[Federal Register: March 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 48)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11808-11829]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12mr10-14]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 16
RIN 1018-AV68
[FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015]
[94140-1342-0000-N3]
Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing the Boa Constrictor, Four
Python Species, and Four Anaconda Species as Injurious Reptiles
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessment
and draft economic analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to amend
its regulations to add Indian python (Python molurus, including Burmese
python Python molurus bivittatus), 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) to the list of injurious
reptiles. This listing would prohibit the importation of any live
animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of these nine constrictor snakes
into the United States, except as specifically authorized. The best
available information indicates that this action is necessary to
protect the interests of humans, wildlife, and wildlife resources from
the purposeful or accidental introduction and subsequent establishment
of these large constrictor snake populations into ecosystems of the
United States. If the proposed rule is made final, live snakes,
gametes, or hybrids of the nine species or their viable eggs could be
imported only by permit for scientific, medical, educational, or
zoological purposes, or without a permit by Federal agencies solely for
their own use. The proposed rule, if made final, would also prohibit
any interstate transportation of live snakes, gametes, viable eggs, or
hybrids of the nine species currently held in the United States. If the
proposed rule is made final, interstate transportation could be
authorized for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological
purposes.
DATES: We will consider comments we receive on or before May 11, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R9-
FHC-2008-0015.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Supervisor, South Florida Ecological
Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1339 20\th\ 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). The District is
concerned about the number of Burmese pythons 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 Lacey 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
[[Page 11809]]
provided economic, ecological, and other data responsive to 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 Lacey 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
this proposed rule.
For the injurious wildlife evaluation in this proposed rule, we
considered: (1) The substantive information that we received during the
notice of inquiry, (2) information 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'' (Reed and Rodda 2009),
and (3) the latest findings regarding the nine large constrictor snakes
in Florida and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The USGS's risk
assessment (Reed and Rodda 2009) can be viewed at the following web
sites: http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015
and http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Publications/pub_
abstract.asp?PubID=22691. Reed and Rodda (2009) provided the primary
biological, management, and risk information for this proposed rule.
The risk assessment was prepared at the request of the Service and the
National Park Service.
Background
Purpose of Listing as Injurious
The purpose of listing the Indian python (Python molurus, including
Burmese python P. molurus bivittatus), 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) (hereafter, collectively the
nine constrictor snakes) as injurious wildlife would be 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 Nine Species Were Selected for Consideration as Injurious
Species
The four true giants (with maximum lengths well exceeding 6 m [20
ft]) are the Indian python, Northern African python, reticulated
python, and green anaconda; they are prevalent in international trade.
The boa constrictor is large, prevalent in international trade, and
already established in South Florida. The Southern African python,
yellow anaconda, DeSchauensee's anaconda, and Beni anaconda exhibit
many of the same biological characteristics as the previous five
species that pose a risk of establishment and negative effects in the
United States. The Service is striving to prevent the introduction and
establishment of all nine species into new areas of the United States
due to concerns about the injurious effects of all nine species
consistent with 18 U.S.C. 42.
Need for the Proposed Rule
The threat posed by the Indian python (including Burmese python)
and other large constrictor snakes is evident. Thousands of Indian
pythons (including Burmese pythons) are now breeding in the Everglades
and threaten many imperiled species and other wildlife. In addition,
other species of large constrictors are or may be breeding in South
Florida, including boa constrictors and Northern African pythons.
Reticulated pythons, yellow anacondas, and green anacondas have also
been reported in the wild in Florida. Indian pythons (including Burmese
pythons), reticulated pythons, African pythons, boa constrictors, and
yellow anacondas have been reported in the wild in Puerto Rico. The
Southern African python, yellow anaconda, DeSchauensee's anaconda, and
Beni anaconda exhibit many of the same biological characteristics as
the previous five species that pose a risk of establishment and
negative effects in the United States.
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. While we acknowledge
this uncertainty, 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, large areas of the continental United States appear to
have suitable climatic conditions. There is a high probability that
large constrictors would establish populations in the wild within their
respective thermal and precipitation limits due to common life-history
traits that make them successful invaders, such as being habitat
generalists that are tolerant of urbanization and capable of feeding on
a wide range of size-appropriate vertebrates (reptiles, mammals, birds,
amphibians, and fish; Reed and Rodda 2009). While a few of the largest
species have been known to attack humans in their native ranges, such
attacks appear to be rare.
Of the nine large constrictor snakes assessed by Reed and Rodda
(2009), five were shown to pose a high risk to the health of the
ecosystem, including the Indian python or 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
were assessed was classified as low risk. As compared to many other
vertebrates, large constrictors pose a relatively high risk for being
injurious. They are highly adaptable to new environments and
opportunistic in expanding their geographic range. Furthermore, since
they are a novel, top predator, they can threaten the stability of
native ecosystems by altering the ecosystem's form, function, and
structure.
Most of these nine 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.
Listing Process
The regulations contained in 50 CFR part 16 implement the Lacey Act
(Act; 18 U.S.C. 42) as amended. Under the terms of the Act, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe by
[[Page 11810]]
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 humans, 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.
We are evaluating each of the nine species of constrictor snakes
individually and will list only those species that we determine to be
injurious. If we determine that any or all of the nine constrictor
snakes in this proposed rule are injurious, then, as with all listed
injurious animals, 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. The rule would not prohibit intrastate transport of
the listed constrictor snake species within States. Any regulations
pertaining to the transport or use of these species within a particular
State would continue to be the responsibility of that State.
The Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria are used 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.
If the data indicate that a species is injurious, a proposed rule
will be developed. The proposed rule provides the public with a period
to comment on the proposed listing and associated documents.
If a determination is made to not finalize the listing, the Service
will publish a notice in the Federal Register explaining why the
species is not added to the list of injurious wildlife. If a
determination is made to list a species as injurious after evaluating
the comments received during the proposed rule's comment period, a
final rule would be published. The final rule contains responses to
comments received on the proposed rule, states the final decision, and
provides the justification for that decision. If listed, species
determined to be injurious will be codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Introduction Pathways for Large Constrictor Snakes
The primary pathway for the entry of the nine constrictor snakes
into the United States is the commercial trade in pets. The main ports
of entry for imports are Miami, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Dallas-Ft.
Worth, Detroit, Chicago, and San Francisco. 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 (0.5 meters (m)
[(22 inches (in)]) at a pet store or reptile show for as little as $35.
The hatchling grows rapidly, even when fed conservatively, so a strong
snake-proof enclosure is necessary. All snakes are adept at escaping,
and pythons are especially powerful when it comes to breaking out of
cages. In captivity, they are 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 have to be bathed in a bathtub. Under captive conditions,
pythons will grow very fast. An Indian python, for example, will grow
to more than 20 feet long, weigh 200 pounds, live more than 25 years,
and must be fed rabbits and the like.
Owning a giant snake is a difficult, long-term, somewhat expensive
responsibility. For this reason, many snakes are released by their
owners into the wild when they can no longer care for them, and other
snakes escape from inadequate enclosures. This is a common pathway to
invading the ecosystem by large constrictor snakes (Fujisaki et al.
2009).
In aggregate, the trade in giant constrictors is significant. From
1999 to 2008, more than 1.8 million live constrictor snakes of 12
species were imported into the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2010). Of all the constrictor snake species imported into the
United States, the selection of nine constrictor snakes for evaluation
as injurious wildlife was based on concern over the giant size of these
particular snakes combined with their quantity in international trade.
The four largest species of snakes--Indian python, Northern African
python, reticulated python, and green anaconda--were selected, as well
as similar and closely related species, and the boa constrictor. These
giant constrictor snakes constitute a high risk of injuriousness in
relation to those taxa with lower trade volumes, are large in size with
maximum lengths exceeding 6 m (20 ft), and have a high likelihood of
establishment in various habitats of the United States. The Southern
African python, yellow anaconda, DeSchauensee's anaconda, and Beni
anaconda exhibit many of the same biological characteristics as the
previous five species that pose a risk of establishment and negative
effects in the United States.
By far the strongest factor influencing the chances of these large
constrictors establishing in the wild is the number of release events
and the numbers of individuals released. With a sufficient number of
either unintentional or intentional release events, these species will
establish in ecosystems with suitable conditions for survival and
reproduction. 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 exotic species will increase the risk of these new
species becoming established through increased opportunities for
release. A second factor that is strongly and consistently associated
with the success of an invasive species' establishment is a history of
it successfully establishing elsewhere outside its native range. For
example, in addition to the established Indian (including Burmese)
python population in Florida, we now know that boa constrictors are
established at the Deering Estate at Cutler preserve in South Florida,
and the Northern African python is established west of Miami, Florida,
in the vicinity known as the Bird Drive Basin Recharge Area. 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. These three factors have all been consistently
demonstrated to increase the chances of establishment by all invasive
vertebrate taxa, including the nine large constrictor snakes in this
proposed rule (Bomford 2008).
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 list it as injurious. The objective of
[[Page 11811]]
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.
Public Comments
We are soliciting substantive public comments and supporting data
on the draft environmental assessment, the draft economic analysis, and
this proposed rule to add the Indian (including Burmese) python,
reticulated python (Broghammerus reticulatus or Python reticulatus),
Northern African python, Southern African python, boa constrictor,
yellow anaconda, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni
anaconda to the list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act. The
draft environmental assessment, the draft economic analysis, the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis, and this proposed rule will be
available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-
2008-0015.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If your written
comments provide personal identifying information, you may request at
the top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015, or by appointment, during normal
business hours at the South Florida Ecological Services Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
We are soliciting public comments and supporting data to gain
additional information, and we specifically seek comment regarding the
Indian python (Python molurus, including Burmese python P. m.
bivittatus), 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) on the following questions:
(1) What regulations does your State have pertaining to the use,
transport, or production of any of the nine constrictor snakes? What
are relevant Federal, State, or local rules that may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule?
(2) How many of the nine constrictor snakes species are currently
in production for wholesale or retail sale, and in how many and which
States?
(3) How many businesses sell one or more of the nine constrictor
snake species?
(4) How many businesses breed one or more of the nine constrictor
snake species?
(5) What are the annual sales for each of the nine constrictor
snake species?
(6) How many, if any, of the nine constrictor snake species are
permitted within each State?
(7) What would it cost to eradicate individuals or populations of
the nine constrictor snakes, or similar species, if found? What methods
are effective?
(8) What are the costs of implementing propagation, recovery, and
restoration programs for native species that are affected by the nine
constrictor snake species, or similar species?
(9) What State threatened or endangered species would be impacted
by the introduction of any of the nine constrictor snake species?
(10) What species have been impacted, and how, by any of the nine
constrictor snake species?
(11) What provisions in the proposed rule should the Service
consider with regard to: (a) The impact of the provision(s) (including
any benefits and costs), if any, and (b) what alternatives, if any, the
Service should consider, as well as the costs and benefits of those
alternatives, paying specific attention to the effect of the rule on
small entities?
(12) How could the proposed rule be modified to reduce any costs or
burdens for small entities consistent with the Service's requirements?
(13) Why we should or should not include hybrids of the nine
constrictor species analyzed in this rule, and if the hybrids possess
the same biological characteristics as the parent species.
Species Information
Indian python (Python molurus, including Burmese python P. molurus
bivittatus)
Native Range
The species Python molurus ranges widely over southern and
southeast Asia (Reed and Rodda 2009). Reed and Rodda (2009) state that,
at times, the species has been divided into subspecies recognizable
primarily by color. The most widely used common name for the entire
species is Indian python, with P. molurus bivittatus routinely
distinguished as the Burmese python. Because the pet trade is composed
almost entirely of P. m. bivittatus, most popular references simply use
Burmese python. However, hereafter, we refer to the species as Indian
python (for the entire species), unless specifically noted as Burmese
(to refer to the subspecies, or where information sources used that
name).
The subspecies, Python molurus 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. P.
molurus molurus is also listed by the Convention on International Trade
in Threatened and Endangered Species (CITES) under Appendix I but uses
no common name. All other subspecies in the genus Python are listed in
CITES Appendix II. This rule as proposed would list all members of
Python molurus as injurious.
In its native range, the Indian python occurs in virtually every
habitat from lowland tropical rainforest (Indonesia and Southeast Asia)
to thorn-scrub desert (Pakistan) and grasslands (Sumbawa, India) to
montane warm temperate 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 Indian 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. Male Indian pythons do not need to copulate with females for
fertilization of viable eggs. Instead, the female apparently can
fertilize her 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).
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
[[Page 11812]]
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 (Python molurus bivittatus) is one of the
largest snakes in the world; it reaches lengths of up to 7 m (23 ft)
and weights of over 90 kilograms (kg)(almost 200 pounds (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 is true with all snakes, pythons grow
throughout their lives. Reed and Rodda (2009) cite Bowler (1977) for
two records of 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 giant constrictors, Indian 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 blend so well
into their surroundings that observers have released marked snakes for
research purposes and lost sight of them 5 feet away (Roybal, pers.
comm. 2010).
With only a few reported exceptions, Indian pythons eat terrestrial
vertebrates, although they eat a wide variety of terrestrial
vertebrates (lizards, frogs, crocodilians, snakes, birds, and mammals).
Special attention has been paid to the large maximum size of prey taken
from python stomachs, both in their native range and nonnative
occurrences 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,
Indian pythons have the ability to grow stomach tissue quickly to
digest a large meal (Reed and Rodda 2009).
Reticulated Python (Broghammerus reticulatus or Python reticulatus)
Native Range
Although native range boundaries are disputed, reticulated pythons
conservatively range across much of mainland Southeast Asia (Reed and
Rodda 2009). They are found from sea level up to more than 1,300 m
(4,265 ft) and inhabit lowland primary and secondary tropical wet
forests, tropical open dry forests, tropical wet montane forests, rocky
scrublands, swamps, marshes, plantations and cultivated areas, and
suburban and urban areas. Reticulated pythons occur primarily in areas
with a wet tropical climate. Although they also occur in areas that are
seasonally dry, reticulated pythons do not occur in areas that are
continuously dry or very cold at any time (Reed and Rodda 2009).
Biology
The reticulated python is most likely the world's longest snake
(Reed and Rodda 2009). Adults can grow to a length of more than 8.7 m
(28.5 ft). Like all pythons, the reticulated python is oviparous (lays
eggs). The clutch sizes range from 8 to 124, with typical clutches of
20 to 40 eggs. Hatchlings are at least 61 cm (2 ft) in total length
(Reed and Rodda 2009). We have no data on life expectancy in the wild,
but several captive specimens have lived for nearly 30 years (Reed and
Rodda 2009).
The size range of the prey of reticulated pythons is essentially
the same as that of the Indian python, as far as is known (Reed and
Rodda 2009), and has included chickens, rats, monitor lizards, civet
cats, bats, an immature cow, various primates, deer, goats, cats, dogs,
ducks, rabbits, tree shrews, porcupines, and many species of birds.
A host of internal and external parasites plague wild reticulated
pythons (Auliya 2006). The pythons in general are hosts to various
protozoans, nematodes, ticks, and lung arthropods (Reed and Rodda
2009). Captive reticulated pythons can carry ticks of agricultural
significance (potential threat to domestic livestock) in Florida
(Burridge et al. 2000, 2006; Clark and Doten 1995).
The reticulated python can be an aggressive and dangerous species
of giant constrictor to humans. Reed and Rodda (2009) cite numerous
sources of people being bitten, attacked, and even killed by
reticulated pythons in their native range.
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.
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 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 temperatures identified for any
of the giant constrictors, with means of greater than 35 [deg]C (95
[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 giant constrictors,
adult African pythons primarily eat endothermic (warm-blooded) prey
from a wide variety of taxa. Domestic animals consumed by African
pythons include goats, dogs, and a domestic turkey consumed by an
individual in suburban South Florida.
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.
Distributions of the species overlap somewhat, although the southern
species tends to inhabit higher areas in regions where both species
occur (Reed and Rodda 2009).
[[Page 11813]]
Biology
Little is known about Southern African pythons. They are oviparous.
As with most of the giant constrictors, adult African pythons primarily
eat endothermic (warm-blooded) 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.
Boa Constrictor (Boa constrictor)
Native Range
Boa constrictors range widely over North America (Mexico), Central
America, and South America, including dozens of marine and lacustrine
islands, and have one of the widest latitudinal distributions of any
snake in the world. In their native range, boa constrictors inhabit
environments from sea level to 1,000 m (3,280 ft), including wet and
dry tropical forest, savanna, very dry thorn scrub, and cultivated
fields. They are commonly found in or along rivers and streams because
they are capable swimmers (Reed and Rodda 2009; Snow et al. 2007).
Biology
The maximum length of this species is roughly 4 m (13 ft). Boa
constrictors are ovoviviparous (bear live young after eggs hatch inside
mother). The average clutch size is 35 eggs. Snake longevity records
from captive-bred populations can be 38 to 40 years (Reed and Rodda
2009).
The boa constrictor has a broad diet, consuming prey from a wide
variety of vertebrate taxa. Young boa constrictors will eat mice, small
birds, lizards, and amphibians. The size of the prey item will increase
as the snake gets older and larger. The boa constrictor is an ambush
predator and will lie in wait for an appropriate prey to come along, at
which point it will attack (Reed and Rodda 2009; Snow et al. 2007).
The subspecies Boa constrictor occidentalis is listed by CITES
under Appendix I but uses no common name. This rule as proposed would
list all subspecies of Boa constrictor as injurious.
Yellow Anaconda (Eunectes notaeus)
Native Range
The yellow anaconda (E. 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 yellow anaconda exhibits
a fairly temperate climate range, including localities with cold-season
monthly mean temperatures around 10 [deg]C (50 [deg]F) and no
localities with monthly means exceeding 30 [deg]C (86 [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 range from 10 to 37, with a maximum
of 56. In captivity, yellow anacondas have lived for over 20 years.
Yellow anacondas appear to be generalist predators on a range of
vertebrates. The anacondas in general exhibit among the broadest diet
range of any snake, including ectotherms (lizards, crocodilians,
turtles, snakes, fish) and endotherms (birds, mammals), and yellow
anacondas have typical diets.
DeSchauensee's Anaconda (Eunectes deschauenseei)
Native Range
This species has a much smaller range than does the yellow anaconda
and is largely confined to the Brazilian island of Marajo, nearby areas
around the mouth of the Amazon River, and several drainages in French
Guiana. DeSchauensee's anaconda is known from a small number of
specimens and has a limited range in northeast South America. Although
not well studied, DeSchauensee's anaconda apparently prefers swampy
habitats that may be seasonally flooded. DeSchauensee's anaconda is
known from only a few localities in northeast South America, and its
known climate range is accordingly very small. While the occupied range
exhibits moderate variation in precipitation across the year, annual
temperatures tend to range between 25 \o\C (77 \o\F) and 30 \o\C (86
\o\F). Whether the species could tolerate greater climatic variation is
unknown.
Biology
DeSchauensee's anaconda appears to be the smallest of the
anacondas, although the extremely limited number of available specimens
does not allow unequivocal determination of maximal body sizes. Dirksen
and Henderson (2002) record a maximum total length of available
specimens as 1.92 m (6.3 (ft)) in males and 3.0 m (9.8 (ft)) in
females. The DeSchauensee's anaconda is live-bearing. In captivity,
DeSchauensee's anacondas have been reported to live for 17 years, 11
months (Snider and Bowler 1992). Clutch sizes of DeSchauensee's
anacondas ranged from 3 to 27 (mean 10.6 9.6) in a sample
of five museum specimens (Pizzatto and Marques 2007), a range far
greater than reported in some general works (for example, 3-7
offspring; Walls, 1998).
DeSchauensee's anaconda is reported to consume mammals, fish, and
birds, and its overall diet is assumed to be similar to that of the
yellow anaconda (Reed and Rodda 2009).
Green Anaconda (Eunectes murinus)
Native Range
The native range of green anaconda includes aquatic habitats in
much of South America below 850 m (2,789 ft) elevation plus the insular
population on Trinidad, encompassing the Amazon and Orinoco Basins;
major Guianan rivers; the San Francisco, Parana, and Paraguay Rivers in
Brazil; and extending south as far as the Tropic of Capricorn in
northeast Paraguay. The range of green anaconda is largely defined by
availability of aquatic habitats. Depending on location within the wide
distribution of the species, these appear to include deep, shallow,
turbid, and clear waters, and both lacustrine and riverine habitats
(Reed and Rodda 2009).
Biology
Reed and Rodda (2009) describe the green anaconda as truly a giant
snake, with fairly reliable records of lengths over 7 m (23 ft) and
having a very stout body. Very large anacondas are almost certainly the
heaviest snakes in the world, ranging up to 200 kg (441 lbs)
(Bisplinghof and Bellosa 2007), even though reticulated pythons, for
example, may attain greater lengths.
The green anaconda bears live young. The maximum recorded litter
size is 82, removed from a Brazilian specimen, but the typical range is
28 to 42 young. Neonates (newly born young) are around 70 to 80 cm
(27.5 to 31.5 in) long and receive no parental care. Because of their
small size, they often fall prey to other animals. If they survive,
they grow rapidly until they reach sexual maturity in their first few
years (Reed and Rodda 2009). While reproduction is typically sexual,
Reed and Rodda (2009) report that a captive, female green anaconda that
was 5 years old in 1976 and that had no access to males gave birth in
2002 to 23 females. This raises the possibility that green anacondas
are facultatively parthenogenic, and that, theoretically, a single
female green anaconda could establish a population.
The green anaconda is considered a top predator in South American
ecosystems. Small anacondas appear to primarily consume birds, and as
they mature, they undergo an ontogenetic prey shift to large mammals
and
[[Page 11814]]
reptiles. The regular inclusion of fish in the diet of the anacondas
(including other members of the genus Eunectes) increases their dietary
niche breadth in relation to the other giant constrictors, which rarely
consume fish. Green anacondas consume a wide variety of endotherms and
ectotherms from higher taxa, including such large prey as deer and
crocodilians (alligators are a type of crocodilian). The regular
inclusion of fish, turtles, and other aquatic organisms in their diet
increases their range of prey even beyond that of reticulated or Indian
pythons. Organisms that regularly come in contact with aquatic habitats
are likely to be most commonly consumed by green anacondas (Reed and
Rodda 2009). Green anacondas would have a ready food supply anywhere
that the climate and habitat matched their native range. Since green
anacondas are known to prey upon crocodilians, they could potentially
thrive on alligators, which are common in the southeastern United
States.
Beni Anaconda (Eunectes beniensis)
Native Range
The Beni anaconda is a recently described and poorly known anaconda
closely related to the green anaconda (Reed and Rodda 2009). The native
range of the Beni anaconda is the Itenez/Guapore River in Bolivia along
the border with Brazil, as well as the Baures River drainage in
Bolivia. The green and Beni anacondas are similar in size and the range
of the Beni anaconda is within the range of the green anaconda
(Bolivia).
Biology
Eunectes beniensis is a recently described species from northern
Bolivia, previously considered to be contained within E. murinus.
Eunectes beniensis was discovered in the Beni Province, Bolivia--thus
the labeled name of Beni anaconda and another alias of Bolivian
anaconda. Based on morphological and molecular genetic evidence, E.
beniensis is more closely related to E. notaeus and E. deschauenseei
than to E. murinus. The phylogenetic relationships within Eunectes are
currently best described as: E. murinus [E. beniensis (E.
deschauenseei, E. notaeus)]. To an experienced herpetologist, E.
beniensis is easily recognizable by its brown to olive-brownish ground
color in combination with five head stripes and less than 100 large,
dark, solid dorsal blotches that always lack lighter centers. To a
novice, E. beniensis and E. murinus are similar in appearance. The
primarily nocturnal anaconda species tends to spend most of its life in
or around water.
Summary of the Presence of the Nine Constrictor Snakes in the United
States
Of the nine constrictor snake species that are proposed for listing
as injurious, six have been reported in the wild in the United States
and two have been confirmed as reproducing in the wild in the United
States; six have been imported commercially into the United States
during the period 1999 to 2008 (Table 1).
Table 1. The species of nine snakes proposed for listing as injurious that have been reported in the United
States, are known to be breeding in the United States, and have been imported for trade.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported in the wild in Reproducing in the wild Imported into U.S. for
Species U.S.? in U.S.? trade?*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian (or Burmese) python Yes Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reticulated python Yes No Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern African python Yes Possible Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern African python No No Unknown**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boa constrictor Yes Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellow anaconda Yes No Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DeSchauensee's anaconda No No Unknown**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green anaconda Yes No Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beni anaconda No No Unknown**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Data from Draft Economic Analysis (USFWS 2010)
** It is possible that this species has been imported into the U.S. incorrectly identified as one of the other
species under consideration in this rule.
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 nine proposed snake
species). Biologists within the Service who are knowledgeable about a
species being evaluated will 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
[[Page 11815]]
introduction.
To obtain some of the information for the above criteria, we used
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 (ANSTF 1996). This 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 nine constrictor snakes under consideration, the
risk of establishment ranged from medium (reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda) to high
(Indian python, Northern African python, Southern African python, boa
constrictor, and yellow anaconda).
For the nine constrictor snakes under consideration, the
consequences of establishment range from low (DeSchauensee's anaconda
and Beni anaconda) to medium (reticulated python, yellow anaconda, and
green anaconda) to high (Indian python, Northern African python,
Southern African python, and boa constrictor). The overall ORP, which
is derived from an algorithm of both probability of establishment and
consequences of establishment, was found to range from medium
(reticulated python, green anaconda, DeSchauensee's anaconda, and Beni
anaconda) to high (Indian python, Northern African python, Southern
African python, boa constrictor, yellow anaconda).
Certainties were highly variable within each of the seven elements
of the risk assessment, varying from very uncertain to very certain. In
general, the highest certainties were associated with those species
unequivocally established in Florida (Indian python and boa
constrictor) because of enhanced ecological information on these
species from studies in both their native range and in Florida. The way
in which these sub-scores are obtained and combined is set forth in an
algorithm created by the ANSTF (Table 2).
Table 2. The algorithm that the ANSTF defined for combining the two
primary sub-scores (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 sub-scores
from the secondary sub-scores. 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 are
Indian pythons, Northern and Southern African pythons, boa
constrictors, and yellow anacondas. High-risk species, if established
in this country, put larger portions of the U.S. mainland at risk,
constitute a greater ecological threat, or are more common in trade and
commerce. Medium-risk species were reticulated python, DeSchauensee's
anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda. These species constitute
lesser threats in these areas, but still are potentially serious
threats. Because all nine species share characteristics associated with
greater risks, none was found to be a low risk.
For the purposes of this proposed rule, a hybrid is any progeny
from any cross involving parents of these nine constrictor snake
species. 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.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Indian Python
Current Nonnative Occurrences
The Indian python has been reported as captured in many areas in
Florida (see Figure 4 in the draft 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 10 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
Indian 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), and the eastern
region of the island (Humacao) (Saliva, pers. comm. 2009).
Potential Introduction and Spread
The likelihood of release or escape from captivity of Indian python
is high as evidenced by the releases and effects of those releases in
Florida and Puerto Rico. When Indian pythons escape captivity or are
released into the wild,
[[Page 11816]]
they have survived and are likely to continue to survive and become
established with or without reproduction. For example, in the past 10
years, more than 1,300 Burmese pythons have been removed from
Everglades National Park and vicinity (National Park Service 2010)
alone 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 up the peninsula, including Sarasota and Indian
River County (Lowman, pers. comm. 2009; Dangerfield, pers. comm. 2010).
Moreover, released Indian pythons would likely spread to areas of the
United States with a suitable climate. These areas were determined in
the risk assessment (Reed and Rodda 2009) for all nine 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 Indian 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 climate. Areas of the
State of Hawaii with elevations under about 2,500 m (8,202 ft) would
also appear to be climatically suitable. Indian pythons are highly
likely to spread and become established in the wild due to common
traits shared by the giant constrictors, including large size, habitat
generalist, tolerance of urbanization, high reproductive potential,
long distance disperser, early maturation, rapid growth, longevity, and
``sit and wait'' style of predation.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
As discussed above under Biology, the Indian 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 many bears). American black bears (Ursus
americanus) vary in size depending on sex, food availability and
quality, and other factors. Male black bears can grow to more than six
feet long and weigh up to 295 kg (650 lbs); females rarely reach that
length and do not weigh more than 79 kg (175 lbs) (Smithsonian
Institution 2010). Among the largest of the native predators of the
Southeast is the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). The
average length for an adult female American alligator is 2.6 m (8.2
ft), and the average length for a male is 3.4 m (11.2 ft) (Smithsonian
Institution 2010).
In comparison with the Indian python, the largest snake native to
North America is the indigo snake (Drymarchon corais), attaining a size
of about 2.5 m (8 ft) (Monroe and Monroe 1968). 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 Indian python's native range, none of
our native species has evolved defenses to avoid predation by such a
large snake. Thus, naive native wildlife anywhere in the United States
would be very likely to fall prey to Indian pythons (or any of the
other eight constrictor snakes). At all life stages, Indian 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, Indian
pythons, once introduced and established, are likely to 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. Indian 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
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
consumed by a Burmese python 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 (USFWS 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.
The United States, particularly the Southeast, has one of the most
diverse faunal communities that are potentially vulnerable to predation
by the Indian python. Juveniles of these giant constrictors will climb
to remove prey from bird nests and capture perching or sleeping birds.
Most of the South has suitable climate and habitat for Indian pythons.
The greatest biological impact of an introduced predator, such as the
Indian python, is the likely loss of imperiled native species. Based on
the food habits and habitat preferences of the Indian 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. Indian pythons are also
likely to threaten numerous other potential candidates for Federal
protection. 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.
For example, the current candidate list includes several bat species
that inhabit the Indian python's climate-matched regions.
The draft environmental assessment includes lists of species that
are federally threatened or endangered in climate-suitable States and
territories, such as Florida, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands. These lists include only the species of the sizes and types
that would be expected to be directly affected by predation by Indian
pythons and the other eight 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 Indian pythons or be outcompeted by them for prey. Hawaii has 32
bird species and one mammal that 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 have 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.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009),
[[Page 11817]]
threatened and endangered species from all of Florida, most of Hawaii,
and all of Puerto Rico would be at risk from the establishment of
Indian pythons. 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 Indian pythons. In addition, we assume that Guam, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and other territories would have suitable habitat and
climate to support Indian pythons, and these also have federally
threatened and endangered species that would be at risk if Indian
pythons became established.
The likelihood and magnitude of the effect on threatened and
endangered species is high. Indian pythons are thus highly likely to
negatively affect threatened and endangered birds and mammals, as well
as unlisted native species.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The introduction or establishment of Indian 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.
Human fatalities from nonvenomous snakes in the wild are rare,
probably only a few per year worldwide (Reed and Rodda 2009). However,
although attacks on people by Indian pythons are improbable, they are
possible given the large size that some individual snakes can reach.
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Indian Python
Control
No effective tools are currently available to detect and remove
established 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. 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 limited
research on control tools, there are currently no such tools available
that would appear adequate for eradication of an established population
of large constrictor snakes, such as the Indian python, once they have
spread over a large area.
Efforts to eradicate the Indian python in Florida have become
increasingly intense as the species is reported in new locations across
the State. Natural resource management agencies are expending already-
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 the
ecosystems occupied by the invasive snakes.
The draft economic analysis for the nine constrictor snakes (USFWS
January 2010), provides the following information about the
expenditures for research and eradication in Florida, primarily for
Indian 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 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 FL 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 over $1.5 million on research, radio
telemetry, and the development, testing, and implementation of
constrictor snake traps. All these expenditures total $2.9 million from
2005 to approximately 2012, or roughly an average of $363,000 per year.
However, 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 Indian
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 nine 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 Indian 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 Indian 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 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. There are no other potential
ecological benefits for the introduction of Indian pythons into the
United States.
Conclusion
The Indian 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. Hatchlings are about the size of average adult native snakes
and can more than double in size within the first year. In addition,
Indian pythons reportedly can fertilize their own eggs and have viable
eggs after several years in isolation. Even one female Indian 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,
an individual is likely to live for 20 to 30 years. Even a single
python in a small area, such as one of the Florida Keys or insular
islands, can
[[Page 11818]]
devastate the population of a federally threatened or endangered
species. There are currently no effective control methods for Indian
pythons, nor are any anticipated in the near future.
Therefore, because Indian 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); and it would be difficult to eradicate or
reduce large populations or to recover ecosystems disturbed by the
species, the Service finds the Indian python to be injurious to humans
and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Reticulated Python
Current Nonnative Occurrences
In Florida, two known instances of reticulated python removals have
been documented in Vero Beach and Sebastian, Florida. A 5.5 m (18 ft)
reticulated python was struck by a person mowing along a canal on
58\th\ Avenue in Vero Beach in 2007, and a reticulated python was
removed along Roseland Road in Sebastian, Florida (Dangerfield, pers.
comm. 2010). In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, reticulated pythons
have been collected in the western region of the island (Aguadilla and
Mayaguez), and the southern region of the island (Guayama), including a
5.5-m (18-ft) long specimen.
Potential Introduction and Spread
The likelihood of release or escape from captivity of reticulated
python is high. Reticulated pythons (Broghammerus reticulatus or Python
reticulatus) have escaped or been released into the wild in Florida and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Reticulated pythons are highly likely
to survive in natural ecosystems (primarily extreme southern habitats)
of the United States. Reticulated pythons have a more tropical
distribution than Indian pythons. Accordingly, the area of the mainland
United States showing a climate match is smaller, exclusively
subtropical, and limited to southern Florida and extreme southern
Texas. Low and mid-elevation sites in the United States' tropical
territories (Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Virgin
Islands, Puerto Rico) and Hawaii also appear to be climate-matched to
the requirements of reticulated pythons. If they escape or are
intentionally released, they are likely to survive and become
established within their respective thermal and precipitation limits.
Reticulated pythons are highly likely to spread and become established
in the wild due to common traits shared by the giant constrictors,
including large size, habitat generalist, tolerance of urbanization,
sit-and-wait style of predation, high reproductive potential, long-
distance disperser, rapid growth, longevity, early maturation, and a
generalist predator.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
Reticulated pythons (Broghammerus reticulatus or Python
reticulatus) are highly likely to prey on native species, including
threatened and endangered species. Their natural diet includes mammals
and birds. An adverse effect of reticulated python on select threatened
and endangered species is 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 Indian Python for a description of the impacts that
reticulated pythons would have on native species. These impacts are
applicable to reticulated 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 draft
environmental assessment.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009),
threatened and endangered species from parts of Florida, southern
Texas, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico would be at risk from the establishment
of reticulated pythons. In addition, we assume that Guam, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and other territories would have suitable habitat and
climate to support reticulated pythons, and these also have federally
threatened and endangered species that would be at risk if reticulated
pythons became established.
Potential Impacts to Humans
Like all pythons, reticulated pythons are nonvenomous. Captive
reticulated pythons can carry ticks of agricultural significance
(potential threat to domestic livestock) in Florida (Burridge et al.
2000, 2006; Clark and Doten 1995). The reticulated python can be an
aggressive and dangerous species of giant constrictor to humans. Reed
and Rodda (2009) cite numerous sources of people being bitten,
attacked, and even killed by reticulated pythons in their native range.
The introduction or establishment of reticulated 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.
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Reticulated Python
Control
Eradication, management, or control of the spread of reticulated
python will be highly unlikely once the species is established. Please
see the Control section for the Indian python for reasons why the
reticulated python is difficult to control, all of which apply to this
species.
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. There are no other potential
ecological benefits from the introduction into the United States or
establishment in the United States of reticulated pythons.
Conclusion
The reticulated python can grow to a length of more that 8.7 m
(28.5 ft); this is longer than any native, terrestrial animal in the
United States. Native fauna have no experience defending against this
type of novel, giant predator. Several captive reticulated pythons have
lived for nearly 30 years. The reticulated python can be an aggressive
and dangerous species to humans. Therefore, even one escaped individual
can cause injury to wildlife and possibly humans for several decades.
Captive reticulated pythons can carry ticks of agricultural
significance (potential threat to domestic livestock) in Florida.
Because reticulated pythons are likely to escape captivity or be
released into the wild if imported to areas of the United States that
have suitable climate and habitat and do not currently contain the
species; are likely to survive, become established, and spread if
[[Page 11819]]
escaped or released; 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; and because
they 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 reticulated python to be
injurious to humans 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. 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
kilometers (1.6 miles) in diameter known as the Bird Drive Recharge
Basin (Miami-Dade County). Dr. Kenneth Krysko, Senior Biological
Scientist, Division of Herpetology, Florida Museum of Natural History,
University of Florida, is preparing a summary of recent collections and
observations of the Northern African Python from the Bird Drive
Recharge Basin in Miami-Dade County. 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.
In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 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).
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 from the native range and mapped to the United
States for Northern African pythons exhibit a climate match that
includes a large portion of peninsular Florida, extreme south Texas,
and parts 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 large size,
habitat generalist, tolerance of urbanization, high reproductive
potential, long distance disperser, early maturation, rapid growth,
longevity, and a generalist sit-and-wait style of predation.
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 Indian 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 draft environmental assessment.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009),
threatened and endangered 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).
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Northern African Python
Control
As with the other giant constrictors, prevention, eradication,
management, or control of the spread of Northern African pythons will
be highly unlikely. Please see the Control section for the Indian
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. 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; are likely to prey on native species (including
threatened and endangered species); 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 and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the
United States.
[[Page 11820]]
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 likely to escape or be released into
the wild if imported into the United States. The Southern African
python 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.
If Southern African pythons escape or are intentionally released, they
are likely to survive or become established within their respective
thermal and precipitation 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 large size, habitat
generalist, tolerance of urbanization, high reproductive potential,
long distance disperser, early maturation, rapid growth, longevity, and
a generalist sit-and-wait style of predation.
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 Indian 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 draft environmental assessment.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009),
threatened and endangered 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).
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Southern African Python
Control
As with the other giant constrictors, prevention, eradication,
management, or control of the spread of Southern African pythons will
be highly unlikely. Please see the Control section for the Indian
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. 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; 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.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Boa Constrictor
Current Nonnative Occurrences
At the 180-hectare (444-acre) Deering Estate in Cutler, Florida (a
preserve at the edge of Biscayne Bay in Miami-Dade County), boa
constrictors are found in multiple habitats, including tropical
hardwood hammocks, dirt roads and trails, landscaped areas, and pine
rocklands. In addition, 15 boa constrictors have been removed in Indian
River County, Florida, by animal damage control officers (Dangerfield,
pers. comm. 2010).
In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, approximately 100 boa
constrictors have been collected or reported in the wild throughout the
island, but primarily on the west side of the island (particularly
Mayaguez). The Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental
Resources believes that this species is frequently breeding on the
island (Saliva, pers. comm. 2009)
Potential Introduction and Spread
Boa constrictors (Boa constrictor) have escaped captivity or been
released into the wild in Florida and Puerto Rico (Snow et al. 2007;
Reed and Rodda 2009), and, therefore, the likelihood of release or
escape from captivity is high. Boa constrictors are highly likely to
survive in natural ecosystems of the United States. The suitable
climate match area with the boa constrictor's native range (excluding
the Argentine boa B. c. occidentalis) includes peninsular Florida south
of approximately Orlando and extreme south Texas, as well as parts of
Hawaii and Puerto Rico (Reed and Rodda 2009). As discussed above,
nonnative occurrences in the United States already include South
Florida and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. If boa constrictors escape
or are intentionally
[[Page 11821]]
released, they are likely to survive or become established within their
respective thermal and precipitation limits. Boa constrictors are
highly likely to spread and become established in the wild due to
common traits shared by the giant constrictors, including large size,
habitat generalist, tolerance of urbanization, high reproductive
potential, long distance disperser, early maturation, rapid growth,
longevity, and a generalist sit-and-wait style of predation.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
Boa constrictors are highly likely to prey on native species,
including threatened and endangered species. As with most of the giant
constrictors, adult boa constrictors primarily eat endothermic prey
from a wide variety of taxa. Boa constrictors are ambush predators, and
as such will often lie in wait to attack appropriate prey. A sample of
47 boas from an introduced population on Aruba contained 52 prey items,
of which 40 percent were birds, 35 percent were lizards, and 25 percent
were mammals (Quick et al. 2005). Potential prey at the Deering Estate
at Cutler (Miami-Dade County) includes about 160 species of native
resident or migratory bird species, a variety of small and medium-sized
mammalian species, and native and exotic lizard species (Snow et al.
2007). They have also been known to actively hunt, particularly in
regions with a low concentration of suitable prey, and this behavior
generally occurs at night. Adverse effects of boa constrictors on
threatened and endangered species is 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 Indian Python for a description of the impacts that
boa constrictors would have on native species. These impacts are
applicable to boa constrictors 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 draft
environmental assessment.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009),
threatened and endangered species from parts of Florida, Texas, New
Mexico, Arizona, California, and Hawaii, and all of Puerto Rico would
be at risk from the establishment of boa constrictors. In addition, we
assume that Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other territories would
have suitable habitat and climate to support boa constrictors, and
these also have federally threatened and endangered species that would
be at risk if boa constrictors became established.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The introduction or establishment of boa constrictors 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 Boa Constrictor
Control
Prevention, eradication, management, or control of the spread of
boa constrictors once established will be highly unlikely. Please see
the ``Control'' section for the Indian python for reasons why the boa
constrictor 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. There are no other potential
ecological benefits from the introduction into the United States or
establishment in the United States of boa constrictors.
Conclusion
Boa constrictors have one of the widest latitudinal distributions
of any snake in the world. In their native range, boa constrictors
inhabit environments from sea level to 1,000 m (3,280 ft), including
wet and dry tropical forest, savanna, very dry thorn scrub, and
cultivated fields. Nonnative occurrences in the United States include
South Florida and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Boa constrictors are
the most commonly imported of the nine proposed constrictor snakes. If
boas escape or are intentionally released into new areas, they are
likely to survive or become established within their respective thermal
limits. Boa constrictors are highly likely to spread and become
established in the wild due to common traits shared by the giant
constrictors, including large size, habitat generalist, tolerance of
urbanization, high reproductive potential, long distance disperser,
early maturation, rapid growth, longevity, and a generalist sit-and-
wait style of predation.
Because boa constrictors 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; are likely to prey on native species (including threatened and
endangered species); and because it would be difficult to eradicate or
reduce large populations, or recover ecosystems disturbed by the
species, the Service finds the boa constrictor to be injurious to
humans and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
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. 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. In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a few individuals of
the yellow anaconda have been collected in the central region of the
island (Villalba area).
Potential Introduction and Spread
Yellow anacondas have escaped or been released into the wild in
Florida and Puerto Rico and are likely to escape or be released into
the wild. Yellow anacondas are highly likely to survive in 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 maps to a fairly large area,
including virtually all of peninsular Florida and a corner of southeast
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 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
[[Page 11822]]
surface water. 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.
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 Indian 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 draft
environmental assessment.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009),
threatened and endangered species from parts of Florida, Texas, Hawaii,
and Puerto Rico would be at risk from the establishment of yellow
anacondas. In addition, we assume that 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
Prevention, eradication, management, or control of the spread of
yellow anacondas will be highly unlikely. Please see the ``Control''
section for the Indian 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. 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 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 southeast 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 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 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.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for DeSchauensee's anaconda
Current Nonnative Occurrences
Occurrences of the DeSchauensee's anaconda in the United States are
unknown.
Potential Introduction and Spread
DeSchauensee's anaconda is likely to escape or be released into the
wild if imported into the United States. Reed and Rodda's (2009) map
identified no areas of the continental United States or Hawaii that
appear to have precipitation and temperature profiles similar to those
observed in the species' native range, although the southern margin of
Puerto Rico and its out-islands (for example, Vieques and Culebra)
appear suitable.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
The DeSchauensee's anaconda would likely have a similar potential
impact as the yellow anaconda. DeSchauensee's anacondas are highly
likely to prey on native species, including select threatened and
endangered species. Anacondas employ both ``ambush predation'' and
``wide-foraging'' strategies (Reed and Rodda 2009). Threatened and
endangered wildlife occupying the DeSchauensee's anaconda's preferred
habitats would be at risk.
Please see Potential Impacts to Native Species (including
Threatened and Endangered Species) under Factors that Contribute to the
Injuriousness for Indian Python for a description of the impacts that
DeSchauensee's anacondas would have on native species. These impacts
are applicable to DeSchauensee's 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 draft environmental assessment.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009),
threatened and endangered species from part of Puerto Rico would be at
risk from the establishment of DeSchauensee's anacondas. In addition,
we assume that Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other territories
would have
[[Page 11823]]
suitable habitat and climate to support DeSchauensee's anacondas, and
these also have federally threatened and endangered species that would
be at risk if DeSchauensee's anacondas became established.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The introduction or establishment of DeSchauensee's 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 DeSchauensee's Anaconda
Control
Prevention, eradication, management, or control of the spread of
DeSchauensee's anacondas will be highly unlikely. Please see the
``Control'' section for the Indian 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. There are no other potential
ecological benefits from the introduction into the United States or
establishment in the United States of DeSchauensee's anacondas.
Conclusion
DeSchauensee's 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. DeSchauensee's anacondas are
highly likely to survive in natural ecosystems of a small but
vulnerable region of the United States, such the southern margin of
Puerto Rico and its out-islands.
Because DeSchauensee's anacondas are likely to escape captivity or
be released into the wild if imported to the United States; 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 they 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 DeSchauensee's anaconda to be injurious
to humans and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Green Anaconda
Current Nonnative Occurrences
An individual green anaconda (approximately 2.5 m (8.2 ft) total
length) was found dead on US 41 in the vicinity of Fakahatchee Strand
Preserve State Park in Florida in December 2004 (Reed and Rodda 2009).
There are reports of two medium-sized adults and a juvenile green
anaconda observed but not collected in this general area. A 3.65 m (12
ft) green anaconda was removed from East Lake Fish Camp in northern
Oceola County, Florida, on January 13, 2010. This was the first live
green anaconda to be caught in the wild in Florida (Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission 2010).
Potential Introduction and Spread
Green anacondas have escaped captivity or been released into the
wild in Florida, and the likelihood of escape or release is medium.
Green anacondas are likely to survive in natural ecosystems of the
United States. Much of peninsular Florida (roughly south of
Gainesville) and extreme south Texas exhibit climatic conditions
similar to those experienced by green anacondas in their large South
American native range. Lower elevations in Hawaii and all of Puerto
Rico have apparently suitable climates, but the rest of the country
appears to be too cool or arid. Within the climate-matched area,
however, anacondas would not be at risk of establishment in sites
lacking surface water. The primarily nocturnal anaconda species tends
to spend most of its life in or around water. Green anacondas are
highly likely to spread and become established in the wild due to rapid
growth to a large size (which encourages pet owners to release them), a
high reproductive potential, early maturation, and a sit-and-wait style
of predation. There is evidence that green anacondas are facultatively
(if no other males are available) parthenogenic.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
Green anacondas are highly likely to prey on native species,
including threatened and endangered species. They are primarily aquatic
and eat a wide variety of prey, including fish, birds, mammals, and
other reptiles.
Please see Potential Impacts to Native Species (including
Threatened and Endangered Species) under Factors that Contribute to the
Injuriousness for Indian Python for a description of the impacts that
green anacondas would have on native species. These impacts are
applicable to green 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 draft
environmental assessment.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009),
threatened and endangered species from parts of Florida, Hawaii, and
most of Puerto Rico would be at risk from the establishment of green
anacondas. In addition, we assume that Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
and other territories would have suitable habitat and climate to
support green anacondas, and these also have federally threatened and
endangered species that would be at risk if green anacondas became
established.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The introduction or establishment of green 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 Green Anaconda
Control
Prevention, eradication, management, or control of the spread of
green anacondas as once established in the United States will be highly
unlikely. Please see the ``Control'' section for the Indian python for
reasons why green 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,
[[Page 11824]]
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. There are no other potential
ecological benefits from the introduction into the United States or
establishment in the United States of green anacondas.
Conclusion
The green anaconda is the among the world's heaviest snakes,
ranging up to 200 kg (441 lbs). Large adults are heavier than almost
all native, terrestrial predators in the United States, even many
bears. Native fauna have no experience defending themselves against
this type of novel, giant predator. The range of the green anaconda is
largely defined by the availability of aquatic habitats. These include
deep and shallow, turbid and clear, and lacustrine and riverine
systems. Most of these habitats are found in Florida, including the
Everglades, which is suitable climate for the species. Green anacondas
are top predators in South America, consuming birds, mammals, fish, and
reptiles; prey size includes deer and crocodilians. This diet is even
broader than the diet of Indian and reticulated pythons. There is
evidence that female green anacondas are facultatively parthenogenic
and could therefore reproduce even if a single female is released or
escapes into the wild.
Because green anacondas are likely to escape or be released into
the wild if imported to the United States (note that the green 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 recover ecosystems disturbed by the species, the
Service finds the green anaconda to be injurious to humans and to
wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Beni Anaconda
Current Nonnative Occurrences
Occurrences of the Beni anaconda in the United States are unknown.
Potential Introduction and Spread
Beni anacondas are likely to escape or be released into the wild if
imported into the United States, in part because of their large size
(which encourages pet owners to release them). Beni anacondas are
highly likely to survive in natural ecosystems of the United States.
The Beni anaconda is known from few specimens in a small part of
Bolivia, and Reed and Rodda (2009) judged the number of available
localities to be insufficient for an attempt to delineate its climate
space or extrapolate this space to the United States. Beni anacondas
are known from sites with low seasonality (mean monthly temperatures
approximately 22.5 \o\C (72 \o\F) to 27.5 \o\C (77 \o\F), and mean
monthly precipitation about 5 to 30 cm (2 to 12 in). It is unknown
whether the species' native distribution is limited by factors other
than climate; if the small native range is attributable to ecological
(for example, competition with green anacondas), or historical (for
example, climate change) factors. If so, then Reed and Rodda's (2009)
qualitative estimate of the climatically suitable areas of the United
States would represent underprediction. As a component of the risk
assessment, the Beni anaconda's colonization potential is described by
Reed and Rodda (2009) as capable of survival in small portions of the
mainland or on America's tropical islands (Hawaii, Puerto Rico,
American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands).
Beni anacondas are highly likely to spread and become established
in the wild due to rapid growth to a large size, a high reproductive
potential, early maturation, and a sit-and-wait style of predation.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (including Threatened and
Endangered Species)
Beni anacondas are highly likely to prey on native species,
including threatened and endangered species. They are primarily aquatic
and eat a wide variety of prey, including fish, birds, mammals, and
other reptiles.
Please see Potential Impacts to Native Species (including
Threatened and Endangered Species) under Factors that Contribute to the
Injuriousness for Indian Python for a description of the impacts that
Beni anacondas would have on native species. These impacts are
applicable to Beni 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 draft
environmental assessment.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009),
threatened and endangered species from parts of Hawaii, and most of
Puerto Rico would be at risk from the establishment of Beni anacondas.
In addition, we assume that Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other
territories would have suitable habitat and climate to support Beni
anacondas, and these also have federally threatened and endangered
species that would be at risk if Beni anacondas became established.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The introduction or establishment of Beni 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 Beni Anaconda
Control
Prevention, eradication, management, or control of the spread of
Beni anacondas as once established in the United States will be highly
unlikely. Please see the ``Control'' section for the Indian python for
reasons why Beni 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. There are no other potential
ecological benefits from the introduction into the United States or
establishment in the United States of Beni anacondas.
Conclusion
Large adults are heavier than almost all native, terrestrial
predators in the United States, even many bears. Native fauna have no
experience defending themselves against this type of novel, giant
predator. The range of the Beni anaconda is largely defined by the
availability of aquatic habitats. Beni anacondas are top predators in
South America, consuming birds, mammals, fish, and reptiles; prey size
includes deer and crocodilians. This diet is even broader than the diet
of Indian and reticulated pythons.
[[Page 11825]]
Because the Beni anaconda 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; 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 Beni anaconda to be injurious to humans and to
wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
Conclusions for the Nine Constrictor Snakes
Indian python
The Indian 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. Hatchlings are about the size of average adult native snakes
and can more than double in size within the first year. In addition,
Indian pythons reportedly can fertilize their own eggs and have viable
eggs after several years in isolation. The life expectancy of Indian
pythons is 20 to 30 years. 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 Indian
pythons, nor are any anticipated in the near future.
Therefore, because Indian 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); and it would be difficult to eradicate or
reduce large populations or to recover ecosystems disturbed by the
species, the Service finds the Indian python to be injurious to humans
and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
Reticulated python
The reticulated python can grow to a length of more that 8.7 m
(28.5 ft); this is longer than any native, terrestrial animal in the
United States. Native fauna have no experience defending against this
type of novel, giant predator. Several captive reticulated pythons have
lived for nearly 30 years. The reticulated python can be an aggressive
and dangerous species to humans. Therefore, even one escaped individual
can cause injury to wildlife and possibly humans for several decades.
Captive reticulated pythons can carry ticks of agricultural
significance (potential threat to domestic livestock) in Florida.
Because reticulated pythons are likely to escape captivity or be
released into the wild if imported to areas of the United States that
have suitable climate and habitat and do not currently contain the
species; 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); are likely to be disease vectors for livestock; and because
they 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 reticulated python to be
injurious to humans and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the
United States.
Northern African Pythons
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; are likely to prey on native species (including
threatened and endangered species); 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 and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the
United States.
Southern African pythons
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; 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.
Boa constrictor
Boa constrictors have one of the widest latitudinal distributions
of any snake in the world. In their native range, boa constrictors
inhabit environments from sea level to 1,000 m (3,280 ft), including
wet and dry tropical forest, savanna, very dry thorn scrub, and
cultivated fields. Nonnative occurrences in the United States include
South Florida and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Boa constrictors are
the most commonly imported of the nine proposed constrictor snakes. If
boas escape or are intentionally released into new areas, they are
likely to survive or become established within their respective thermal
and precipitation limits. Boa constrictors are highly likely to spread
and become established in the wild due to common traits shared by the
giant constrictors, including large size, habitat generalist, tolerance
of urbanization, high reproductive potential, long distance disperser,
early maturation, rapid growth, longevity, and a generalist sit-and-
wait style of predation.
Because boa constrictors 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; are likely to prey on native species (including threatened and
endangered species); and because it would be difficult to eradicate or
reduce large populations, or recover ecosystems disturbed by the
species, the Service finds the boa constrictor to be injurious to
humans and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
[[Page 11826]]
Yellow anaconda
Yellow anacondas are highly likely to survive in 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 southeast 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 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 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.
DeSchauensee's anaconda
DeSchauensee's 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. DeSchauensee's anacondas are
highly likely to survive in natural ecosystems of a small but
vulnerable region of the United States, such the southern margin of
Puerto Rico and its out-islands.
Because the DeSchauensee's anaconda is likely to escape captivity
or be released into the wild if imported to the United States; 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 recover ecosystems
disturbed by the species, the Service finds the DeSchauensee's anaconda
to be injurious to humans and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the
United States.
Green anaconda
The green anaconda is the among the world's heaviest snakes,
ranging up to 200 kg (441 lbs). Large adults are heavier than almost
all native, terrestrial predators in the United States, even many
bears. Native fauna have no experience defending themselves against
this type of novel, giant predator. The range of the green anaconda is
largely defined by the availability of aquatic habitats. These include
deep and shallow, turbid and clear, and lacustrine and riverine
systems. Most of these habitats are found in Florida, including the
Everglades, which is suitable climate for the species. Green anacondas
are top predators in South America, consuming birds, mammals, fish, and
reptiles; prey size includes deer and crocodilians. This diet is even
broader than the diet of Indian and reticulated pythons. There is
evidence that female green anacondas are facultatively parthenogenic
and could therefore reproduce even if a single female is released or
escapes into the wild.
Because green anacondas are likely to escape or be released into
the wild if imported to the United States (note that the green 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 recover ecosystems disturbed by the species, the
Service finds the green anaconda to be injurious to humans and to
wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
Beni anaconda
Large adults are heavier than any almost all native, terrestrial
predators in the United States, even many bears. Native fauna have no
experience defending themselves against this type of novel, giant
predator. The range of the Beni anaconda is largely defined by the
availability of aquatic habitats. Beni anacondas are top predators in
South America, consuming birds, mammals, fish, and reptiles; prey size
includes deer and crocodilians. This diet is even broader than the diet
of Indian and reticulated pythons.
Because the Beni anaconda 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; 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 Beni 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 nine constrictor snakes
pose high or medium risks to the interests of humans, 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). That all nine species are high or
medium risks supports our finding that all nine constrictor species
should be added to the list of injurious reptiles under the Lacey Act.
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.
(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
[[Page 11827]]
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).''
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
some cases, 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 one of the
proposed alternatives. 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 limited data currently available are estimates of the number of
constrictor snake imports each year, the number of constrictor snakes
bred in the United States, and a range of retail prices for each
constrictor snake species. We provide the value of the foregone snakes
sold as a rough approximation for the social cost of this proposed
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). Given the paucity of the data to estimate the social
cost and given the uncertainty associated with the appropriateness of
using an input-output model due to the scale effect, we present
preliminary results in this regulatory impact analysis. We ask for data
that might shed light on estimating the social benefit and cost of this
rulemaking. We also ask for information regarding the appropriateness
of using IMPLAN model to gauge the secondary effects and if
appropriate, the associated uncertainties with the estimates. For the
final rulemaking, we plan to investigate the appropriateness of using
IMPLAN model, and adjust the presentation of results accordingly.
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. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which we
briefly summarize below, was prepared to accompany this rule. See the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015 for the complete document.
This proposed rule, if made final, would list nine constrictor
snake species [Indian python (Python molurus), 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 species under the Lacey Act. Entities impacted by the listing
would include: (1) Companies importing live snakes, gametes, viable
eggs, hybrids; and (2) companies (breeders and wholesalers) with
interstate sales of live snakes, gametes, viable eggs, hybrids.
Importation of the nine 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 large constrictor snakes, the maximum
impact of this rulemaking would result in 197 to 270 small businesses
(66 percent) having a reduction in their retail sales of between 24
percent and 49 percent. However, this rulemaking would have an unknown
impact on these small businesses because we do not know: (1) Whether
these businesses sell other snakes and reptiles as well, (2) if the
listed snakes are more profitable than nonlisted snakes or other
aspects of the business, or (3) if consumers would substitute the
purchase of other snakes that are not listed.
For businesses breeding or selling large constrictor snakes
domestically, approximately 62 to 85 percent of these entities would
qualify as small businesses. Under the proposed rule, the interstate
transport of the nine constrictor snakes would be discontinued, except
as specifically permitted. Thus, any revenue that would be potentially
earned from this portion of business would 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. Since information is not
currently available on interstate sales of large constrictor snakes, we
assume that a sales reduction
[[Page 11828]]
of between 20 and 80 percent would most likely include the actual
impact on out-of-state sales.
Therefore, this proposed rule may have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The proposed 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 draft economic analysis (USFWS, 2010), the
annual retail value losses for the nine constrictor snake species are
estimated to range from $3.6 million to $10.7 million. The 10-year
retail value losses to the large constrictor snake market are estimated
to range from $37.5 million to $93.6 million discounted at 3 percent or
range from $32.1 million to $80.1 million discounted at 7 percent. 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 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.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
(a) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
(b) The 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. 1531 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.
Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. This rule would not have substantial direct effects on
States, in the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 13132, we determine that this rule does not have sufficient
Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
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 draft environmental
assessment has been prepared and is available for review by written
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section) or at http://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015. By adding
Indian python, reticulated python, Northern African python, Southern
African python, boa constrictor, yellow anaconda, DeSchauensee's
anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni 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
[[Page 11829]]
survival and welfare of wildlife and wildlife resources, and the health
and welfare of humans. If we do not list the nine constrictor snakes as
injurious, the species may expand in captivity to States where they are
not already found; 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. Indian pythons, boa
constrictors, and Northern African pythons are established in southern
Florida and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Releases of the nine
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, function, and structure.
Clarity of Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, and the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful.
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 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 live boa constrictors, four
python species, and four 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 upon request from the South Florida Ecological Services
Office, Vero Beach, FL (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the South Florida Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 16
Fish, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed 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]
1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 42.
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 (Indian [including Burmese] python).
(3) Broghammerus reticulatus or Python reticulatus (reticulated
python).
(4) Python sebae (Northern African python).
(5) Python natalensis (Southern African python).
(6) Boa constrictor (boa constrictor).
(7) Eunectes notaeus (yellow anaconda).
(8) Eunectes deschauenseei (DeSchauensee's anaconda).
(9) Eunectes murinus (green anaconda).
(10) Eunectes beniensis (Beni anaconda).
* * * * *
Dated: February 5, 2010.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-4956 Filed 3-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S