reasons why the Southern African pythons
would be difficult to control, all of which apply to these large
constrictors.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
While the introduction of a faunal biomass could potentially
provide a food source for some native carnivores, species native to the
United States are unlikely to possess the hunting ability for such
large, camouflaged snakes and would not likely turn to large
constrictor snakes as a food source. The risks to native wildlife
greatly outweigh this unlikely benefit; however, juvenile snakes could
fall prey to native wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, coyotes, and
birds of prey (hawks, owls, eagles). In addition, a large constrictor
snake could prey on other nonnative species such as green iguanas,
feral hogs, and black rats. There are no other potential ecological
benefits from the introduction into the United States or establishment
in the United States of Southern African pythons.
Conclusion
Southern African pythons are long-lived. This species feeds
primarily on warm-blooded prey (mammals and birds). Therefore, they
pose a risk to native wildlife, including threatened and endangered
species. Their climate match extends slightly farther to the north in
Florida than the Northern African python and also includes portions of
Texas from the Big Bend region to the southeasternmost extent of the
State. Because Southern African pythons are likely to escape or be
released into the wild if imported to the United States; are likely to
survive, become established, and spread if escaped or released in
suitable habitats; are likely to prey on and compete with native
species for food and habitat (including threatened and endangered
species); are likely to be disease vectors for livestock; cannot be
easily eradicated, prevented from establishing, or reduced from large
populations or new locations; and are likely to disturb ecosystems
beyond the point of recoverability, the Service finds the Southern
African python to be injurious to humans, to agricultural interests,
and to the wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
[[Page 3343]]
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Yellow Anaconda
Current Nonnative Occurrences
An adult yellow anaconda was collected from Big Cypress National
Reserve in southern Florida in January 2007, and another individual was
photographed basking along a canal about 25 km (15.5 mi) north of that
location in January 2008 (EDDMapS 2011). In 2008, an unnamed observer
reportedly captured two anacondas that most closely fit the description
of the yellow anaconda farther to the east near the Palm Beach,
Florida, county line (EDDMapS 2011). In Puerto Rico, a few individuals
of the yellow anaconda have been reported in the central region of the
island (Villalba area). In Arkansas, two yellow anacondas were found in
Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuge (P. Fuller, pers. comm. 2011).
Potential Introduction and Spread
Yellow anacondas have escaped or been released into the wild in
Florida, Arkansas, and Puerto Rico, and are likely to escape or be
released into the wild elsewhere. Yellow anacondas are highly likely to
survive in subtropical areas of natural ecosystems of the United
States. The yellow anaconda has a native-range distribution that
includes highly seasonal and fairly temperate regions in South America.
When projected to the United States, the climate space occupied by
yellow anaconda translates to a fairly large area, including virtually
all of peninsular Florida and a corner of southeastern Georgia (to
about the latitude of Brunswick), as well as parts of southern and
eastern Texas and a very small portion of southern California. Large
areas of Hawaii and Puerto Rico appear to exhibit suitable climates,
and additional insular United States possessions (Guam, Northern
Marianas, American Samoa, and so on) would probably be suitable as
well. Within the areas deemed suitable, however, the yellow anaconda
would be expected to occupy only habitats with permanent surface water.
If yellow anacondas are released into areas with suitable permanent
surface water, they would likely disperse because of their propensity
for rapid growth to a large size; high reproductive rate; ability to
survive under a range of habitat types and conditions (habitat
generalist); behaviors that allow them to escape freezing temperatures;
ability to live in urban and suburban areas; ability to disperse long
distances; and well-concealed, ambush-type of predatory behavior.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
Yellow anacondas are highly likely to prey on native species,
including select threatened and endangered species. The prey list
suggests that yellow anacondas employ both ``ambush predation'' and
``wide-foraging'' strategies (Reed and Rodda 2009). The snakes forage
predominately in open, flooded habitats, in relatively shallow water;
wading birds are their most common prey. They have also been known to
prey on fish, turtles, small caimans, lizards, birds, eggs, small
mammals, and fish carrion (Reed and Rodda). Threatened and endangered
species occupying flooded areas, such as the Everglades, would be at
risk.
Please see Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including
Threatened and Endangered Species) under Factors that Contribute to the
Injuriousness for Burmese Python for a description of the impacts that
yellow anacondas would have on native species. These impacts are
applicable to yellow anacondas by comparing their prey type with the
suitable climate areas and the listed species found in those areas;
suitable climate areas and the listed species can be found in the final
environmental assessment.
While we did not itemize the federally threatened and endangered
species from southern California, Texas, southeast Georgia, and other
States, there are likely several hundred species in those and other
States that would be at risk from yellow anaconda. According to the
climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), threatened and
endangered species from parts of Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico would
be at risk from the establishment of yellow anacondas. In addition,
Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other territories would have
suitable habitat and climate to support yellow anacondas, and these
also have federally threatened and endangered species that would be at
risk if yellow anacondas became established.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The introduction or establishment of yellow anacondas may have
negative impacts on humans primarily from the loss of native wildlife
biodiversity, as discussed above. These losses would affect the
aesthetic, recreational, and economic values currently provided by
native wildlife and healthy ecosystems. Educational values would also
be diminished through the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem health.
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Yellow Anaconda
Control
Once introduced into the wild, the eradication, management, or
control of the spread of yellow anacondas will be highly unlikely.
Please see the ``Control'' section for the Burmese python for reasons
why yellow anacondas would be difficult to control, all of which apply
to this large constrictor.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
While the introduction of a faunal biomass could potentially
provide a food source for some native carnivores, species native to the
United States are unlikely to possess the hunting ability for such
large, camouflaged snakes and would not likely turn to large
constrictor snakes as a food source. The risks to native wildlife
greatly outweigh this unlikely benefit; however, juvenile snakes could
fall prey to native wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, coyotes, and
birds of prey (hawks, owls, eagles). In addition, a large constrictor
snake could prey on other nonnative species such as green iguanas,
feral hogs, and black rats. There are no other potential ecological
benefits from the introduction into the United States or establishment
in the United States of yellow anacondas.
Conclusion
Yellow anacondas are highly likely to survive in the appropriate
natural ecosystems of the United States. The species has a native-range
distribution that includes highly seasonal and fairly temperate regions
in South America. When projected to the United States, the climate
space occupied by yellow anaconda maps to a fairly large area,
including virtually all of peninsular Florida and a corner of
southeastern Georgia (to about the latitude of Brunswick), as well as
large parts of southern and eastern Texas and a small portion of
southern California. Large areas of Hawaii and Puerto Rico appear to
exhibit suitable climates, and additional insular U.S. possessions
(such as Guam, Northern Marianas, American Samoa) would probably be
suitable as well. Yellow anacondas are highly likely to spread to
suitable permanent surface water areas because of their large size,
high reproductive potential, early maturation, rapid growth, longevity,
and generalist-surprise attack predation.
Because the yellow anacondas are likely to escape captivity or be
released into the wild if imported to the United
[[Page 3344]]
States (note that the yellow anaconda has already been found in the
wild in Florida and Arkansas); are likely to survive, become
established, and spread if escaped or released; are likely to prey on
and compete with native species for food and habitat (including
threatened and endangered species); cannot be easily eradicated,
prevented from establishing, or reduced from large populations or new
locations; and are likely to disturb ecosystems beyond the point of
recoverability, the Service finds the yellow anaconda to be injurious
to humans and to the wildlife and wildlife resources of the United
States.
Conclusions for the Four Constrictor Snakes
Burmese Python
The Burmese python is one of the largest snakes in the world,
reaching lengths of up to 7 m (23 ft) and weights of over 90 kilograms
(kg) (almost 200 pounds (lbs)). This is longer than any native,
terrestrial animal in the United States, including alligators, and
three times longer than the longest native snake species. Native fauna
have no experience defending against this type of novel, giant
predator. Hatchling pythons are about the size of average adult native
snakes and can more than double in size within the first year. In
addition, Burmese pythons reportedly can fertilize their own eggs and
have viable eggs after several years in isolation; therefore, it is
possible that a population of Burmese pythons could be established with
only a small number of females. Burmese pythons are long-lived, with a
life expectancy of 20 to 30 years. Thus, even a single python
(especially a female) in a small area, such as one of the Florida Keys
or insular islands, can devastate the population of a federally
threatened or endangered species. There are currently no effective
control methods for Burmese pythons, nor are any anticipated in the
near future.
Therefore, because Burmese pythons have already established
populations in some areas of the United States; are likely to spread
from their current established range to new natural areas in the United
States; are likely to become established in disjunct areas of the
United States with suitable climate and habitat if released there; are
likely to prey on and compete with native species (including threatened
and endangered species); are likely to be disease vectors for livestock
or native wildlife; are likely to damage ecosystems that would be
difficult or impossible to recover; and are difficult or impossible to
eradicate or control once established, the Service finds the Burmese
python to be injurious to humans, agricultural interests, and to
wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States. We have evaluated
the species Python molurus as a whole (including Burmese and Indian
pythons), and we have determined that it should be listed as injurious.
Moreover, we note that each of its subspecies share the traits that
make this species injurious.
Northern African Python
Northern African pythons are long-lived (some have lived in
captivity for 27 years). The species feeds primarily on warm-blooded
prey (mammals and birds). Northern African pythons now have an
established self-sustaining breeding population west of Miami, Florida.
This area is within the known distribution of Burmese pythons in
Florida, and hybridization between these species is known in captivity.
The likelihood of hybridization among introduced Florida populations is
unknown, as are the implications of genetic admixture for control
purposes (Reed and Rodda 2009). Therefore, they pose a risk to native
wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. African pythons
(both wild and captive-bred) are noted for their bad temperament and
have reportedly also attacked humans.
Because Northern African pythons are likely to escape or be
released into the wild if imported to or transported within the United
States; are likely to survive, become established, and spread from
their current established range to new natural areas in the United
States with suitable habitats; are likely to prey on and compete with
native species (including threatened and endangered species); and
because it would be difficult to prevent, eradicate, or reduce large
populations; control the spread to new locations; or to recover
ecosystems disturbed by the species, the Service finds the Northern
African python to be injurious to humans and to wildlife and wildlife
resources of the United States.
Southern African Python
Southern African pythons are long-lived. This species feeds
primarily on warm-blooded prey (mammals and birds). Therefore, they
pose a risk to native wildlife, including threatened and endangered
species. Their climate match extends slightly farther to the north in
Florida than the Northern African python and also includes Texas from
the Big Bend region to the southeasternmost extent of the State as well
as parts of Puerto Rico and Hawaii.
Because Southern African pythons are likely to escape or be
released into the wild if imported to or transported within the United
States; are likely to survive, become established, and spread if
escaped or released in suitable habitats; are likely to prey on and
compete with native species for food and habitat (including threatened
and endangered species); and because it would be difficult to prevent,
eradicate, or reduce large populations; control spread to new
locations; or recover ecosystems disturbed by the species, the Service
finds the Southern African python to be injurious to humans and to the
wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
Yellow Anaconda
Yellow anacondas are highly likely to survive in the appropriate
natural ecosystems of the United States. The species has a native-range
distribution that includes highly seasonal and fairly temperate regions
in South America. When projected to the United States, the climate
space occupied by yellow anaconda maps to a fairly large area,
including virtually all of peninsular Florida and a corner of
southeastern Georgia (to about the latitude of Brunswick), as well as
large parts of southern and eastern Texas. Large areas of Hawaii and
Puerto Rico appear to exhibit suitable climates, and additional insular
U.S. possessions (such as Guam, Northern Marianas, American Samoa)
would probably be suitable as well. Yellow anacondas are highly likely
to spread to suitable permanent-surface-water areas because of their
large size, high reproductive potential, early maturation, rapid
growth, longevity, and generalist surprise-attack predation.
Because the yellow anacondas are likely to escape captivity or be
released into the wild if imported to or transported within the United
States (note that the yellow anaconda has already been found in the
wild in Florida); are likely to survive, become established, and spread
if escaped or released; are likely to prey on and compete with native
species for food and habitat (including threatened and endangered
species); and because it would be difficult to prevent, eradicate, or
reduce large populations; control spread to new locations; or to
recover ecosystems disturbed by the species, the Service finds the
yellow anaconda to be injurious to humans and to wildlife and wildlife
resources of the United States.
Summary of Risk Potentials
Reed and Rodda (2009) found that all of the four constrictor snakes
pose high risks to the interests of human beings,
[[Page 3345]]
agriculture, wildlife, and wildlife resources of the United States.
These risk potentials utilize the criteria for evaluating species as
described by ANSTF (1996) (see Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria above).
Based on the risks determined by Reed and Rodda (2009), substantive
information submitted during the public comment periods and from the
peer reviewers, along with the latest findings regarding the large
constrictor snakes (in Florida, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere), the
Service concludes that the four constrictor species should be added to
the list of injurious reptiles under the Lacey Act.
Comments Received on the Proposed Rule
During the two public comment periods for the proposed rule, we
received approximately 56,500 comments, including form letters,
petitions, and post cards. We received comments from Federal agencies,
State agencies, local governments, commercial and trade organizations,
conservation organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private
citizens; all were in English with the exception of a few in Dutch,
French, German, and Italian. The comments provided a range of views on
the proposed listing as follows: (1) Unequivocal support for the
listing with no additional information included; (2) unequivocal
support for the listing with additional information provided; (3)
equivocal support for the listing with or without additional
information included; (4) unequivocal opposition to the listing with no
additional information included; and (5) unequivocal opposition to the
listing with additional information included.
To accurately review and incorporate the publicly provided comments
in our final determination, we worked with researchers in the
Qualitative Data Analysis Program at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst and the University of Pittsburgh--developers of the Public
Comment Analysis Toolkit (PCAT) analytical software. The PCAT enhanced
our ability to review large numbers of comments, including large
numbers of similar comments on our proposed listing, allowing us to
identify similar comments as well as individual ideas, data,
recommendations, or suggestions on the proposed listing. We are also
responding to some comments that are out of the purview of this rule in
a concerted effort to explain our rationale to the public.
Peer Review of the Proposed Rule
In accordance with peer review guidance of the Office of Management
and Budget ``Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,''
released December 16, 2004, and Service guidance, we solicited expert
opinion on information contained in the proposed rule (which was for
nine species) from five knowledgeable individuals selected from
specialists in the relevant taxonomic group and ecologists with
scientific expertise that includes familiarity with alien
herpetological introductions and invasions, predictive tools for risk
assessment, and invasion biology. We posted our peer review plan on the
Service's Region 4 Web site (http://www.fws.gov/southeast/informationquality), explaining the peer review process and providing
the public with an opportunity to comment on the peer review plan. No
comments were received regarding the peer review plan. The Service
solicited independent scientific reviewers who submitted individual
comments in written form. We avoided using individuals who had already
expressed strong support for or opposition to the petition and
individuals who were likely to experience personal gain or loss
(financial, prestige, etc.) as a result of the Service's decision.
Department of the Interior employees were not utilized as peer
reviewers.
We received responses from five peer reviewers. Two peer reviewers
found that, in general, the proposed rule represented a comprehensive
and up-to-date compilation of the best scientific information known
about the nine constrictor snake species and conclusions drawn from
both published and unpublished sources were scientifically robust, and
justified the proposed rule. Two peer reviewers expressed concern with
the climate-matching methods and assumptions.
In addition, all peer reviewers stated that the background material
on the biology, invasive potential, and potential tools for control of
each snake species represented a solid compilation of available
information. They further stated that the information as presented
justified the conclusion that the snake species should be listed as
injurious. All five peer reviewers concluded that the data and analyses
we used in the proposed rule were appropriate and the conclusions we
drew were logical and reasonable. Several peer reviewers provided
additional insights to clarify points in the proposed rule, or
references to recently published studies that update material in the
rule.
Peer Review Comments
We reviewed all comments received from peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule. We
consolidated the comments and responses into key issues in this
section. We refer to them as PR (Peer Reviewer) 1 through 5. We revised
the final rule to reflect peer reviewer comments, where appropriate,
and the most current scientific information, including the results of
the new USGS climate match publication (Rodda et al. 2011), plus a
number of new peer-reviewed journal articles. We have taken our best
effort to identify the limitations and uncertainties of the climate-
matching models and their projections used in the proposed rule. We
have also taken our best effort to correct any grammatical or
biological errors and clarify certain ambiguous statements.
Comment PR1: In regard to the USGS publication ``Giant
Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and an Establishment
Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, and the
Boa Constrictor,'' which includes management profiles discussing
colonization potentials with climate matching maps, there are very few
details or data presented in the manuscript that would allow an
independent test of the model, predictions, or assumptions. At a
minimum, the threshold values that were used in the climate space model
should be explicitly stated for each species. This would allow
reviewers to evaluate the data and the assumptions used in the
construction of the model.
Response PR1: This general critique is incorrect; all of the
species-specific information used to assess risks is presented in the
document mentioned. That this procedure cannot be reduced to
mathematical certainty is the reason a risk assessment (rather than a
calculation) was conducted. This specific critique is also incorrect.
The requested threshold values are provided graphically for each of the
species in Reed and Rodda (2009). For example, the Python molurus
values are in Figure 4.3 (page 51) (heavy and dashed black lines), the
P. sebae and P. natalensis values are in Figures 6.4 (page 118) and 6.5
(page 119), respectively (heavy black lines), and so forth.
For readers who want to duplicate the climate match results, the
USGS has published a data series report with data used for modeling and
the equations corresponding to these lines (http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/579/) (Jarnevich et al. 2011), but the graphical representations in
Reed and Rodda (2009) provide the same information with the precision
that is appropriate for the use of these values. Use of these values
with greater precision would not be appropriate given the conceptual
and scientific
[[Page 3346]]
uncertainties that attend state-of-the-art implementation of climate
matching.
Comment PR2: The data used for the risk assessment seems fair. This
reviewer, however, was not convinced that the assignment of low,
medium, and high establishment and consequence scores was sufficiently
objective or transparent. There appear to be high levels of uncertainty
involved in the process (pp. 253, 259: Reed and Rodda 2009). Though
there is not really an alternative with the amount of data available,
the approach would be more acceptable if it was transparent (what
constitutes each level of certainty and how one decides on high,
medium, or low for each contributing factor).
Response PR2: The risk assessment process allows for analyzing,
identifying, and estimating the dimension, characteristics, and type of
risk. By applying analytical methods while acknowledging the
assumptions and uncertainties involved, the process allows the
assessors to utilize qualitative and quantitative data in a systematic
and consistent fashion. The assessment strives for theoretical accuracy
while remaining comprehensible and manageable, and the scientific and
other data compiled for each snake species in the bio-profiles is
organized and recorded in a formal and systematic manner. The
assessment provides a reasonable estimation of the overall risk. The
authors were careful to ensure that the process clearly explained the
uncertainties inherent in the process and to avoid design and
implementation of a process that reflected a predetermined result.
Quantitative and qualitative risk assessments should always be buffered
with careful professional judgment. If every statement was certain, we
would not need a risk assessment. The need to balance risks with
uncertainty can lead assessors to concentrate more on the uncertainty
than on known facts that may affect impact potential. Risks identified
for nonnative invasive large constrictor species (and other nonnative
invasive species besides large constrictors) in other regions often
provide the justification in applying management measures to reduce
risks in regions where the species have not yet been introduced. Thus,
risk assessments should concentrate on evaluating potential risk.
Uncertainty, as it relates to the individual risk assessment, can
be divided into three distinct types: (a) Uncertainty of the process--
(method); (b) uncertainty of the assessor(s)--(human error); and (c)
uncertainty about the organism--(biological and environmental
unknowns). All three types of uncertainty will continue to exist
regardless of future developments. The inferential estimation of
organism risk can be rated using high, medium, or low. The biological
and other information assembled under each element will drive the
process. This forces the assessor to use the biological information as
the basis for his or her decision. Thus, the process remains
transparent for peer review. The high, medium, and low ratings of the
individual elements contributing to the probability of organism
establishment (such as organism with pathway, entry potential,
colonization potential, and spread potential) cannot be defined or
measured--they have to remain judgmental. This is because the values of
the elements contained under ``Probability of Establishment'' are not
independent of the rating of the ``Consequences of Establishment.''
Specific traits or biological characteristics were assessed for each
snake species to arrive at each high, medium, or low rating. The
strength of the analysis is not in the element-rating but in the
detailed biological and other relevant information that supports them.
Reed and Rodda (2009) followed the ANSTF 1996 (see Lacey Act Evaluation
Criteria section above for explanation of this method) guidelines for
combining scores and noting that certainty levels for each component of
the process were followed by the risk assessors. The logic that was
applied to develop every step of the risk assessment analysis can be
found in Chapter Ten of Reed and Rodda (2009).
Comment PR3: Jacobs et al. (2009) elevated the Burmese python back
to full species rank (that is, the form was historically described as
Python bivittatus, then lumped with P. molurus, and then upon recent
reevaluation, elevated back to full species rank). Climate data for P.
molurus should, therefore, not have been used to project the area
potentially suitable for P. bivittatus, a different species.
Response PR3: Jacobs et al. (2009) presented one side of an
argument that has been debated for almost 100 years; they argued for
full species status, but did not have the authority to declare their
preference to be a fact. Other biologists reject that opinion (which
depends not only on the unresolved definitions of species and
subspecies, but on the biological and genetic facts pertaining to this
specific population, which are not known). Jacobs et al. (2009) added
new information on some insular forms but did not present new data on
the key question being contested, which is whether genes are
periodically or regularly exchanged between the populations usually
described as P. m. molurus and P. m. bivittatus. In the absence of
decisive information on that crucial question and on the question of
competitive interactions between the two forms, it would be
inappropriate to assume that the ecological behavior of P. m.
bivittatus is independent of that of P. m. molurus. Furthermore, even a
finding of ecological independence of P. m. bivittatus would not
appreciably alter either the cold tolerance of the species or the
likelihood of its establishment in the United States, which were the
primary uses of this information in the risk assessment (Rodda et al.
2011). The assertion that the Burmese form shows less cold tolerance
than the Indian form is not supported by the peer-reviewed literature.
Comment PR4: The Pyron et al. (2008) paper offers a more
sophisticated and scientifically main-stream analysis that predicts
virtually no expansion of the python population in Florida. The Pyron
et al. (2008) paper very clearly and persuasively describes the flawed
result in the Rodda et al. (2008) paper and offers a superior
alternative analysis.
Response PR4: A paper by R. Alexander Pyron, Frank T. Burbrink, and
Timothy J. Guiher, ``Claims of potential expansion throughout the U.S.
by invasive python species are contradicted by ecological niche
models,'' published in PLoS ONE online in August 2008, was published
after the Rodda et al. (2008) paper. In a response to a complaint from
the public to USGS, a panel composed of representatives from the USGS
and the Service was convened to review an information quality appeal
and address concerns about ``unwarranted assumptions and defective
methodologies.'' The panel determined that the Rodda et al. (2008)
paper met the requirements of independence, with two of the three peer
reviewers coming from outside the USGS, as well as having an internal
supervisory review. Based on this affirmation of peer review, the panel
agreed that it was unlikely that there were ``unwarranted assumptions
or defective methodologies.'' The panel considered the Rodda et al.
(2008) and Pyron et al. (2008) papers as a good example of ``dueling
models'' and agreed that such disagreements were well within the
tradition of scientific dialog where different points of view could be
worked through the scientific method. Such differences were not
``incorrect,'' rather they were critical to the evolution of scientific
thought. Because a later-published paper (in this case Pyron et al.
2008) differs from a
[[Page 3347]]
previous paper (Rodda et al. 2008) does not mean the previous paper
should be changed. A new paper published by the USGS (Rodda et al.
2011) continues the dialog and elucidates scientific concerns with
Pyron et al. (2008). Rodda et al. (2011) demonstrate that the Pyron et
al. (2008) result was largely a product of erroneous data input and
incorrect use of the MaxEnt modeling program and that MaxEnt models
based on climatic variables for Burmese pythons as used by Pyron et al.
(2008) are highly unstable and statistically questionable. Please see
``Need for the Final Rule'' section above for more information on the
differences between the two models.
Comment PR5: The term ``zoological'' is ambiguous and could lead to
a potential loophole for those activities for which permitted
importation could be allowed, hence, any activity pertaining to these
snakes could be claimed to be ``zoological.''
Response PR5: This rulemaking addresses whether the identified
species of large constrictor snakes qualify as injurious and,
therefore, should be added to the list of injurious reptiles. The rule
does not address under what circumstances a person may qualify for
exception to the importation or interstate transportation prohibitions
under the zoological purposes provisions. Therefore, this comment is
outside of the scope of this rulemaking.
Public Comments
We reviewed all comments received from the public particularly for
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule to
list the nine large constrictor snakes. We consolidated the following
comments and our responses into key issues that are not in any
particular order. We are also referring to only the four species in
this final rule unless otherwise appropriate to include the other five
species for the comments and our response to comments.
Health and Welfare of Human Beings
(1) Comment: Some people have been killed and more have been
injured in the United States by nonnative large constrictor snakes that
were kept as pets.
Our Response: One commenter submitted a list of 179 reports that
included accounts of human injuries and fatalities from nonnative
constrictor snakes, nonnative constrictor snakes that escaped or were
spotted in the wild, and nonnative constrictor snakes kept in inhumane
conditions that were reported in the media that occurred in the United
States between 1980 and 2010. The accounts included reports of Burmese
pythons, African (rock) pythons, reticulated pythons, boa constrictors,
green anacondas, and yellow anacondas, and unidentified large
constrictor snakes. The list contains accounts from 39 States,
including Alaska and Hawaii. Of the 179 total reports, 21 were attacks
on people, 13 of which resulted in human fatalities. Burmese pythons
reportedly attacked eight of those people, resulting in four deaths.
African (rock) pythons (not distinguished by species) reportedly
attacked one person fatally. Pythons of undeclared species reportedly
attacked seven people, with five resulting in death. One unidentified
constrictor reportedly wrapped around a motorist's neck and caused an
automobile crash. Another commenter sent an additional report of a pet
python (not identified to species) that killed a child in Minnesota
(date unknown).
We acknowledge that there have been reports of deaths and injury
due to encounters with nonnative large constrictor snakes, but the
accounts identified by the commenter involved snakes held in captivity.
We do not know of any free-ranging nonnative large constrictor snakes
that have injured or killed anyone in the United States. Human
fatalities from nonvenomous snakes in the wild are rare (Reed and Rodda
2009). An indirect risk is that large snakes may stretch across roads
to obtain heat from the pavement on cool days, posing a hazard to
motorists who swerve to avoid hitting them (Snow et al. 2007; Harvey et
al. 2008). Please see ``Potential Impacts to Humans'' in each species
above for further information.
(2) Comment: The actual physical danger that these snakes pose to
humans and public safety has been grossly overstated, and there have
only been 12 human fatalities attributed to these snakes since 1980, an
average of 0.4 deaths per year are attributed. Those fatalities are
usually a direct result of either improper care and handling of the
animal, or feeding-related errors on the part of the keeper or pet
owner.
Our Response: We agree that, while there have been 14 human deaths
that we know of since 1980, this number is small relative to other
causes of death. We do not wish to overstate the risk to public safety.
We agree that the preeminent issue is not one of public safety, because
we know of no large constrictor snake attacks in the United States from
free-ranging snakes. We also note that, in their native ranges, reports
of snake attacks on humans in the wild are rare, although they have
occurred (Reed and Rodda 2009). However, the remoteness of the native
ranges of the any of the species may preclude deaths from being
reported. Reed and Rodda 2009 state that virtually all known human
fatalities are associated with pet manipulation. However, Snow et al.
(2007) and Harvey et al. (2008) also noted that large constrictors
crossing roads could cause traffic accidents. In general, we agree that
the risk to human safety is not in itself a substantial factor in
listing any of these species as injurious.
(3) Comment: Boa constrictors should be removed from the rule.
These snakes have never killed their keepers, nor have they killed
anyone else. There has never been a documented human death by a boa
constrictor.
Our Response: Taking full account of public comments and relevant
factors, we have not listed boa constrictors at this time. We will
address this comment in more detail when we publish a determination of
whether this species should be listed as injurious.
Large Constrictor Snakes as Pets and Hobby
(4) Comment: Most people in the reptile hobby who choose to own
these larger species are very responsible and do well in keeping their
pets and investments healthy and safe, and this includes preventing
their escape. It does not stand to reason that the actions of this very
limited amount of negligent owners should affect millions of
responsible pet owners.
Our Response: While we do not dispute that most constrictor snake
owners try to be responsible, the volume of imports and domestically
bred snakes is so large (averaging 49,941 annually for the nine
proposed species and 12,741 for the four species in this final rule;
see our Final Economic Analysis, Table 8) that accidents may happen
resulting in snakes escaping or snakes could be intentionally released.
Shipping containers may be damaged--and live snakes able to escape--
anywhere between the port of import and the destination of the pet
owner's home. In that case, the problem could arise before the pet
owners acquire the animals.
Another consideration is the risk involved with transporting large,
powerful snakes. While keeping a snake in a sedentary home cage may be
not in itself be a difficult task, the situation may change when a 20-
ft (6-m) snake weighing 200 pounds (91 kg) is transported in a car to a
veterinarian. Unless the snake is transported in an escape-proof cage
from the house to the automobile to the veterinarian, snakes may find
more opportunities for escape. Conversely, small snakes may escape
[[Page 3348]]
more easily than large ones because they are more likely to be
transported casually, such as carried for show. For example, a boa
constrictor that was transported around on its owner's neck on a Boston
subway escaped and survived for a month on the heated train in January
2011 before being captured (Associated Press 2011).
We have based our determination on our evaluation of injuriousness
to wildlife and wildlife resources and the likelihood that any of the
four large constrictor snakes could escape, become established, and
cause harm.
(5) Comment: These snakes are not injurious wild animals. They are
domesticated pets.
Our Response: We recognize that many snakes are kept in captivity
with no negative incidences and that they seem tame. However, the fact
that various species of wildlife may be kept as pets does not remove
these species from the scope of U.S. wildlife laws. Under the injurious
wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42), all four of these
species are wild. Therefore, we have the authority to list all of the
four species of constrictor snakes once we determine that they are
injurious. We base our determination as injurious on their effect on
any one of the following: the interests of human beings, agriculture,
horticulture, forestry, wildlife, or wildlife resources of the United
States.
(6) Comment: I have kept more of these animals than anyone you will
ever meet, and I can assure you, they are not injurious in any way.
Our Response: We recognize that there are various meanings of
``injurious.'' However, under the Service's authority, the Lacey Act
(18 U.S.C. 42), and for the purpose of this rule, injurious wildlife
are wild mammals, wild birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, crustaceans,
mollusks, and their offspring or gametes that are injurious to the
interests of human beings, agriculture, horticulture, forestry,
wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States. A wildlife species
does not need to be injurious to all of the above interests to be
listed. If a species is injurious to wildlife or wildlife resources of
the United States (including its territories and insular possessions),
we have the authority to list that species.
(7) Comment: We agree that ownership of certain animals should be
restricted; however, we feel that banning the species Boa constrictor
fails to address current concerns, is unnecessarily restrictive, and
counter-productive. This species also represents the largest portion of
the nine species listed in the proposed rule.
Our Response: Taking account of public comments and relevant
factors, we have not listed Boa constrictor at this time. We will
address this comment in more detail when we publish a determination of
whether this species should be listed as injurious.
(8) Comment: This rule will destroy the ability of animal
hobbyists, who are our future biologists and conservationists, to
explore and learn about these specific animals, thus limiting exposure
to the natural world at large.
Our Response: The commenters did not explain how the rule will
destroy the ability of animal hobbyists to learn about these animals.
Hobbyists will still be allowed to keep their snakes and offspring and
to acquire additional ones within their State (and consistent with
their State's own laws). The long lives of these species improve the
chances that the hobbyists will have their pets for one or more
decades, generally much longer than amphibian and tropical fish
hobbyists. Hobbyists still have many other species of snakes and other
reptiles to choose from that are not listed as injurious. We hope that,
with this rule, future biologists and conservationists will learn about
the ecological role of these species in their native lands and in lands
where they become invasive.
Unprecedented Regulation
(9) Comment: It is unprecedented that a ban be placed on a group of
animals that is so prevalent in the pet industry and kept by so many
hobbyists.
Our Response: We agree that we have never listed any species that
is so prevalent in the pet industry as some of these large constrictor
snakes. However, the Lacey Act does not preclude listing a species that
is prevalent in the pet industry, provided that the species meets the
criteria of injuriousness. In addition, this regulation is not a ban on
possessing any of the species. States, however, independently from this
rule, may have their own restrictions, and these restrictions may be
more stringent than this Federal rule. In other words, individual
States may ban possession of any of these species. This final rule only
establishes a prohibition against importation and interstate
transportation of listed species without a permit. Furthermore, only
one of the species that we are listing (Burmese python) is common in
the pet trade; the other three constrictor species are rarely or not
traded. Lastly, the most commonly imported constrictor snake in the pet
industry by far--the ball python (Python regius; 78.6 percent of the
constrictor snake species reviewed in our economic analysis)--is not
being listed as injurious.
Other Animals More Injurious
(10) Comment: A better argument based on safety and health
statistics could be made to ban horses or dogs, as the average American
is more likely to be injured or killed by either of those animals than
any reptile. Certainly there are other species such as feral cats,
dogs, rats, pigeons, starlings, and pigs, that each cause more damage
to the environment of South Florida.
Our Response: As the commenter correctly points out, many species
of feral domesticated animals are considered invasive and have caused
harm to humans and natural resources in south Florida and other parts
of the United States. However, the agency has only the authority to
list ``wild'' birds and ``wild'' mammals as injurious wildlife where,
under section 42(a)(2) of 18 U.S.C., the term ``wild'' is specific to
any animals that, whether or not raised in captivity, are normally
found in a wild state. Dogs, cats, and horses are considered
domesticated animals under 50 CFR 14.4 regulations and, therefore,
cannot be listed as injurious wildlife.
This rule is in response to a petition to list one of the largest
constrictor snakes in the world. Based on the best available
information, we have found that the four species covered by this final
rule are injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, or
to the wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States. This does
not mean that we believe these snakes to be the most injurious of all
wild animals.
Effort to Ban Pets
(11) Comment: This snake ban opens the door to many other animals
being banned. If this rule is passed, then next it will be foreign
reptiles all together, followed closely by a different ban, followed by
an eventual ban on reptiles, period. Next it will be cats, dogs, fish,
and birds.
Our Response: This rule does not ban possession of any species. As
stated above in the SUMMARY, the rule prohibits only the importation
and interstate transportation. This is the only authority provided to
the Secretary of the Interior by Congress under the injurious wildlife
provisions of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42). Three of the four species
of large constrictor snakes are already in captivity in the United
States and are available for acquisition within each State (unless
otherwise regulated by your State's laws). In addition, any species
under
[[Page 3349]]
consideration for listing as injurious is evaluated on a case-by-case
basis, using all available information relevant to whether it is or is
not injurious. Therefore, this rule does not set up a trend to ban
ownership of any particular species or groups of species. Second, the
Lacey Act does not provide the authority to list domesticated mammals
and birds as injurious. Section 42(a)(1) of the Lacey Act specifies
that we may list only ``wild mammals'' and ``wild birds,'' as opposed
to domesticated mammals and domesticated birds. This means that we
cannot list domestic dogs, cats, horses, certain species of birds, and
so on. However, all reptiles are considered wild and can be considered
injurious wildlife if they meet the listing criteria (see ``Lacey Act
Evaluation Criteria section'' above for explanation). Domesticated
animals are defined in 50 CFR 14.4.
Effect of Rule on Welfare of Large Constrictor Snakes
(12) Comment: This rule change basically represents a death
sentence for millions of reptiles in the United States. Many of these
snakes will be abandoned and set free where they will surely suffer and
die.
Our Response: We disagree that this rulemaking will result in the
death of millions of reptiles currently being held in captivity. We
have been clear that all owners of any of the snakes listed as
injurious will be allowed to keep them under this rule. For animals
already in the United States, this rule only restricts shipment between
States. We emphasize that it will be lawful for pet owners to keep
their pets (if allowed by State law). We have no reason to believe that
responsible, caring owners will kill or release them into the wild
because they can keep them. Breeders may still be able to export
through a port in their own State (see response to Comment 47 for
exporting explanation). For breeders who can no longer export, they may
find buyers in their own State. For information on how to find a home
for a snake that a person can no longer keep, we posted some
suggestions on http://www.regulations.gov at the time the proposed rule
was published on March 12, 2010 (separate file ``Questions and
Answers''). We explained:
``If you are in a position where you must give up your pet [large
constrictor snake], and zoos and humane societies have declined your
efforts to donate the animal, you should contact either your State fish
and wildlife agency or your local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
office. These two government agencies are the legal authorities that
co-manage fish and wildlife in this country, and they can help you to
resolve this issue. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with
States around the country and the pet and aquarium industry through a
campaign called Habitattitude\TM\ to help pet owners adopt
environmentally responsible actions for surrendering their pets, such
as:
Contacting the retailer for proper handling advice or for
possible return;
Giving or trading with another pet owner;
Donating to a zoo, humane society, nature center, school,
or pet retailer; and
Contacting a veterinarian or pet retailer for guidance on
humane disposal of animals.''
For those pet owners who move to another State, we also suggest
contacting a local herpetology club or a national reptile organization
with local members to find someone to adopt those constrictor snakes.
(13) Comment: What would happen to the businesses operated by
thousands of families in the industry with this rule? It is doubtful
that those animals would be humanely euthanized (due to finances and
ethical objections), so those animals would either be subjected to
inhumane practices or become liabilities to those persons who have
them. It would be a cruel irony that the animal rights agenda of
eliminating these animals from the pet trade would result in the
destruction of millions of animals that have proven to be nondangerous.
Our Response: Family businesses will still be able to operate,
provided they either sell within their State or have a port of export
directly from their State (see response to Comment 47 for exporting
explanation). Businesses may switch to other species of snakes that are
not listed. Please see our response to Comment 12 on alternatives for
disposing of animals that you can no longer keep. Owners are encouraged
to find legal alternatives, such as trading species with someone in
their own State who has a species that is not listed and who is able to
keep a listed species in that State. We emphasize that it will be
lawful for pet owners to keep their pets (if allowed by State law) but
unlawful to release them or transport them across State lines.
Regarding the statement that these snakes are nondangerous, we
emphasize that we distinguish between ``nondangerous,'' which we assume
the commenter means ``does not harm people,'' and ``injurious,'' which
has a different meaning under the Lacey Act. We agree that these four
species of snakes pose only a small risk of harm to people; however, we
are listing them for their injuriousness.
(14) Comment: Thousands of snakes' lives will be spared because the
majority of reptiles die during capture from the wild or subsequent
transport or within the first year of captivity. Banning the
importation of these species will ensure that many snakes will not fall
victim to the harsh conditions of being shipped overseas.
Our Response: From the Service's Law Enforcement Management
Information System (LEMIS) data, we estimate that approximately 96,000
snakes of the four species were imported from 1999 to 2010. Some were
probably captured from the wild. Imported snakes are then usually sent
to animal dealers before being shipped to pet retailers. Finally, the
snakes are typically acquired at a pet retailer and transported to a
home or other location. Large constrictor snakes may become ill,
injured, or die during transport. Since this listing would place
prohibitions on importation and interstate movement of the four
species, it is reasonable to assume that fewer animals will therefore
die from importation and interstate transport. Although animal welfare
is regulated by the Federal government for some taxa (that is,
primarily warm-blooded species) under such laws as the Animal Welfare
Act, this was not a factor considered in our injurious wildlife
evaluation and did not influence our final determination.
Benefits of Having Large Constrictor Snakes in the United States
(15) Comment: While the Burmese pythons do consume native species
such as wading birds, waterfowl, muskrats, rabbits, opossum, raccoons,
and even bobcats and white-tailed deer, they are probably just as
likely to prey upon the more common exotic species, such as feral cats
and dogs, nonnative rats and mice, starlings, pigeons, collared doves,
spiny-tailed iguanas, green iguanas, cattle egrets, and muscovy ducks.
Our Response: We agree that large constrictor snakes, such as
Burmese pythons in the Everglades, can potentially prey on other
nonnative species, and that this could be beneficial to native
wildlife. Snow et al. (2007) reported that domestic cats, Old World
rats, domestic chickens, and domestic geese have been found in Burmese
python digestive systems in Florida. However, of greater conservation
and management concern are the effects that invasive species pose to
native populations of wildlife and wildlife resources--in particular,
those that are threatened and endangered or otherwise
[[Page 3350]]
at risk of extinction (Clavero and Garcia-Berthou 2005). Reed and Rodda
(2009) listed a total of 64 State-listed threatened or endangered
species at risk from Burmese pythons or other large constrictors in
Florida alone. This includes the highly endangered Key Largo wood rat,
which has been found in the stomachs of Burmese pythons, and whose
population may number only in the hundreds. As demonstrated in our
injurious wildlife evaluation, we believe that the risks posed by large
constrictor snakes to native wildlife and wildlife resources far
outweigh the possible benefits they may have as predators of nonnative
wildlife in the United States. We do not have information on what the
other feral constrictor snakes have eaten. The negative effect of
predation on rare species is greater than the effect on exotic species
because any decrease in populations of rare species makes it less
likely for those populations to rebound.
(16) Comment: Some commenters own boa constrictors from regions of
Brazil that no longer have boa constrictors due to deforestation. Many
of the reptiles present in captive collections are representative of
vanishing bloodlines of wild populations of these species. They are
conserving wild species.
Our Response: One subspecies covered under this listing is known to
be significantly imperiled: the Indian python (Python molurus molurus),
which is granted a higher level of protection under CITES than most
other constrictor species or subspecies (all species in the family
Pythonidae are listed in at least Appendix II; several are listed in
Appendix I). Indian python (Python molurus molurus) is listed as
endangered under the U.S.'s Endangered Species Act (ESA) because it is
endangered in its native range. Listing these species as injurious will
not impact legitimate conservation efforts that U.S. breeders can carry
out for species that may be negatively impacted by natural and man-made
events within their native range. In general, the Service supports ex-
situ conservation efforts, such as captive breeding, when done in a
scientific manner for the conservation of a species within its native
range. The Act also still allows export of listed species that could be
used in re-introduction activities or other in-situ conservation
efforts. The Act allows for the issuance of permits authorizing
interstate movement or imports for scientific or zoological purposes,
including conservation breeding operations.
(17) Comment: Many keepers I know are concerned about the worldwide
decline of species, and a distributed network of determined keepers may
prove the only hope for the survival of several of the species
addressed. For example, the natural population of the Burmese python
has been on a steady decline due to habitat loss.
Our Response: The Service strongly supports ex-situ conservation
programs that are scientifically designed to provide conservation
benefits to species in their native range. The listing of these species
as injurious will not prevent conservation breeding programs run by
dedicated herpetologists and hobbyists from providing a conservation
benefit to any of these species (see our response to Comment 16).
State Issue (Not Federal Government)
(18) Comment: The constrictor snakes should be listed by individual
States, not by the Federal Government.
Our Response: Many commenters suggested that we should not list any
of these species and we should allow the States to regulate these
species as they see fit. The Service is responsible for implementing
and enforcing laws such as the Lacey Act, under which authority we are
listing these species. We believe implementation of the injurious
wildlife provisions reflects the shared State-Federal governance of
invasive species challenges facing the United States as originally
intended by Congress. Since these snakes have been found to be
injurious to human beings and to wildlife and wildlife resources, we
believe federally regulating movements of these four species of
constrictors into the United States and between States and territories
is an important step in limiting their effects. The States and other
jurisdictions within the United States retain the ability to regulate
these species as they determine appropriate within their boundaries.
(19) Comment: Mere presence of a species does not equate the threat
of harm, especially when individuals are cited in environments in which
they cannot establish. If this is solid justification for listing a
species as injurious, the Service will need to list every organism that
has ever--and is ever--spotted outside of captivity in the United
States.
Our Response: The Service undergoes a rigorous evaluation before
determining that any species is injurious. Mere presence does not
qualify a species as injurious. The Service evaluates each species
based on numerous criteria (see ``Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria''
section above). We also consider the potential to survive, become
established, and spread; likelihood of release or escape; impact to
threatened and endangered species and their habitats; and so on. We
have determined that the four species of large constrictor snakes
covered by this rule are injurious.
Rule Will Not Be Effective
(20) Comment: This regulation change will not make the established
population of Burmese pythons in Florida disappear.
Our Response: We agree that this rule alone may not reduce the
population of Burmese pythons in Florida and certainly not eliminate
it. Similarly, it may not reduce or eliminate the populations of
northern African pythons in Florida. We do not expect that. However it
should reduce the populations of those species in conjunction with
control or management programs. Furthermore, we do believe the rule
will be effective in other ways. See also our responses to Comments 21
and 22.
(21) Comment: Such a rule change disallowing the interstate trade
of these species is counter-intuitive and a non sequitur to ban trade
between every other State in the Union.
Our Response: From our evaluation of each species (under section
``Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Burmese Python'' and the
other species above), we believe that prohibiting the interstate trade
of these species along with prohibitions of further importations will
reduce the risk of them becoming more widespread to new areas of the
United States, including the territories and insular possessions.
Please also see ``Need for the Final Rule'' section above.
(22) Comment: The Lacey Act has never stopped the introduction or
eradicated the feral populations of any invasive species, which makes
it wholly ineffective in this case.
Our Response: The commenter is correct that no eradication of
established feral populations has been accomplished merely by the
listing of a species as injurious, but we did not expect that result.
Merely preventing introductions of new individuals will not result in
the eradication of existing populations (Burmese python and Northern
African python). The most likely way for the injurious listing
provisions to be successful is if they are applied before a species is
present in the United States or in vulnerable parts of the United
States. The two other constrictor snake species listed as injurious may
be prevented from becoming established in Florida, as well as other
vulnerable areas of the country. Furthermore, the purpose of listing
the four species in all areas of the country is to prevent any areas of
the country
[[Page 3351]]
that do not currently have the four species (see ``Potential
Introduction and Spread'' sections for each species above) from
becoming invaded. Fowler et al. (2007) discuss the effectiveness of the
Lacey Act listings by looking at all of the species that are currently
listed as injurious. They state that, ``None (0%) of the 7 species that
were absent from the country at the time of listing have subsequently
established populations, and two of the taxa that were present only in
captivity (raccoon dog and brushtail possum) did not establish wild
populations. [T]wo taxa that were established outside captivity at the
time of the listing (European rabbit and Java sparrow) have not spread
between states since listing.'' If the rule can prevent introductions
to any vulnerable parts of the country, it will be effective.
Educational Use Curtailed
(23) Comment: The rule will impact educational outreach at zoos.
Educators travel to neighboring States. Burmese pythons are a flagship
species for these outreach education activities. Their impressive size
and docile disposition make them ideal to provide the basis for
explaining complex ecosystems. Providing an opportunity for children to
closely view these animals is a tremendous opportunity for snakes and
other wildlife, and helps break the cycle of persecution that has
caused declines in many snake populations throughout the world. The Act
as currently written requires strict and uninterrupted double
containment for injurious species. The inclusion of these four taxa of
snakes on the list of injurious wildlife will make the use of any of
these forms in interstate education programs virtually impossible.
Our Response: Zoos around the country commonly use live animals at
the zoo and off-site. The listing of the four species will not prevent
such use within the home State of the zoo since these species, such as
Burmese pythons, can continue to be used for education in the home
State with no permit necessary and no containment requirements (unless
there are State requirements).
However, if zoo personnel want to travel across State lines with
one of the listed species, the Act would come into effect. The Act
requires that the zoo obtain a permit to carry out any interstate
movement of a listed species and the specimens being moved would need
to be in double-escape-proof containers. Permit applications to carry
out interstate movement of listed species for educational purposes can
be submitted to the Service, along with an application fee of $25. This
is a similar procedure used by zoological and educational institutions
to obtain permits for threatened and endangered species, so the
institutions may already be familiar with the process.
The commenter is correct that the double-escape-proof container is
a requirement of the permit. Moreover, this requirement applies not
only when the snake is being transported outside the zoo, but applies
within the zoo as well. However, we have found that most zoos that are
already permitted for other injurious species can easily comply with
the requirements for a minimal extra cost over the standard housing
requirements for the species. However, the containment of any injurious
species is consistent with the preventative measures of the injurious
wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act.
(24) Comment: The cost of specimen replacement to zoos will
increase dramatically.
Our Response: The commenter provided no evidence that costs will
increase dramatically or even at all. Most of the listed species are
available by breeders in most States and can be obtained without a
permit. If importation is needed, zoos may obtain an importation
permit. The cost of a permit is $100 for importation, which covers the
whole shipment, even for multiple species and individuals. The cost is
$25 for a permit to transport or move animals from one exhibit to
another within a permitted institution or between institutions that are
already permitted to maintain the same injurious species. The commenter
did not explain how often zoos replace specimens, so we do not know how
much the cost will increase. Since most of these species have lifespans
in captivity of 20 to 30 years (see ``Biology'' section of each
species), we expect this will not be a frequent need. As for the cost
of the snakes, the commenter provides no information that this will
increase, nor do we know whether the price of these species on the
market will increase, decrease, or remain unchanged. Furthermore, zoos
may become a primary beneficiary of constrictor snakes from owners who
decide to give up their pets because they are moving out-of-State or
for another reason.
(25) Comment: The rule will impact our non-outreach collection, the
permit preparation time, administrative costs, permit fees, and time
delays will be a major hindrance to continuing the management of these
species as part of the broader zoo network within the Association of
Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). This will make replacing specimens in a
timely fashion extremely difficult for our zoo and others. Ultimately,
these species may have to be eliminated from our collections.
Our Response: As stated earlier, the rule does not affect
intrastate movement of these species nor does it restrict ownership or
even captive breeding. It is anticipated that most zoos that already
have these species have the capacity to either breed animals already
held at the zoo or obtain additional specimens within their State. Zoos
may become a primary beneficiary of constrictor snakes from owners who
decide to give up their pets because they are moving out-of-State or
for other reasons. If this is not sufficient, the Act does have
provisions for obtaining specimens from other States or even from
foreign sources. The Service recognizes that the permitting process
imposes some increased administrative costs and is committed to
exercising available flexibilities under its Lacey Act permitting
authority to minimize permit application preparation and processing
times and to reduce administrative costs. For example, we will do so by
issuing permits that authorize multiple interstate movements for
educational purposes over extended periods. The Service is committed to
finding ways to minimize the time it takes for facilities to obtain
authorization for interstate transport or importation so zoos can
continue their active management of these species. We do not believe
that this listing would result in any zoo having to eliminate these
species from their collections.
(26) Comment: With my collection, I do school and library visits to
give kids who generally do not get the chance to see these animals up
close the experience to see them. This in my mind is one step needed in
educating people on wildlife conservation as well as responsible pet
keeping. I take large snakes and lizards to the kids from all over the
world where they would normally never be able to see them. If you ban
these reptiles, my life dream will be ruined and I will not be able to
continue my life mission to show people these amazing creatures up
close.
Our Response: We recognize that many people present large and small
live animal programs in communities all over the country. We agree that
such programs are important to teach conservation and the value of
wildlife. However, this new rule will not prevent these programs from
occurring. Providing no State lines are crossed, you can continue your
educational programs without the need for a permit from the Service.
Furthermore, educators may apply to the Service for a permit to
[[Page 3352]]
transport these species across State lines for educational purposes.
Lastly, educators can also teach conservation principles by using snake
skins, photos, and other tools to teach people about the problems of
releasing nonnative species in the United States. We believe
conservation can be taught without the exact live specimens of every
animal being discussed.
(27) Comment: This rule will eliminate a reptile culture for future
generations to share in.
Our Response: The commenter did not explain how the reptile culture
would be eliminated. This rule will not result in the elimination of
reptile ownership or interest in reptiles. The listing does not
prohibit ownership of these species or any other reptile species. While
the listing will probably result in fewer specimens of these species
being available commercially because the listing would reduce the
economic incentive for some current breeders from continuing to breed
the species, we do not believe that all captive breeding would stop. It
is an unfortunate aspect of the need to protect our native wildlife and
ecosystems by listing these species as injurious that some people or
organizations that currently possess these species would be affected.
Violations and Penalties
(28) Comment: If enacted, this rulemaking would have the
unprecedented effect of putting as many as a million American citizens
in possession of injurious wildlife and subject to potential felony
prosecution under the Lacey Act. It could effectively create a new
class of criminal out of law-abiding American citizens. This regulation
would turn hobbyists' current activities into a Federal crime.
Our Response: These listings under the Lacey Act will have no
effect on the majority of owners of these four species. Pet owners who
keep their snakes within their own State will not be affected. Examples
of owners who will be affected: (1) People who take their pets to a
veterinarian in another State; (2) people who wish to transport their
pets across a State line, such as if the owners are moving; and (3)
people who keep large constrictor snakes as a business and sell to
other States. However, many States have laws against possessing wild
animals, and these snakes may not be allowed into those States by State
law anyway. Examples are Hawaii (all snakes), Florida (for Burmese
python, Northern and Southern African pythons, and other species), Iowa
(North African python and all Eunectes spp.), and New York (Burmese and
North African pythons) (see our Final Environmental Assessment 2012).
State laws may be more stringent than Federal laws and should not be
confused with Federal laws. Our response to (1) above is that pet
owners are free to locate a veterinarian in their own State. The pet
industry and veterinary organizations could work together to help the
owners of the four species to locate willing veterinarians within a
reasonable driving distance. Our response to (2) above is that people
who are moving should seek alternatives such as those suggested in our
response to Comment 29.
The subject of violations under the Lacey Act has frequently been
misunderstood and caused undue consternation among animal owners. We
will explain here how the Lacey Act will address the new injurious
listings. A person would violate the injurious wildlife provisions of
the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42) if he or she did one of the following with
any one of the four constrictor species listed as injurious: (1)
Transported between the States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the
United States by any means whatsoever; or (2) imported into the United
States from another country. In either case, notwithstanding there may
be other laws being broken by the action that we are not considering
here, these violations are considered misdemeanors and carry penalties
of up to 6 months in prison and a $5,000 fine for an individual or a
$10,000 fine for an organization under 18 U.S.C. 42. If, however,
another law was also broken, the violation could become a felony under
16 U.S.C. 3372, which carries higher penalties. For example, if the
owner of a Burmese python in Florida didn't have a permit as required
by Florida State law, and that person transported the snake to another
State, then the fact that the State law was broken in the process of
transporting it across State lines makes it a title 16 violation.
Therefore, while it may put as many as a million American citizens in
possession of injurious wildlife, none will be in violation of the
Lacey Act automatically. Furthermore, unless these people break laws
under title 16, they would not be subject to potential felony
prosecution under the Lacey Act. Hobbyists' current activities would
not become crimes provided their snakes stayed in-State or were
exported directly out of the country from a designated port within
their State's borders.
Unintended Consequences
(29) Comment: Pet owners will release their snakes and the problem
will be worse. The Lacey Act will do nothing to help the problem; if
anything, it would have an adverse effect on the environment. Snake
breeders who had been fully responsible beforehand may release their
now worthless investments into the wild in retaliation of the rule
change. Caring snake owners that cannot move across State lines with
their beloved pets may instead release them as a means of avoiding
forced euthanasia. The trust of responsible snake owners would be
debilitated, and a large portion of snake owners deliberately becoming
irresponsible poses a much larger risk than a few isolated
irresponsible owners.
Our Response: Many commenters stated that responsible owners would
release or euthanize their snakes if this rule passed. We do not
believe that this would be the case since pet owners will still be
allowed to keep their snakes and sell or give them away within their
State. We have posted some suggestions on http://www.regulations.gov at
the time the proposed rule was published on March 12, 2010 (see
separate file ``Questions and Answers''), for how to find a home for a
snake that a person can no longer keep. Please see our response to
Comment 12, where they are repeated.
With social networking so available on the Internet, a person
moving to another State could possibly find a reptile enthusiast in
their current State to adopt the pet. When the person moved to the new
State, the person could contact reptile enthusiasts in the new State to
see if any snakes were available for adopting. While that is not the
same as keeping the same snake, it does present a responsible
alternative.
We believe that most people will choose to keep their snakes and
also, of those owners who can't because they are moving to another
State or similar situation, they have options as presented above. While
some misinformed pet owners or breeders might release their snakes, we
do not believe that this will be widespread. The Service believes that
the potential illegal conduct of a few irresponsible pet owners should
not cause us to refrain from listing species that we have determined to
be injurious.
(30) Comment: This rule will create a lucrative black market in the
trade of these nine species that will cost billions in tax dollars to
enforce. Ultimately the animals will suffer. There will always be
unscrupulous dealers who will take advantage of prohibition.
[[Page 3353]]
Our Response: The commenter provides no supporting evidence that a
black market will be created. Therefore, we assume that the commenter
is basing the statement on historical events with other species. We do
not know if a black market will be created. We agree that there will
always be unscrupulous dealers who will take advantage of people.
However, we believe that the pet owners prefer to be law-abiding
citizens and would find legal ways of dealing with new situations. We
should note that this comment, as all others, was based on the proposed
rule with nine species of constrictor snakes.
(31) Comment: This rule will cause airlines to embargo snakes. They
will refuse to transport them.
Our Response: We hope that this rule does not influence airlines to
implement an unnecessary embargo on transporting snakes within the
injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act (that is, intrastate or
with a permit). It is our understanding that, unrelated to this rule or
any injurious wildlife listing, there are some carriers that have
declined to transport live animals or specific dangerous animals.
Shippers with the appropriate Federal permits, specifying how the
animals should be transported in escape-proof containers, should be
able to find a carrier.
Environmental Threat
(32) Comment: The peer[hyphen]reviewed research (``Giant
Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and an Establishment
Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, and the
Boa Constrictor'') quantified the ecological risk that nine species of
large constrictor snakes pose to the United States, looking at both the
probability that the snakes would become established and the resulting
consequences. Burmese pythons will eat a wide variety of reptiles,
birds, and mammals of all sizes, and can deplete vulnerable species.
Our Response: We agree that there is an environmental threat to
native species in the United States, including the territories and
possessions. We have explained this threat in our Environmental
Assessment and in the sections ``Potential Impacts to Native Species
(Including Threatened and Endangered Species'' for each species above).
We concur that this threat is part of the justification for listing the
four species as injurious.
(33) Comment: The Burmese python invasion is an ecological calamity
in progress. It is directly undermining the multibillion-dollar,
nationally supported Everglades restoration project because the
monitoring and success of that project are tied to measures of native
wildlife ``indicator'' populations, which are now being consumed and
reduced by these human-introduced predators. Had the Service considered
the risk of the Burmese python under its Lacey Act listing authority 20
years ago, the agency might have prevented this invasion.
Our Response: The South Florida Water Management District
petitioned us to list the Burmese python in 2006 because the species
was undermining their Everglades restoration effort. We agree that, if
we had listed the species 20 years ago, the current problem might have
been averted. This evidence gives further support to list the other
three species of large constrictor snakes before this situation happens
with other species or with Burmese pythons in other parts of the
country.
Political Pressure
(34) Comment: Politics is running the process. This entire movement
is driven by animal rights extremists with deep pockets and a political
agenda, and not science and reason. It is designed to end the trade in
nonnative wildlife.
Our Response: We disagree that politics is involved in this
determination. We received a petition from the South Florida Water
Management District in 2006 to list the Burmese python. They were
concerned about the ecological danger posed by Burmese pythons to the
health of the Everglades. In our effort to address this petition, we
realized that other species of large constrictors were becoming
increasingly commonly found in Florida, and, therefore, we expanded our
evaluation to include other species. The Service has been criticized in
the past for being too late in listing species as injurious. We took a
proactive approach to prevent future problems.
The regulatory process to list the four species was guided by
biologists. We received peer-reviewed scientific documentation (the
risk assessment) from a separate bureau (see Response to Comment 35 on
USGS politics). We also received comments from five independent peer
reviewers on the proposed rule and supporting documents. This rule is
an action to regulate the importation and interstate transport of four
species of large constrictor snakes that have been found to be
injurious. Much of the trade in these species of snakes can continue
legally (except where States have their own prohibiting laws). We
received tens of thousands of comments from both animal rights
supporters and pet trade supporters. We considered the comments of all
submitters equally.
(35) Comment: It is not hard to understand why the USGS and
biologists would be strongly interested in seeing more species added to
the Injurious Wildlife List. They have decades of experience getting
funding for injurious snake research; they are expert at it. Because of
this history and the fiscal incentives involved, there exists a
tangible potential for bias, impropriety, and a lack of impartiality.
Due to the obvious possibility of conflict of interest and bias, the
USGS should have recused itself from the contract and funding to create
this report. So far, the USGS ``report'' provides the only scientific
evidence (if one can actually call it scientific) that would justify
any Federal regulatory action regarding these nine tropical snake
species.
Our Response: The Service, the National Park Service, and the USGS
carefully segregated their roles in this rulemaking process so that
policy objectives did not bias scientific results. USGS does not
undertake any regulatory efforts associated with injurious wildlife so
that it may concentrate specifically on the science of the issues. The
Service and the National Park Service contracted with USGS to prepare
the report on risk assessment because of USGS's extensive expertise on
the subject. Part of this expertise comes from their similar work on
brown tree snakes, listed by Congress as injurious in 1990. The risk
assessment on the constrictor snakes provided an extensive review of
the literature of the species, and while this information was used by
the risk assessment authors to provide measures of risk on each
species, the extensive literature review was also used separately by
the biologists who wrote the rule. Therefore, the rule and the risk
assessment were developed from independent scientific papers from
authors all around the world.
In addition, the peer reviewers of the proposed rule and supporting
documents state that the rule is scientifically justified and an
appropriate step to protect native wildlife in the United States from
the risks posed by the nine large constrictor snakes. The 2011 USGS
document entitled ``Challenges in Identifying Sites Climatically
Matched to the Native Ranges of Animal Invaders'' also underwent peer
review before it was published. Please see also Comment 67 on the USGS
peer review process.
(36) Comment: The rule was steered by the USGS.
Our Response: The USGS's role was to prepare one of the supporting
documents (``Giant Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and
[[Page 3354]]
an Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons,
Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor''). The rule was written by the
Service, using the risk assessment document for its excellent summaries
of the biology of the four species, as well as for its assessment of
the risks. However, the Service uses the criteria set forth by the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF 1996) to determine risks and
its own injurious wildlife evaluation criteria to determine which
species should be listed. The Service seriously considered each
species, using biological information compiled by the USGS risk
assessment authors and other available information. Because the risk
assessment authors did such a thorough job of comprehensively compiling
literature (more than 600 references) on the nine species, we were able
to utilize the report extensively for our own injurious wildlife
evaluation of the four species in this rule. This compilation of
references in one location greatly facilitated our evaluations but
should not be construed that USGS influenced our determinations.
Misinterpretation of the Rule
(37) Comment: The government does not have the right to ban animals
that are so widely kept as pets. It's unconstitutional. It is my
constitutional right to be able to express myself and I do that through
reptiles.
Our Response: Many commenters believed that the rule will ban
possession of the four species of constrictor snakes. This is not true.
An injurious wildlife designation prohibits importation into the United
States and transport across State lines (including the District of
Columbia and U.S. territories and possessions). Pet owners will be
allowed to keep their pets, sell them, or give them away within their
own State, if allowed by State law. No constitutional rights are being
violated.
Confusion With S 373 (Senate Bill 373)
(38) Comment: S 373 should (or should not) be enacted.
Our Response: Many commenters cited S 373 as the action they were
commenting on. We assume these commenters were referring to Senate bill
373, which was introduced by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida in February
2009. The bill passed a committee vote but received no further action
in Congress and was not passed into law. The Service was called to
testify at a hearing regarding this bill and to present background
information. The bill is a separate but parallel action to the
Service's rule to list the constrictor snakes. We can only address
comments regarding our specific rule. To ensure their comments on S 373
are heard, the public should submit those comments to their Federal
legislators. There are also two companion bills in the House: HR 2811
to ``include constrictor snakes of the species Python genera as an
injurious animal,'' and HR 511 to add large constrictors to the
``injurious wildlife'' list under the Lacey Act (title 18 U.S.C.
42(a)(1)).
More Burdens on Service
(39) Comment: This proposal will most likely create more burdens on
the already taxed Office [Division] of Management Authority and
enforcement sections of the Service.
Our Response: Both the Division of Management Authority and the
Office of Law Enforcement are fully prepared to handle any increase in
work that may result from this rule. We anticipate that the rule will
not generate a significantly large increase in permit applications
being submitted or increase in inspections at the ports. Currently, the
Division of Management Authority receives more than 6,000 applications
and issues more than 20,000 permits annually. Based on other listing
activities involving species that are traded more frequently than the
listed constrictors, the Division of Management Authority anticipates
an increase of no more than one or two percent annually.
While the listing of species as injurious that are already widely
kept and sold as pets will present unique law enforcement challenges
with respect to interstate transport, the interception of injurious
wildlife to prevent both entry into the United States and spread of
such species once they are in the country constitutes an investigative
priority for Service Law Enforcement when such transport represents a
threat to U.S. wildlife resources and habitat. The fact that this
listing would create additional work for enforcement officers does not
outweigh the ecological importance of addressing the problems created
by the continued import and interstate transport of these snakes.
(40) Comment: Will the Department of the Interior properly fund
this rule change when more pressing and immediate crises to the
environment are happening?
Our Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the rule. The
funding to support this rule change after it takes effect would be in
the form of law enforcement and permit processing. Please see our
response to Comment 39, which addresses those subjects.
(41) Comment: At our zoo, we are concerned that the permit process
will be affected by causing a backlog of permit applications.
Our Response: The Service's Division of Management Authority
recently conducted an extensive reorganization to specifically address
how it is handling its workload. While processing time for any
application can vary due to completeness of the application, current
workload being handled by the Division, or seasonal variations
resulting from climatic factors, the Division is committed to
processing any injurious wildlife application in the most timely and
efficient manner possible. We anticipate that there would be fewer than
100 applications (if nine species listed) requesting authorization to
conduct activities under this rule, and applications would typically be
completed within 30 days. Since any permit issued for interstate
transport of a listed species is valid for 1 year or more and covers a
specific geographic range where activities could occur, we do not
anticipate that a 30-day processing time would result in any
significant impacts to a zoo's ability to carry out educational work
outside their State of operation.
Predecisional Proposed Rule
(42) Comment: The proposed rule is predecisional. It is
prejudicially constructed and telegraphs a predetermined end.
Our Response: By the nature of a proposed rule (in general for all
agencies), the agency publishes what it is proposing to be the
regulation. Therefore, all proposed rules indicate the agency's
position on a particular situation. A final rule may differ from what
an agency proposes, but it may be exactly the same as the proposed
rule. The purpose of the proposed rule is to obtain additional
information, give the public notice of the proposal, and give the
public the opportunity for comment. We review all the comments for new
information and evaluation of our proposal, as we did for this rule. In
this case, we received no information that changed our evaluation of
the four constrictor species. We clearly stated in our proposed rule
that ``We are evaluating each of the nine species of constrictor snakes
individually and will list only those species that we determine to be
injurious.'' Thus, we made it clear that we left it open for us to list
fewer than nine species, or none at all, if none was determined to be
injurious based on new information. The five other species in the
proposed rule (reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green
anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa
[[Page 3355]]
constrictor) remain under consideration for listing as injurious.
If an agency feels that it could benefit from additional
information before proposing a rule, it may publish an advanced notice
of proposed rulemaking (a Notice of Inquiry; NOI) to gather more
information. The new information is used to develop a proposed rule. We
published such a notice on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5784), from which we
received more information to apply to the proposed rule.
(43) Comment: The Service failed to make a good faith effort to
gather new information.
Our Response: The Service provided ample notice and opportunity to
comment on the proposed action. Here are examples of the opportunities
provided by the Service to the public and stakeholders:
The Service published a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal
Register on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5784), as an advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking. It explained why we were considering listing the
genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes (which included more species than the
four that we are listing in this final rule), what information we
needed, and how the public could submit information to us. We provided
a 90-day comment period (ending April 30, 2008), which is a standard
length of time.
On February 29, 2008, we participated in a panel
discussion arranged by the pet industry. Representatives of the Pet
Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) were present. Our
representative opened the discussion by stating: ``This Notice of
Inquiry is an information gathering process. I really want to stress
that this is NOT a proposed rule or action. As part of processing the
petition we received to list Burmese pythons as injurious, we opened up
this comment period to gather information on especially which species,
particularly snakes such as the Burmese python, within these three
genera might be a threat to native wildlife and wildlife resources. If
there is a snake that has not yet been imported into the United States
that might pose a threat to native wildlife, this information would be
very useful. By the way, we worked with PIJAC in addressing some of the
concerns, and we answered a short set of Q&As with Reptiles Magazine.
Please take a look when you get a chance--http://www.reptilechannel.com/reptile-news/conservation-and-legal/pijac-constrictor-regulations.aspx.''
We participated in several chatrooms with stakeholders on
http://www.pethobbyist.com in February or March 2008.
The Service was interviewed by PIJAC about the NOI, and
the interview was posted by ReptileChannel.com in 2008 (http://www.reptilechannel.com/reptile-news/conservation-and-legal/pijac-constrictor-regulations.aspx). The Service explained why we were
considering action, what information we were seeking, and how the
public could provide their information. This interview is still posted
as of this writing. When we were asked ``Why are you also requesting
economic information?'' we answered, ``We currently have little
information about the value of domestic trade in these species, and it
is our responsibility as part of this process to gather a range of
information on the species of interest. This includes economic data.''
The Service was interviewed for a story on the constrictor
snake NOI, and the story published in REPTILES magazine (Vol. 16, No.
5; May 2008).
On March 12, 2010, we published in the Federal Register
(75 FR 11808) the proposed rule to list nine species of large
constrictor snakes, all of which were included in the genera from the
NOI, and for which we asked for new information. We provided a 60-day
comment period for the public (ending on May 11, 2010), also a standard
length of time. We provided the proposed rule, draft economic analysis,
draft environmental assessment, and risk assessment to the public on
http://www.regulations.gov.
The Service met with the Small Business Administration
(SBA) on April 20, 2010, to discuss what information the SBA needed and
what we needed. This meeting was within the public comment period for
the proposed rule.
The Service met with SBA on April 21 for a roundtable
meeting with pet industry, zoo, and medical research representatives.
This meeting was within the public comment period for the proposed
rule.
Because of several requests for an extension of the
comment period, we added another 30-day comment period from July 1 to
August 2, 2010 (75 FR 38069; July 1, 2010).
We met with the SBA again on January 13, 2011, to discuss
issues raised by SBA during the public comment periods.
In summary, the public has known since January of 2008 that we were
considering listing these three genera, or species from them, as
injurious. We provided a total of 180 days for receiving public
information and comment and participated in several meetings with
stakeholders. We believe that we have made a good faith effort to
gather information from the public.
Inconsistent Use of Injurious Wildlife Listings
(44) Comment: The manner in which the Service has handled invasive
species has been inconsistent. For example, in Western Colorado, feral
``wild'' horses and ring-necked pheasants are afforded wildlife
protection status. Both are nonindigenous, introduced, or invasive
species that compete with endemic species.
Our Response: It is correct that some nonnative species, such as
feral (wild) horses and ring-necked pheasants may receive protection
under other laws. The protection for wild horses comes from the Wild
Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (Pub. L. 92-195). Congress
gave authority to the Secretary of the Interior under this public law
to manage and protect wild horses on lands managed by the Bureau of
Land Management and the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture for
Forest Service lands. As for the pheasants, we agree that pheasants
compete with native species. However, it is not correct that the
Service affords them protection. In fact, the ring-necked pheasant is
specifically not protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is
also exempt from the Wild Bird Conservation Act. Individual States,
however, such as Colorado, may provide their own protections under
State laws.
Permitting
(45) Comment: The Service should support a law for reptiles modeled
after the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992. Such a law would limit
the importation of wild reptiles into the USA while allowing captive
breeding of species currently in the United States, and allowing the
interstate and international transportation of captive-bred animals.
Our Response: The comment is referring to the Wild Bird
Conservation Act of 1992 (WBCA), which allows for obtaining a permit
for personal pets under 50 CFR 15.25. The WBCA was enacted on October
23, 1992, to ensure that native populations of exotic bird species are
not negatively impacted by international trade to the United States.
The Service may issue permits to allow import of listed birds for
scientific research, zoological breeding or display, or personal pet
purposes when the applicant meets certain criteria (such as a
personally owned pet of an individual who is returning to the United
States after being continuously out of the country for a minimum of 1
year, except that an individual may not import more
[[Page 3356]]
than two exotic birds under this paragraph in any year). The Service
was given this authority by Congress. However, the Service does not
have a similar authority from Congress under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C.
42). If, by the words ``support a law,'' the commenter is asking us to
write a final rule that includes a permit process for pets, we cannot
do that under our current authority. By statute, we can approve permits
only for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific purposes.
(46) Comment: If the permitting process is not made considerably
more efficient and flexible, individuals and institutions engaging in
these purposes are likely to be negatively impacted.
Our Response: We agree that the permitting process must be an
efficient and effective process to ensure that activities that are
allowable under the Act are authorized in a timely manner. The Division
of Management Authority, which is responsible for the permitting
process under the Act, has recently undergone a significant
restructuring and organization. We do not anticipate that the number of
permit applications that will be generated due to this listing would be
significant. However, we believe that the restructuring of the Division
will allow for a more efficient and effective permitting process for
all permit applications received by the Division, not only the ones
requesting authorization for activities otherwise prohibited under this
Act.
Economic Effect
(47) Comment: Families dependent on reptile breeding businesses
will lose their businesses.
Our Response: Most commenters who claimed an expected loss of
business did not explain why this would occur. However, some did
explain that they sell one or more of the proposed species mainly or
entirely out-of-State or out of the country. Some stated which species
they sell, and some did not specify. However, those breeders who
specialize in breeding only the species listed by this rule as
injurious and who sell mainly or entirely out-of-State or out of the
country, we agree that this rule will greatly affect them. However,
those breeders who live in the States with designated ports (Alaska,
California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Tennessee,
Texas, and Washington) may continue to export through the designated
port in their State, although they may not continue to ship to other
States. For those breeders of other reptiles, this rule will not affect
them. Those breeders who supply skins of the listed species for the
designer clothing industry, such as for boots and belts, will still be
able to ship skins across State lines, export them, and import them.
(48) Comment: The rule will ruin a $3 billion industry.
Our Response: This comment was based on the proposed rule, and the
boa constrictor, reticulated python, and three anaconda species were
included in the economic calculations. The commenters did not explain
how they arrived at the $3 billion figure. While the Service is not
sure of the basis of this dollar amount, this figure was used by USARK
in a report to OMB on March 1, 2010: ``The trade in high quality
captive-bred reptiles is a $3 billion dollar [sic] annual industry. The
animals potentially addressed by rule change make up approximately \1/
3\ of the total dollar value trade annually.'' Another significant
dollar figure was identified in an article in ``The Economist'' (Feb.
11, 2010): ``Revenue from the sale of boas and pythons amounts to
around $1.6 billion-1.8 billion each year.'' We point out that the
category of the ``sale of boas and pythons'' did not specify what
species were included, but most likely would include ball pythons,
which makes up by far the largest segment (78.6 percent) of the three
genera of constrictor snakes that were imported into the United States
from 2008 to 2010 (see USFWS Final Economic Analysis 2011) and are a
very large segment of the domestic reptile trade. However, the same
article in ``The Economist'' states, ``The recession, however, has hurt
what used to be a lucrative hobby. Fewer people want to splurge on
snakes that cost thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars.
According to Brian Barczyk, a snake-breeder, demand for ``pet-grade''
snakes, which cost under $50, has sunk even more than demand for
``investment-grade'' ones, because the average person is hesitant to
buy a new pet.'' We also note that part of the snake breeding industry
is for the sale of snake skins, and this part of the industry should
not be affected (dead snakes or parts thereof are not listed as
injurious).
We agree that our rule will negatively affect some aspects of the
reptile industry, but we have no evidence to suggest that the
prohibition on importation and interstate transportation of four
species of snakes will cause the ruin of a $3 billion industry or even
to the extent of $1.6 billion. On the contrary, our final economic
analysis shows the estimated potential annual retail value losses
associated with all four listed species, plus the five species for
which the decision is deferred, as $14.7 to $30.1 million and a total
annual decrease in economic output as $42.0 to $86.2 million.
We brought these high dollar figures of ``The Economist'' and
others to the attention of the Small Business Administration on April
20, 2010, and with SBA and the reptile industry (with pet industry,
zoo, and medical research representatives) on April 21, 2010, at a
roundtable meeting (at which the representative of USARK was present).
We specifically asked the reptile industry representatives for
information on how the dollar figures were derived. We received no
explanation then or after. We do not know if that figure includes other
species besides the nine covered in the proposed rule, or if it
includes indirect effects. However, we did locate some information on
USARK's Web site: ``USARK Reptile Industry Economic Summary for the
Office of Management & Budget RE: USFWS Proposed Rule Change to
Injurious Wildlife List of the Lacey Act; March 1, 2010.'' This report,
available to the public but not directly provided to the Service,
itemizes the captive breeding trade, for a total of $1.8 billion. Much
of that sum is not specifically for the nine species in the proposed
rule. For example, the $240,000 annual equipment sales could easily be
used for other nonlisted snake species, or even other reptiles,
amphibians, small mammals, or fish. The ``Annual high end animal sales
$60 million'' is a separate line item from the ``Present Asset Value of
approximately 2 million breeding age animals--$800,000,000.'' It is not
clear why these are not included with the breeding age animals.
As stated above, our final economic analysis shows an annual retail
value decrease ranging from $14.7 to $30.1 million and an economic
output decrease of $42.0 to $86.2 million for the nine species that we
proposed to list (USFWS Final Economic Analysis 2011). While this is
not insignificant, it is a small fraction of the $1.8 billion cited
above. In addition, we note that the importation of constrictor snakes
of the genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes declined steadily from the peak
in 2002 (the three genera = 233,705; 9 species = 48,006 snakes) to the
low in 2010 (the three genera = 83,940; 9 species = 15,792 snakes; Fig.
1, USFWS Final Economic Analysis 2011). The decline in imports started
well before we received the petition in 2006 that initiated our
regulatory process. It is unlikely that the reduced imports were due to
our impending rule. The decline in imports could be due to decreased
availability of captive-bred or wild-
[[Page 3357]]
caught snakes in the export countries, the decreased demand in the
United States, or the availability of domestically bred species. Thus,
the existing decline in importation seems to be unrelated to our
regulatory process, and future declines should not necessarily be
attributed to the listing of the four species.
Economic Analysis
(49) Comment: The rule will have a detrimental economic impact on
breeders and hobbyists, food producers, and caging and accessories
producers.
Our Response: The Service recognizes that the rule will curtail
imports and interstate trade in the four snake species. The supporting
documentation accompanying this rule--the final Economic Analysis and
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis--estimates the impacts on
small businesses, as required by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), and the benefits and costs of the
rule, as required by Executive Orders (E.O.) 13563 and 12866. This
analysis uses a regional input-output model to determine the impacts on
supporting industries, such as snake-related care and food suppliers.
(50) Comment: The Service does not possess the information needed
to do a credible benefit-cost or regulatory flexibility analysis on
rules regarding constrictor snakes.
Our Response: The data needs for conducting a comprehensive
analysis of any industry are very intense. Most commenters agreed with
our conclusion that there is very little reliable public information
available about the snake industry. E.O. 12866 states that ``Each
agency shall base its decisions on the best reasonably obtainable
economic information'' (Section 1.b.7). The Regulatory Flexibility Act
allows that the initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses may
contain ``more general descriptive statements if quantification is not
practicable or reliable'' (5 U.S.C. 607). We received information
during the public comment period that we used to prepare the final
economic analysis. While other information was also received, it tended
to be anecdotal, describing impacts to a specific firm or individual,
which is insufficient to describe industry-wide impacts. However, we
used some anecdotal information to better describe how some firms or
individuals will be impacted. The Service believes the analysis is
based on the best reasonably obtainable information at this time.
(51) Comment: The Service ignored information submitted by industry
participants and trade associations in response to its 2008 Notice of
Inquiry. In addition, the Service misused the information it was
provided by respondents to the notice.
Our Response: Industry responses to the 2008 Notice of Inquiry (73
FR 5784; January 31, 2008) were a primary source of information for the
economic analysis. Trade association data were the only source for most
of the sales and price information in the economic analysis, and the
associations are cited repeatedly in the report. The Service sought
clarification of the data provided by a trade association with a
representative of the association and the consultant who prepared the
submission. The additional information obtained from the conversations
was applied in the draft economic analysis.
Many industry participants provided anecdotal information about
their situation or made quantitative assertions. While informative, we
cannot extrapolate anecdotal data about individuals or businesses to
describe the industry as a whole. However, in the final economic
analysis, some anecdotal information from the public comments is used
to better depict potential impacts.
(52) Comment: The Service employs baseless assumptions to estimate
the information it lacks.
Our Response: Using informed assumptions for reasonable ranges to
fill data gaps is a well-recognized economic technique. By applying a
range of prices and quantities, the economic analysis derives the
approximate scale of retail sales from the partial information
available. The analysis is transparent and the assumptions can be
easily replaced with more reliable information when it becomes
available. Additional information, such as interstate sales from
Florida, was received during the most recent public comment period.
This information was used to revise the draft economic analysis to more
accurately depict the impact to industry. Industry profiles were not
submitted during public comment and are not publicly available.
Therefore, some assumptions are still necessary in the economic
analysis.
(53) Comment: The economic analysis ignores wholesalers,
transporters, and vendors of food and ancillary equipment.
Our Response: The economic analysis includes an input-output
analysis that takes into account all of the industries that contribute
to delivering the product to the consumer. Wholesalers and equipment
used in the production of snakes for sale are included in the input-
output analysis based on retail sales. Shipping cost information on
individual sales has been obtained since the availability of the draft
economic analysis. This information was used to revise the economic
analysis.
(54) Comment: The Service also ignores pricing premiums for snakes,
particularly for color morphs, dwarfs, etc.
Our Response: The aggregate information available and provided by
the trade associations was insufficient to segment the market for
different classes of snake for the draft economic analysis. The
knowledge that ``pricing premiums reach up to 60 times the price of a
`normal' snake,'' (PIJAC, 8/2/2010, FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015-4531.1, page
4) suggests that there are at least two market segments for a species--
one for `normal' snakes and one for high-end collectible snakes. We
received additional pricing information that more accurately depicts
pricing premiums, and we used it in the revised economic analysis.
(55) Comment: The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
underestimates the economic impact on small entities.
Our Response: We revised the IRFA to incorporate new information
submitted during the course of the public comment period.
(56) Comment: The IRFA does not discuss significant alternatives.
Our Response: The subject of this proposed rule is adding species
to the list of injurious species under the Lacey Act, at 50 CFR 16.15.
Management of feral snake populations is a much broader topic that the
Service is vigorously pursuing but that is not within the purview of
this rulemaking. Therefore, the alternatives considered in the
environmental assessment are the only relevant choices.
(57) Comment: The draft economic analysis fails to quantify the
benefits of the proposed rule.
Our Response: The benefits of the rule include both avoided costs
of extirpating feral snake populations and maintained ecological
services from areas that might have been harmed by released snakes.
There is little information available about either of these sources
that would allow the quantification of benefits. OMB Circular A-4,
guidance for implementing E.O. 12866, recognizes that benefits are
rarely fully quantified and recommends a qualitative discussion of the
sources of benefits. We added this discussion to the Final Economic
Analysis.
(58) Comment: The draft economic analysis lacks clarity in its
exposition.
Our Response: The draft economic analysis made available with the
proposed rule published in the Federal
[[Page 3358]]
Register (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010) is only a small pr[eacute]cis of
a much larger study. Per public comments received, the Service has
added additional clarification to the Final Economic Analysis. Please
refer to the full revised final economic analysis and regulatory
flexibility analysis, which are available in the docket for this rule
(at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015).
Biological
(59) Comment: With the exception of predation by a Python molurus
bivittatus on endangered Key Largo woodrats (Neotoma floridana smalli),
there is no evidence of significant adverse environmental, human
health, or economic impacts by these feral populations.
Our Response: We found ample occurrences of adverse effects by
pythons. Burmese pythons are large generalist predators that consume a
wide variety of vertebrates in their native range. Examination of the
stomach contents of Burmese pythons from in and around Everglades
National Park has yielded 455 prey items composed of 340 mammals, 107
birds, 8 crocodilians, and one unidentified sample. These prey items
included 60 individual round-tailed muskrats (Neofiber alleni), a
native species that researchers and National Park Service biologists
have not observed in Everglades National Park for years and worry may
be becoming extirpated.
In congressional testimony, Dr. Frank Mazzotti, University of
Florida, reported on declines in marsh rabbit abundance and round-
tailed muskrats. He stated, ``In Everglades National Park the presence
of pythons has been related to the absence of marsh rabbits and Florida
muskrats. We are very concerned about impacts of pythons on Everglades
fauna, and the difficulties involved in removing a large cryptic
predator from a large expansive wetland wilderness area'' (Mazzotti
2010).
In addition, two federally endangered species, the Key Largo
woodrat and the wood stork (Mycteria americana), have been found in
Burmese python stomach samples. The limpkin (Aramus guarauna) and white
ibis (Eudocimus albus), which are State-listed species of special
concern in Florida, have also been identified in stomach contents of
Burmese pythons. Dove et al. (2011) found 25 species of birds
representing 9 avian orders from remains in digestive tracts of 85
Burmese pythons (Python molurus bivittatus) collected in Everglades
National Park; this included the federally endangered wood stork and 4
species of State concern.
Based upon what we know of the diet of Burmese pythons and other
large constrictor snakes in their native ranges and in Florida, we
believe that federally protected species, such as the Cape Sable
seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis), Florida panther
(Felis concolor coryi), and American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) are
at risk of predation by these constrictors. Reed and Rodda (2009) lists
a total of 64 State-listed threatened or endangered species at risk
from Burmese pythons or other giant constrictors in Florida. Please
read the response to comment number 65 below for economic costs
(impacts).
(60) Comment: The majority of these species have never been
documented as being introduced into new environments. Despite having
been detected in the vicinity of the Everglades since the 1970s,
Burmese pythons are still limited to that general area.
Our Response: Of the four species addressed in this rule, one is
not yet reported in trade and another is involved in trade in very
minor amounts. Thus, their listing is intended to prevent their
establishment in the wild through escapes or releases. The remaining
species, the Burmese python, is clearly established in southern Florida
and has been observed in the wild in 15 Florida counties and several
other States with suitable climates for its establishment. Although
individual pythons had been regularly observed in the Everglades region
since the mid-1990s, it was not until 2006 that a reproducing
population was documented to be present there. By that time, the
population had become well established over a sizeable area.
(61) Comment: The Burmese python population in south Florida was
significantly reduced by the 2009-2010 winter cold weather.
Our Response: The comment is referring to two combined issues. One
is the fact that snakes are ectothermic (cold-blooded), meaning that
their body temperature adjusts to be approximately what the surrounding
air temperature is. Thus, when the air temperature falls, a snake's
body temperature drops--unlike humans, who maintain a nearly constant
body temperature. This biologic effect is true for native snakes as
well as the large constrictor snakes.
The second issue is the record cold temperatures during January of
2010. In fact, according to NOAA National Weather Service from Miami,
January 2 to 13, 2010, was the coldest 12-day period since 1940 or
earlier (NOAA 2010). A record was set for 12 straight days with the
temperature at or below 45 [deg]F (7.2 [deg]C). Other minimum
temperatures were broken. It has been 70 years since there were such
sustained low temperatures.
We explain here why the observation that most of the large
constrictors perished from the January 2010 unusually cold weather
event in South Florida is misleading and speculative. In the months
since that unusual cold-weather event, hundreds of adults and 24
Burmese python hatchlings were found alive and captured in Everglades
National Park. During 2010, 322 Burmese live or recently dead pythons
were captured or removed from in and around Everglades National Park,
of which 67 were removed from October 18 to December 31, 2010, which is
many months after the cold spell ended. The number of Burmese pythons
found dead in 2010 (322) is only a 10 percent reduction from numbers
removed in 2009 (367 total). A multi-agency effort is under way to
survey for and capture the Northern African python, another of the
constrictor snake species proposed for listing as injurious that is now
established west of Miami, before its range expands farther up the
Florida peninsula.
Reliable population estimates of any of the large constrictor snake
species in south Florida before the cold temperatures occurred are
nonexistent, and scientists do not have any population estimates since
the cold spell. Therefore, it will be difficult to judge the
demographic impact of the cold temperatures. Subjectively, the freeze
appears to have had a greater effect on pythons in the shallow marsh
habitats, where underground and deep water refuge was absent. It is
known that pythons can seek locations such as underground burrows, deep
water such as in canals, or similar microhabitats to escape the cold
temperatures. In a study conducted in the Everglades, nine of ten
radio-tracked snakes in shallow marsh habitat perished either from the
cold temperatures or from complications experienced as a consequence of
the cold (individuals were removed from the wild at that point, which
may have induced additional stress). However, many live snakes were
observed while conducting walking surveys for the radio-tracked snakes.
These snakes were apparently able to maintain body temperatures using
microhabitat features of the landscape (Mazzotti et al., 2010).
Large numbers of Burmese pythons in the heart of the Everglades
survived, as evidenced by a mating aggregation of four adults found in
March 2010 and several large adults found in April 2010. A gravid
(pregnant) female northern
[[Page 3359]]
African python was captured in the Bird Drive Basin Recharge area west
of Miami in January 2010 immediately after the freeze. This snake was
captured only after an unprecedented mass effort of more than 50
searchers looking for her as she escaped repeatedly into a deepwater
canal. Later (December 2010 to January 2011) multi-agency efforts led
to the capture of several Northern African pythons. Thus, the large
constrictors of several species continue to be present and to breed in
south Florida. Surveys will be conducted in the next several years to
begin quantifying the distribution and abundance of the population, but
in the absence of comparable statistics from before the cold
temperatures, assessments of the cold weather impacts will only be
indirect and will involve considerable speculation. Despite the record
cold, we know that many pythons and boas survived. If thermoregulatory
behavior or tolerance to cold is genetically based, we would expect
large constrictor snake populations to persist, rebound, and possibly
increase their genetic fitness and temperature tolerance as a result of
natural selection pressures resulting from the unusually cold weather
conditions in south Florida in January 2010.
(62) Comment: There is no scientific information indicating that
large body size increases the likelihood that a species will become
invasive. In fact, the opposite is likely the case since large-bodied
animals are more readily evident and thus more likely to be removed
from the environment before they can establish a viable population.
Our Response: The list of traits shared by the giant constrictors
includes many of the traits that either increase the severity of their
probable ecological impacts or exacerbate the challenge of controlling
or eradicating them. The cryptic coloration of these snakes is a common
form of camouflage where the snake is similar to its surroundings,
making them very difficult to detect and be removed from the
environment. Burmese pythons have established viable populations partly
because they are hard to detect, have high reproductivity, and occupy a
variety of habitat types. Thus, in comparison to potential invaders
lacking these traits, this group of snakes constitutes a particularly
high risk. A large body size would be a disadvantage for an animal
whose size sets it off from its surrounding environment, such as a
bear, which stands 1-1.2 m (3-4 ft) above ground level. Even the
largest constrictors extend only a foot above ground level, easily
concealed by ground vegetation. A large body size would also be a
disadvantage for predators that hunt actively on a regular basis,
because they would stand out more. Neither of these situations is true
for the large constrictors, which are primarily sit-and-wait predators
and which move along very low to the ground. These attributes, combined
with the fact that these snakes have no similar ecological equivalents
in the United States with respect to size of prey items they can
consume, will make them a novel predator on na[iuml]ve wildlife that
may otherwise not even have native predators (such as Florida panther).
(63) Comment: Which of the nine species of constrictor snakes are
definitely reproducing in the wild in the United States?
Our Response: Of the four large constrictor snakes included in this
final rule, those confirmed breeding in the wild in the United States
or its territories include the Burmese python and the Northern African
python.
The Burmese python has been captured in many areas in Florida. In
South Florida, more than 1,334 live and dead Burmese pythons, including
gravid (pregnant) females, have been removed from in and around
Everglades National Park in the last 10 years by authorized agents,
park staff, and park partners, indicating that they are already
established.
Evidence of reproduction for Northern African python in the area
known as the Bird Drive Basin Recharge Area west of Miami includes
multiple size classes of adult snakes of both sexes, at least 3
reproductive females, two hatchlings in 2009, and a freshly shed skin
from a hatchling in 2010 plus recent captures also in the Bird Drive
basin (December 2010 to January 2011) indicating survival after the
cold weather in 2009 to 2010. These observations represent overwhelming
evidence for an established reproducing population of Python sebae in
Florida (Reed et al., 2010). Please see the final environmental
assessment for the current status of verified observations, removals,
and establishment of the large constrictor snakes in the wild from the
USGS collection information in the United States and insular
territories, and the Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System,
University of Georgia, in Florida.
(64) Comment: Neither the State nor the Federal Government has made
substantial investments in strategic programs for the eradication or
control of Burmese python on the lands they manage. In South Florida,
the cost of eradication of the Burmese python has been relatively
small.
Our Response: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in
partnership with many different organizations, has organized and
facilitated several multi-stakeholder workshops to address the threats
posed by pythons and help prioritize and coordinate management efforts.
Goals for python management include preventing their spread,
eradication in select local areas, a public awareness campaign focusing
on responsible pet ownership, and overall reduction or containment of
invasive snake populations.
Currently, a number of activities are being conducted by various
agencies and entities under limited budgets (that is, National Park
Service (Everglades National Park), the Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, South Florida Water Management District, U.S. Geological
Survey, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, University
of Florida, county governments, nongovernmental organizations, and
others) to reduce the potential of the population increasing or
spreading further. These actions include but are not limited to,
capture and removal; public education and awareness; spatial ecology
and movement studies using radio telemetry, satellite and GPS
technology; diet (stomach content analysis); thermal biology (implanted
data loggers); trap development and trials; impacts analysis; pilot
studies: genetics, salinity tolerance; and potential use of unmanned
aerial vehicles with thermal infrared cameras to detect pythons in the
field.
The Service has spent $604,656 over a 3-year period (2007 to 2009)
to design python traps, deploy and maintain them, and educate the
public in the Florida Keys to prevent the potential extinction of the
endangered Key Largo woodrat at Crocodile Lake National Wildlife
Refuge. The South Florida Water Management District has spent $334,000
between 2005 and 2009 and anticipates spending an additional $156,600
on research, salaries, and vehicles in the next several years. An
additional $300,000 will go for the assistance of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Wildlife Services, the animal damage control arm of
USDA (part of USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). The
USDA Wildlife Research Center (Gainesville, Florida, Field Station) has
spent $15,800 in 2008-2009 on salaries, travel, and supplies. The USGS,
in conjunction with the University of Florida, has spent more than $1.5
million on research; radio telemetry; and the development, testing, and
implementation of constrictor-snake traps. Miami-Dade
[[Page 3360]]
County Parks and Recreation Department, Natural Areas Management and
Department of Environmental Resources Management have spent $60,875
annually on constrictor snake issues. The National Park Service has
spent $317,000 annually on various programs related to constrictor
snake issues in the Everglades National Park. All these expenditures
total $5.7 million from 2005 to approximately 2012, or roughly an
average of $720,000 per year. Many people have also volunteered their
time to search for and capture snakes when funding was not available.
Although the agencies mentioned above would prefer to eradicate
these invasive snakes, they recognize that eradication is unlikely. As
explained in the ``Control'' section of Factors That Reduce or Remove
Injuriousness for Burmese Python, Kraus (2009) found no examples of
local populations of reptiles that had been successfully eradicated.
(65) Comment: The most effective and least costly methods would
focus on preventing establishment of any potentially invasive species
and would include early detection and rapid response (EDRR).
Eradication of established populations is very rarely effective and
always costly.
Our Response: We agree that EDRR programs can be of benefit once
prevention options have been exhausted or proven to be ineffective.
Sometimes considered the ``second line of defense'' after prevention,
EDRR is a critical component of any effective invasive species
management program. When new invasive species infestations are
detected, a prompt and coordinated containment and eradication response
can reduce environmental and economic impacts. This action results in
lower cost and less resource damage than implementing a long-term
control program after the species is established. Early detection of
new infestations requires vigilance and regular monitoring of the
managed area and surrounding ecosystem. An EDRR system will provide an
important second line of defense against invasive animals that will
work in concert with Federal efforts to prevent unwanted introductions
such as an injurious wildlife listing under the Lacey Act. Prevention
is why two of these large constrictor snakes not yet found to be
reproducing in the United States or territories are included in this
final rule.
(66) Comment: Two papers published in the journal Biological
Invasions, one by USDA wildlife researchers and another authored by
scientists at several research institutions including the University of
Florida, have concluded that Burmese pythons can't survive for any
length of time outside south Florida unless they have the ability to
find appropriate burrows or cavities to allow hibernation for several
months during the winter. Given that this snake is primarily a tropical
and subtropical species, it may not have evolved the behavior or
physiology to successfully hibernate.
Our Response: The winter of January 2010 was one of the coldest on
record in southern Florida. Burmese pythons were documented to tolerate
these conditions. In the USDA study (Avery et al. 2010), two of nine
(22 percent) of the Burmese pythons survived the cold spell. This study
was conducted in Gainesville, Florida, 400 km (248.5 mi) north of the
known range where they are currently reproducing; this region of
Florida also experienced record cold weather. The Mazzotti et al.
(2010) study, which was conducted within the Everglades region, found
that 1 of 10 telemetered Burmese pythons survived (10 percent) and 59
of 99 (60 percent) of nontelemetered pythons survived. Subsequently
there have been sightings and recent removals of Burmese pythons and
Northern African pythons in south Florida, including a mating
aggregation of Burmese pythons with one gravid female and four males
(Snow 2010). Therefore, despite the coldest winter on record since at
least the 1940s (NOAA 2010), south Florida still has reproducing
populations of nonnative large constrictor snakes. While the abundance
of pythons clearly declined during this record cold winter, the
population has recovered rapidly in south Florida, where the average
female reaches reproductive maturity within 3 years and can
subsequently produce more than 30 (but up to 107) eggs per clutch
annually or biennially (Harvey et al. 2008).
Dorcas et al. (2011) published another study in Biological
Invasions. They relocated 10 Burmese pythons from the Everglades to an
outdoor research setting in South Carolina. The following January, they
all died. However, they had not had a chance to acclimate to a milder
winter before getting hit with record cold. Dorcas et al. (2011)
concluded: ``Some pythons in our study were able to withstand long
periods of considerably colder weather than is typical for South
Florida, suggesting that some snakes currently inhabiting Florida could
survive typical winters in areas of the southeastern United States more
temperate than the region currently inhabited by pythons. Moreover, our
results are specific to translocated pythons from southern Florida.
Burmese pythons originating from more temperate localities within their
native range may be more tolerant of cold temperatures and would
presumably be more likely to successfully become established in
temperate areas of North America. The susceptibility to cold we
observed may reflect a tropical origin of the Florida pythons or
acclimatization of snakes to warm southern Florida winters early in
life.'' Given the climate flexibility exhibited by the Burmese python
in its native range (as analyzed through USGS' climate-matching
predictions in the United States), we would expect new generations
within the leading edge of the population's nonnative range to become
increasingly adaptable and able to expand to colder climates.
(67) Comment: The ``Reed and Rodda Report'' was only subject to an
internal review process. Any policy changes or legislation that will
have an effect on the freedoms of American citizens should be based on
sound scientific evidence as well as the merit of a true scientific
peer review process.
Our Response: Dr. Susan Haseltine, Associate Director for Biology,
USGS, responded to a press release issued by a reptile-trade
organization and an accompanying letter by a group of veterinarians and
other scientists regarding the USGS peer review process. She said,
``The USGS provides unbiased, objective scientific information upon
which other entities may base judgments. To ensure objectivity,
independent scientific review is required of every USGS publication.
Standards require a minimum of two reviews, and adequacy of the
author's responses to reviews is assessed by both research managers and
independent scientists within the USGS. The authors went well beyond
the requirements by soliciting reviews from 20 reviewers (18 of them
external to the USGS). Reviewers comprised a large portion of the
global expertise on both the biology of giant constrictor snakes and
the management of invasive snakes.''
The USGS follows mandatory fundamental science practices for peer
review, which can be read at the following Internet site: http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502-3.html. This policy establishes the
requirements for peer review of USGS information products and applies
to all USGS scientific and technical information, whether it is
published by the USGS or an outside entity.
Other
(68) Comment: The Service has not thoroughly considered the full
implications of the rule regarding effects on the pet industry.
[[Page 3361]]
Our Response: We understand that the implications of this rule are
complex. We have endeavored to consider the need to list the four
species as injurious, as well as alternatives using the best available
information. Please see ``Alternatives to Listing'' below for an
explanation of the alternatives that we considered. We have also made
every effort to consider all of the indirect effects.
(69) Comment: Because the addition of any species to the Lacey Act
results in the nationwide ban of that species, a nationwide impact
study should be performed.
Our Response: As explained above, this rule does not create a
nationwide ban. The commenter did not explain what type of nationwide
impact study should be performed. We did, in fact, develop two
nationwide impact studies, an economic analysis and an environmental
assessment, drafts of which we posted on http://www.regulations.gov on
March 12, 2010, with the proposed rule, and final versions of which are
also available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-
FHC-2008-0015. We used the best available information and we believe
these impact studies are sufficient. We are not required to do
additional surveys ourselves, because our standard is to use the best
available information. We believe we made a good-faith effort to locate
information (see also response to Comment 43).
(70) Comment: We requested a 90-day extension of the comment period
for the proposed rule to provide our members much needed time to
provide comments, data, and analysis that will be instrumental to the
Service's final decision.
Our Response: We received several requests for an extension of the
public comment period for up to 90 days. We granted an additional 30
days to the existing 60 days, for a total of 90 days for the proposed
rule's comment period. We believe that amount of time was sufficient,
even for a complex rule, considering we were seeking similar
information to that for the 2008 notice of inquiry (73 FR 5784; January
31, 2008) and that for the second comment period ended on August 2,
2010--nearly 90 days after the first comment period ended.
(71) Comment: One commenter referred to a memo written in 2007 by a
former Service Assistant Director and Chief of Law Enforcement. The
comment quoted the memo, ``The injurious species provisions of the
Lacey Act were clearly not designed to deal with a species that is
already a significant part of the pet trade in the United States'' and
``It could, however, make a felon out of a reptile enthusiast in
Wisconsin who sells one python to an individual in Minnesota.'' The
commenter stated that the Service has not made a case for the rule.
Our Response: The memo that the commenter referred to was an
information memorandum to the Service's Director regarding the petition
to list the Burmese python from the South Florida Water Management
District in 2006. The memo described various options that the Service
and others could consider. The statements quoted by the commenter are
verbatim. However, at the time the memo was written, the USGS risk
assessment (Reed and Rodda 2009) had not yet been completed. No
decision had been made by the Service at the time of the memo. The
Service's memo acknowledges, ``We expect to have the risk assessment--
an essential first step in any evaluation for injurious designation--
completed in approximately one year.'' That was, however, an
underestimation of the time it would take to prepare such a thorough
document and have it extensively peer-reviewed. Once that risk
assessment was completed, it became clear that all nine species should
be evaluated by the Service for possible listing as injurious.
The memo's statement, ``The injurious species provisions of the
Lacey Act were clearly not designed to deal with a species that is
already a significant part of the pet trade in the United States'' is
true in that the pet trade was not established to the degree it is
today when the Lacey Act was passed by Congress in 1900. That does not,
however, mean that the injurious species provisions cannot be an
effective tool in invasive species management. The reason that the four
species are being listed is that there are still vulnerable parts of
the country where the listing of each of the species may prevent their
establishment. In addition, three of the species are not currently a
significant part of the constrictor pet trade, and the fourth species
(Burmese python) comprises only 2.6 percent of total constrictor snake
imports (for the genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes) for 2008 to 2010.
Therefore, taking the proactive step to list them as injurious species
now will reduce the likelihood that their numbers will increase in the
United States and pose a risk to native wildlife in the future.
As for the comment from the memo, ``It could, however, make a felon
out of a reptile enthusiast in Wisconsin who sells one python to an
individual in Minnesota,'' that statement was also quoted correctly and
is correct under certain situations. However, those situations are more
representative of worst-case scenarios. There are a variety of other
laws that are often violated when people engage in illegal wildlife
trafficking, some of which are Federal felonies. However, a stand-alone
violation of the interstate transport or import prohibitions under 18
U.S.C. 42 is a misdemeanor, not a felony. Please also see our response
to Comment (28) for an explanation of the misdemeanor and felony
violations.
Alternatives to Listing
(72) Comment: This is a summary of the alternatives suggested
through the public comment process. Where noted, they are explained
further in the text of the rule above.
A. List some or all of the nine species, but:
1. Exempt color and pattern genetic mutations of these snakes from
the listing as albinos, leucistics, etc.
Our Response: The commenter explains that albinos and leucistic
(having reduced pigmentation) snakes have a far lesser chance of
survival in any wild environment. Not listing these color and pattern
mutations would have a smaller financial impact on the industry and no
financial impact on the government. The commenter may be correct that
such color variations may have a lesser chance of survival in the wild.
However, the survival differential is unknown, so we have determined
that all color variations are at least the same risk to the welfare of
wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States. Furthermore, if
snakes escape to the wild, their offspring may not have the same
obvious color pattern and may perpetuate normally patterned populations
given gene dominance, expression, and mutation.
2. Exempt hybrids.
Our Response: We realize that hybrids often are worth significantly
more money than the parent species separately. Allowing hybrids would
preserve more of the income of some breeders. However, we have
determined that hybrids are at least the same risk as the parent
species are to the welfare of wildlife or wildlife resources of the
United States. The Wildlife Society commented, ``Hybrids between two
invasive species are also invasive themselves and must be listed as
injurious along with the exotic parental species. Hybrids maintain many
of the characteristics of the parent species; this means that hybrids
will retain an ability to reach the large sizes and continue the
voracious dietary habits of the parental species, and they will cause
as much damage to native threatened and
[[Page 3362]]
endangered species and the environment as pure species ancestors. Many
closely related constrictor species are known to hybridize, and it is
likely that many of the invasive constrictors noted in the proposed
rule have this same ability. Some hybrid combinations may result in
sterile offspring, however, some do remain fertile, which several
reptile breeders themselves attest to on their Web sites (i.e., http://www.highendherps.com). Furthermore, each individual snake still has the
capability of causing extensive damage within its lifetime. One
potentially destructive invasive species is the African rock python
(Python sebae), which has been captured in the wild west of Miami,
Florida. In its native range, this snake can reach lengths up to 20
feet, and it is known to attack humans and farm animals. While this
snake has the potential to cause serious damage, it also poses an
additional threat because of its ability to hybridize successfully with
Burmese pythons (Python molurus), a species which has already
established a sizable and growing population in Florida.''
3. Do not list the species Boa constrictor.
Our Response: We have not listed the species at this time. We will
address this comment when we publish a determination of whether this
species should be listed as injurious.
4. List regionally only where there is a climate match.
Our Response: Creating this type of geographical restriction or
exemption (or both) under the Lacey Act would make enforcement of the
regulations by the Federal Government, in cooperation with the affected
States, virtually impossible.
The authority to list regionally is unclear and untested. Moreover,
it would create a host of law enforcement complications.
5. Allow for the interstate travel for captive-bred animals.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (45).
6. Remove the status of the Port of Miami as an agricultural port
and a port of entry. Move the port of entry north, maybe to one of the
New England ports where the weather will eradicate anything that would
be lost or illegally released.
Our Response: This alternative is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. Furthermore, it is outside the authority of the Service. In
addition, it is highly impractical. While Miami is the port with the
most imports of the nine species of large constrictor snakes in the
proposed rule (75.4 percent from 1999 to 2007 and 86.7 percent from
2008 to 2010; USFWS Final Economic Analysis 2011), two other warm-
weather southern ports (Los Angeles and Dallas-Fort Worth) also
received imports of thousands of some or all of the nine species. These
three ports account for 98 percent of all imports of the nine species.
Los Angeles and Dallas are within the climate match range of the
Burmese python. For the four species now being listed, the number of
imports are fewer.
7. The Service should consider paying restitution to or
compensating these people for their losses, by buying the animals and
the businesses that will no longer exist, suddenly made worthless, at
fair market value, and then debating the question on how to dispose of
those animals.
Our Response: This rule does not affect people's ability to own,
possess, or transport snakes within States, if allowed by State law.
Neither the Service nor the Department of the Interior has programs or
authorities to compensate people for losses that may be related to this
injurious wildlife listing. The Service can work with the affected
States and industry, and offer technical assistance to provide
environmentally risk-free approaches to disposing of constrictor snakes
that businesses or pet owners are no longer able to keep. Please also
see our response to Comment 12 where we provide options for people to
dispose of snakes responsibly.
B. Do not list any of the species. Instead:
8. Let the States regulate their own captive wildlife, such as
following FWC's comprehensive approach in Florida.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (18).
9. Allow the industry to self-regulate and educate with the
Internet, etc.; United States Association of Reptile Keepers best
management practices; State and local risk assessment industry best
management practices (BMPs) as suggested by Dr. Frank Mazzotti; and
HabitattitudeTM.
Our Response: We fully support all of these suggestions and look
forward to working with all entities that endorse them. However, they
are voluntary actions and there is no guarantee that people will
cooperate. These efforts have been available for many years, and while
they are useful in many cases, we believe that both voluntary and
regulatory actions are necessary to safeguard our ecosystems with more
assurance.
10. Issue permits and registrations, require microchipping, apply
severe fines and criminal charges, etc., for the miskeeping or release
of these animals in any State.
Our Response: These alternatives do have potential for preventing
accidental and intentional escapes. However, the Service does not have
the authority to issue permits for pets or for any use of injurious
species other than for medical, zoological, educational, or scientific
purposes.
C. PIJAC offered to discuss options with the Service in detail
including developing a comprehensive, State-led prevention and early
detection and rapid response program.
Our Response: Industry and State partnerships are very important to
the Service and Department of the Interior in our efforts to manage
invasive species. As examples, the Department signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with PIJAC in 2009 to create public awareness--through
such public campaigns as HabitattitudeTM--about the threat
of invasive species and to promote responsible pet ownership practices
to prevent the accidental or intentional release of invasive species by
pet owners. The Service also partners with States to develop a national
aquatic invasive species program, and we support many State management
actions through cost-share grants for implementation of State Aquatic
Nuisance Species Management Plans. These partnerships with industry and
States are essential aspects of managing the invasive species problem
facing the nation. Also important is the Federal Government's authority
to regulate importation and interstate transport of species found to be
injurious wildlife under 18 U.S.C. 42. This authority is one important
aspect of an overall national strategy to reduce the risks from
introduction and spread of harmful nonnative species (Lodge et al.
2006).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. OMB bases its
determination upon the following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
[[Page 3363]]
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review (U.S. Office
of Management and Budget 1993) and a subsequent document, Economic
Analysis of Federal Regulations under Executive Order 12866 (U.S.
Office of Management and Budget 1996), identify guidelines or ``best
practices'' for the economic analysis of Federal regulations. With
respect to the regulation under consideration, an analysis that
comports with the Circular A-4 would include a full description and
estimation of the economic benefits and costs associated with
implementation of the regulation. These benefits and costs would be
measured by the net change in consumer and producer surplus due to the
regulation. Both producer and consumer surplus reflect opportunity cost
as they measure what people would be willing to forego (pay) in order
to obtain a particular good or service. ``Producers' surplus is the
difference between the amount a producer is paid for a unit of good and
the minimum amount the producer would accept to supply that unit.
Consumers' surplus is the difference between what a consumer pays for a
unit of a good and the maximum amount the consumer would be willing to
pay for that unit (U.S. Office of Management and Budget 1996, section
C-1).''
Large constrictor snakes are commonly kept as pets in U.S.
households, displayed by zoological institutions, used for science and
research, and used as educational tools. Because none of the four
species listed by this rule is native to the United States, the species
are obtained by importing or breeding in captivity. We provided a draft
economic analysis to the public at the time the proposed rule was
published (on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-
0015) and offered two public comment periods totaling 90 days. Using
the comments we received on the draft economic analysis and new
information we acquired, we revised the economic analysis and provided
the final version on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-
FHC-2008-0015. We provide a summary here.
In the context of the regulation under consideration, the economic
effects to three groups would be addressed: (1) Producers; (2)
consumers; and (3) society. With the prohibition of imports and
interstate shipping, producers, breeders, and suppliers would be
affected in several ways. Depending on the characteristics of a given
business (such as what portion of their sales depends on out-of-State
sales or imports), sales revenue would be reduced or eliminated, thus
decreasing total producer surplus compared to the situation without the
regulation. Consumers (pet owners or potential pet owners) would be
affected by having a more limited choice of constrictor snakes or, in
cases where species were not available within their State, no choice at
all if out-of-State sales are prohibited. Consequently, total consumer
surplus would decrease compared to the situation without the
regulation. Certain segments of society may value knowing that the risk
to natural areas and other potential impacts from constrictor snake
populations is reduced by implementing the regulation. In this case,
consumer surplus would increase compared to the situation without the
regulation. If comprehensive information were available on these
different types of producer and consumer surplus, a comparison of
benefits and costs would be relatively straightforward. However,
information is not currently available on these values so a
quantitative comparison of benefits and costs is not possible.
The data currently available is limited to the number of
constrictor snake imports each year, the estimated number of
constrictor snakes bred in the United States, and a range of retail
prices for each constrictor snake species. Using data for the three
genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes, we provide the value of the foregone
snakes sold as a rough approximation for the social cost of this final
rulemaking. We provide qualitative discussion on the potential benefits
of this rulemaking. In addition, we used an input-output model in an
attempt to estimate the secondary or multiplier effects of this
rulemaking--job impacts, job income impacts, and tax revenue impacts
(discussed below).
With this rule, the importation and interstate transport of four
species of large constrictor snakes (Burmese python, Northern African
python, Southern African python, and yellow anaconda) will be
prohibited from importation and interstate transport, except as
specifically permitted. The annual retail value losses as a result of
this rule are estimated to range from $3.7 million to $7.6 million.
The broad indicator of the economic impacts of the alternatives,
economic output or aggregate sales, includes three types of effects:
direct, indirect, and induced. The direct effects are the changes in
annual retail value due to the implementation of a given alternative.
``Indirect effects result from changes in sales for suppliers to the
directly affected businesses (including trade and services at the
retail, wholesale and producer levels. Induced effects are associated
with further shifts in spending on food, clothing, shelter and other
consumer goods and services, as a consequence of the change in workers
and payroll of directly and indirectly affected businesses'' (Weisbrod
and Weisbrod 1997). The indirect and induced effects represent any
multiplier effects due to the loss of revenue. These cost estimates
include the various potential scenarios we considered.
Businesses or individuals shipping listed species across State
lines could face penalties for Lacey Act violations. The penalty for a
Lacey Act violation is not more than 6 months in prison and not more
than a $5,000 fine for an individual, and not more than a $10,000 fine
for an organization.
Under this final rule, the probability of large constrictor snakes
establishing populations outside of their current U.S. locations should
decrease compared to the no action alternative. The change in
probability is unknown.
Alternatives Considered
The draft economic analysis considered two other alternatives, in
addition to listing all (Alternative 2) or none (Alternative 1) of the
nine species under consideration. Alternative 3 would list the seven
species known to be in trade in the United States (that is, all but the
Beni and DeSchauensee's anacondas). Alternative 4 would list the five
species judged to have a high ``overall risk potential'' in the USGS
evaluation (Reed and Rodda 2009), while excluding the four species
judged to have a medium overall risk potential (that is, the two
nontraded species, plus the green anaconda and reticulated python).
For the final economic analysis, we split Alternative 2 into 2A
(the nine species proposed for listing) and 2B (the four species
addressed in this final rule). This allows the Service to move forward
with the listing of four species, while the other five remain under
consideration.
Compared to the alternative of listing all nine species (2A),
Alternative 3 would have no effect on current sales revenues or
indirect economic impacts from the loss of such revenues, since there
are currently no sales revenues from these two species. It would,
however, allow consumers to substitute these two species (in addition
to the many other substitute species already available) for the
purchase of the prohibited species, thus reducing
[[Page 3364]]
economic impacts to the degree that there would be substitute purchases
of these two species. However, the possibility of substitute purchases
is itself a potential problem in that the two currently nontraded
species are so similar in appearance to the green and yellow anacondas
that it would be difficult for enforcement officials to distinguish
green or yellow anacondas that were mislabeled as Beni or
DeSchauensee's anacondas. In addition, acting to prevent the
importation of these two species before trade in them emerges means
that environmental injury from them can be prevented, which is far more
effective than waiting until after injury has already occurred to act
to limit it.
Alternative 4 (listing only the five species determined to have a
high ``overall risk potential'' in Reed and Rodda (2009)) would limit
the rule to the species with the greatest potential for environmental
injury. Of the four species that would not be listed under this
alternative, two are not currently in trade in the United States, and
one (the green anaconda) is in very limited trade (less than half a
percent of imported constrictor snakes of the genera Python, Boa, and
Eunectes). Of the four that would not be listed, only the reticulated
python is the subject of noticeable trade, and that is less than 4
percent of imported constrictor snakes of the genera Python, Boa, and
Eunectes. The economic impact of the five-species alternative
(Alternative 4) would be less than the nine-proposed-species
alternative (2A) primarily because of the exclusion of the reticulated
python; less than the seven species in Alternative 3, primarily because
of the exclusion of the reticulated python; but greater than the four
species in Alternative 2B, primarily because the boa constrictor is
included. The relative level of risk associated with each species is
determined by the criteria specified in the section Lacey Act
Evaluation Criteria above. Even in the case of those species with
medium risk, the particular areas where the climate match occurs are
notable for the number of endangered species found there (e.g., Hawaii,
southern Florida, and Puerto Rico). That fact, the potential that
yellow anacondas would be difficult for enforcement officials to
distinguish if mislabeled as DeSchauensee's anacondas, and the fact
that the opportunity to act preventively before most of these species
became established would be lost under this alternative, and all of
these factors argued against its adoption.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (that is, small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a
regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a
threshold for ``significant impact'' and a threshold for a
``substantial number of small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which we
briefly summarize below, was prepared to accompany this rule. See
ADDRESSES or http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-
2008-0015 for the complete document.
This rule lists four constrictor snake species: (Burmese python,
Northern African python, Southern African python, and yellow anaconda)
as injurious species under the Lacey Act. Entities impacted by the
listing would include: (1) Companies importing live snakes, gametes,
viable eggs, and hybrids; (2) companies (breeders and wholesalers) with
interstate sales of live snakes, gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids (3)
entities selling reptile-related products and services (pet stores,
veterinarians, and shipping companies); and (4) research organizations,
zoos, and educational operations. Importation of the four constrictor
snakes would be eliminated, except as specifically authorized. Impacts
to entities breeding or selling these snakes domestically would depend
on the amount of interstate sales within the constrictor snake market.
Impacts also are dependent upon whether or not consumers would
substitute the purchase of an animal that is not listed, which would
thereby reduce economic impacts.
For businesses importing any of the four large constrictor snakes
in this final rule, the maximum impact of this rulemaking would result
in 14 to 19 small businesses (20 percent) having a reduction in their
retail sales of 3 percent.
In addition to companies that import snakes, entities that breed
and sell large constrictor snakes will also be impacted. These entities
include distributors, retailers, breeders and hobbyists, and exhibitors
and trade shows. We do not know the total number of businesses, large
or small, that sell or breed the listed four species domestically.
However, we know approximately the number of businesses that sell or
breed large constrictor snake species of the genera Python, Boa, and
Eunectes and that overall, the nine listed species originally proposed
represent 58 percent of all U.S.-bred large constrictor snake sales of
those three genera. Because we do not know exactly how many businesses
sell the listed species, we extrapolated the percentage of sales to
determine the number of affected businesses. Thus, we assume that 16 to
22 percent of businesses sell or breed the four snake species in this
final rule and that approximately 62 to 85 percent of these entities
would qualify as small businesses. Therefore, approximately 979 to
2,874 small businesses would be affected. Impacts to this group of
businesses as a whole could represent a 16 to 22 percent reduction in
retail value.
In addition to snake sales, ancillary and support services comprise
part of the snake industry. Four major categories include: (1) Food
suppliers (such as for frozen or live rats and mice), (2) equipment
suppliers (such as for cages, containers, lights, and other nonfood
items), (3) veterinary care and other health-related items, and (4)
shipping companies. The decrease in constrictor-snake-industry economic
output and related employment from baseline conditions is $10.7 to 21.8
million for the four species. This estimate includes impacts to the
support service businesses. The number of businesses that provide these
services to the large constrictor snake market is unreported. Thus, we
do not know the impact to these types of individual businesses.
Under the final rule, the interstate transport of the four
constrictor snakes will be discontinued, except as specifically
permitted. Thus, any revenue that would be potentially earned from this
portion of the business will be eliminated. The amount of sales
impacted is completely dependent on the percentage of interstate
transport. That is, the impact depends on where businesses are located
and where their customers are located.
[[Page 3365]]
Therefore, this final rule may have a significant economic effect
on a small number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more. According to the final economic analysis (USFWS 2011), the
annual retail value losses for the four constrictor snake species in
this final rule are estimated to range from $3.7 million to $7.6
million. In addition, businesses would also face the risk of fines if
caught transporting these constrictor snakes, gametes, viable eggs, or
hybrids across State lines. The penalty for a Lacey Act violation under
the injurious wildlife provisions is not more than 6 months in prison
and not more than a $5,000 fine for an individual and not more than a
$10,000 fine for an organization.
b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions. Businesses breeding or selling the
listed snakes would be able to substitute other species and maintain
business by seeking unusual morphologic forms in other snakes. Some
businesses, however, may close. We do not have data for the potential
substitutions and therefore, we do not know the number of businesses
that may close.
c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100
million per year. This proposed rule would not have a significant or
unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not required.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), the rule does
not have significant takings implications. A takings implication
assessment is not required. This rule would not impose significant
requirements or limitations on private property use. Any person who
possesses one or more snakes from the four species can continue to
possess, sell, or transport them within their State boundaries.
Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have
Federalism implications. This rule would not have substantial direct
effects on States, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
among the various levels of government. The rule does not have
substantial direct effects on States because it: (1) Imposes no
affirmative obligations on any State, (2) preempts no State law, (3)
does not limit the policymaking discretion of the States, (4) requires
no State to expend any funds, and (5) imposes no compliance costs on
any State. Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to proceed
cautiously when there are ``uncertainties regarding the constitutional
or statutory authority of the national government,'' but there are no
such uncertainties here. The statutory authority of the Fish and
Wildlife Service to designate injurious species pursuant to the Lacey
Act is clear, and the constitutional basis for the Lacey Act (a statute
that has been in effect since 1900) is equally clear, limited as it is
to the regulation of international and interstate commerce. The
Executive Order also encourages early consultation with State and local
officials, which the Service has done. Indeed, this rulemaking was
initiated by petition from an agency of the State of Florida.
Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, we determine that
this rule does not have Federalism implications or preempt State law,
and therefore a Federalism summary impact statement is not required.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Executive Order. The rule has been reviewed to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, was written to minimize litigation,
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a
general standard, and promotes simplification and burden reduction.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose new recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. OMB has approved the information
collection requirements associated with the required permits and
assigned OMB Control No. 1018-0093. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have reviewed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the
Departmental Manual in 516 DM. This action is being taken to protect
the natural resources of the United States. A final Environmental
Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) have been
prepared and are available for review by written request (see
ADDRESSES) or at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-
FHC-2008-0015. The final environmental assessment was based on the nine
proposed species of snakes and revised based on comments from peer
reviewers and the public. By adding Burmese python, Northern African
python, Southern African python, and yellow anaconda to the list of
injurious wildlife, we intend to prevent their new introduction,
further introduction, and establishment into natural areas of the
United States to protect native wildlife species, the survival and
welfare of wildlife and wildlife resources, and the health and welfare
of human beings. If we did not list these constrictor snakes as
injurious, the species are more likely to expand in captivity in States
where they are not already found in the wild; this would increase the
risk of their escape or intentional release and establishment in new
areas, which would likely threaten native fish and wildlife, and
humans. Burmese pythons and Northern African pythons are established in
southern Florida. Releases of the four constrictor snakes into natural
areas of the United States are likely to occur again, and the species
are likely to become established in additional U.S. natural areas such
as national wildlife refuges and parks, threatening native fish and
wildlife populations and ecosystem form,
[[Page 3366]]
function, and structure. The reticulated python, green anaconda, Beni
anaconda, DeSchauensee's anaconda, and boa constrictor remain under
consideration for listing.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal tribes on a government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to
work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy
ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the
same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian
culture, and to make information available to tribes. We have evaluated
potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have
determined that there are no potential effects. This rule involves the
importation and interstate movement of three live python species and
one live anaconda species, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids. We are
unaware of trade in these species by tribes.
Effects on Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not
expected to affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore,
this action is a not a significant energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
References Cited
A complete list of all references used in this rulemaking is
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015.
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the South
Florida Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 16
Fish, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service proposes to amend part 16, subchapter B of chapter I,
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 16--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 42.
0
2. Amend Sec. 16.15 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 16.15 Importation of live reptiles or their eggs.
(a) The importation, transportation, or acquisition of any live
specimen, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of the species listed in this
paragraph is prohibited except as provided under the terms and
conditions set forth in Sec. 16.22:
(1) Boiga irregularis (brown tree snake).
(2) Python molurus (including P. molurus molurus (Indian python)
and P. molurus bivittatus (Burmese python).
(3) Python sebae (Northern African python or African rock python).
(4) Python natalensis (Southern African python or African rock
python).
(5) Eunectes notaeus (yellow anaconda).
* * * * *
Dated: January 10, 2012.
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-1155 Filed 1-18-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P