[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12702-12745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05125]
[[Page 12701]]
Vol. 80
Tuesday,
No. 46
March 10, 2015
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 16
Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing Three Anaconda Species and One
Python Species as Injurious Reptiles; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 12702]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 16
RIN 1018-AV68
[Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015; FXFR13360900000-145-FF09F14000]
Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing Three Anaconda Species and
One Python Species as Injurious Reptiles
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) is amending
its regulations under the Lacey Act to add reticulated python (Python
reticulatus), DeSchauensee's anaconda (Eunectes deschauenseei), green
anaconda (Eunectes murinus), and Beni anaconda (Eunectes beniensis) to
the list of injurious wildlife. By this action, the importation into
the United States and interstate transportation between States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory
or possession of the United States of any live animal, gamete, viable
egg, or hybrid of these four constrictor snakes is prohibited, except
by permit for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific purposes
(in accordance with permit conditions) or by Federal agencies without a
permit solely for their own use. The best available information
indicates that this action is necessary to protect the interests of
human beings, agriculture, wildlife, and wildlife resources from the
purposeful or accidental introduction and subsequent establishment of
these large nonnative constrictor snake populations into ecosystems of
the United States. We are also withdrawing our proposal to add the boa
constrictor (Boa constrictor) to the list of injurious wildlife.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 9, 2015.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and the associated final economic analysis,
regulatory flexibility analysis, and environmental assessment are
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015. Comments and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule, are
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015; they are also available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the South
Florida Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559; telephone 772-562-3909
ext. 256; facsimile 772-562-4288.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Progulske, Everglades Program
Supervisor, South Florida Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559;
telephone 772-469-4299. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is amending its
regulations under the Lacey Act to add the reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list
of injurious wildlife. The purpose of listing the reticulated python
and the three anacondas as injurious wildlife is to prevent the
accidental or intentional introduction and subsequent establishment of
populations of these snakes in the wild in the United States.
Under the Lacey Act (Act) (18 U.S.C. 42, as amended), the Secretary
of the Interior is authorized to list by regulation those wild mammals,
wild birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, and the
offspring or eggs of any of the foregoing that are injurious to human
beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or
to the wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States. We have
determined that these four species of large constrictor snakes are
injurious. This determination was based on an extensive risk and
biological assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS; Reed and
Rodda 2009) and on the criteria for injuriousness by the Service. USGS
determined that these four species have a risk of invasiveness, and the
Service found that the four species are injurious.
On March 12, 2010, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (75 FR 11808) to list Python molurus (which includes Burmese
and Indian pythons), reticulated python (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 wildlife under the Lacey Act.
On January 23, 2012, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register (77 FR 3330) to list Burmese (and Indian) pythons, Northern
African pythons, Southern African pythons, and yellow anacondas as
injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act. The remaining five species
(reticulated python, boa constrictor, green anaconda, DeSchauensee's
anaconda, and Beni anaconda) were not listed at that time and remained
under consideration for listing. With this final rule, we are listing
four of those species (reticulated python, green anaconda,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, and Beni anaconda) as injurious wildlife under
the Lacey Act. We are, however, withdrawing our proposal to list the
boa constrictor (Boa constrictor) as injurious; we are no longer
considering adding that species to the list of injurious wildlife under
the Lacey Act. Our rationale for this action is provided under
Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious
Species in this rule.
By listing the four species, the importation into the United States
and transportation between States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the
United States of any live animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid is
prohibited, except by permit for zoological, education, medical, or
scientific purposes (in accordance with permit conditions) or by
Federal agencies without a permit solely for their own use.
The final economic analysis (2015) and environmental assessment
(2015) considers four alternatives for the reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa
constrictor: Alternative 1 is no action; Alternative 2A would list all
five species; Alternative 2B would list four species (not including the
boa constrictor); Alternative 3 would list the three species known to
be in trade in the United States (boa constrictor, green anaconda, and
reticulated python); and Alternative 4 would list the boa constrictor--
the only one of the five species with a high organism risk potential
(Reed and Rodda 2009). We selected Alternative 2B.
Table ES-1 (from the 2015 final economic analysis) compares the
economic output to the constrictor snake industry for listing under the
alternatives. The costs for not listing are difficult to quantify, but
include the expenditures associated with State and Federal activities
that address constrictor snake impacts, amounting to at least $6
million from 2005 to 2014. Other costs for not listing include risk of
harm (from predation, competition,
[[Page 12703]]
pathogens) to native species, including endangered and threatened
species, and the potential for reduced tourism from decreased wildlife
viewing opportunities.
Table ES-1--Annual Decrease in Secondary Impacts From Baseline Condition (Alternative 1)
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic output Jobs Job income Tax revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2A...................... $26.5-$57.1 236-509 $9.5-$20.5 $3.6-$7.8
Alternative 2B...................... $5.3-$11.4 49-105 $1.9-$4.1 $0.7-$1.6
Alternative 3....................... $26.5-$57.1 236-509 $9.5-$20.5 $3.6-$7.8
Alternative 4....................... $21.1-$45.4 188-405 $7.7-$16.5 $2.9-$6.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Federal Actions
On June 23, 2006, the Service received a petition from the South
Florida Water Management District (District) requesting that Burmese
pythons be considered for inclusion in the injurious wildlife
regulations under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42, as amended; the Act).
The District was concerned about the number of Burmese pythons (Python
molurus bivittatus) found in Florida, particularly in Everglades
National Park and on the District's widespread property in South
Florida.
The Service published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register
(73 FR 5784; January 31, 2008) soliciting available biological,
economic, and other information and data on the Python, Boa, and
Eunectes genera for possible addition to the list of injurious wildlife
under the Act and provided a 90-day public comment period. The Service
received 1,528 comments during the public comment period that closed
April 30, 2008. We reviewed all comments received for substantive
issues and information regarding the injurious nature of species in the
Python, Boa, and Eunectes genera. Of the 1,528 comments, 115 provided
economic, ecological, and other data responsive to the 10 specific
questions in the notice of inquiry. Most individuals submitting
comments responded to the notice of inquiry as though it was a proposed
rule to list constrictor snakes in the Python, Boa, and Eunectes genera
as injurious under the Act. As a result, most comments expressed either
opposition or support for listing the large constrictor snakes species
and did not provide substantive information. We considered all of the
information provided, focusing primarily on the 115 applicable comments
in the preparation of the draft environmental assessment, draft
economic analysis, and the proposed rule.
On March 12, 2010, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (75 FR 11808) to list Burmese and Indian pythons, reticulated
python, Northern African python, Southern African python, boa
constrictor, yellow anaconda, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda,
and Beni anaconda as injurious wildlife under the Act. The proposed
rule established a 60-day comment period ending on May 11, 2010, and
announced the availability of the draft economic analysis and the draft
environmental assessment of the proposed rule. At the request of the
public, we reopened the comment period for an additional 30 days ending
on August 2, 2010 (75 FR 38069; July 1, 2010).
On January 23, 2012, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register (77 FR 3330) to list Burmese and Indian pythons, Northern
African python, Southern African python, and yellow anaconda as
injurious wildlife under the Act. The remaining five species
(reticulated python, boa constrictor, green anaconda, DeSchauensee's
anaconda, and Beni anaconda) were not listed at the time and remained
under consideration for listing. With this final rule, we are listing
four of those species (reticulated python, green anaconda,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, and Beni anaconda). We are also withdrawing
our proposal to list the boa constrictor as injurious; we are no longer
considering adding that species to the list of injurious wildlife under
the Act. Our rationale for this action is provided under Withdrawal of
the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species in this
rule.
On June 24, 2014, we reopened the comment period on the 2010
proposed rule for an additional 30 days (79 FR 35719). This comment
period was restricted to the five remaining proposed species: The
reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, Beni
anaconda, and boa constrictor.
For the injurious wildlife evaluation in this final rule, in
addition to information used for the proposed rule, we considered: (1)
Comments from the three public comment periods for the proposed rule,
(2) comments from five peer reviewers, and (3) new information acquired
by the Service by the end of the public comment periods (July 24,
2014). From this information, we determined that four more (hereafter,
also may be collectively referred to as ``the second four'') of the
nine proposed species warrant listing as injurious at this time,
bringing the total number of species of large constrictor snakes listed
as injurious to eight with this final rule. We present a summary of the
peer review comments and the public comments following the Lacey Act
Evaluation Criteria section for the second four of the nine proposed
species. The explanations in the sections on biology and evaluation of
the second four species will make many of the answers to the comments
self-evident.
A major source of biological, management, and invasion risk
information that we used for the proposed rule and this final rule was
derived from the USGS's ``Giant Constrictors: Biological and Management
Profiles and an Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of
Pythons, Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor'' (hereafter referred to as
``Reed and Rodda 2009).'' This document was prepared at the request of
the Service and the National Park Service; a link to the report can be
found at the following Internet 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.
The Service is completing actions on the proposed rule with
publication of this final rule for the second four species (reticulated
python and DeSchauensee's, green, and Beni anacondas). The proposal for
one additional species (boa constrictor) is being withdrawn; we are no
longer considering it for listing under the Act.
[[Page 12704]]
Background
Purpose of Listing as Injurious
The purpose of listing the reticulated python and the three
anacondas as injurious wildlife is to prevent the accidental or
intentional introduction and subsequent establishment of populations of
these snakes in the wild in the United States.
Why the Species Were Selected for Consideration as Injurious Species
The Service has had the authority to list species as injurious
under the Act since the 1940s. However, we have been criticized for not
listing species before they became a problem (Fowler et al. 2007). The
Burmese python is one example of a species that may not have become so
invasive in Florida if it had been listed before it had become
established. Two of the largest snakes in the world (with maximum
lengths exceeding 7 meters (m) (23 feet (ft)) are the reticulated
python and green anaconda, and both are present in U.S. trade. The
reticulated python and the green anaconda have been found in the wild
in south Florida. With this final rule, we are attempting to prevent
any further introduction and subsequent establishment of the
reticulated python and green anaconda into vulnerable areas of the
United States.
Furthermore, we have the authority under the Act to list certain
species as injurious even if they are not currently in trade or known
to exist in the United States. Thus, we can be proactive and not wait
until a species is already established. As noted in the National
Invasive Species Management Plan (National Invasive Species Council
2008), ``prevention is the first line of defense'' and ``can be the
most cost-effective approach because once a species becomes widespread,
controlling it may require significant and sustained expenditures.''
This is why we are listing two species (DeSchauensee's and Beni
anacondas) that are not yet found in the United States but that have
the requisite injurious traits.
None of these four species is native to the United States. The
Service is striving to prevent the introduction and establishment of
all four species into new areas of the United States, due to concerns
about the injurious effects of all four species, consistent with 18
U.S.C. 42.
All four species were evaluated and found to be injurious because:
There is a suitable climate match in parts of the United States to
support them; they are likely to escape captivity; they are likely to
prey on and compete with native species (including endangered and
threatened species); preventing, eradicating, or reducing large
populations would be difficult; and other factors that are explained in
the sections Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Reticulated
Python and for the other three species.
Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor From Consideration as an Injurious
Species
Under 18 U.S.C. 42(a), the Secretary of the Interior ``may
prescribe by regulation'' species to be injurious and thus has
discretion on whether to list species as injurious. The proposed rule
published on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 11808), determined that the boa
constrictor possesses the traits of injuriousness and no substantive
information to the contrary has been provided in the public or peer
review comments or otherwise obtained by the Service. Nonetheless,
concurrent with this final rule, we are withdrawing the proposal to
list the boa constrictor as an injurious species and hereby remove the
species from further consideration. If we decide in the future to
consider the boa constrictor for listing as injurious, we will prepare
a new proposed rule for notice and comment in the Federal Register.
The Service recognizes the harm that the establishment of boa
constrictors could pose to wildlife and wildlife resources. We also
recognize that, because our regulatory authority is limited to
prohibiting importation and interstate transport, we must rely on the
States, Territories, and other governmental entities in the United
States, including local jurisdictions (hereafter collectively referred
to as the States) to regulate possession, release to the wild, sale,
intrastate transport, and other activities that may need to be
regulated to effectively manage the risk of a species introduction and
spread for species that have already been imported into and are present
in the United States.
The regulatory prohibitions of the Lacey Act (limited to
importation and interstate transport) are less effective when a species
is widely held in captivity in the United States in high numbers (both
the number of animals and number of people owning the animals) and when
significant domestic breeding of such animals is occurring and would
likely continue for intrastate trade or export purposes. Domestic
breeding, whether for intrastate trade or export, of widely-owned
species increases the probability of escape, survival, and
establishment of the listed species in the United States. Under these
unique circumstances, the benefit of an injurious wildlife listing is
likely to be limited without concurrent State regulatory action,
particularly in areas of the country where the risk of establishment is
the highest.
Thus, for the boa constrictor, we considered whether listing the
species under the Lacey Act would be the most effective means of
preventing the establishment and spread of populations in the wild. For
this decision, the Service assessed information available on the number
of boa constrictors already imported into the United States, the number
of boa constrictors held in captivity in the United States, the variety
of individuals and entities that own boa constrictors and their use of
the species, how broadly in geographic terms the species is located in
captivity within the United States, the amount of domestic breeding
(for export, intrastate trade, and other purposes), the risk of escape
and establishment of the species, if and where individual snakes have
been recorded or populations have become established in the wild in the
United States, and actions States have taken or could take to
effectively manage the risk of snake introduction and establishment.
The number of boa constrictors that have been imported and that are
currently held in captivity is a significantly larger portion of the
current trade than for any of the other eight constrictor species that
were proposed for listing. In fact, these numbers are likely higher for
the boa constrictor than for all of the eight other species combined.
Of the nine species that were included in the proposed rule, the boa
constrictor represented 61.7 percent of the imports and domestically
bred snakes from 2008 to 2010, whereas the next highest species was the
Burmese python at 24.5 percent (Final Economic Analysis 2012). Of the
five species not yet listed, the boa constrictor represents 79.2
percent of the imports and domestically bred snakes from 2011 to 2013,
whereas the next highest species is the reticulated python at 18.9
percent. Large zoos and small roadside zoos across the country maintain
boas for educational displays and live animal programs. Boa
constrictors are sold in many pet stores, including large national
chains, and are owned as pets by children and adults in all States that
allow possession. Boas can grow to 13 feet in length and live for at
least 20 years. The likelihood of pet boas being released or escaping
is high, because boa constrictors are adept at escaping enclosures and
they often outgrow their owner's ability or outlive their owner's
interest to care for them.
[[Page 12705]]
Boa constrictors have been found on the loose in at least 46 States
(HSUS 2014) and are known to be or assumed to be pets that escaped or
were released. Boas are already well established in Florida and Puerto
Rico. Therefore, the boa constrictor fits the circumstances where
regulatory provisions of the Lacey Act are likely to be less effective.
Thus, of the nine large constrictor snakes evaluated by the
Service, risk management measures by States are particularly needed for
the boa constrictor, especially where the risk of establishment is
high. Risk management measures include State regulations and other
restrictions on activities with the species, as well as measures to
detect and attempt to control any snakes that are found in the wild.
For example, the State of Hawaii does not allow the importation or
possession of any snakes, and most of the U.S. Territories have some
restrictions on the importation of snakes. In comparison, the State of
Florida has not listed the boa constrictor as a conditional reptile or
placed other restrictions on this species. According to the State of
Florida's regulations (FWC 2015), ``[c]onditional nonnative species are
considered to be dangerous to the ecology and/or the health and welfare
of the people of Florida. These species are not allowed to be
personally possessed, although exceptions are made by permit * * *.''
Without any restrictions on possession, intrastate sale, or intrastate
domestic production, the benefit of a Federal injurious wildlife
listing for the boa constrictor is substantially less than for a
species, such as the Burmese python, that is also held broadly in
private ownership but is currently regulated through Florida's
Conditional Reptile regulations. The lack of restrictions for boa
constrictors in States such as Florida that are at great risk
perpetuates an unregulated pathway for escape and possible
establishment, and severely reduces the effectiveness of a Federal
regulatory approach.
In 2010 (75 FR 11808, March 12, 2010; and 75 FR 38069, July 1,
2010) and again in 2014 (79 FR 35719; June 24, 2014), the Service
sought and considered public comments submitted on the proposed rule to
list the boa constrictor along with other species of large constrictor
snakes. The Service received more than 85,000 public comments. Among
the substantive comments we received were comments from the Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) in 2010. Although AFWA did not
submit additional comments in 2014, the Service has received no
information indicating that AFWA has changed its position from that
expressed in its 2010 comment letter.
AFWA represents North America's State, territorial, and provincial
fish and wildlife agencies. In their comment letter, AFWA stated that
they had solicited comments from their network of State nongame
biologists and herpetologists, as well as members of their Amphibian
and Reptile Subcommittee and Invasive Species Committee. AFWA stated
its position that the Service should not finalize the rule for any of
the large constrictor snakes. Specifically, AFWA stated, among other
things, that a national rule may not be warranted; that it is the
States' responsibility to manage species that occur within their
borders, including minimizing impacts to native species; that States
have the right to enact and enforce laws and regulations that are more
stringent than Federal laws and regulations, as they see fit; that
Federal regulations that create undue burdens on State fish and
wildlife agencies should be avoided; and that listing the constrictor
snakes as injurious might not achieve the desired result due to
unintended consequences, such as people releasing the constrictors into
the wild. As an alternative, AFWA promoted State action, such as
Florida's ``Reptiles of Concern'' regulations, that, in partnership
with stakeholders, AFWA believes would both discourage non-serious
snake owners from purchasing new reptile pets as well as better
regulate the industry. AFWA stated that Florida's regulations could
serve as a model for development of industry-wide standards or
enforceable best practices.
The Service recognizes that the States can enact their own, more
stringent laws and that a Lacey Act listing does not preclude this,
although States may have less ability to regulate importation into
their States. However, AFWA's position is that it represents the
collective interests of the States on this issue; that the Service
could allow the States to take action, including regulatory action;
that the Federal government could instead focus on financial support
for risk analysis combined with early detection and rapid response
programs; and that these actions could be more effective at preventing
the establishment of constrictor snakes than Federal listing. Given the
unique circumstances of the boa constrictor, we believe that,
particularly for States where the risk of establishment is high, State
action for the boa constrictor that effectively reduces the risk of
escape and establishment, such as regulating possession, sale,
intrastate transport, or breeding, could provide sufficient and even
stronger protection than Federal listing as injurious under the Lacey
Act. State laws that prohibit importation prevent the further spread of
boa constrictors into States where they do not currently occur and
reduce the chances of establishment by limiting additional importations
in States where they do already occur. Laws such as Florida's
regulations applicable to Conditional Reptiles (such as for Burmese
pythons) restrict personal possession, while Hawaii prohibits both
possession and importation. The Service agrees, as AFWA suggests, that
State regulations, such as Florida's (for Burmese pythons) or Hawaii's,
could serve as models for State laws, industry-wide standards, or
enforceable best practices.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) also submitted
comments on the proposed rule in both 2010 and 2014, although its 2014
comments were not related to the issues discussed here. PIJAC states
that its mission is to promote responsible pet ownership and animal
welfare, foster environmental stewardship, and ensure the availability
of pets. PIJAC, through their comments, encouraged the Service to
explore other alternatives to the proposed listing of the large
constrictors. PIJAC stated that, in communications with the Department
of the Interior, the Small Business Administration, and State agencies,
they believe that opportunities exist for the Federal Government to
work with the States and the industry to develop an alternative
approach to large constrictor management and that they are prepared to
work on this process. The Service has worked with PIJAC on several
national campaigns to promote responsible ownership of nondomesticated
animals and thus knows that such campaigns can be effective in
promoting responsible use of wildlife that could be harmful if they
escaped or are released to the wild.
For all of the reasons explained above, the Service has decided to
withdraw its March 12, 2010 (75 FR 11808), proposal to list the boa
constrictor in favor of a novel and experimental approach. The boa
constrictor has already been imported in large numbers into the United
States and is owned by hobbyists, commercial breeders, and pet owners
in large numbers throughout the United States, except where prohibited
by State law. AFWA, representing the State fish and wildlife agencies,
has asserted that instead of listing the constrictor snakes as
injurious, the Service could allow States to use their regulatory and
management authorities to regulate activities with these species.
[[Page 12706]]
As the representative for these State fish and wildlife agencies and
communicator of this position, presumably AFWA is prepared to work with
its member States to do so. For the boa constrictor, a species that has
already been imported into the United States in large numbers and is
widely held in large numbers by a broad variety of owners for purposes
that include breeding and sale, strong State laws are indeed more
likely to be effective at preventing the escape or release and
establishment of the species in the wild, given that prohibitions under
the Lacey Act are limited to importation and interstate transport. This
is especially true when combined with efforts by industry groups such
as PIJAC, which has committed to work with the Service and the States
on programs that would promote responsible holding and use of boa
constrictors.
This action gives additional States, such as Florida, the
opportunity to demonstrate the efficacy of coordinated, State-based
measures to address the invasive nature of boa constrictors, including
promulgating their own laws regarding the species. We are also
providing the pet trade industry with the opportunity to act
voluntarily within its own industry and in cooperation with the States,
the Service, and others to address prevention and containment of the
boa constrictor as an alternative to Federal Lacey Act restrictions.
PIJAC and other industry groups can work with boa constrictor owners to
develop practices to prevent escape or release into the environment and
options for finding homes for unwanted animals as an alternative to
release to the wild.
The Service recognizes that this is an untested approach and will
monitor whether States and industry groups put in place effective
measures to prevent the escape or release and establishment of boa
constrictors. If States and industry groups in regions where the risk
of boa constrictor survival and establishment in the wild is high fail
to take appropriate actions, or if these State and industry-based
measures prove ineffective, we may again evaluate whether listing the
boa constrictor as injurious under the Act is appropriate.
Need for the Final Rule
Under the Lacey Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to
prescribe by regulation those wild mammals, wild birds, fish, mollusks,
crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring or eggs of any of
the foregoing that are injurious to human beings, to the interests of
agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or to the wildlife or wildlife
resources of the United States. We have determined that the reticulated
python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda are
injurious and should be listed under the Lacey Act.
Reticulated pythons have been found in the wild in Florida and
Puerto Rico, as well as several other States. Several green anacondas
have also been found in the wild in Florida. These species fit the
circumstances where regulatory provisions of the Lacey Act are likely
to be effective. The threat posed by the reticulated python and the
three anacondas will be explained in detail below under Factors that
Contribute to Injuriousness for Reticulated Python and each of the
other species.
The USGS risk assessment used a method called ``climate matching''
to estimate those areas of the United States exhibiting climates
similar to those experienced by the species in their respective native
ranges (Reed and Rodda 2009). Considerable uncertainties exist about
the native range limits of many of the giant constrictors, and a myriad
of factors other than climate can influence whether a species could
establish a population in a particular location. Nonetheless, this
method represents the most accurate means to predict and anticipate
where a nonnative species may be able to survive and establish
populations within the United States (Bomford et al. 2009). The authors
used the same method to match the climate for all nine species in the
proposed rule, because the method is not species-specific and can be
used equally as well for pythons, boas, and anacondas.
Some interested parties, including other scientists such as Pyron
et al. (2008), criticized Reed and Rodda's (2009) climate-matching
method. In response, the authors published a clarification of how they
used the model (Rodda et al. 2011). This paper more clearly explained
Reed and Rodda's (2009) method and compared that method to Pyron et
al.'s (2008) method for analyzing potential invasiveness for the
Burmese python. We mention a few of Rodda et al.'s (2011) findings
here:
Pyron et al. (2008) incorrectly rejected many sites that
are suitable for Burmese python invasion because their use of an
excessive number of parameters actually ended up acting as filters.
Using too many filters means that too many sites that are truly at risk
of python establishment get filtered out.
Additionally, the authors eliminated four data points of
blood pythons (Python brongersmai) that Pyron et al. (2008) used
erroneously. This significantly changed the area that Burmese pythons
could invade, even using the MaxEnt computer program as Pyron et al.
(2008) used it.
Information theory suggests 10 parameters as the
appropriate number to use in a study like this; the Pyron et al. (2008)
model, however, used 60. With this number, the parameters essentially
become constraints, skewing the accuracy of the data to the point that
the resulting model is not scientifically sound.
The newer USGS paper highlights the statistical dangers
inherent in indiscriminately searching for correlations among a large
number of possible parameters.
Factors other than climate may limit a species' native
distribution, including the existence of predators, diseases, and other
local factors (such as major terrain barriers), which may not be
present when a species is released in a new country. Therefore, the
areas at risk of invasion often span a climate range greater than that
extracted mechanically from the native range boundaries, as was done by
Pyron et al. (2008).
Rodda et al. (2011) does not change the previous USGS risk
assessment, or the Service's interpretation of the USGS risk
assessment, that Burmese pythons could find suitable climatic
conditions in roughly a third of the United States. The paper also
confirms that the climate matches for the four species in this final
rule would not change from those described in the March 12, 2010 (75 FR
11808), proposed rule.
While we acknowledge that uncertainty exists, these tools also
serve as a useful predictor to identify vulnerable ecosystems at risk
from injurious wildlife prior to the species actually becoming
established (Lodge et al. 2006). Based on climate alone, many species
of large constrictors are likely to be limited to the warmest areas of
the United States, including parts of Florida, extreme south Texas,
Hawaii, and insular territories. For a few species, larger areas of the
southern United States appear to have suitable climatic conditions
according to Reed and Rodda's (2009) climate-matching method.
The record cold temperatures in south Florida during January of
2010 produced the coldest 12-day period since at least 1940, according
to the National Weather Service in Miami (NOAA 2010). A record low was
set for 12 consecutive days with the temperature at or below 45 [deg]F
(Fahrenheit; 7.2 [deg]C (Celsius)) in West Palm Beach and Naples. Other
minimum temperatures for that period were broken in Moorehaven, tied in
Fort
[[Page 12707]]
Lauderdale, and the coldest in Miami since 1940. Despite the record
cold, we know that many pythons survived in Florida. For example,
nearly 150 Burmese pythons were removed (captured or found dead) from
the population in Everglades National Park and vicinity in 2011; more
than 250 were removed in 2012, and more than 200 were removed in 2013
(NPS 2014). The largest Burmese python found in the wild in Florida was
found in Everglades National Park in March 2012 (Krysko et al. 2012).
Large constrictors of several species continue to be present and to
breed in south Florida. If thermoregulatory behavior or tolerance to
cold is genetically based, we would expect large constrictor snake
populations to persist, rebound, and possibly increase their genetic
fitness and temperature tolerance as a result of natural selection
pressures resulting from cold weather conditions such as those that
occurred in south Florida in January 2010 (Dorcas et al. 2011).
Two studies by scientists from several research institutions,
including the University of Florida, studied the effects of the 2010
winter cold weather on Burmese pythons. These studies are relevant to
the four species in this final rule because, like the Burmese python,
the four species are poikilothermic (body temperature varies with
surrounding temperature, also known as cold-blooded). Snakes typically
maintain their body temperatures within thermal tolerance limits
(ectothermy) through their behaviors (thermoregulation; Dorcas et al.
2011), such as sunning in open areas in cool weather or seeking
naturally insulated burrows in cold weather.
Thus, the reptiles seek locations (even small refugia) that can
help them maintain a comfortable body temperature. In Mazzotti et al.
(2010), the authors noted that all populations of large-bodied pythons
and boa constrictors inhabiting areas with cool winters, including
northern populations of Burmese pythons in their native range, appeared
to rely on use of refugia (safe locations) to escape winter
temperatures. Pythons and anacondas can seek such refugia as
underground burrows, deep water in canals, or similar microhabitats to
escape the cold temperatures. Those snakes that survived in Florida
were apparently able to maintain body temperatures using microhabitat
features of the landscape (Mazzotti et al. 2010).
Dorcas et al. (2011) reported on the cold tolerance of adult
Burmese pythons taken directly from the Everglades and placed in
outdoor enclosures in South Carolina just prior to an unseasonably cold
winter. Without time to suitably acclimate to a significantly colder
climate, all of the snakes in this study died. The artificial refugia
may not have been suitable compared to natural refugia (such as gopher
tortoise burrows), which were not available in the study. Use of
adults, as well as use of individuals that did not come from the colder
parts of their native range, may have caused the snakes to not be
adaptable to colder temperatures. Dorcas et al. (2012) state that their
results suggest that Burmese pythons from the population currently
established in Florida are capable of withstanding conditions
substantially cooler that those typically experienced in southern
Florida, but may not be able to survive severe winters in regions as
temperate as central South Carolina. They noted that some snakes
currently inhabiting Florida could survive typical winters in areas of
the southeastern United States more temperate than the region currently
inhabited by pythons. The authors also noted that, if thermoregulatory
behavior is heritable, selection for appropriate thermoregulatory
behavior will be strong as pythons expand their range northward through
the Florida peninsula. Consequently, future generations of pythons and
anacondas may be better equipped to invade temperate regions than those
currently inhabiting southern Florida, particularly given the climate
flexibility exhibited by the Burmese python in its native range (as
analyzed through USGS' climate-matching predictions in the United
States).
A study that used air temperatures to predict that Burmese pythons
would not likely expand to or colonize more temperate areas of Florida
and adjoining States (Jacobson et al. 2012) did not offer any new data,
other than summaries of ambient air temperature in Florida and South
Carolina. Using the rationale in the study, based on air temperature,
we could conclude that even native snakes could not survive in most of
the United States, which is not the case. Snakes in the wild use a
variety of physiological and behavioral mechanisms, not available to
them in the captive studies, to regulate their body temperatures or
escape excessive air temperatures.
Another paper that reviewed the effects of cold weather on Burmese
pythons does not appear to introduce any new data that can be used to
answer questions of temperature tolerances (Engeman et al. 2014).
Several conclusions drawn are seemingly based on untested hypotheses:
(1) Measures of minimum temperature are superior to measures of mean
temperature; (2) Indian and Burmese pythons are physiologically and
behaviorally different in relation to thermal tolerance; and (3) the
incorrect assumption of thermal critical minima structure of the range
limits of the snakes that can behaviorally thermoregulate.
The only comparably large native reptile in the southeastern United
States, the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), has been
known to survive freezing air temperatures. A study at the Savannah
River Ecology Laboratory in South Carolina found that adult alligators
could survive freezing temperatures by adjusting their behavior. Adults
could break the ice and breathe above the ice, whereas the juveniles
could not break the ice and apparently drowned (Brandt and Mazzotti
1990).
The alligator study shows that even individual reptiles of the same
species (juveniles compared to adults) may have different abilities to
survive. Such reasoning could be applied to large constrictors. In
Dorcas et al. (2011), 10 wild-captured male Burmese pythons from 2 to
3.5 m (6.5 to 11.5 ft) total length were released into outdoor
enclosures in South Carolina. All eventually died ostensibly of cold
stress, we surmise that perhaps individuals either larger or smaller
could have survived.
Scientists continue to learn more about the adaptability of
constrictor snakes. Whereas salinity had been suggested to be a
limiting factor in the distribution of reptiles in coastal habitats,
such as the Florida Keys (Dunson and Mazzotti 1989), a later study
disproved that. Hart et al. (2012) found that hatchling Burmese pythons
survived in a laboratory setting at full saltwater conditions for at
least a month. This further supports our listing of the Burmese python
and may be applicable to the species in this final rule because they
are closely related.
Another study sought to explain why Burmese pythons became such
successful invaders in Florida (Reed et al. 2012). With all of the
nonnative reptiles that have been introduced into the State, the
Burmese python is the only exotic snake (other than the worm-sized
Brahminy blindsnake (Ramphotyphlops braminus)) to have successfully
colonized a large area (greater than 1,000 square kilometers (km\2\)
(386 square miles (mi\2\))) of the United States. Reed et al. (2012)
concluded that attributes related to body size and generalism (such as
general habitat use and general prey) appeared to be particularly
applicable to the
[[Page 12708]]
Burmese python's ability to spread and impact ecosystems in Florida.
The attributes with the greatest scores were high reproductive
potential, low vulnerability to predation, large adult body size, large
offspring size, and high dietary breadth. All of these attributes are
shared with the reticulated python and three anaconda species in this
final rule, and all of these attributes contribute to the species'
ability to become invasive.
The Service and Everglades National Park asked USGS to assess the
risk of invasion of nine species of snakes to assist in the Service's
determination of injuriousness. Of the nine large constrictor snakes
assessed by Reed and Rodda (2009) (Burmese python (which Reed and Rodda
refer to as Indian python), reticulated python, Northern African
python, Southern African python, boa constrictor, yellow anaconda,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda), five were
shown to pose a high risk to the health of the ecosystem, including the
Burmese python, Northern African python, Southern African python,
yellow anaconda, and boa constrictor. The remaining four large
constrictors--the reticulated python, green anaconda, Beni anaconda,
and DeSchauensee's anaconda--were shown to pose a medium risk. None of
the large constrictors that the USGS assessed was classified as low
overall risk. A rating of low overall risk is considered as acceptable
risk and the organism(s) of little concern (ANSTF 1996). See Lacey Act
Evaluation Criteria, below, for an explanation of how USGS assessed
risk.
There is a medium risk that the four large constrictors evaluated
in this final rule, if they escape or are released into the wild, will
establish populations within their respective thermal and precipitation
limits due to common life-history traits that make them successful
invaders. These traits include being habitat generalists (able to
utilize a wide variety of habitats) that are tolerant of urbanization
and capacity to hunt and eat a wide range of size-appropriate
vertebrates (reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish; Reed and
Rodda 2009). These large constrictors are highly adaptable to new
environments and opportunistic in expanding their geographic range.
Furthermore, since they are a novel (new to the system) predator at the
top of the food chain, they can threaten the stability of native
ecosystems by altering the ecosystem's form, function, and structure.
These four species are cryptically marked and often dwell in trees
or submerged in water with only their heads protruding, 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. No currently available tools
appear adequate for eradication of an established population of giant
snakes once they have spread over a large area. Therefore, preventing
the introduction into the United States and dispersal to new areas of
these invasive species is of critical importance to the health and
welfare of native wildlife.
For the purposes of this rule, a hybrid is any progeny from any
cross involving parents of one or more species from the four
constrictor snakes evaluated in this rule. Such progeny are likely to
possess the same biological characteristics of the parent species that,
through our analysis, leads us to find that they are injurious to
humans and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
Anderson and Stebbins (1954) stated that hybrids may have caused the
rapid evolution of plants and animals under domestication, and that, in
the presence of new or greatly disturbed habitats, some hybrid
derivates would have been at a selective advantage. Facon et al. (2005)
stated that invasions may bring into contact related taxa that have
been isolated for a long time. Facon et al. (2005) also stated that
hybridization between two invasive taxa has been documented, and that
in all these cases, hybrids outcompeted their parental taxa. Ellstrand
and Schierenbeck (2000) concluded that dispersal of organisms and
habitat disturbance by humans both act to accelerate the process of
hybridization and increase the opportunities for hybrid lineages to
take hold.
Furthermore, snakes in general have been found to harbor ticks
(such as the nonnative African tortoise tick) that cause heartwater
disease (from the bacterium Cowdria ruminantium). Heartwater disease,
although harmless to its reptilian hosts, can be fatal to livestock and
related wild hoofed mammals, such as white-tailed deer. According to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (March 2000), ``Heartwater
disease is an acute, infectious disease of ruminants, including cattle,
sheep, goats, white-tailed deer, and antelope. This disease has a 60
percent or greater mortality rate in livestock and a 90 percent or
greater mortality rate in white-tailed deer.'' The ticks have been
found in Florida. Agricultural agencies are trying to stop the spread
of the ticks as a way of stopping the deadly disease. This rule will
help to stop the spread into and around the United States of the ticks
and other disease vectors that may be carried by these four species of
nonnative constrictor snakes.
Listing Process
The regulations contained in 50 CFR part 16 implement the Act.
Under the terms of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized
to prescribe by regulation those wild mammals, wild birds, fish,
mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring or eggs
of any of the foregoing that are injurious to human beings, to the
interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or to the wildlife
or wildlife resources of the United States. The lists of injurious
wildlife species are found at 50 CFR 16.11-16.15.
In this final rule, we evaluated each of the four constrictor snake
species individually and determined each to be injurious and
appropriate for listing. Therefore, as of the effective date of the
listing (see DATES, above), their importation into, or transportation
between, the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States by any
means whatsoever is prohibited, except by permit for zoological,
educational, medical, or scientific purposes (in accordance with permit
regulations at 50 CFR 16.22), or by Federal agencies without a permit
solely for their own use, upon filing a written declaration with the
District Director of Customs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Inspector at the port of entry. This rule does not prohibit intrastate
(within State boundaries) transport of the listed constrictor snake
species. Any regulations pertaining to the transport or use of these
species within a particular State will continue to be the
responsibility of that State.
We used the Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria as a guide to evaluate
whether a species does or does not qualify as injurious under the Act.
The analysis developed using the criteria serves as a basis for the
Service's regulatory decision regarding injurious wildlife species
listings. A species does not have to be established, currently
imported, or present in the wild in the United States for the Service
to list it as injurious. The objective of such a listing is to prevent
that species' importation and likely establishment in the wild, thereby
preventing injurious effects consistent with 18 U.S.C. 42.
Introduction Pathways for Large Constrictor Snakes
For the four constrictor snakes analyzed in this final rule, the
primary pathway for the entry into the United
[[Page 12709]]
States is, or would likely be, the commercial pet trade. In the last
few decades, most introductions of large constrictor snakes have been
associated with the international trade in reptiles as pets. This trade
includes wild-caught snakes, captive-bred, or captive-hatched juveniles
from areas within their native countries. In their native ranges, a
species may be captured in the wild and directly exported to the United
States or other destination country, or wild-caught snakes may be kept
in the country of origin to breed for export of subsequent generations.
The main ports of entry for constrictor snakes are Miami, Los Angeles,
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, and
Houston. From there, many of the live snakes are transported to animal
dealers, who then transport the snakes to pet retailers. Large
constrictor snakes are also bred in the United States and sold within
the country.
A typical pathway of a large constrictor snake includes a pet
store. Often, a person will purchase a hatchling snake (0.55 m (22
inches (in)) at a pet store or reptile show for as little as $25. The
hatchling grows rapidly, even when fed conservatively, so a strong
escape-proof enclosure is necessary. All snakes are adept at escaping,
and constrictors are especially powerful when it comes to breaking out
of cages. In captivity, they are most frequently fed pre-killed mice,
rats, rabbits, and chickens. A tub of fresh water is needed for the
snake to drink from and soak in. As it outgrows its tub, the snake will
need to soak in increasingly larger containers, such as a bathtub.
Under captive conditions, pythons and anacondas will grow very fast.
After 1 year, a python may be 2 m (7 ft) and after 5 years it could be
7.6 m (25 ft), depending on how often it is fed and other aspects of
husbandry. A female reticulated python, for example, can grow to more
than 8.7 m (28.5 ft) long, weigh 140 kilograms (kg) (308 pounds (1bs))
or more, live more than 25 years, and must be fed larger prey, such as
rabbits. Although the reticulated python is longer, the anaconda is the
heaviest snake, with a 4-m (13-ft) green anaconda having bulk
comparable to a 7-m (23-ft) reticulated python.
Owning a giant snake is a difficult, long-term, and somewhat
expensive responsibility. This is one reason that some snakes are
released by their owners into the wild when they can no longer care for
them. Other snakes may escape from inadequate enclosures, which is a
common pathway for large constrictor snakes to enter the ecosystem
(Fujisaki et al. 2009). The trade in constrictor snakes is
international as well as domestic. From 2004 to 2013, more than 1.2
million live constrictor snakes of 13 species (Python spp., Eunectes
spp., and Boa spp.) were imported into the United States (Final
Economic Analysis 2015). Besides the species proposed for listing,
these included ball python (Python regius), a blood python (P. curtus),
another blood python (P. brongersmai), Borneo python (P.
breitensteini), Timor python (P. timoriensis), and Angolan python (P.
anchietae), none of which has been proposed for listing as injurious.
From 2004 to 2013, approximately 26,591 large constrictor snakes of two
species listed by this rule were imported into the United States (Final
Economic Analysis 2015; two species in this rule were not imported).
Of all the constrictor snake species imported into the United
States, the selection of nine constrictor snakes for evaluation as
injurious wildlife in the March 12, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 11808)
was based on concern over the giant size of these particular snakes
combined with their quantity in international trade or their potential
for trade. The world's four largest species of snakes (Burmese python,
Northern African python, reticulated python, and green anaconda) were
selected, as well as similar and closely related species and the boa
constrictor. These large constrictor snakes constitute an elevated risk
of injuriousness in relation to those taxa with lower trade volumes;
are massive, with maximum lengths exceeding 6 m (20 ft; except for boas
up to 4 m (13 ft)); and have a high likelihood of establishment in
various habitats of the United States. The DeSchauensee's and Beni
anacondas exhibit many of the same biological characteristics
associated with a risk of establishment and negative effects in the
United States.
The strongest factor influencing the chances of these large
constrictors establishing in the wild are the number of release events
and the numbers of individuals released (Bomford et al. 2009; 2005). A
release event occurs when one or more individuals of a nonnative
species is either intentionally or unintentionally let loose in the
wild. With a sufficient number of either intentional or unintentional
release events, these species will likely become established in
ecosystems with suitable conditions for survival and reproduction. In
most cases, for nonnative species to cause economic or ecological harm,
they must first be transported out of their native range and released
within a novel locality, establish a self-sustaining population in this
new location, and expand their geographical range beyond the point of
initial establishment. Releases of large numbers of individuals often
enable the incipient (newly forming), nonnative population to withstand
the inevitable decreases in survival or reproduction caused by the
environment or demographic accidents.
The release of many individuals into one location essentially
functions as a source pool of immigrants, thus sustaining an incipient
population even if the initial release was of insufficient size (or
badly timed) to facilitate long-term establishment. Natural disasters,
such as Hurricane Andrew in 1992, may have provided a mechanism for the
accidental release of snakes, especially in light of large numbers of
juvenile pythons frequently held by breeders and importers prior to
sale and distribution (Willson et al. 2010).
Large or consistent releases of individuals into one location may
enable the incipient population to overcome behavioral limitations or
other problems associated with small population sizes. This is likely
the case at Everglades National Park, where the core nonnative Burmese
python population in Florida is now located.
Because all four snakes in this final rule share traits that foster
intentional or unintentional release events, allowing unregulated
importation and interstate transport of these nonnative snakes will
increase the risk of these species becoming established through
increased opportunities for release. The release of large constrictor
snakes at different times and locations improves, in turn, the chance
of their successful establishment.
As a first step in understanding the ecology of these snakes and
their potential impact on the Everglades ecosystem, the National Park
Service began tracking Burmese pythons using radio-telemetry in the
fall of 2005. The radio-tagged pythons have since demonstrated that
female pythons make few long-distance movements throughout the year,
while males roam widely in search of females during the breeding season
(December-April). These results indicate an ability to move long
distances in search of prey and mates. Pythons also have a ``homing''
ability. After being released far from where they were captured, they
returned long distances (up to 78 kilometers (km); 48 miles (mi)) in
only a few months. These findings suggest that pythons searching for a
suitable home range have the potential to colonize areas far from where
they were released (Snow 2008; Harvey et al. 2008). A related study
further supported
[[Page 12710]]
that Burmese pythons released in Everglades National Park have
navigational senses, which may contribute to the invasion dynamics of
Burmese pythons and similar species (Pittman et al. 2014). These
characteristics of Burmese pythons are likely shared by reticulated
pythons and may also be shared by the anaconda species analyzed in this
rule.
A second factor that is strongly and consistently associated with a
species becoming invasive is a history of the species successfully
establishing elsewhere outside its native range. We have no
documentation of reticulated pythons or the three anacondas being
invasive elsewhere in the world. However, this lack of data could be
the result of the lack or low volume of these species being imported
into other countries that have similar climatic conditions as the
species' native range.
A third factor strongly associated with establishment success is
having a good climate or habitat match between where the species
naturally occurs and where it is introduced. Exotic (nonnative)
reptiles and amphibians have a greater chance of establishing if they
are introduced to an area with a climate that closely matches that of
their original range. Species that have a large range over several
climatic zones are predicted to be strong future invaders. The
suitability of a country's climate for the establishment of a species
can be quantified on a broad scale by measuring the climate match
between that country and the geographic range of a species. Climate
matching sets the broad parameters for determining if an area is
suitable for a nonnative large constrictor snake to establish.
These three factors have all been consistently demonstrated to
increase the chances of establishment by all invasive vertebrate taxa,
including the four large constrictor snakes in this final rule (Bomford
2008, 2009). However, as stated above, a species does not have to be
established, currently imported, or present in the wild in the United
States for the Service to determine that it is injurious. The objective
of such a listing is to prevent that species' importation, release into
the wild, survival, and likely establishment in the wild, thereby
preventing injurious effects consistent with 18 U.S.C. 42.
Species Information
Reticulated Python (Python reticulatus)
Native Range
Although native range boundaries are disputed, reticulated pythons
conservatively range across much of 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
Three scientific names are mainly associated with the reticulated
python: Python reticulatus, Broghammerus reticulatus, and Malayopython
reticulatus. Please see Reed and Rodda (2009) for a discussion of the
taxonomy and nomenclature of the latter two names. Reynolds et al.
(2014) considers the genus as Malayopython, which may have merit.
Therefore, we are including this as another synonym, so that if the
genus does change, it is clear to which species we are referring.
The reticulated python is most likely the world's longest snake.
Adults can grow to a length of more than 8.7 m (28.5 ft) (Reed and
Rodda 2009), with a report of one in the Philippines at 10 m (32.8 ft)
(Headland and Greene 2011). The maximum reported weight is 150 kg (330
lb) (Reed and Rodda 2009). As with all snakes, pythons can grow
throughout their lives (Reed and Rodda 2009).
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. Recently, this species was documented to reproduce by
parthenogenesis (egg develops without fertilization by a male) when an
11-year-old female laid a clutch of 61 eggs without a male present for
more than 2 years (Booth et al. 2014). The reticulated 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.
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).
Reticulated pythons are extremely capable predators. Like all of
the large constrictors, they are cryptically colored. In general,
constrictor snakes have especially strong musculature, which enables
them to hold onto struggling live prey almost as large as themselves.
The giant size of reticulated pythons makes them especially strong,
and, combined with their streamlined shape, makes them remarkably adept
at climbing, passing through dense brush, and even swimming.
Reticulated pythons are primarily silent hunters that lie in wait
along pathways used by their prey and then ambush them; the pythons
kill by wrapping their muscular bodies around their victims, squeezing
tighter as the prey exhales until the victims suffocate. The methods of
predation used by the reticulated python (whether sit-and-wait or
actively hunting, or whether diurnal or nocturnal), as well as the
other three species of large constrictor snakes in this final rule,
work as well in their native ranges as in the United States. The
reticulated python is an opportunistic predator capable of preying on a
wide range of species, including chickens, rats, monitor lizards, civet
cats, bats, an immature cow, various primates, deer, wild boars, goats,
cats, dogs, ducks, rabbits, tree shrews, porcupines, frogs, fish, and
many species of wild birds (Reed and Rodda 2009). Prey size is roughly
correlated with the python's body size, with young or small pythons
eating small prey and larger pythons eating larger prey.
Reticulated pythons frequently swim in waterways, where they hunt
for aquatic prey. Waterways also facilitate the pythons' dispersal to
new areas. Smaller pythons can also climb trees to prey on arboreal
animals, avoid predators, and thermoregulate.
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) (Burridge et al.
2000, 2006; Clark and Doten 1995). Several studies (Burridge et al.
2000, Kenny et al. 2004, Reeves et al. 2006) have shown disease agents
in the ticks that travel internationally on reptiles, which may serve
in the introduction of disease agents that could impact the health of
local wildlife, domestic animals, and humans (Corn et al. 2011).
The reticulated python can be an aggressive and dangerous species.
Reed and Rodda (2009) cite numerous sources of people being bitten,
attacked, and even killed by reticulated pythons in their native range.
However, the only occurrences of human fatalities in the United States
from reticulated pythons were caused by captive specimens. Outside of
the United States, such as in the Philippines, reticulated pythons have
been reported to kill and even
[[Page 12711]]
consume humans in remote hunter-gatherer cultures (Headland and Greene
2011). In that study, 11 of 19 Filipinos died from attacks by
reticulated pythons; no attacks were by captive snakes. Of reticulated
pythons that attacked people in the Philippines, the longest was 10 m
(32.8 ft) (Headland and Greene 2011).
DeSchauensee's Anaconda (Eunectes deschauenseei)
Native Range
DeSchauensee's anaconda is known from a small number of specimens
and has a limited range in northeast South America. As currently
understood, the ``yellow anacondas'' comprise two species with entirely
disjunct distributions (Reed and Rodda 2009). The northern form,
DeSchauensee's anaconda (Eunectes deschauenseei), is known from a small
number of specimens and has a limited range in northeast South America.
The southern form, the yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) has a larger
distribution in subtropical and temperate areas of South America, and
has received more scientific attention. We published a final rule to
list the yellow anaconda as injurious on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3330).
The DeSchauensee's anaconda is largely confined to the Brazilian
island of Maraj[oacute], nearby areas around the mouth of the Amazon
River, and several drainages in French Guiana. 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 [deg]C (77 [deg]F) and 30 [deg]C
(86 [deg]F). We do not know whether the species could tolerate greater
climatic variation.
Biology
DeSchauensee's anaconda appears to be the smallest of the
anacondas, although the small 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.
In captivity, a DeSchauensee's anaconda was reported to live for 17
years, 11 months (Snider and Bowler 1992). The DeSchauensee's anaconda
is live-bearing. 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, three to seven 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). DeSchauensee's anacondas
frequently swim in waterways, where they hunt for aquatic prey.
Anacondas appear to use rivers to disperse (McCartney-Melstad 2012).
Smaller anacondas can also climb trees to prey on arboreal animals,
avoid predators, and thermoregulate.
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, having a very stout body and fairly reliable records of lengths
over 7 m (23 ft). The females typically outweigh the males. Very large
anacondas are almost certainly the heaviest snakes in the world,
ranging up to 200 kg (441 lb) (Bisplinghof and Bellosa 2007), even
though reticulated pythons, for example, may attain greater lengths
(Reed and Rodda 2009).
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
centimeters (cm) (27.5 to 31.5 inches (in)) long and receive no
parental care. As with all the large constrictor snakes, hatchlings can
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 female green anaconda that was kept in captivity for 26
years with no access to males gave birth to 23 females. This raises the
possibility that green anacondas are facultatively parthenogenetic, 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 grow larger, they shift to eating larger mammals and reptiles. The
regular inclusion of fish in the diet of all anacondas increases their
dietary niche breadth in relation to the other large constrictors,
which rarely consume fish. Green anacondas consume a wide variety of
endotherms (so-called warm-blooded animals) 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 Burmese pythons. Vertebrate animals
that regularly inhabit 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 prey on alligators, which are
common in the southeastern United States.
Green anacondas frequently swim in waterways, where they hunt for
aquatic prey. Anacondas appear to use rivers to disperse (McCartney-
Melstad 2012). Smaller anacondas can also climb trees to prey on
arboreal animals, avoid predators, and thermoregulate.
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
[[Page 12712]]
was discovered in the Beni Province of Bolivia--thus the common name of
Beni anaconda and another alias of Bolivian anaconda. To an experienced
herpetologist, E. beniensis is easily recognizable by its brown to
olive-brownish ground color in combination with five head stripes and
fewer than 100 large, dark, solid dorsal blotches that always lack
lighter centers. To a novice, E. beniensis and E. murinus are similar
in appearance. E. beniensis is primarily aquatic and eats a wide
variety of prey, including fish, birds, mammals, and other reptiles.
Beni anacondas frequently swim in waterways, where they hunt for
aquatic prey. Anacondas appear to use rivers to disperse (McCartney-
Melstad 2012). Smaller anacondas can also climb trees to prey on
arboreal animals, avoid predators, and thermoregulate.
Presence of the Four Constrictor Snakes in the United States
Of the four constrictor snake species that we are listing as
injurious in this final rule, two have been reported in the wild in the
United States, but none have been confirmed as reproducing in the wild
in the United States (see Current Nonnative Occurrences, below); two of
the four have been imported commercially into the United States during
the period 2004 to 2013 (Final Economic Analysis 2015). Species
``reported in the wild'' are ones that have been found in the wild but
without proof to date that they have reproduced in the wild. The
greatest opportunity for preventing a species from becoming injurious
is to stop a species from entering the wild; the second greatest
opportunity is before a species becomes established in the wild
(reported but not reproducing); and the smallest opportunity is when a
species has become established (reproducing in the wild).
Table 1--Four Species of Large Constrictor Snakes and Whether They Have Been Reported in the Wild in the United
States, Are Known To Be Reproducing in the Wild in the United States, or Have Been Imported for Trade (2004 to
2013)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported in the wild in Reproducing in the wild Imported into U.S. for
Species U.S.? in U.S.? trade? *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reticulated python................... Yes.................... No..................... Yes.
DeSchauensee's anaconda.............. No..................... No..................... No.**
Green anaconda....................... Yes.................... No..................... Yes.
Beni anaconda........................ No..................... No..................... No.**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data from Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS; USFWS 2014)
** It is possible that this species has been imported into the United States incorrectly identified as one of
the other species listed by this rule or the January 23, 2012, final rule (77 FR 3330); however, none has been
reported.
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 decision regarding injuriousness (not just for
the four snake species we are listing in this final rule). Biologists
within the Service who are knowledgeable about a species being
evaluated assess both the factors that contribute to and the factors
that reduce the likelihood of injuriousness.
(1) Factors that contribute to being considered injurious:
The likelihood of release or escape;
Potential to survive, become established, and spread;
Impacts on wildlife resources or ecosystems through
hybridization and competition for food and habitats, habitat
degradation and destruction, predation, and pathogen transfer;
Impact to endangered and threatened species and their
habitats;
Impacts to human beings, forestry, horticulture, and
agriculture; and
Wildlife or habitat damages that may occur from control
measures.
(2) Factors that reduce the likelihood of the species being
considered as injurious:
Ability to prevent escape and establishment;
Potential to eradicate or manage established populations
(for example, making organisms sterile);
Ability to rehabilitate disturbed ecosystems;
Ability to prevent or control the spread of pathogens or
parasites; and
Any potential ecological benefits to introduction.
To obtain some of the information for the above criteria, we
referred to Reed and Rodda (2009). Reed and Rodda (2009) developed the
Organism Risk Potential scores for each species using a widely utilized
risk assessment procedure that was published by the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force (ANSTF), called ``Generic nonindigenous aquatic
organisms risk analysis review process (for estimating risk associated
with the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic organisms and how to
manage that risk)'' (ANSTF 1996). The ANSTF was created under the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16
U.S.C. 4701 et seq.) to provide a way for government agencies to
develop a national program to reduce the risk of unintentional
introductions, ensure prompt detection and response, and control
established species.
The ANSTF (1996) procedure incorporates four factors associated
with probability of establishment and three factors associated with
consequences of establishment, with the combination of these factors
resulting in an overall Organism Risk Potential (ORP) for each species.
For the four constrictor snakes in this final rule, the overall
potential risk of establishment was medium.
Certainties were highly variable within each of the seven elements
or factors of the risk assessment mentioned above, varying from very
uncertain to very certain. In general, the highest certainties are
associated with species unequivocally established in new ranges because
of enhanced ecological information on these species from studies in
both their native range and in Florida. The way in which these
subscores are obtained and combined is set forth in an algorithm
created by the ANSTF (Table 2).
Table 2--The Algorithm That the ANSTF (1996) Defined for Combining the
Two Primary Subscores (Reed and Rodda 2009)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequences of Organism Risk
Probability of establishment establishment Potential (ORP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High............................ High.............. High.
Medium.......................... High.............. High.
Low............................. High.............. Medium.
High............................ Medium............ High.
Medium.......................... Medium............ Medium.
Low............................. Medium............ Medium.
High............................ Low............... Medium.
Medium.......................... Low............... Medium.
Low............................. Low............... Low.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12713]]
Similar algorithms are used for deriving the primary subscores from
the secondary subscores. However, the scores are fundamentally
qualitative, in the sense that there is no unequivocal threshold that
is given in advance to determine when a given risk passes from being
low to medium, and so forth. Therefore, we viewed the process as one of
providing relative ranks for each species. Thus, a high ORP score
indicates that such a species would likely entail greater consequences
or greater probability of establishment than would a species whose ORP
was medium or low (that is, high > medium > low). Medium-risk species
include the four species being designated as injurious by this
rulemaking: Reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green
anaconda, and Beni anaconda. Medium-risk species, if established in
this country, would put portions of the U.S. mainland, Hawaii, and
insular territories at risk and constitute a great potential ecological
threat. As stated above, we use this information in our evaluation to
determine if a species meets the criteria of being injurious, but it is
not the only information we use. The following sections on ``Factors
That Contribute to Injuriousness * * *'' and ``Factors That Reduce or
Remove Injuriousness * * *'' explain how we arrived at our
determinations of injuriousness for each species.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Reticulated Python
Current Nonnative Occurrences
In Florida, reticulated pythons have been observed or removed from
Bradenton, Clearwater, Miami, Sebastian, and Vero Beach. For example, a
5.5-m (18-ft) reticulated python was struck by a person mowing grass
along a canal in Vero Beach in 2007, and a reticulated python was
removed along Roseland Road in Sebastian (B. 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 (J. Saliva, pers. comm. 2009).
Media accounts from 1980 to 2014 report that reticulated pythons
have escaped captivity or were spotted in the wild in the following
States: California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Washington, and West Virginia (HSUS 2014). This
illustrates that the potential for release or escape is not confined to
Florida and Puerto Rico but could occur in many States. The States
listed were merely the ones for which we have reports. Other
occurrences may not have been reported or the species not identified.
See Introduction Pathways for Large Constrictor Snakes, above, for the
explanation of how release events are relevant to the potential
establishment of reticulated pythons.
Potential Introduction and Spread
The likelihood that a reticulated python will be released or will
escape from captivity is high as evidenced by a number of reports as
discussed above in Current Nonnative Occurrences and because they
possess the physical traits that contribute to release or enable
escape. Relatively few private pet owners can maintain such a large
species properly throughout its lifetime, leading to intentional
release or escape. Once out of captivity, reticulated pythons are
highly likely to survive in natural ecosystems (primarily extreme
southern habitats) of the United States. Reticulated pythons have a
somewhat tropical native distribution, so the area of the mainland
United States showing a climate match is 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 were recently
documented to be able to reproduce parthenogenetically, meaning that
females do not need males to lay viable eggs (Booth et al. 2014). Thus,
even just one female python could potentially create a population.
Reticulated pythons are highly likely to spread and become established
in the wild due to common traits shared by all the large constrictors
we are listing as injurious in this rule, including: Rapid growth to a
large size with production of many offspring; ability to survive under
a range of habitat types and conditions (habitat generalist); ability
to adapt to live in urban and suburban areas; ability to disperse long
distances; and ability to conceal themselves and ambush a wide variety
of prey.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including Endangered and
Threatened Species)
Reticulated pythons are highly likely to prey on U.S. native
species, including endangered and threatened species where present.
Their natural diet includes mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish. An
adverse effect of reticulated python on endangered and threatened
species is likely to be moderate to high.
Native fauna have no experience defending against such a novel,
giant predator as the reticulated python. As discussed above under
Biology, the reticulated python can grow to a length greater than 8.7 m
(28.5 ft) and the maximum reported weight is 150 kg (330 lb). This is
longer than any native terrestrial predator (including bears) in the
United States and its territories, and heavier than most native
predators (including black bears and many alligators). In comparison
with the reticulated python, the longest snake native to the United
States is much smaller. The longest native snake is the indigo snake
(Drymarchon corais), attaining a maximum length 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 the same
length as D. corais. The eastern indigo snake inhabits Georgia and
Florida, and is listed as federally threatened by the Service. The
native, endangered Puerto Rican boa's (Epicrates inornatus) maximum
size is approximately 2 m (6.5 ft) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1986).
Unlike prey species in the reticulated python's native range, none
of our native species has evolved defenses to avoid predation by such a
large snake. Thus, native wildlife in the United States where
reticulated pythons exist would be very likely to fall prey to the
pythons (or any of the other three constrictor snakes we are listing in
this rule). At all life stages, reticulated 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 the pythons
grow. Once reticulated pythons are introduced and established, they may
outcompete native predators (such as the federally protected Florida
panther, eastern indigo snake, native boas, and hawks), feeding on the
same prey and thereby reducing the supply of prey for the native
predators.
Reticulated pythons are generalist predators that consume a wide
variety of mammal and bird species, as well as reptiles, amphibians,
and occasionally fish. This constrictor can easily adapt to prey on
novel wildlife (species that they are not familiar with), and they need
no special adaptations to hunt, capture, and consume them.
The United States, particularly the Southeast, has a diverse faunal
[[Page 12714]]
community that is potentially vulnerable to predation by the
reticulated python. Juveniles of these large constrictors will climb
trees and rocks to remove prey from bird nests and capture perching or
sleeping birds. The southernmost part of the United States has suitable
climate and habitat for reticulated pythons. The greatest biological
impact of an introduced predator, such as the reticulated python, is
the additional stress placed on imperiled native species, which may
preclude their recovery. Based on the food habits and habitat
preferences of the reticulated python in its native range, the species
is likely to invade the habitat, prey on, and further threaten many of
the federally endangered or threatened fauna in climate-suitable areas
of the United States (Reed and Rodda 2009).
Reticulated pythons are also likely to decrease the populations of
numerous potential candidate animals for Federal protection by hunting
and eating them. Candidate species are plants and animals for which the
Service has sufficient information on their biological status and
threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
but for which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded
by other higher priority listing activities.
The final environmental assessment for the four species in this
final rule (Final Environmental Assessment 2015) includes lists of
species that are federally or State endangered or threatened in some
climate-suitable States and territories: Florida, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Other States have federally or State
endangered or threatened species that would be suitable prey for large,
nonnative constrictor snakes, including the reticulated python. These
lists include only the species of the sizes and types that would be
expected to be directly affected by predation by reticulated pythons
and the other large, nonnative constrictors. For example, plants and
marine species are excluded. In Florida, 13 bird species, 15 mammals,
and 2 reptiles that are federally endangered or threatened could be
preyed upon by reticulated pythons or be outcompeted by them for prey.
Hawaii has 34 bird species and 1 mammal that are federally endangered
or threatened that would be at risk of predation. Puerto Rico has 9
bird species and 10 reptile species that are federally endangered or
threatened that would be at risk of predation or competition for prey.
The Virgin Islands has one bird species and three reptiles that are
federally endangered or threatened that would be at risk of predation
or competition for prey. Guam has seven bird species and two mammals
that are federally endangered or threatened that would be at risk of
predation.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009),
endangered and threatened species from parts of Florida, southern
Texas, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico would be at risk from the establishment
of reticulated pythons. In addition, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
other territories would have suitable habitat and climate to support
reticulated pythons, and these also have federally endangered and
threatened species that would be at risk if reticulated pythons became
established.
Potential Impacts to Humans
Like all pythons, reticulated pythons are nonvenomous. 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 killed by reticulated pythons in
their native range. Headland and Greene (2011) determined that 26
percent of a segment of hunter-gatherer Filipinos had been attacked by
reticulated pythons, some fatally. The only human deaths in the United
States from reticulated pythons that we are aware of were from captive
snakes (in Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, Texas, and
Virginia; HSUS 2014). An established population of reticulated pythons
would be expected to create the greatest public safety risk of all
large constrictor snakes evaluated.
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), and likely to
livestock outside of Florida. African tick species that use pythons as
hosts may be vectors of heartwater, and these ticks have been observed
to transfer to other hosts, including other giant constrictors, other
reptiles, and dogs. Because multiple python species are typically held
captive in close proximately to each other in the commercial trade,
such proximity provides tick transfer opportunities to occur prior to
retail sales (Reed and Rodda 2009).
The introduction or establishment of reticulated pythons would
likely have negative impacts on humans primarily from the loss of
native wildlife biodiversity and as carriers of livestock diseases, 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. No
effective tools are currently available to detect and remove large,
nonnative constrictor populations. Traps with drift fences or barriers
are the best option, but their use on a large scale is prohibitively
expensive. Additionally, some areas cannot be effectively trapped due
to the expanse of the area and type of terrain, the distribution of the
target species, and the effects on any nontarget species (that is,
trapping native wildlife). While the Department of the Interior, USDA
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and State of
Florida entities have conducted some research on control tools, no
currently available tools are adequate for eradication of an
established population of large, nonnative constrictor snakes, such as
the reticulated python, once they have spread over a large area.
Efforts to eradicate large, nonnative constrictor snakes in Florida
have intensified to keep the expansion to a minimum as species are
reported in new locations across the State. Natural resource management
agencies are expending scarce resources to devise methods to capture or
otherwise control any large, nonnative 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 final economic analysis was prepared for the four constrictor
snakes that are the subjects of this final rule (USFWS 2015) and
provides the following information about the expenditures for research
and eradication in Florida, primarily for Burmese pythons, which
provides some indication of the efforts to date. Control methods used
for Burmese pythons may also be applied to other large constrictor
snakes. The Service spent more than $600,000 over a 3-year period
(2007-2009) on python trap design, deployment, and education in the
Florida Keys to prevent the potential extinction of the endangered Key
Largo woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli) at
[[Page 12715]]
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge. More recently, the Service and
USGS have spent up to $20,000 over the 2012-2013 period on planning
efforts to address constrictor snake infestations and expect to spend
between $25,000 and $50,000 from 2014 to 2018 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Rebekah Gibble, personal communication 2014). 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) spent $15,800 in 2008-2009 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. Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation
Department, Natural Areas Management and Department of Environmental
Resources Management have spent $60,875 annually on constrictor snake
issues. The National Park Service has spent an average of $380,000
annually from 2004 to 2014, on various programs related to constrictor
snake issues in the Everglades National Park (National Park Service,
Carol Mitchell, personal communication 2014). All these expenditures
total $6.5 million from 2004 to 2014 (estimated for 2014), or roughly
an average of $586,000 per year. Despite this investment, all of these
efforts have failed to provide a method for eradicating large,
nonnative 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
reticulated python is unlikely to be one of those species that could be
eradicated. Witmer and Fuller (2011) also found no reports of
eradications of introduced reptiles in the United States.
Eradication will almost certainly be unachievable for a species
that is hard to detect and remove at low densities, which is the case
with all of the four large constrictor snakes that are the subjects of
this final rule. 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 reticulated 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 or eradicate, manage, or control
the spread of established populations of the reticulated 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 reticulated pythons 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 reticulated
pythons as a food source. However, juvenile snakes could fall prey to
native wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, coyotes, and birds of
prey. In addition, a large constrictor snake could prey on other
nonnative species such as green iguanas, feral hogs, and black rats.
The risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh these unlikely benefits.
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 than 8.7 m
(28.5 ft); this is longer than any native, terrestrial animal in the
United States and at least as long as any snake species in the world.
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. An established population of reticulated
pythons would be expected to create the greatest public safety risk
from all large constrictor snakes evaluated. Reticulated pythons can
carry ticks of agricultural significance (potential threat to domestic
livestock).
Because reticulated pythons are likely to escape from captivity or
be released into the wild if imported; are likely to survive, become
established, and spread if they escape captivity or are released into
areas of the United States that have suitable climate and habitat; are
likely to prey on and compete with native species for food and habitat
(including endangered and threatened species); are likely to be disease
vectors for livestock or native wildlife; cannot be easily eradicated,
prevented from establishing, or reduced from large populations or new
locations; and are likely to disturb ecosystems beyond the point of
recoverability, the Service finds the reticulated python to be
injurious to humans, agricultural interests, and wildlife and wildlife
resources of the United States.
Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for DeSchauensee's Anaconda
Current Nonnative Occurrences
We do not know of any occurrences of the DeSchauensee's anaconda in
the United States.
Potential Introduction and Spread
DeSchauensee's anacondas share similar traits with the other three
species of constrictor snakes, although they are smaller. A smaller-
sized constrictor may be more desirable to some potential pet owners
who want a constrictor snake but do not want to handle the larger
species, and thus DeSchauensee's anacondas may eventually be imported
into the United States as an alternative species. Because
DeSchauensee's anacondas possess the same traits as other large
constrictor snakes, such as powerful musculature, streamlined body, and
fast growth rate, this species is likely to escape or be released into
the wild if imported into the United States. DeSchauensee's anacondas
are highly likely to spread and become established in the wild due to
common traits shared by many large constrictors, including: Rapid
growth to a large size with production of many offspring; ability to
survive under a range of habitat types and conditions (habitat
generalist); ability to disperse long distances; and ability to conceal
themselves and ambush prey.
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. However, we do not
know whether the species' native distribution is limited by factors
other than climate. Reed and Rodda (2009) extended the climate match
globally, meaning they used the climate data from the native range and
found that they matched other parts of the Amazon Basin and tropical
areas of the world. This leads to the conclusion that climate
[[Page 12716]]
is not the limiting factor but instead could be biogeography,
competition, or other factors. If the small, native range is
attributable to ecological (for example, competition with green
anacondas), or anthropogenic (for example, habitat loss) factors, then
Reed and Rodda's (2009) qualitative estimate of the climatically
suitable areas of the United States would represent an underprediction.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including Endangered and
Threatened Species)
The DeSchauensee's anaconda would likely have a similar impact as
the yellow anaconda, which we listed as injurious in 2012.
DeSchauensee's anacondas eat mammals, fish, and birds in their native
range and will prey on native species, including select endangered and
threatened species if they become established in the United States.
Anacondas employ both ``ambush predation'' and ``wide-foraging''
strategies (Reed and Rodda 2009). Endangered and threatened wildlife
occupying the DeSchauensee's anaconda's preferred habitats would be at
risk.
The DeSchauensee's anaconda is larger (reported to 3 m (9.8 ft))
than the largest snake native to the continental United States. See
Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including Endangered and
Threatened Species) for the reticulated python for comparison to native
predators.
Please also see Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including
Endangered and Threatened Species) under Factors that Contribute to
Injuriousness for Reticulated 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.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009;
Final Environmental Assessment 2015), endangered and threatened species
from part of Puerto Rico would be at risk from the establishment of
DeSchauensee's anacondas. In addition, the global climate match
produced by Reed and Rodda (2009) showed a broader tropical range than
that of the native range, and that other tropical areas of the world
appear to be climatically similar. Because Guam, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and other U.S. territories are tropical, the climate may be
suitable. Puerto Rico has 9 bird species and 10 reptile species that
are federally endangered or threatened species that would be at risk if
DeSchauensee's anacondas became established. Guam has seven bird
species and two mammal species that are endangered or threatened that
could be at risk of predation. The Virgin Islands has one bird species
and three reptile species that are endangered or threatened that could
be at risk of predation.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The introduction or establishment of DeSchauensee's anacondas would
likely have negative impacts on humans primarily from the loss of
native wildlife biodiversity, as discussed above in the discussion for
the reticulated python. 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. Agricultural
interests may be negatively affected by imported anacondas carrying
ticks that transfer harmful pathogens to livestock.
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 reticulated python for reasons why
DeSchauensee's anacondas would be difficult to control, all of which
apply to this large constrictor.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
While the introduction of DeSchauensee's anacondas 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
DeSchauensee's anacondas as a food source. However, juvenile snakes
could fall prey to native wildlife such as alligators, raccoons,
coyotes, and birds of prey. In addition, a large constrictor snake
could prey on other nonnative species such as green iguanas, feral
hogs, and black rats. 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 likely to establish and 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, including the southern margin
of Puerto Rico and its out-islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and
other U.S. islands.
Because DeSchauensee's anacondas are likely to escape captivity or
be released into the wild if imported into the United States; are
likely to survive, become established, and spread if they escape
captivity or are released; are likely to prey on and compete with
native species for food and habitat (including endangered and
threatened species); cannot be easily eradicated, prevented from
establishing, or reduced from large populations or new locations; and
are likely to disturb ecosystems beyond the point of recoverability,
the Service finds the DeSchauensee's anaconda to be injurious to humans
and to the 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 U.S. 41 in the vicinity of Fakahatchee Strand
Preserve State Park in Florida in December 2004 (Reed and Rodda 2009).
Two medium-sized adults and a juvenile green anaconda were 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 Osceola 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. They are likely to escape or be released because they
can grow in captivity to enormous sizes (which makes them exceedingly
powerful) and they must be fed a diet that could be prohibitively
expensive. Green anacondas are likely to survive in the appropriate
natural ecosystems of the United States. Much of peninsular Florida
(roughly south of Gainesville) and extreme south Texas exhibit
[[Page 12717]]
climatic conditions similar to those experienced by green anacondas in
their large South American native range, but the rest of the continent
appears to be too cool or arid. Lower elevations in Hawaii and all of
Puerto Rico have apparently suitable climates. Within the climate-
matched area, anacondas are likely to establish in sites containing
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 their propensity
for rapid growth to a large size and high reproductive rate; are
capable of surviving under a range of habitat types and conditions
(habitat generalist); have behaviors that allow them to escape freezing
temperatures; can live in urban and suburban areas; can disperse long
distances; and are well-concealed ambush predators. There is evidence
that green anacondas are facultatively parthenogenetic and could
therefore reproduce even if a single female is released or escapes.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including Endangered and
Threatened Species)
Green anacondas will prey on native species, including endangered
and threatened species, if they become established in the United
States. They are primarily aquatic and eat a wide variety of prey,
including fish, birds, mammals, and other reptiles. The size of the
prey also varies, depending on the age of the snake, with baby
anacondas able to eat small prey, and large anacondas able to eat
larger prey, such as tapirs, peccaries, deer, sheep, and caimans (Reed
and Rodda 2009).
The green anaconda is generally considered the heaviest snake in
the world (reported to 200 kg (441 lb)), with lengths over 7 m (23 ft)
(Reed and Rodda 2009), much larger than the largest snake native to the
continental United States. See Potential Impacts to Native Species
(Including Endangered and Threatened Species) for the reticulated
python for comparison to native predators and anticipated effects on
native wildlife from green anacondas. Moreover, the green anaconda is a
novel predator against which native species would not have evolved
defenses.
According to the climate suitability maps (Reed and Rodda 2009;
Final Environmental Assessment 2015), endangered and threatened species
from parts of Florida, Hawaii, and most of Puerto Rico would be at risk
from the establishment of green anacondas. Florida has 13 bird species,
15 mammals, and 2 reptiles that are federally endangered or threatened
that could be preyed upon by green anacondas or be outcompeted by them
for prey. Hawaii has 34 bird species and 1 mammal that are endangered
or threatened that would be at risk of predation. Puerto Rico has 9
bird species and 10 reptiles that are federally endangered or
threatened that would be at risk if green anacondas became established.
Because Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other U.S. territories are
tropical, the climate there also may be suitable. Guam has seven bird
species and two mammal species that are endangered or threatened that
would be at risk of predation. The Virgin Islands has one bird species
and three reptile species that are endangered or threatened that would
be at risk of predation.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The introduction or establishment of green anacondas would likely
have negative impacts on humans primarily from the loss of native
wildlife biodiversity, as discussed above in the discussion for the
reticulated python. 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. Agricultural
interests may be negatively affected by imported anacondas carrying
ticks that transfer harmful pathogens to livestock.
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Green Anaconda
Control
Prevention, eradication, management, or control of the spread of
green anacondas once established in the United States will be highly
unlikely. Please see the ``Control'' section for the reticulated python
for reasons why green anacondas will be difficult to control, all of
which apply to this large constrictor.
Potential Ecological Benefits for Introduction
While the introduction of green anacondas 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 green anacondas as a
food source. However, juvenile snakes could fall prey to native
wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, coyotes, and birds of prey. In
addition, a large green anaconda could prey on other nonnative species,
such as green iguanas, feral hogs, and black rats. The risks to native
wildlife greatly outweigh these unlikely benefits. 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 world's heaviest snake. Large adults are
heavier than almost all native, terrestrial predators in the United
States, even many bears, and longer than all native wildlife. 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, as well at Texas, Hawaii, and Puerto
Rico. 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 Burmese and
reticulated pythons. Evidence exists that female green anacondas may be
facultatively parthenogenetic 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 into 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 they escape captivity or are
released; are likely to prey on and compete with native species for
food and habitat (including endangered and threatened species); cannot
be easily eradicated, prevented from establishing, or reduced from
large populations or new locations; and are likely to disturb
ecosystems beyond the point of recoverability, the Service finds the
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
We do not know of any occurrences of the Beni anaconda in the
United States.
Potential Introduction and Spread
Beni anacondas are closely related to green anacondas. Because Beni
anacondas share similar traits with
[[Page 12718]]
other constrictor snakes, individuals are likely to escape because of
their large size, powerful musculature, and streamlined shape. Pet
anacondas are also likely to be released into the wild, in part because
of their growth to a large size (which pet owners may not able to deal
with) and because of the difficulty in finding suitable food. Because
Beni anacondas are difficult for a novice to distinguish from green
anacondas, Beni anacondas may appear in the pet trade in place of green
anacondas. Beni anacondas are highly likely to survive in the
appropriate 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 in
a narrow range of approximately 22.5 to 27.5 [deg]C (72 to 77 [deg]F),
and mean monthly precipitation about 5 to 30 cm (2 to 12 in). Whether
the species' native distribution is limited by factors other than
climate is unknown as well as whether the small native range is
attributable to ecological (for example, competition with green
anacondas), or anthropogenic (for example, habitat loss) factors. If
the native distribution is not limited by climate, then Reed and
Rodda's (2009) qualitative estimate of the climatically suitable areas
of the United States would represent an 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 the United States' tropical islands
(Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands,
Virgin Islands).
The Beni anaconda is highly likely to spread and become established
in the wild due to its rapid growth to a large size, early maturation
and high reproductive potential, a sit-and-wait style of predation,
ability to survive under a range of habitat types and conditions
(habitat generalist), behavior that allows it to escape freezing
temperatures, adaptability to living in urban and suburban areas,
ability to disperse long distances, and cryptic concealment.
Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including Endangered and
Threatened Species)
Beni anacondas will prey on native species, including endangered
and threatened species if they become established in the United States.
They are primarily aquatic and eat a wide variety of prey, including
fish, birds, mammals, and other reptiles. The size of the prey also
varies, depending on the age of the snake, with baby anacondas able to
eat small prey, and large anacondas able to eat very large prey.
Anacondas employ both ``ambush predation'' and ``wide-foraging''
strategies (Reed and Rodda 2009). Endangered and threatened wildlife
occupying the Beni anaconda's preferred habitats would be at risk.
The Beni anaconda is similar in size to the green anaconda, which
is generally considered the heaviest snake in the world (Reed and Rodda
2009), much larger than the largest snake native to the continental
United States. See Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including
Endangered and Threatened Species) for the reticulated python for
comparison to native predators and anticipated effects on native
wildlife from Beni anacondas. Moreover, the Beni anaconda is a novel
predator against which native species would not have evolved defenses.
Florida has 13 bird species, 15 mammals, and 2 reptiles that are
federally endangered or threatened that could be preyed upon by Beni
anacondas or be outcompeted by them for prey; many of those protected
species live in the warmest part of the State. Hawaii has 34 bird
species, and 1 mammal that are endangered or threatened that would be
at risk of predation. Puerto Rico has 9 bird species and 10 reptile
species that are federally endangered or threatened species that would
be at risk if Beni anacondas became established. Guam has seven bird
species and two mammal species that are endangered or threatened that
would be at risk of predation. The Virgin Islands has one bird species
and three reptile species that are endangered or threatened that would
be at risk of predation.
Potential Impacts to Humans
The introduction or establishment of Beni anacondas would likely
have negative impacts on humans primarily from the loss of native
wildlife biodiversity, as discussed above in the discussion for the
reticulated python. 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. Agricultural
interests may be negatively affected by imported anacondas carrying
ticks that transfer harmful pathogens to livestock.
Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousness for Beni Anaconda
Control
Prevention, eradication, management, or control of the spread of
Beni anacondas once established in the United States will be highly
unlikely. Please see the ``Control'' section for the reticulated 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 Beni anacondas 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 Beni anacondas as a
food source. However, juvenile snakes could fall prey to native
wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, coyotes, and birds of prey. In
addition, Beni anacondas could prey on other nonnative species such as
green iguanas, feral hogs, and black rats. The risks to native wildlife
greatly outweigh these unlikely benefits. 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 Beni anaconda 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 Burmese and reticulated pythons.
Because Beni anaconda specimens are likely to escape captivity or
be released into the wild if the species is imported into the United
States; are likely to survive, become established, and spread if they
escape captivity or are released; are likely to prey on and compete
with native species for food and habitat (including endangered and
threatened species); cannot be easily eradicated, prevented from
establishing, or reduced from large populations or new locations; and
are likely to disturb ecosystems beyond the point of recoverability,
the Service finds the Beni anaconda to be
[[Page 12719]]
injurious to humans and to wildlife and wildlife resources of the
United States.
Summary of Injurious Evaluations
Based on the Service's evaluation of the criteria for
injuriousness, substantive information we received during the public
comment periods and from the peer reviewers, along with other
information regarding the large constrictor snakes (in Florida, Puerto
Rico, and elsewhere), the Service concludes that the four constrictor
species should be added to the list of injurious reptiles under the
Lacey Act.
Comments Received on the Proposed Rule
During the two public comment periods for the proposed rule for the
nine species (75 FR 11808, March 12, 2010; and 75 FR 38069, July 1,
2010) and one comment period for the five species (79 FR 35719, June
24, 2014), we received more than 85,000 comments, including form
letters, petitions, and postcards. We received comments from Federal
agencies, State agencies, local governments, commercial and trade
organizations, conservation organizations, nongovernmental
organizations, and private citizens; all were in English with the
exception of a few in Dutch, French, German, and Italian. The comments
provided a range of views on the proposed listings as follows: (1)
Unequivocal support for the listings with no additional information
included; (2) unequivocal support for the listings with additional
information provided; (3) equivocal support for the listings with or
without additional information included; (4) unequivocal opposition to
the listings with no additional information included; and (5)
unequivocal opposition to the listings with additional information
included.
To accurately review and incorporate the publicly provided comments
in our final determination, we worked with researchers in the
Qualitative Data Analysis Program at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst and the University of Pittsburgh--developers of the Public
Comment Analysis Toolkit (PCAT) and the successor DiscoverText
analytical platform. The PCAT and DiscoverText enhanced our ability to
review large numbers of comments, including large numbers of similar
comments on our proposed listings, allowing us to identify similar
comments as well as individual ideas, data, recommendations, or
suggestions on the proposed listings. We are also responding to some
comments that are out of the purview of this rule in a concerted effort
to explain our rationale to the public.
Peer Review of the Proposed Rule
In accordance with peer review guidance of the Office of Management
and Budget ``Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,''
released December 16, 2004, and Service guidance, we solicited expert
opinion on information contained in the March 12, 2010, proposed rule
(for nine species) from five knowledgeable individuals selected from
specialists in the relevant taxonomic group and ecologists with
scientific expertise that includes familiarity with alien
herpetological introductions and invasions, predictive tools for risk
assessment, and invasion biology. In 2010, we posted our peer review
plan on the Service's Region 4 Web site (http://www.fws.gov/southeast/informationquality), explaining the peer review process and providing
the public with an opportunity to comment on the peer review plan. No
comments were received regarding the peer review plan. The Service
solicited independent scientific reviewers who submitted individual
comments in written form. We avoided using individuals who had already
expressed strong support for or opposition to the petition and
individuals who were likely to experience personal gain or loss
(financial, prestige, etc.) as a result of the Service's decision.
Department of the Interior employees were not used as peer reviewers.
We received responses from five peer reviewers. Two peer reviewers
found that, in general, the proposed rule represented a comprehensive
and up-to-date compilation of the best scientific information known
about the nine constrictor snake species and that conclusions drawn
from both published and unpublished sources were scientifically robust,
and justified the proposed rule. Two peer reviewers expressed concern
with the climate-matching methods and assumptions.
In addition, all peer reviewers stated that the background material
on the biology, invasive potential, and potential tools for control of
each snake species represented a solid compilation of available
information. They further stated that the information as presented
justified the conclusion that the snake species should be listed as
injurious. All five peer reviewers concluded that the data and analyses
we used in the proposed rule were appropriate and the conclusions we
drew were logical and reasonable. Several peer reviewers provided
additional insights to clarify points in the proposed rule, or
references to recently published studies that update material in the
rule.
Peer Review Comments
We reviewed all comments we received from peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule. We
consolidate the comments and responses into key issues in this section.
We refer to them as PR (Peer Reviewer) 1 through 5. We revised the
final rule to reflect peer reviewer comments, where appropriate, and
the most current scientific information, including the results of the
newer USGS climate match publication (Rodda et al. 2011), plus a number
of new peer-reviewed journal articles. We have taken our best effort to
identify the limitations and uncertainties of the climate-matching
models and their projections used in the March 12, 2010, proposed rule.
We have also taken our best effort to correct any grammatical or
biological errors and clarify certain ambiguous statements. Because
some of the comments referred only to those constrictor snake species
we listed on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3330), we omit those comments from
this final rule; we summarize and respond to them in the January 23,
2012, final rule to list the Burmese python and three other species.
Comment PR1: In regard to the USGS publication ``Giant
Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and an Establishment
Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, and the
Boa Constrictor,'' which includes management profiles discussing
colonization potentials with climate-matching maps, very few details or
data are presented that would allow an independent test of the model,
predictions, or assumptions. At a minimum, the threshold values that
were used in the climate space model should be explicitly stated for
each species. This would allow reviewers to evaluate the data and the
assumptions used in the construction of the model.
Response PR1: This general critique is incorrect; all of the
species-specific information used to assess risks is presented in the
document mentioned. That this procedure cannot be reduced to
mathematical certainty is the reason a risk assessment (rather than a
calculation) was conducted. This specific critique is also incorrect.
The requested threshold values are provided graphically for each of the
species in Reed and Rodda (2009). For example, the Python reticulatus
values are in Figure 5.3 (page 84) (heavy and dashed black lines), the
Eunectes murinus and Eunectes beniensis values are in Figure 9.3 (page
224) (heavy black lines), and so forth.
[[Page 12720]]
For readers who want to duplicate the climate match results, the
USGS has published a data series report with data used for modeling and
the equations corresponding to these lines (http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/579/) (Jarnevich et al. 2011), but the graphical representations in
Reed and Rodda (2009) provide the same information with the precision
that is appropriate for the use of these values. Use of these values
with greater precision would not be appropriate given the conceptual
and scientific uncertainties that attend state-of-the-art
implementation of climate matching.
Comment PR2: The data used for the risk assessment seems fair. This
reviewer, however, was not convinced that the assignment of low,
medium, and high establishment and consequence scores was sufficiently
objective or transparent. The process appears to involve high levels of
uncertainty (pp. 253, 259: Reed and Rodda 2009). Though there is not
really an alternative with the amount of data available, the approach
would be more acceptable if it was transparent (what constitutes each
level of certainty and how one decides on high, medium, or low for each
contributing factor).
Response PR2: The risk assessment process allows for analyzing,
identifying, and estimating the dimension, characteristics, and type of
risk. By applying analytical methods while acknowledging the
assumptions and uncertainties involved, the process allows the
assessors to utilize qualitative and quantitative data in a systematic
and consistent fashion. The assessment strives for theoretical accuracy
while remaining comprehensible and manageable, and the scientific and
other data compiled for each snake species in the bio-profiles is
organized and recorded in a formal and systematic manner. The
assessment provides a reasonable estimation of the overall risk. The
authors were careful to ensure that the process clearly explained the
uncertainties inherent in the process and to avoid design and
implementation of a process that reflected a predetermined result.
Quantitative and qualitative risk assessments should always be buffered
with careful professional judgment. If every statement was certain, we
would not need a risk assessment. The need to balance risks with
uncertainty can lead assessors to concentrate more on the uncertainty
than on known facts that may affect impact potential. Risks identified
for nonnative, invasive, large constrictor species (and other
nonnative, invasive species besides large constrictors) in other
regions often provide the justification in applying management measures
to reduce risks in regions where the species have not yet been
introduced. Thus, risk assessments should concentrate on evaluating
potential risk.
Uncertainty, as it relates to the individual risk assessment, can
be divided into three distinct types: (a) Uncertainty of the process
(method); (b) uncertainty of the assessor(s) (human error); and (c)
uncertainty about the organism (biological and environmental unknowns).
All three types of uncertainty will continue to exist regardless of
future developments. The inferential estimation of organism risk can be
rated using high, medium, or low. The biological and other information
assembled under each element will drive the process, forcing the
assessor to use the biological information as the basis for his or her
decision. Thus, the process remains transparent for peer review. The
high, medium, and low ratings of the individual elements contributing
to the probability of organism establishment (such as organism with
pathway, entry potential, colonization potential, and spread potential)
cannot be defined or measured: The assessor has to use professional
judgment because the values of the elements contained under
``Probability of Establishment'' are not independent of the rating of
the ``Consequences of Establishment.''
Specific traits or biological characteristics were assessed for
each snake species to arrive at each high, medium, or low rating. The
strength of the analysis is not in the element-rating but in the
detailed biological and other relevant information that supports the
rating. Reed and Rodda (2009) followed the ANSTF 1996 (see Lacey Act
Evaluation Criteria section, above, for explanation of this method)
guidelines for combining scores and noting that certainty levels for
each component of the process were followed by the risk assessors. The
logic that was applied to develop every step of the risk assessment
analysis can be found in Chapter Ten of Reed and Rodda (2009).
Comment PR3: [Refers to previously listed species; see 77 FR 3330,
January 23, 2012]
Comment PR4: [Refers to previously listed species; see 77 FR 3330,
January 23, 2012]
Comment PR5: The term ``zoological'' is ambiguous and could lead to
a potential loophole for those activities for which permitted
importation could be allowed; hence, any activity pertaining to these
snakes could be claimed to be ``zoological.''
Response PR5: This rulemaking addresses whether the identified
species of large constrictor snakes qualify as injurious and,
therefore, should be added to the list of injurious reptiles. The rule
does not address under what circumstances a person may qualify for
exception to the importation or interstate transportation prohibitions
under the zoological purposes provisions. Therefore, this comment is
outside of the scope of this rulemaking.
Public Comments
We reviewed all comments we received from the public, particularly
for substantive issues and new information regarding the March 12,
2010, proposed rule to list the nine large constrictor snakes.
Therefore, the public comments generally refer to the nine species in
the proposed rule, unless otherwise stated, and we respond for all nine
species, unless otherwise stated. Because some of the comments referred
only to those constrictor snake species we listed on January 23, 2012
(77 FR 3330), we omit those comments from this final rule; we summarize
and respond to them in the January 23, 2012, final rule to list the
Burmese python and three other species. We consolidated the following
comments and our responses into key issues that are not in any
particular order.
Health and Welfare of Human Beings
(1) Comment: Some people have been killed and more have been
injured in the United States by nonnative large constrictor snakes that
were kept as pets.
Our Response: The Humane Society of the United States submitted a
list of 577 reports that included accounts of human injuries and
fatalities from nonnative constrictor snakes, nonnative constrictor
snakes that escaped or were spotted in the wild, and nonnative
constrictor snakes kept in inhumane conditions that were reported in
the media that occurred in the United States between 1978 and mid-2014.
The accounts included reports of Burmese pythons, African (rock)
pythons, reticulated pythons, boa constrictors, green anacondas, and
yellow anacondas, and unidentified large constrictor snakes. The list
contains accounts from 46 States, including Alaska and Hawaii. The
reports included dozens of attacks on people, 14 of which resulted in
human fatalities. Burmese python attacks reportedly resulted in five
deaths. African (rock) pythons (not distinguished by species)
reportedly attacked one person fatally. Reticulated python attacks
reportedly resulted in the deaths of seven people. A 25-pound red-
tailed boa constrictor killed a 34-year-old man.
[[Page 12721]]
USARK's Web site posts this statement under their ``Best Management
Practices'' Web page (USARK 2014): ``We understand that there are
occupational hazards involved in the captive husbandry of the largest
examples of five large snake species, and venomous reptiles. It is the
position of USARK that only experienced and serious keepers should work
with these animals.''
We acknowledge reports of deaths and injury due to encounters with
nonnative large constrictor snakes, but the accounts identified by the
commenter involved snakes held in captivity. Human fatalities from
nonvenomous snakes in the wild are rare (Reed and Rodda 2009). An
indirect risk is that large snakes may stretch across roads to obtain
heat from the pavement on cool days, posing a hazard to motorists who
swerve to avoid hitting them (Snow et al. 2007; Harvey et al. 2008).
Please see ``Potential Impacts to Humans'' in the ``Factors That
Contribute to Injuriousness * * *'' section for each species, above,
for further information.
(2) Comment: The actual physical danger that large constrictors
pose to humans and public safety has been grossly overstated, and only
12 human fatalities have been attributed to these snakes since 1980, an
average of 0.4 deaths per year. Those fatalities are usually a direct
result of either improper care and handling of the animal, or feeding-
related errors on the part of the keeper or pet owner. Another
commenter stated 10 human fatalities occurred from 1990 to 2012, or
0.43 per year, by captive constrictors.
Our Response: We agree that, while 13 human deaths that we know of
have occurred since 1980, this number is small relative to other causes
of death. We agree that the preeminent issue is not one of public
safety, because we know of few large constrictor snake attacks in the
United States from free-ranging snakes. A study in Everglades National
Park (Reed and Snow 2014) summarized occurrences of apparently
unprovoked strikes to humans by large constrictors and the
circumstances surrounding each of the five reported incidents, which
occurred between 2006 and 2012. All strikes were from Burmese pythons
and directed toward biologists moving through flooded wetlands; two
strikes resulted in minor injury and three in no injury. No strikes are
known to have been directed at park visitors. The study concludes that,
while risks to humans should not be completely discounted, the relative
risk of a human being killed by a python in Everglades National Park
appears to be extremely low. We also note that, in their native ranges,
reports of large constrictor snake attacks on humans in the wild are
rare, although they have occurred (Reed and Rodda 2009). However, the
remoteness of the native ranges of any of the species may preclude
deaths from being reported. A study of a small tribe of hunter-gathers
(the Agta) in the Philippines summarized attacks by reticulated pythons
(Headland and Greene 2011). Of 19 rural men and women attacked, 11
died. While Reed and Rodda (2009) also state that virtually all known
human fatalities are associated with pet manipulation, Snow et al.
(2007) and Harvey et al. (2008) noted that large constrictors crossing
roads could cause traffic accidents. In general, we agree that the risk
to human safety is not in itself a substantial factor in listing any of
these species as injurious. See also our response to Comment 1.
(3) Comment: Boa constrictors should be removed from the rule.
These snakes have never killed their keepers, nor have they killed
anyone else. There has never been a documented human death by a boa
constrictor.
Our Response: For reasons discussed above in the section Withdrawal
of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species, we
are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as an
injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
Large Constrictor Snakes as Pets and Hobby
(4) Comment: Most people in the reptile hobby who choose to own
these larger species are very responsible and do well in keeping their
pets and investments healthy and safe, and this includes preventing
their escape. It does not stand to reason that the actions of this very
limited amount of negligent owners should affect millions of
responsible pet owners.
Our Response: While we do not dispute that most constrictor snake
owners try to be responsible, the volume of imports and domestically
bred snakes is large enough (averaging 29,520 annually (for 2011 to
2013) for the four species that are being listed in this final rule and
the boa constrictor; of that, 6,135 for the four species that are being
listed this final rule; Final Economic Analysis 2015, Table 8) that
accidents do happen, resulting in snakes escaping or snakes being
intentionally released. Shipping containers may be damaged--and live
snakes able to escape--anywhere between the port of import and the
destination of the pet owner's home. In that case, the problem could
arise before the pet owners acquire the animals.
Another consideration is the risk involved with transporting large,
powerful snakes. While keeping a snake in a sedentary home cage may not
in itself be a difficult task, the situation may change when a 20-ft
(6-m) snake weighing 200 pounds (91 kg) is transported in a car to a
veterinarian. Unless the snake is transported in an escape-proof cage
from the house to the automobile to the veterinarian, snakes may find
more opportunities for escape. Conversely, small snakes may escape more
easily than large ones because they are more likely to be transported
casually, such as carried for show. For example, a boa constrictor that
was transported around on its owner's neck on a Boston subway escaped
and survived for a month on the heated train in January 2011 before
being captured (Associated Press 2011).
We have based our determination on our evaluation of injuriousness
to wildlife and wildlife resources and the likelihood that any of the
four large constrictor snakes could escape, become established, and
cause harm.
(5) Comment: These snakes are not injurious wild animals. They are
domesticated pets.
Our Response: We recognize that many snakes are kept in captivity
with no negative incidences and that they seem tame. However, the fact
that various species of wildlife may be kept as pets does not remove
these species from the scope of U.S. wildlife laws. Under the injurious
wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42), all four of these
species are wild. Therefore, we have the authority to list all of the
four species of constrictor snakes once we determine that they are
injurious. We base our determination as injurious on their effect on
any one of the following: the interests of human beings, agriculture,
horticulture, forestry, wildlife, or wildlife resources of the United
States.
(6) Comment: I have kept more of these animals than anyone you will
ever meet, and I can assure you, they are not injurious in any way.
Our Response: We recognize that there are various meanings of
``injurious.'' However, under the Service's authority, the Lacey Act
(18 U.S.C. 42), and for the purpose of this rule, injurious wildlife
are wild mammals, wild birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, crustaceans,
mollusks, and their offspring or gametes that are injurious to the
interests of human beings, agriculture, horticulture, forestry,
wildlife, or wildlife resources of the United States. A wildlife
species
[[Page 12722]]
does not need to be injurious to all of the above interests to be
listed. If a species is injurious to wildlife or wildlife resources of
the United States (including its territories and insular possessions),
we have the authority to list that species.
(7) Comment: We agree that ownership of certain animals should be
restricted; however, we feel that banning the species Boa constrictor
fails to address current concerns, is unnecessarily restrictive, and
counterproductive. This species also represents the largest portion of
the nine species proposed for listing as injurious.
Our Response: For reasons discussed above in the section Withdrawal
of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species, we
are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as an
injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
(8) Comment: This rule will destroy the ability of animal
hobbyists, who are our future biologists and conservationists, to
explore and learn about these specific animals, thus limiting exposure
to the natural world at large.
Our Response: The commenters did not explain how the rule will
destroy the ability of animal hobbyists to learn about these animals.
Hobbyists will still be allowed to keep their snakes and offspring, and
to acquire additional ones within their State (and consistent with
their State's own laws). The long lives of these species improve the
chances that the hobbyists will have their pets for one or more
decades, generally much longer than amphibian and tropical fish
hobbyists. Hobbyists still have many other species of snakes and other
reptiles to choose from that are not listed as injurious. We hope that,
with this rule, future biologists and conservationists will learn about
the ecological role of these species in their native lands and in lands
where they become invasive.
(9) Comment: A number of commenters in active duty in the military
and who live off base stated that their snakes help them to cope with
stress from traumatic events. If they get transferred, they will not be
able to bring their pet snakes.
Our Response: The commenters are correct that, if they are
transferred, they could not transport their pet snakes, unless the
transfer is to a location in the same State.
Unprecedented Regulation
(10a) Comment: A ban placed by the government on a group of animals
that is so prevalent in the pet industry and kept by so many hobbyists
would be unprecedented.
(10b) Comment: Other widely held pets have been banned by the
Federal Government. For example, in 1975, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) banned the sale or distribution of turtles with
shells that measure less than 4 inches in length in response to
findings that pet turtles were responsible for a substantial number of
Salmonella infections nationwide. These were primarily the baby red-
eared sliders (Trachemys scripta) that were commonly sold in pet stores
in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s, and even given away for free.
Our Response: The Lacey Act does not preclude listing a species
that is prevalent in the pet industry, provided that the species meets
the criteria for injuriousness. In addition, this regulation is not a
ban on possessing or selling any of the species. Other animals in the
pet trade have been banned by the Federal Government. For example, with
the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.),
Congress banned imports of many exotic bird species that were common in
the pet trade to ensure that their native populations are not harmed by
international trade. Another example is the Food and Drug
Administration banning small turtles common in the pet trade (see
Comment 10b). States may also have their own restrictions, and these
restrictions may be more stringent than this Federal rule. For example,
individual States may ban possession of any of these snake species.
This final rule only establishes a prohibition against importation and
interstate transportation of listed species without a permit.
Furthermore, only one of the species that we are listing (reticulated
python) is regularly in the reptile trade, although infrequently; the
other three constrictor species are rarely or not traded. Lastly, the
establishment of the Burmese python (listed as injurious in a final
rule we published on January 23, 2012, at 77 FR 3330) in South Florida
is unprecedented anywhere in the United States for a large predator
from the pet trade and demonstrates what could happen if other large
constrictors have the opportunity to establish. Oftentimes, such new
situations call for more stringent solutions than previously adopted.
Other Animals More Injurious
(11) Comment: A better argument based on safety and health
statistics could be made to ban horses or dogs, as the average American
is more likely to be injured or killed by either of those animals than
any reptile. Certainly there are other species, such as feral cats,
dogs, rats, pigeons, starlings, and pigs, that each cause more damage
to the environment of South Florida.
Our Response: As the commenter correctly points out, many species
of feral domesticated animals are considered invasive and have caused
harm to humans and natural resources in south Florida and other parts
of the United States. However, under the Lacey Act, the Service has the
authority only to list ``wild'' birds and ``wild'' mammals as injurious
wildlife; under 18 U.S.C. 42(a)(2), the term ``wild'' is specific to
any animals that, whether or not raised in captivity, are normally
found in a wild state. Dogs, cats, and horses are considered
domesticated animals under our regulations at 50 CFR 14.4 and,
therefore, cannot be listed as injurious wildlife.
Based on the best available information, we have found that the
four species covered by this final rule are injurious to human beings,
to the interests of agriculture, or to the wildlife or wildlife
resources of the United States. This does not mean that we believe
these snakes to be the most injurious of all wild animals.
Effort To Ban Pets
(12) Comment: This snake ban opens the door to many other animals
being banned. If this rule is passed, then next it will be foreign
reptiles all together, followed closely by a different ban, followed by
an eventual ban on reptiles, period. Next it will be cats, dogs, fish,
and birds.
Our Response: This rule does not ban possession of any species. As
stated above in the SUMMARY and elsewhere in this rule, this rule
prohibits only the importation into the United States and interstate
transportation of reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green
anaconda, and Beni anaconda. Prohibiting importation and interstate
transportation is the only authority provided to the Secretary of the
Interior by Congress under the injurious wildlife provisions of the
Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42). Two of the four species of large constrictor
snakes in this final rule are already in captivity in the United States
and are available for acquisition within each State (unless otherwise
regulated by your State's laws). In addition, any species under
consideration for listing as injurious is evaluated on a case-by-case
basis, using all available information relevant to whether it is or is
not injurious. Therefore, this rule does not set up a trend to regulate
any particular species or groups of species. Second, the Lacey Act does
not provide the authority to list domesticated
[[Page 12723]]
mammals and birds as injurious; see our response to Comment 11 for more
information. However, any reptile can be considered for injurious
wildlife listing if it meets the listing criteria (see Lacey Act
Evaluation Criteria, above, for explanation).
Effect of Rule on Welfare of Large Constrictor Snakes
(13) Comment: This rule change basically represents a death
sentence for millions of reptiles in the United States. Many of these
snakes will be abandoned and set free where they will surely suffer and
die.
Our Response: We disagree that this rulemaking will result in the
death of millions of reptiles currently being held in captivity. We
have been clear that all owners of any of the snakes listed as
injurious will be allowed to keep them under this rule. For animals
already in the United States, this rule only restricts transport
between States. We emphasize that it will be lawful for pet owners to
keep their pets (if allowed by State law). Therefore, we have no reason
to believe that responsible, caring owners will kill or release them
into the wild. Breeders may still be able to export through a port in
their own State (see response to Comment 68 for exporting explanation).
For breeders who can no longer export, they may find buyers in their
own State. For information on how to find a home for a snake that a
person can no longer keep, we posted some suggestions on http://www.regulations.gov at the time the proposed rule was published on
March 12, 2010 (separate file ``Questions and Answers''). We explained:
``If you are in a position where you must give up your pet [large
constrictor snake], and zoos and humane societies have declined your
efforts to donate the animal, you should contact either your State fish
and wildlife agency or your local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
office. These two government agencies are the legal authorities that
co-manage fish and wildlife in this country, and they can help you to
resolve this issue. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with
States around the country and the pet and aquarium industry through a
campaign called Habitattitude\TM\ to help pet owners adopt
environmentally responsible actions for surrendering their pets, such
as:
Contacting the retailer for proper handling advice or for
possible return;
Giving or trading with another pet owner;
Donating to a zoo, humane society, nature center, school,
or pet retailer; and
Contacting a veterinarian or pet retailer for guidance on
humane disposal of animals.''
For those pet owners who move to another State, we also suggest
contacting a local herpetology club or a national reptile organization
with local members to find someone to adopt those constrictor snakes.
And finally, if you live in Florida, ``Anyone who possesses a
conditional snake or lizard but cannot keep it can surrender the animal
to a licensed recipient (adopter) at any time with no penalties'' (FWC
2014).
(14) Comment: What would happen to the businesses operated by
thousands of families in the industry with this rule? It is doubtful
that those animals would be humanely euthanized (due to finances and
ethical objections), so those animals would either be subjected to
inhumane practices or become liabilities to those persons who have
them. It would be a cruel irony that the animal rights agenda of
eliminating these animals from the pet trade would result in the
destruction of millions of animals that have proven to be nondangerous.
Our Response: Family businesses will still be able to operate,
provided they either sell within their State or have a port of export
directly from their State (see response to Comment 68 for exporting
explanation). Businesses may switch to other species of snakes that are
not listed. Please see our response to Comment 13 on alternatives for
disposing of animals that you can no longer keep. Owners are encouraged
to find legal alternatives, such as trading species with someone in
their own State who has a species that is not listed and who is able to
keep a listed species in that State. We emphasize that it will be
lawful for pet owners to keep their pets (if allowed by State law) but
unlawful to transport them across State lines. With the removal of the
boa constrictor from consideration for listing, the effect to
businesses is greatly reduced.
Regarding the statement that these snakes are nondangerous, we
emphasize that we distinguish between ``nondangerous,'' which we assume
the commenter means ``does not harm people,'' and ``injurious,'' which
has a different meaning under the Lacey Act. We agree that these four
species of snakes pose only a small risk of harm to people; however, we
are listing them for their injuriousness.
(15) Comment: Thousands of snakes' lives will be spared because the
majority of reptiles die during capture from the wild or subsequent
transport or within the first year of captivity. Banning the
importation of these species will ensure that many snakes will not fall
victim to the harsh conditions of being shipped overseas. Snakes are
often marketed as low-maintenance pets, and the families who take them
home can become overwhelmed at the level of care required.
Our Response: From the Service's Law Enforcement Management
Information System (LEMIS) data, we estimate that approximately 26,591
snakes of the four species we are listing in this rule were imported
from 2004 to 2013. Some were probably captured from the wild. Imported
snakes are then usually sent to animal dealers before being shipped to
pet retailers. Finally, the snakes are typically acquired at a pet
retailer and transported to a home or other location. Large constrictor
snakes may become ill, injured, or die during transport. Since this
listing will place prohibitions on importation and interstate movement
of the four species, it is reasonable to assume that fewer animals will
therefore die from importation and interstate transport. Although
animal welfare is regulated by the Federal Government for some taxa
(that is, primarily warm-blooded species) under such laws as the Animal
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), this was not a factor considered
in our injurious wildlife evaluation and did not influence our final
determination.
Benefits of Having Large Constrictor Snakes in the United States
(16) Comment: While Burmese pythons do consume native species such
as wading birds, waterfowl, muskrats, rabbits, opossum, raccoons, and
even bobcats and white-tailed deer, they are probably just as likely to
prey upon the more common exotic species, such as feral cats and dogs,
nonnative rats and mice, starlings, pigeons, collared doves, spiny-
tailed iguanas, green iguanas, cattle egrets, and muscovy ducks.
Our Response: We agree that large constrictor snakes can
potentially prey on other nonnative species, and that this could be
beneficial to native wildlife. Snow et al. (2007) reported that
domestic cats, Old World rats, domestic chickens, and domestic geese
have been found in Burmese python digestive systems in Florida.
However, of greater conservation and management concern are the effects
that invasive species pose to native populations of wildlife and
wildlife resources--in particular, those that are endangered or
threatened or otherwise at risk of extinction (Clavero and Garcia-
Berthou 2005). Reed and Rodda (2009) listed a total of 64 State-listed
endangered or threatened species at risk from pythons or other large
constrictors in Florida alone. This
[[Page 12724]]
includes the highly endangered Key Largo wood rat, which has been found
in the stomachs of Burmese pythons, and whose population may number
only in the hundreds. As demonstrated in our injurious wildlife
evaluation, we believe that the risks posed by large constrictor snakes
to native wildlife and wildlife resources far outweigh the possible
benefits they may have as predators of nonnative wildlife in the United
States. We do not have information on what the other feral constrictor
snakes have eaten, but we assume there would be similar effects from
these four species due to the traits they share with the Burmese
python. The negative effect of predation on rare native species is
greater than the effect on exotic species because any decrease in
populations of rare species makes it less likely for those populations
to rebound.
(17) Comment: Some commenters own boa constrictors from regions of
Brazil that no longer have boa constrictors due to deforestation. Many
of the reptiles present in captive collections are representative of
vanishing bloodlines of wild populations of these species. They are
conserving wild species.
Our Response: Listing the four species in this final rule as
injurious will not impact legitimate conservation efforts that U.S.
breeders can carry out for species that may be negatively impacted by
natural and manmade events within their native range. In general, the
Service supports ex-situ conservation efforts, such as captive
breeding, when done in a scientific manner for the conservation of a
species within its native range. The Act also still allows export of
listed species that could be used in reintroduction activities or other
in-situ conservation efforts. The Act allows for the issuance of
permits authorizing interstate movement or imports for scientific or
zoological purposes, including conservation breeding operations. For
reasons discussed above in the section Withdrawal of the Boa
Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species, we are
withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as an injurious
reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
(18) Comment: Many keepers I know are concerned about the worldwide
decline of species, and a distributed network of determined keepers may
prove the only hope for the survival of several of the species
addressed. For example, the natural population of the Burmese python
has been on a steady decline due to habitat loss.
Our Response: The Service strongly supports ex-situ conservation
programs that are scientifically designed to provide conservation
benefits to species in their native range. The listing of these species
as injurious will not prevent conservation breeding programs run by
dedicated herpetologists and hobbyists from providing a conservation
benefit to any of these species (see our response to Comment 17).
State Issue (Not Federal Government)
(19) Comment: The constrictor snakes should be listed by individual
States, not by the Federal Government.
Our Response: Many commenters suggested that we should not list any
of these species and we should allow the States to regulate these
species as they see fit. The Service is responsible for implementing
and enforcing laws such as the Lacey Act, under which authority we are
listing these species. We believe implementation of the injurious
wildlife provisions reflects the shared State-Federal governance of
invasive species challenges facing the United States as originally
intended by Congress. Since these snakes have been found to be
injurious to human beings and to wildlife and wildlife resources, we
believe federally regulating movements of these four species of
constrictors into the United States and between States and territories
is an important step in limiting their effects. The States and other
jurisdictions within the United States retain the ability to regulate
these species as they determine appropriate within their boundaries.
For reasons discussed above in the section Withdrawal of the Boa
Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species, we are giving
the States and other areas under U.S. jurisdiction the opportunity to
demonstrate the efficacy of State-based measures to address the
potential invasive nature of boa constrictors, including, if
appropriate, promulgating their own regulations regarding the boa
constrictor.
(20) Comment: Mere presence of a species does not equate the threat
of harm, especially when individuals are sighted in environments in
which they cannot establish. If this is solid justification for listing
a species as injurious, the Service will need to list every organism
that has ever--and is ever--spotted outside of captivity in the United
States.
Our Response: The Service undergoes a rigorous evaluation before
determining that any species is injurious. Mere presence does not
qualify a species as injurious. The Service evaluates each species
based on numerous criteria (see Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria, above).
We also consider the potential to survive, become established, and
spread; likelihood of release or escape; impact to endangered and
threatened species and their habitats; and so on. We have determined
that the four species of large constrictor snakes that are the subjects
of this rule are injurious and should be listed.
Rule Will Not Be Effective
(21) Comment: This regulation change will not make the established
population of Burmese pythons in Florida disappear.
Our Response: [Refers to previously listed species; see 77 FR 3330,
January 23, 2012]
(22) Comment: Such a rule change disallowing the interstate trade
of these species is counterintuitive and a non sequitur to ban trade
between every other State in the Union.
Our Response: From our evaluation of each species (under the
section ``Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness * * *'' for each
species), we find that prohibiting the interstate trade of these
species, along with prohibiting importation of them, will reduce the
risk of these species becoming more widespread to new areas of the
United States, including the territories and insular possessions.
Please also see Need for the Final Rule, above.
(23) Comment: The Lacey Act has never stopped the introduction or
eradicated the feral populations of any invasive species, which makes
it wholly ineffective in this case.
Our Response: The commenter is correct that no eradication of
established feral populations has been accomplished merely by the
listing of a species as injurious, but we did not expect that result.
Merely preventing introductions of new individuals will not result in
the eradication of existing populations. The most likely way for the
injurious listing provisions to be successful is if they are applied
before a species is present in the United States or in vulnerable parts
of the United States. The Beni and DeSchauensee's anacondas that we are
listing as injurious in this final rule may be prevented from becoming
established in Florida, as well as other vulnerable areas of the
country. Furthermore, the purpose of listing the reticulated python and
green anaconda in all areas of the country is to prevent any areas of
the country that do not currently have those species (see Potential
Introduction and Spread sections for each species, above) from becoming
invaded. Fowler et al. (2007) discuss the effectiveness of the Lacey
Act listings by looking at all of the species that are currently listed
as injurious. They state that, ``None (0%) of the 7 species that were
absent from
[[Page 12725]]
the country at the time of listing have subsequently established
populations, and two of the taxa that were present only in captivity
(raccoon dog and brushtail possum) did not establish wild populations.
[T]wo taxa that were established outside captivity at the time of the
listing (European rabbit and Java sparrow) have not spread between
[S]tates since listing.'' In general, if the rule can prevent
introductions to vulnerable parts of the country, it will be effective.
Educational and Zoological Use Curtailed
(24) Comment: The rule will impact educational outreach at zoos.
Educators travel to neighboring States. Burmese pythons are a flagship
species for these outreach education activities. The Act as currently
written requires strict and uninterrupted double containment for
injurious species. The inclusion of these four taxa of snakes on the
list of injurious wildlife will make the use of any of these species in
interstate education programs virtually impossible.
Our Response: Zoos around the country commonly use live animals for
education at the zoo and offsite. The listing of species as injurious
will not prevent the continued use of these species, such as
reticulated pythons, for education, although some restrictions or
permitting may be required. Provided the animal has never been
permitted under the Act (either the species was not listed under the
Act and, therefore, authorization was previously not required for the
animal to move in interstate transport, or the species was listed under
the Act after the animal arrived in the State and never left), there
would be no restrictions for using the animal for educational programs
within the State where the zoo is located. The restrictions under the
Act, such as double escape-proof containment, only apply once an animal
has been ``permitted.'' If the zoo never takes the animal out of the
State, no permits or authorization is required. However, if zoo
personnel want to travel across State lines with one of the listed
species, the Act would come into effect. The Act requires that the zoo
obtain a permit to carry out any interstate movement of a listed
species and the specimens being moved would need to be in double-
escape-proof containment. Permit applications to carry out interstate
movement of listed species for educational purposes can be submitted to
the Service. This is a similar procedure used by zoological and
educational institutions to obtain permits for endangered and
threatened species, so the institutions may already be familiar with
the process. As of this final rule, the Service has already issued such
permits for the four previously listed constrictor snakes (77 FR 3330,
January 23, 2012).
The commenter is correct that the double-escape-proof containment
is a requirement for listed specimens that have been permitted.
Moreover, as stated above, this requirement applies not only when the
snake is being transported outside the zoo, but applies within the zoo
as well. However, we have found that most zoos already contain their
reptiles in double-escape-proof containment (such as a display case
within a building). As such, they are already meeting this requirement
or could meet it with a minimal extra cost over the standard housing
requirements for the species. However, the containment of any injurious
species is consistent with the preventative measures of the injurious
wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act.
(25) Comment: The cost of specimen replacement to zoos will
increase dramatically.
Our Response: The Service has no reason to believe that the cost of
replacement would significantly increase beyond the cost of applying
for any required permits or authorization, nor did the commenter
provide any evidence of costs increasing. One of the species we are
listing (reticulated python) is currently available from breeders in
many States and can be obtained within a State without a permit once
the listing goes into effect. Two others (DeSchauensee's and Beni
anacondas) have not been imported into the United States, and one
(green anaconda) is not readily available due to limited captive
breeding. If importation is required to acquire new animals, zoos would
need to apply for an importation permit. The cost of a permit is $100
for importation or to acquire the species for the first time from
outside the State where the zoo is located, which covers the whole
shipment, even for multiple species and individuals. The cost is $25
for a permit to transport or move animals from one exhibit to another
within a permitted institution or between institutions that are already
permitted to maintain the same injurious species. The commenter did not
explain how often zoos replace specimens, so we do not know how much
the cost will increase. Since most of these species have lifespans in
captivity of 20 to 30 years (see Biology section for each species), we
expect this need will not be frequent. As for the cost of the snakes,
the commenter provided no information that this cost will increase, nor
do we know whether the price of these species on the market will
increase, decrease, or remain unchanged. Furthermore, zoos may become a
primary beneficiary of constrictor snakes from owners who decide to
give up their pets because they are moving out-of-State or for another
reason.
(26) Comment: The rule will impact our non-outreach collection; the
permit preparation time, administrative costs, permit fees, and time
delays will be a major hindrance to continuing the management of these
species as part of the broader zoo network within the Association of
Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). Replacing specimens in a timely fashion will
be extremely difficult for our zoo and others. Ultimately, these
species may have to be eliminated from our collections.
Our Response: As stated earlier, the rule does not affect
intrastate movement of these species nor does it restrict ownership or
even captive breeding. It is anticipated that most zoos that already
have these species have the capacity either to breed animals already
held at the zoo or obtain additional specimens within their State. Zoos
may become a primary beneficiary of constrictor snakes from owners who
decide to give up their pets because they are moving out-of-State or
for other reasons. If this is not sufficient, the Act does have
provisions for obtaining specimens from other States or even from
foreign sources. The Service recognizes that the permitting process
imposes some increased administrative costs and is committed to
exercising available flexibilities under its Lacey Act permitting
authority to minimize permit application preparation and processing
times and to reduce administrative costs. As the AZA pointed out in
their comment (``We commend FWS for working with AZA staff * * *''), we
are issuing permits that authorize multiple interstate movements for
educational purposes over extended periods. The Service is committed to
finding ways to minimize the time it takes for facilities to obtain
authorization for interstate transport or importation so that zoos can
continue their active management of these species. We do not believe
that this listing or the January 23, 2012, listing will result in any
zoo having to eliminate these species from their collections.
(27) Comment: With my collection, I do school and library visits to
give kids who generally do not get the chance to see these animals up
close the experience to see them. In my mind this is one step needed in
educating people
[[Page 12726]]
on wildlife conservation as well as responsible pet keeping. I take
large snakes and lizards from all over the world to kids who would
normally never be able to see them. If you ban these reptiles, my life
dream will be ruined, and I will not be able to continue my life
mission to show people these amazing creatures up close.
Our Response: We recognize that many people present large and small
live animal programs in communities all over the country. We agree that
such programs are important to teach conservation and the value of
wildlife. However, this new rule will not prevent these programs from
occurring. Providing no State lines are crossed, you can continue your
educational programs without the need for a permit from the Service.
Furthermore, educators may apply to the Service for a permit to
transport these species across State lines for educational purposes,
and we have already issued such permits for the four previously listed
constrictor snakes (see 77 FR 3330, January 23, 2012). Lastly,
educators can also teach conservation principles by using snake skins,
photos, and other tools to teach people about the problems of releasing
nonnative species in the United States. We believe conservation can be
taught without the exact live specimens of every animal being
discussed.
(28) Comment: This rule will eliminate a reptile culture for
sharing by future generations.
Our Response: The commenter did not explain how the reptile culture
would be eliminated. This rule will not result in the elimination of
reptile ownership or interest in reptiles. The listing does not
prohibit ownership of these species or any other reptile species. While
the listing will probably result in fewer specimens of these species
being available commercially because the listing may reduce the
economic incentive for some current breeders from continuing to breed
the species, we do not believe that all captive breeding would stop. An
unfortunate aspect of the need to protect our native wildlife and
ecosystems by listing these species as injurious is that some people or
organizations that currently possess these species will be affected.
(29) Comment: If the additional species under consideration are
listed, there will be no alternative giant snakes, and all institutions
wishing to exhibit or breed large constrictors will have to undertake
the regulatory burden that comes with the listing.
Our Response: The commenter is correct that, with the listing of
these four species, the number of alternative ``giant'' snakes that
could be imported or moved across State lines would be reduced.
However, there are more than 25 other species of constrictor snakes in
the pet trade that are not regulated as injurious wildlife and would
not require a Federal permit. For example, the amethystine python
(Morelia amethistina) and scrub python (Morelia kinghorni) are giant
constrictors and are not listed as injurious. While some of the species
in trade may not be considered giant, they are nevertheless very large.
Furthermore, zoological institutions that wish to display the listed
species may continue to display ones currently in their possession or
obtained within the State without obtaining a permit or they could
request a permit to obtain snakes from outside their State. To date,
the Service has not denied any applications submitted by a zoological
institution that meets the issuance criteria under the Act.
Violations and Penalties
(30) Comment: If enacted, this rulemaking would have the
unprecedented effect of putting as many as a million American citizens
in possession of injurious wildlife and subject to potential felony
prosecution under the Lacey Act. It could effectively create a new
class of criminal out of law-abiding American citizens. This regulation
would turn hobbyists' current activities into a Federal crime.
Our Response: These listings under the Lacey Act will have no
effect on the majority of owners of these four species (two of which
are likely not in U.S. trade or ownership). Pet owners who keep their
snakes within their own State will not be affected. Examples of owners
who will be affected are: (a) People who wish to take their pets to a
veterinarian in another State; (b) people who wish to transport their
pets across a State line for another reason, such as if the owners are
moving; and (c) people who keep large constrictor snakes as a business
and sell to other States. However, many States have laws against
possessing wild animals, and these snakes may not be allowed into those
States by State law anyway. Examples are Hawaii (all snakes), Florida
(for reticulated python, green anaconda, and other species), Iowa
(reticulated and other pythons and all Eunectes spp.), Louisiana
(reticulated and other pythons and all Eunectes spp.), New York
(reticulated and other pythons and green anaconda), and Texas
(reticulated and other pythons and green anaconda) (see our Final
Environmental Assessment 2015). State laws may be more stringent than
Federal laws and should not be confused with Federal laws. Our response
to (a) above is that pet owners are free to locate a veterinarian in
their own State, and veterinarians may make house calls in another
State if licensed in that State. The pet industry and veterinary
organizations could work together to help the owners of the listed
species to locate willing veterinarians within a reasonable driving
distance. Our response to (b) above is that people who are moving
should seek alternatives such as those suggested in our response to
Comment 13.
The subject of violations under the Lacey Act has frequently been
misunderstood and caused undue consternation among animal owners. We
will explain here how the Lacey Act will address the new injurious
listings. A person would violate the injurious wildlife provisions of
the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42, also known as title 18) if he or she did
one of the following with any one of the constrictor species listed as
injurious: (a) Transported between the States, the District of
Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or
possession of the United States by any means whatsoever; or (b)
imported into the United States from another country. In either case,
notwithstanding there may be other laws being broken by the action that
we are not considering here, these violations are considered
misdemeanors and carry penalties of up to 6 months in prison and a
$5,000 fine for an individual or a $10,000 fine for an organization
under 18 U.S.C. 42. If, however, another law was also broken, the
violation could become a felony under 16 U.S.C. 3372 (also known as
title 16, which is the wildlife trafficking provisions of the Lacey
Act), which carries higher penalties. For example, if the owner of a
reticulated python in Florida did not have a permit as required by
Florida State law, and that person transported the snake to another
State, then the fact that the State law was broken and the snake was
transported across State lines makes that action a title 16 violation.
Therefore, while the listing of the species as injurious may put ``as
many as a million American citizens'' in possession of injurious
wildlife, no one will be in violation of the Lacey Act automatically,
because possession is not prohibited. Furthermore, unless these people
break laws under title 16, they would not be subject to potential
felony prosecution under the Lacey Act. Hobbyists' current activities
would not become crimes provided their snakes stayed in-State or were
exported directly out of the
[[Page 12727]]
country from a designated port within their State's borders.
(31) Comment: The illegal snake industry thrives in Hawaii. The
proposed ban will not stop the pet industry in utilizing smuggling as a
means of selling illegal species. However, Lacey Act violations are
serious and can result in steep penalties for offenders. Eliminating
the legal source of snake imports and increasing the risks to black
marketers will certainly lower the odds that a male and female of any
particular species would escape together to initiate a naturalized
invasive population.
Our Response: We agree that the injurious wildlife provisions of
the Lacey Act serve an important role in invasive species management,
and we hope that the rule reduces the risk of smuggling and the
opportunity for these four invasive snake species to establish in the
wild.
Unintended Consequences
(32) Comment: Pet owners will release their snakes and the problem
will be worse. The Lacey Act will do nothing to help the problem; if
anything, it would have an adverse effect on the environment. Snake
breeders who had been fully responsible beforehand may release their
now worthless investments into the wild in retaliation of the rule
change. Caring snake owners that cannot move across State lines with
their beloved pets may instead release them as a means of avoiding
forced euthanasia. The trust of responsible snake owners would be
debilitated, and a large portion of snake owners deliberately becoming
irresponsible poses a much larger risk than a few isolated
irresponsible owners.
Our Response: Many commenters stated that responsible owners would
release or euthanize their snakes if this rule is finalized. We do not
believe that this would be the case since pet owners will still be
allowed to keep their snakes and sell or give them away within their
State. Many States, including Florida (FWC 2014), have laws making it
illegal to release nonnative animals into the wild. We posted some
suggestions on http://www.regulations.gov at the time the proposed rule
was published on March 12, 2010 (see separate file ``Questions and
Answers''), for how to find a home for a snake that a person can no
longer keep; see our response to Comment 13, where they are repeated.
With social networking so available on the Internet, a person
moving to another State could possibly find a reptile enthusiast in
their current State to adopt the pet. When the person moved to the new
State, the person could contact reptile enthusiasts in the new State to
see if any snakes were available for adopting. While that is not the
same as keeping the same snake, it does present a responsible
alternative.
We believe that most people will choose to keep their snakes and
also, of those owners who cannot because they are moving to another
State or similar situation, they have options as presented above in
this response and our response to Comment 13. While some misinformed
pet owners or breeders might release their snakes, we do not believe
that this activity will be widespread. The Service believes that the
potential illegal conduct of a few irresponsible pet owners should not
cause us to refrain from listing species that we have determined to be
injurious.
(33) Comment: This rule will create a lucrative black market in the
trade of these nine species that will cost billions in tax dollars to
enforce. Ultimately, the animals will suffer. There will always be
unscrupulous dealers who will take advantage of prohibition.
Our Response: The commenter provides no supporting evidence that a
black market will be created for any of the nine species in the March
12, 2010, proposed rule. Therefore, we assume that the commenter is
basing the statement on historical events with other species. We do not
know if a black market will be created, although we acknowledge that
some unscrupulous dealers may take advantage of people. However, we
believe that the pet owners prefer to be law-abiding citizens and would
find legal ways of dealing with new situations.
(34) Comment: This rule will cause airlines to embargo snakes. They
will refuse to transport them.
Our Response: We hope that this rule does not influence airlines to
implement an unnecessary embargo on transporting snakes within the
injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act (that is, intrastate or
with a permit). It is our understanding that, unrelated to this rule or
any injurious wildlife listing, some carriers have declined to
transport live animals or specific dangerous animals. Shippers with the
appropriate Federal permits, specifying how the animals should be
transported in escape-proof containers, should be able to find a
carrier.
Environmental Threat
(35) Comment: The peer[hyphen]reviewed research (``Giant
Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and an Establishment
Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, and the
Boa Constrictor'') quantified the ecological risk that nine species of
large constrictor snakes pose to the United States, looking at both the
probability that the snakes would become established and the resulting
consequences. Burmese pythons will eat a wide variety of reptiles,
birds, and mammals of all sizes, and can deplete vulnerable species.
Our Response: We agree that there is an environmental threat to
native species in the United States, similar to that posed by the
Burmese python, from the four species we are listing in this rule. We
have explained this threat in our Environmental Assessment and in the
sections ``Potential Impacts to Native Species (Including Endangered
and Threatened Species'') for each species above. We concur that this
threat is part of the justification for listing the four species as
injurious.
(36) Comment: The Burmese python invasion is an ecological calamity
in progress. It is directly undermining the multibillion-dollar,
nationally supported Everglades restoration project because the
monitoring and success of that project are tied to measures of native
wildlife ``indicator'' populations, which are now being consumed and
reduced by these human-introduced predators. Had the Service considered
the risk of the Burmese python under its Lacey Act listing authority 20
years ago, the agency might have prevented this invasion.
Our Response: The South Florida Water Management District
petitioned us to list the Burmese python in 2006, because the species
was undermining their Everglades restoration effort, and we finalized
the listing of that species as injurious on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3330). The four species we are listing in this rule share many of the
traits of the Burmese python that create the risk of injuriousness. We
agree that, if we had listed the species 20 years ago, the current
problem might have been averted. This evidence gives further support
for our listing of the four species of large constrictor snakes in this
final rule before this situation happens with these species.
(37) Comment: One recent paper linked declines up to 99 percent of
small- and medium-sized mammals in Everglades National Park with the
increased occurrence of Burmese pythons.
Our Response: The study referred to correlated a decline of
raccoons (99.3 percent), opossums (98.9 percent), rabbits (possibly 100
percent), foxes (possibly 100 percent), and bobcats (87.5 percent) with
the timing and geographic spread of the presence of Burmese pythons
(Dorcas et al. 2012). Although the study is based on Burmese
[[Page 12728]]
pythons in Everglades National Park, we believe that the constrictor
species in this final rule could have a similar devastating effect on
small- and medium-sized mammals wherever the snakes are found because
all species in this final rule prey on similar animal types.
(38) Comment: Another paper describes the establishment of boa
constrictors in Puerto Rico that could severely impact native species,
especially endangered and threatened species.
Our Response: The commenter refers to Reynolds et al. (2012), which
documents an established population of boa constrictors in Puerto Rico.
We recognize that there is an established population of boas in Puerto
Rico. For reasons discussed above in the section Withdrawal of the Boa
Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species, we are
withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as an injurious
reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
(39) Comment: A study published in 2012 in Wildlife Research found
that the danger of establishment of reptiles after introduction is
actually much higher than previously thought--above 40 percent. Reptile
establishment success was 43 percent in North America, with an
astounding 72 percent for islands. The report concluded, ``[t]his
suggests that we should focus management on reducing the number of
herptile species introduced because both reptiles and amphibians have a
high likelihood of establishing.'' Compounding the dire results of this
study is the fact that once established, not a single invasive reptile
species has ever been eradicated through management efforts.'' Thus, it
is imperative that the Service take aggressive action to curtail the
importation and interstate trade in injurious species.
Our Response: Conventional perception has been that, of all the
animals introduced into an area, only a small percent (around 10
percent) survive, and of those survivors, only a small percent (around
10 percent) reproduce and establish populations. The study referred to
by the commenter (Ferreira et al. 2012) found that this small
percentage of establishment underestimated reptiles. As the comment
states, reptile establishment was 43 percent on the North American
continent and 72 percent on islands. These results underscore how
important it is to keep reptiles from being introduced into new areas.
(40) Comment: ``Boa constrictors are an injurious species and must
be listed under the Lacey Act. Of the nine snake species originally
proposed to be banned, the boa constrictor * * * has * * * established
more introduced populations than any other boa or python species,
clearly posing a threat to public safety and ``the interests of
agriculture, horticulture, forestry, [and] wildlife'' * * *. Boa
constrictors are already established in Florida and Puerto Rico,
continue to threaten other areas such as Hawaii, where loose boa
constrictors are being found with greater frequency; and are
established and have negatively affected the native species in Cozumel
and Aruba, providing a frightening predictor of the damaging impact
they will have on U.S. States and Territories if they remain in the pet
trade and import of such species is not prohibited.
Our Response: For reasons discussed above in the section Withdrawal
of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species, we
are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as an
injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
(41) Comment: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC) is committed to preventing the introduction of high-risk
nonnative species, while assessing and managing the risks of species in
trade, including large constrictors. Appropriate regulatory measures,
along with outreach and education, are a key part of preventing the
establishment of invasive exotic wildlife. FWC supports the efforts of
the Service to reduce the potential of large constrictor snakes
becoming established invasive species. FWC looks forward to partnering
with the Service to prevent future invasions of high-risk nonnative
species.
Our Response: The Service appreciates the support by FWC. FWC
sponsors Pet Amnesty Days, and FWS assists with those, so potential for
release of snakes should be minimal. Because the listing as injurious
does not prohibit ownership and because pet owners have alternatives to
releasing their snakes, we believe there will be few cases where people
would feel the need to release their snakes and that these few cases do
not justify not listing them. We applaud FWC for being committed to
preventing introduction of high-risk nonnative species.
Comments From Organizations, Political Leaders, and Academia From
Hawaii
(42) Comment: Several endemic species that evolved on the islands
are declining, already extinct, or at a high risk of extinction due to
other introduced invasive species. On Guam, six endemic bird species
were either extirpated or went extinct due to the brown tree snake
(Boiga irregularis) invasion (Smithsonian National Zoological Park). On
Kauai, all the remaining endemic forest birds that have not gone
extinct are endangered. They would not likely survive treetop predators
such as boas.
Our Response: We understand Hawaii's and the other islands'
sensitive position. In this rule, we are adding reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list
of injurious wildlife. For reasons discussed above in the section
Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious
Species, we are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as
an injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
(43) Comment: The pet industry disregards the real danger posed by
importing exotic animals around the globe, but the proof of the trade's
risk is all around us. On Kauai, this includes a growing population of
rose-billed parakeets threatening agriculture and spreading invasive
seeds long distances throughout the forest. These were released pets.
On the Big Island, escaped Jackson Chameleons established breeding
populations and are consuming native insects and snails.
Our Response: We understand Hawaii's and the other islands'
ecologically sensitive positions. In this rule, we are adding
reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni
anaconda to the list of injurious wildlife. For reasons discussed above
in the section Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as
an Injurious Species, we are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa
constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
(44) Comment: In a letter to Secretary Jewell in March 2014, the
Governor of Hawaii explained the importance of biosecurity to Hawaii
and that this importance is recognized by The Republic of Palau,
Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic of the Marshall Islands.
The letter lists four resolutions that the State adopted to coordinate
the State's position on Federal invasive issues. One resolution (13-3)
supports amendments to adding reticulated python, DeSchauensee's
anaconda, green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa constrictor to the
list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act.
Our Response: We understand Hawaii's and the other islands'
ecologically sensitive positions. In this rule, we are adding
reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni
anaconda to the list
[[Page 12729]]
of injurious wildlife. For reasons discussed above in the section
Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious
Species, we are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as
an injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
(45) Comment: One of the greatest tourist attractions of Hawaii is
that it is a snake-free tropical ecosystem. If the perception that
Hawaii is a safe place to hike in the jungle is lost, it will cost the
State significant economic activity. In 2013, tourism represented 21
percent of the GPD (gross domestic product) and was the largest single
contributor to the State's economy.
Our Response: We understand Hawaii's and the other islands'
ecologically sensitive positions. In this rule, we are adding
reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni
anaconda to the list of injurious wildlife. For reasons discussed above
in the section Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as
an Injurious Species, we are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa
constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
(46) Comment: A group coordinating Hawaii's alien pest control
efforts supports adding reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda,
green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa constrictor to the list of
injurious wildlife. The comment notes how many snakes are still being
reported on the islands despite a State prohibition on possession of
snakes. The comment explains that any snake can threaten unique island
species. The comment adds, ``Some may view Hawaii as relatively
unimportant to the continental [United States], but invasion by snakes
is a serious threat to military operations, the visitor industry, and
the trans-Pacific trade routes.''
Our Response: In this rule, we are adding reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list
of injurious wildlife. For reasons discussed above in the section
Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious
Species, we are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as
an injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
(47) Comment: The commenter supports adding reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa
constrictor to the list of injurious wildlife. The comment refers to
the brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) and the economic potential
toll it could take ($593 million to $2.14 billion annually) if the
brown tree snake got into the Hawaiian Islands. The comment compares
boas to brown tree snakes, because both are arboreal, produce the same
number of offspring, and feed on the same prey.
Our Response: In this rule, we are adding reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list
of injurious wildlife. For reasons discussed above in the section
Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious
Species, we are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as
an injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
Political Pressure
(48) Comment: Politics are running the process. This entire
movement is driven by animal rights extremists with deep pockets and a
political agenda, and not science and reason. It is designed to end the
trade in nonnative wildlife.
Our Response: We received a petition from the South Florida Water
Management District in 2006 to list the Burmese python. They were
concerned about the ecological danger posed by Burmese pythons to the
health of the Everglades. In our effort to address this petition, we
realized that other species of large constrictors were becoming
increasingly commonly found in Florida, and, therefore, we expanded our
evaluation to include other species. The Service has been criticized in
the past for being too late in listing species as injurious. We took a
proactive approach to prevent future problems.
The regulatory process to list the four species that are the
subjects of this final rule was guided by biologists. We received peer-
reviewed scientific documentation (the risk assessment) from a separate
bureau (see our responses to Comments 49 and 99 on the USGS risk
assessment). We also received comments from five independent peer
reviewers on the proposed rule and supporting documents. This rule is
an action to regulate the importation and interstate transport of four
species of large constrictor snakes that have been found to be
injurious. Much of the trade in these species of snakes can continue
legally (except where States have their own prohibiting laws). We
received tens of thousands of comments from both animal rights
supporters and pet trade supporters. We considered the comments of all
submitters equally.
(49) Comment: It is not hard to understand why the USGS and
biologists would be strongly interested in seeing more species added to
the Injurious Wildlife List. They have decades of experience getting
funding for injurious snake research; they are expert at it. Because of
this history and the fiscal incentives involved, a tangible potential
exists for bias, impropriety, and a lack of impartiality. Due to the
obvious possibility of conflict of interest and bias, the USGS should
have recused itself from the contract and funding to create this
report. So far, the USGS ``report'' provides the only scientific
evidence (if one can actually call it scientific) that would justify
any Federal regulatory action regarding these nine tropical snake
species.
Our Response: The Service, the National Park Service, and the USGS
carefully segregated their roles in this rulemaking process so that
policy objectives did not bias scientific results. USGS does not
undertake any regulatory efforts associated with injurious wildlife so
that it may concentrate specifically on the science of the issues. The
Service and the National Park Service contracted with USGS to prepare
the report on risk assessment because of USGS's extensive expertise on
the subject. Part of this expertise comes from their similar work on
brown tree snakes, which were added to the list of injurious reptiles
in 1990 (55 FR 17439, April 25, 1990). The risk assessment on the
constrictor snakes provided an extensive review of the literature of
the species, and while this information was used by the risk
assessment's authors to provide measures of risk on each species, the
extensive literature review was also used separately by the Service
biologists who wrote this rule. Therefore, this rule and the risk
assessment were developed from independent scientific papers from
authors all around the world.
In addition, the peer reviewers of the March 12, 2010, proposed
rule (75 FR 11808) and supporting documents state that the listing of
all nine large constrictor snakes is scientifically justified and an
appropriate step to protect native wildlife in the United States from
the risks posed by the nine species. The 2011 USGS document entitled
``Challenges in Identifying Sites Climatically Matched to the Native
Ranges of Animal Invaders'' also underwent peer review before it was
published. Please see also our response to Comment 99 for more
information on the USGS peer review process.
(50) Comment: The rule was steered by the USGS.
Our Response: The USGS's role was to prepare one of the supporting
documents (``Giant Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and
an Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons,
Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor'').
[[Page 12730]]
This rule was written by the Service, using the risk assessment
document for its excellent summaries of the biology of the four
species, as well as for its assessment of the risks. However, the
Service has used the criteria set forth by the Aquatic Nuisance Species
Task Force (ANSTF 1996) to determine risks and its own injurious
wildlife evaluation criteria to determine which species should be
listed. The Service thoroughly considered each species, using
biological information compiled by the USGS risk assessment authors and
other available information. Because the risk assessment authors did
such a thorough job of comprehensively compiling literature (more than
600 references) on the nine species that were the subjects of the March
12, 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 11808), we were able to utilize the
report extensively for our own injurious wildlife evaluation of the
four species that are the subjects of this rule. This compilation of
references in one location greatly facilitated our evaluations, but it
should not be construed that USGS directed our determinations.
Misinterpretation of the Rule
(51) Comment: The government does not have the right to ban animals
that are so widely kept as pets. It is unconstitutional. It is my
constitutional right to be able to express myself and I do that through
reptiles.
Our Response: Many commenters believe that the rule will ban
possession of the four species of constrictor snakes we are listing as
injurious in the rule. This is not true. An injurious wildlife
designation prohibits importation into the United States and transport
across State lines (including the District of Columbia and U.S.
Territories and possessions). Pet owners will be allowed to keep their
pets, sell them, or give them away within their own State, if allowed
by State law. There is no Constitutional right to unregulated
importation and interstate transportation of wildlife found to be
injurious.
Confusion With S 373 (Senate Bill 373) and HR 996 (House of
Representatives Bill 996)
(52) Comment: S 373 or HR 996 should (or should not) be enacted.
Our Response: Many commenters cited S 373 as the action on which
they were commenting. We assume the commenters were referring to Senate
Bill 373, which was introduced in February 2009. The bill was not
passed into law. The bill was a separate but parallel action to the
Service's rule to list the constrictor snakes. Similarly, HR 996,
introduced in 2013, addresses a broader suite of invasive wildlife
issues by Congress. We can only address comments regarding our specific
rule. To ensure their comments on any Congressional bill are heard, the
public should submit those comments to their members of Congress.
More Burdens on Service
(53) Comment: This proposal will most likely create more burdens on
the already taxed Office [Division] of Management Authority and
enforcement sections of the Service.
Our Response: Both the Division of Management Authority and the
Office of Law Enforcement are fully prepared to handle any increase in
work that may result from this rule. We anticipate that the rule will
not generate a significantly large increase in permit applications
being submitted or increase in inspections at the ports. The Division
of Management Authority receives more than 7,000 applications and
issues more than 20,000 permits annually. Based on other listing
activities involving species that are traded more frequently than the
listed constrictors, the Division of Management Authority anticipates
an increase of no more than 1 or 2 percent annually.
While the listing of species as injurious that are already widely
kept and sold as pets will present unique law enforcement challenges
with respect to interstate transport, the interception of injurious
wildlife to prevent both entry into the United States and spread of
such species once they are in the country constitutes an investigative
priority for Service Law Enforcement when such transport represents a
threat to U.S. wildlife resources and habitat. The fact that the
listing of these constrictor snakes will create additional work for
enforcement officers does not outweigh the ecological importance of
addressing the problems created by the import and interstate transport
of these snakes.
(54) Comment: Will the Department of the Interior properly fund
this rule change when more pressing and immediate crises to the
environment are happening?
Our Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the rule. The
funding to support this rule change after it takes effect will be in
the form of law enforcement (such as port inspections) and permit
processing as needed to administer the regulation. Please see our
response to Comment 53, which addresses those subjects.
(55) Comment: At our zoological institutions, we are concerned that
the permit process will be affected because of a backlog of permit
applications.
Our Response: While processing time for any application can vary
due to completeness of the application or current workload being
handled by the Division of Management Authority, the Division is
committed to processing any injurious wildlife application in the most
timely and efficient manner possible. Based on the number of
applications that we received since 2012, when the first four
constrictors were listed, we anticipate receiving fewer than 25
applications requesting authorization to conduct activities with all
listed constrictors, and applications will typically be completed
within 30 days. Since any permit issued for interstate transport of a
listed species is valid for 1 year or more and covers a specific
geographic range where activities could occur, we do not anticipate
that a 30-day processing time will result in any significant impacts to
a zoo's ability to carry out educational work outside their State of
operation.
Predecisional Proposed Rule
(56) Comment: The proposed rule is predecisional. It is
prejudicially constructed and telegraphs a predetermined end.
Our Response: By the nature of a proposed rule (in general for all
agencies), the agency publishes what it is proposing to be the
regulation, including any findings that support the proposal.
Therefore, all proposed rules indicate the agency's position on a
particular situation. A final rule may differ from what an agency
proposes, but it may be exactly the same as the proposed rule. The
purpose of a proposed rule is to obtain additional information, give
the public notice of the proposal, and give the public the opportunity
for comment. We review all the comments for new information and
evaluation of our proposal, as we did for this rule. We clearly stated
in our proposed rule that ``We are evaluating each of the nine species
of constrictor snakes individually and will list only those species
that we determine to be injurious.'' Thus, we made it clear that we
left it open for us to list fewer than nine species, or none at all, if
none was determined to be injurious based on new information. In fact,
we listed four species in 2012 (77 FR 3330, January 23, 2012), we are
listing four more in this final rule, and we are withdrawing our
proposal to list one other species (boa constrictor).
If an agency feels that it could benefit from additional
information before proposing a rule, it may publish an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking
[[Page 12731]]
(or a notice of inquiry; NOI) to gather more information. The new
information is used to develop a proposed rule. We published such a
notice on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5784), from which we received more
information to apply to the proposed rule.
(57) Comment: The Service failed to make a good faith effort to
gather new information.
Our Response: The Service provided ample notice and opportunity to
comment on the proposed action. Here are examples of the opportunities
provided by the Service to the public and stakeholders:
The Service published a notice of inquiry in the Federal
Register on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5784), as an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking. It explained why we were considering listing the
genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes (which included more species than the
four that we are listing in this final rule), what information we
needed, and how the public could submit information to us. We provided
a 90-day period to submit relevant information (ending April 30, 2008),
which is a standard length of time.
On February 29, 2008, we participated in a panel
discussion arranged by the pet industry. Representatives of the Pet
Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) were present. Our
representative opened the discussion by stating: ``This notice of
inquiry is an information gathering process. I really want to stress
that this is not a proposed rule or action. As part of processing the
petition we received to list Burmese pythons as injurious, we opened up
this comment period to gather information on especially which species,
particularly snakes such as the Burmese python, within these three
genera might be a threat to native wildlife and wildlife resources. If
there is a snake that has not yet been imported into the United States
that might pose a threat to native wildlife, this information would be
very useful. By the way, we worked with PIJAC in addressing some of the
concerns, and we answered a short set of Q&As [questions and answers]
with Reptiles Magazine.''
We participated in several chatrooms with stakeholders on
http://www.pethobbyist.com in February or March 2008.
The Service was interviewed by PIJAC about the NOI, and
the interview was posted by ReptileChannel.com in 2008. The Service
explained why we were considering action, what information we were
seeking, and how the public could provide their information. When we
were asked why we were also requesting economic information, we
answered, ``We currently have little information about the value of
domestic trade in these species, and it is our responsibility as part
of this process to gather a range of information on the species of
interest. This includes economic data.''
The Service was interviewed for a story on the constrictor
snake NOI, and the story published in REPTILES magazine (Vol. 16, No.
5; May 2008).
On March 12, 2010, we published in the Federal Register
(75 FR 11808) the proposed rule to list nine species of large
constrictor snakes, all of which were included in the genera from the
NOI, and for which we asked for new information. We provided a 60-day
comment period for the public (ending on May 11, 2010), also a standard
length of time. We provided the proposed rule, draft economic analysis,
draft environmental assessment, and risk assessment to the public on
http://www.regulations.gov.
The Service met with the Small Business Administration
(SBA) on April 20, 2010, to discuss what information the SBA needed and
what we needed. This meeting was within the public comment period for
the proposed rule.
The Service met with SBA on April 21, 2010, for a
roundtable meeting with pet industry, zoo, and medical research
representatives. This meeting was within the public comment period for
the proposed rule.
Because of several requests for an extension of the
comment period, we added another 30-day public comment period from July
1 to August 2, 2010 (75 FR 38069; July 1, 2010).
We met with the SBA again on January 13, 2011, to discuss
issues raised by SBA during the public comment periods.
We opened another 30-day public comment period on the 2010
proposed rule on June 24, 2014 (79 FR 35719). Please note that this
occurred after we listed four of the constrictor snakes (Burmese (and
Indian) python, Northern African python, Southern African python, and
yellow anaconda) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3330).
In summary, the public has known since January of 2008 that we were
considering listing these three genera, or species from them, as
injurious. We provided a total of 210 days for receiving public
information and comments, and we participated in several meetings with
stakeholders. We believe that we have made a good faith effort to
gather information from the public.
Inconsistent Use of Injurious Wildlife Listings
(58) Comment: The manner in which the Service has handled invasive
species has been inconsistent. For example, in Western Colorado, feral
``wild'' horses and ring-necked pheasants are afforded wildlife
protection status. Both are nonindigenous, introduced, or invasive
species that compete with endemic species.
Our Response: It is correct that some nonnative species, such as
feral (wild) horses and ring-necked pheasants may receive protection
under other laws. The protection for wild horses comes from the Wild
Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).
Congress gave responsibility to the Secretary of the Interior under
this public law to manage and protect wild horses on lands managed by
the Bureau of Land Management and the Secretary of Agriculture for
Forest Service lands. As for the pheasants, we agree that pheasants may
compete with native species. However, it is not correct that the
Service affords them protection. In fact, the ring-necked pheasant is
specifically not protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16
U.S.C. 703 et seq.) and is also exempt from the Wild Bird Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.). Individual States, however, such as
Colorado, may provide their own protections under State laws.
Regional Listing
(59) Comment: The regulation of these animals cannot be addressed
at a State level only. Without restriction on importation, these
animals will continue to be imported into other U.S. States, including
those States that are directly adjacent to States that are vulnerable.
Our Response: We agree that in most situations it is important to
prohibit importation into the United States and interstate
transportation of injurious species. There may be unique situations,
however, where another course of action may be more effective in
preventing the spread of an injurious species that has already been
imported into the United States and, among other things, is widely
located in many States. See the section Withdrawal of the Boa
Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species. We would expect
such situations to be rare.
(60) Comment: The alternative of cherry picking only those States
with suitable habitat, but then applying the listing to all States, is
legally suspect, particularly because the Service has never initiated
public notice and
[[Page 12732]]
comment rulemaking on the Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria.
Our Response: The listing is based on many factors, but habitat
suitability is only one of them. The factors that we used were
explained in the proposed rule (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010), which was
open to public comment.
(61) Comment: No potential risk of establishment in or ecological
harm to areas within Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the insular territories
can be used to justify listing these snake species. Each of these
jurisdictions already prohibits importation and possession of these
animals. Their laws are enforceable through other provisions of the
Lacey Act, which carry far greater criminal and civil penalties.
Our Response: Hawaii and Puerto Rico prohibit the importation of
these snakes, but the import regulations for the insular territories
vary. The other provisions of the Lacey Act that we assume the
commenter refers to is title 16 (16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), which pertains
to trafficking of wildlife and plants. However, the comment is not
correct that those jurisdictions' laws are simply enforceable under
title 16. For a title 16 violation to occur, two acts must occur, both
of which must be included in the required elements of the law. An
example of a violation would be transport of wildlife in interstate
commerce that is possessed in violation of a State law. By the Service
listing the reticulated python and the three other species in this
rule, title 16 becomes applicable but it will not address every
violation of State law.
(62) Comment: By its plain terms, the Lacey Act's prohibitions
extend to importation and ``shipment'' between the continental States
as a single entity and other listed jurisdictions, such as Hawaii and
Puerto Rico. The Service lacks the authority to restrict interstate
transportation and commerce of a listed species between and among
continental States.
Our Response: The Service interprets the Lacey Act as giving us the
authority to restrict transportation between any of the States,
territories, and other jurisdictions (the District of Columbia) of the
United States. We believe that this interpretation is consistent with
the language and intent of the statute.
(63) Comment: The proposal to list the remaining five species is
arbitrary and capricious because it is based on improper speculation
about the impacts of the species. The most notable omission is
vehicular mortality, which reduces population size and fragments
habitat and which occurs more frequently in the United States than in
the native range of the five constrictor species because of higher road
densities here. The Service has not properly accounted for other
threats in urban areas, including persecution from humans, pollution,
and paucity of natural refugia and other biophysical features needed
for snakes to survive and reproduce. Instead, the Service relies almost
exclusively on a climate envelope match that vastly overestimates the
amount of suitable habitat for constrictors.
Our Response: We believe that other considerations in and around
developed areas may act in favor of constrictor survival, such as the
lack of natural controls, the abundance of small prey (such as rats,
pigeons, pets, farm animals), and refugia (such as houses, barns, and
other buildings). The estimate of the potential range of the
constrictor species uses climate match as a guide. As we state above in
Need for the Final Rule, factors other than climate may limit the
native range of a species beyond its historic range. Other factors,
such as microhabitats, may provide small but significant areas that can
support tropical species. For example, the State of Idaho supported our
listing of pythons and anacondas in 2012, because Idaho has an
abundance of geothermal waters that could support feral populations of
the large, semi-aquatic snakes (Idaho 2012).
(64) Comment: A nationwide listing is arbitrary and capricious and
flawed policy, and less drastic alternatives should be seriously
analyzed and adopted.
Our Response: We interpret the intent of Congress under the Lacey
Act's injurious provisions to be national in scope. For example, some
of the species listed by Congress, such as the fruit bats (Pteropus
spp.), inhabit only the tropics and subtropics.
(65) Comment: If the Service insists on applying an injurious
listing nationwide, then the risk analysis for invasiveness must also
be nationwide. That is, the ANSTF algorithm for organism risk potential
must consider the ``probability of establishment'' and ``consequences
of establishment'' for a species throughout the entire United States,
not only in the areas that Reed and Rodda (2009) identify as having
suitable habitat.
Our Response: The Service has considered the risks and consequences
of establishment nationwide, because the risk assessment, including the
climate matching, looked at the entire United States, as did the ANSTF
organism risk potential. The justification for listing is found above
in Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness for Reticulated Python and
the corresponding sections for the three other species.
Permitting
(66) Comment: The Service should support a law for reptiles modeled
after the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992. Such a law would limit
the importation of wild reptiles into the United States while allowing
captive breeding of species currently in the United States, and
allowing the interstate and international transportation of captive-
bred animals.
Our Response: The comment is referring to the Wild Bird
Conservation Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916) (WBCA), which allows for
obtaining a permit for personal pets. The WBCA was enacted on October
23, 1992, to ensure that native populations of exotic bird species are
not negatively impacted by international trade to the United States.
Under the WBCA, the Service may issue permits to allow import of listed
birds for scientific research, zoological breeding or display,
cooperative breeding programs, or personal pet purposes when the
applicant meets certain criteria (such as a personally owned pet of an
individual who is returning to the United States after being
continuously out of the country for a minimum of 1 year, except that an
individual may not import more than two exotic birds under this
regulation in any year). The Service was not given the authority by
Congress to issue permits for all the same purposes under the Lacey Act
(18 U.S.C. 42). If, by the words ``support a law,'' the commenter is
asking us to write a final rule that includes a permit process for
pets, we cannot do that under our current authority. By statute, we can
grant permits only for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific
purposes.
(67) Comment: If the permitting process is not made considerably
more efficient and flexible, individuals and institutions engaging in
these purposes are likely to be negatively impacted.
Our Response: We agree that the permitting process must be an
efficient and effective process to ensure that activities that are
allowable under the Act are authorized in a timely manner. The Division
of Management Authority, which is responsible for the permitting
process under the Act, has recently undergone a significant
restructuring and reorganization. We do not anticipate that the number
of permit applications that will be generated due to this listing will
be significant. However, we believe that the restructuring of the
Division will allow for a more efficient and effective
[[Page 12733]]
permitting process for all permit applications received by the
Division.
Economic Effect
(68) Comment: Families dependent on reptile breeding businesses
will lose their businesses.
Our Response: Most commenters who asserted an expected loss of
business did not explain why this would occur, but some did explain
that they sell one or more of the nine species that were the subjects
of the March 12, 2010, proposed rule mainly or entirely out-of-State or
out of the country. Some stated which species they sell, and some did
not specify. We agree that breeders who specialize in breeding only the
species we are listing in this rule as injurious and who sell mainly or
entirely out-of-State or out of the country will be greatly affected.
However, those breeders who live in the States with designated ports
(Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon,
Tennessee, Texas, and Washington) may continue to export from the
United States through the designated port in their State (if allowed
under State law), although they may not continue to ship to other
States. For those breeders of other reptiles, this rule will not affect
them. Those breeders who supply skins of the listed species for the
designer clothing industry, such as for boots and belts, will still be
able to ship skins across State lines, export them, and import them,
consistent with other applicable laws.
(69) Comment: The rule will ruin a $3 billion industry.
Our Response: This comment was based on the proposed rule, and nine
species were included in the economic calculations. The commenters did
not explain how they arrived at the $3 billion figure. While the
Service is not sure of the basis of this dollar amount, this figure was
used by the United States Association of Reptile Keepers in a report to
the Office of Management and Budget on March 1, 2010: ``The trade in
high quality captive-bred reptiles is a $3 billion dollar [sic] annual
industry. The animals potentially addressed by rule change make up
approximately 1/3 of the total dollar value trade annually.'' Another
significant dollar figure was identified in an article in ``The
Economist'' (February 11, 2010): ``Revenue from the sale of boas and
pythons amounts to around $1.6 billion-1.8 billion each year.''
We point out that the category of the ``sale of boas and pythons''
did not specify what species were included, but most likely would
include ball pythons, which make up by far the largest segment of three
genera of constrictor snakes that are imported into the United States
(78.6 percent from 2008 to 2010, and 88.1 percent from 2011 to 2013)
and that we analyzed in our economic analysis (see Final Economic
Analysis 2012, 2015); ball pythons are a large segment of the domestic
reptile trade. However, the same article in ``The Economist'' states,
``The recession, however, has hurt what used to be a lucrative hobby.
Fewer people want to splurge on snakes that cost thousands, if not tens
of thousands, of dollars. According to Brian Barczyk, a snake-breeder,
demand for ``pet-grade'' snakes, which cost under $50, has sunk even
more than demand for ``investment-grade'' ones, because the average
person is hesitant to buy a new pet.'' We also note that part of the
snake breeding industry is for the sale of snake skins, and this part
of the industry should not be affected (dead snakes or parts thereof
are not listed as injurious).
In addition, the Georgetown Economic Services report (GES; Collis
and Fenili 2011) states that 18 percent of households (846,000) that
own a reptile own a snake. Although the report does not say which
species are the most commonly owned, based on observations, kingsnakes,
corn snakes, garter snakes, and ball pythons are more commonly owned
than any of the species in our March 12, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR
11808). Ball pythons comprised 64 percent of imports and domestic
breeding of the three genera we reported on before our first final rule
took effect on March 23, 2012 (Final Economic Analysis 2012; the nine
species comprised 32 percent). Therefore, only a small percentage of
households would be expected to own any of the species in this rule or
the January 23, 2012, final rule (77 FR 3330).
We agree that our rule will negatively affect some aspects of the
reptile industry, but we have no evidence to suggest that the
prohibition on importation and interstate transportation of four
species of snakes will cause the ruin of a $3 billion industry or even
to the extent of $1.6 billion. On the contrary, our final economic
analysis shows the estimated potential annual retail value losses
associated with all four species we are listing in this final rule is
$1.9 to 4.1 million (Final Economic Analysis 2015), plus $3.7 to 7.6
million for the four species listed in 2012 (Final Economic Analysis
2012), and a total annual decrease in economic output is $10.7 to 21.8
million and $5.3 to 11.4 million for 2012 and 2014, respectively. While
this is not insignificant, it is a small fraction of the $3 billion
quoted above.
In addition, we note that the importation of constrictor snakes of
the genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes declined from the peak in 2002
(the three genera = 233,705 snakes; Final Economic Analysis 2012) to
2013 (the three genera =110,070 snakes; Final Economic Analysis 2015).
The decline in imports started well before we received the petition in
2006 that initiated our regulatory process. The ball python declined
from 154,505 in 2002, to 95,225 in 2013 (Final Economic Analysis 2012,
2015). The reduced imports were not likely due to our impending rule.
The decline in imports could be due to decreased availability of
captive-bred or wild-caught snakes in the export countries, the
decreased demand in the United States, or the availability of
domestically bred species. Furthermore, Collis and Fenili (2011) showed
that lizard importation declined from 764,431 in 2006, to 231,241 in
2010, a 70 percent drop. Another study showed that imports of all
reptiles and amphibians decreased from 7.57 million in 2001, to 3.55
million in 2009 (Herrel and van der Meijden 2014). Thus, the existing
decline in constrictor snake importation seems to be unrelated to our
regulatory process, and future declines should not necessarily be
attributed to the listing of the four species in this final rule or to
the 2012 listing of the other four species (77 FR 3330).
(70) Comment: It is arbitrary and capricious to exclude boa
constrictors from the injurious listing simply because of the reptile
industry's wildly exaggerated claims of economic hardship.
Our Response: We are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa
constrictor for the reasons discussed above in the section Withdrawal
of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species.
(71) Comment: As a matter of law and policy, listing species that
have long been extant throughout the United States and subject to pet
ownership and interstate commerce for several decades, as have the boa
constrictor and reticulated python, comes with a higher burden to show
injury to the interests the Lacey Act protects.
Our Response: The Lacey Act does not make a distinction that the
Service has a higher burden to show injury for species that have long
been extant in the United States and subject to pet ownership.
(72) Comment: Listing of constrictor snakes also inhibits efforts
to eradicate
[[Page 12734]]
remnants of the species proposed for listing as injurious from the
Everglades National Park and other locations in south Florida where
they have been found. The Burmese python example shows that many of the
most knowledgeable and effective herpetological experts will either
limit or cease this activity if required to euthanize the captured
snakes or forbidden from bringing the animals to a more suitable
location out of State.
Our Response: The commenter did not provide documentation that this
situation has occurred for the Burmese python. The Service has no
reason to believe that listing the reticulated python, DeSchauensee's
anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda will inhibit efforts to
eradicate them, especially because two of these species are not yet
found in the country and none is established in any State.
(73) Comment: State-level laws and regulations calibrated to the
perceived threat and State and Federal partnerships in ``early
detection and response'' programs are more effective means of
addressing the issue. Federal regulations place a burden on State
conservation resources and are unneeded and unnecessary in 47 States.
Our Response: The Service greatly values early detection and rapid
response programs, and the regulations promulgated in this rule should
not place any burdens on them. The Service recognizes that there may be
certain limited situations where State laws and related control
measures may be as or more effective than listing under the Lacey Act.
See our reasons for not listing the boa constrictor under the Lacey Act
in the section Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as
an Injurious Species. But, in the case of the reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda, the Service
has concluded that listing is necessary to protect the interests of
human beings, agriculture, wildlife, and wildlife resources from the
purposeful or accidental introduction and subsequent establishment of
these snakes into ecosystems of the United States.
(74) Comment: Economic, cost-benefit considerations cannot lawfully
determine the Secretary's decisions under the Lacey Act criteria in 18
U.S.C. 42(a).
Our Response: The Service does not use cost-benefit considerations
when making listing decisions under the Lacey Act. The Service applies
the standards and procedures under the Lacey Act and the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 500 et. seq) in promulgating its rules, but
must also comply with the various other Acts and Executive Orders that
govern Federal agency rulemaking, including, but not limited to,
Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 12603, 13211, and 13132, and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act, and National Environmental Policy Act. We completed the
analysis and findings required under these statutes and Executive
Orders; please see the Required Determinations section of this rule.
(75) Comment: The ``Broken Screens'' report published by the
Defenders of Wildlife (2007) documented that, from 2000 to 2004, at
least 710 different fully-identified species of reptiles and at least
47 additional reptile species without full species identification were
imported into the United States. In sum, at least 757 reptile species
were in trade at the time of publication. Adding the reticulated
python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa
constrictor to the four species that were listed as injurious on
January 23, 2012, represents a mere 1.2 percent of the types of
imported reptiles.
Our Response: The comment accurately reflects the Defenders'
``Broken Screens'' data summary. The 1.2 percent derived from a
comparison to the data apparently includes three species not yet in
trade, so the six species in trade from 2000 to 2004 would represent
less than 0.8 percent of the taxa of imported reptiles.
Economic Analysis
(76) Comment: The rule will have a detrimental economic impact on
breeders and hobbyists, food producers, and caging and accessories
producers.
Our Response: The Service recognizes that the rule will curtail
imports and interstate trade in the two snake species currently in
trade in the United States (reticulated python and green anaconda); the
listing of Beni and DeSchauensee's anacondas should not have any
economic effect on U.S. trade. The supporting documentation
accompanying this rule--the final Economic Analysis and the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis--estimates the impacts on small
businesses, as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), and the benefits and costs of the rule, as
required by Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This analysis uses a regional
input-output model to determine the impacts on supporting industries,
such as snake-related care and food suppliers.
(77) Comment: The Service does not possess the information needed
to do a credible benefit-cost or regulatory flexibility analysis on
rules regarding constrictor snakes.
Our Response: The data needs for conducting a comprehensive
analysis of any industry are very intense. Commenters agreed with our
conclusion that there is very little reliable public information
available about the snake industry, but we have utilized information
that was available to us through the end of the public comment period
for the proposed rule. Executive Order 12866 states that ``Each agency
shall base its decisions on the best reasonably obtainable scientific,
technical, economic, and other information concerning the need for, and
consequences of, the intended regulation'' (Section 1.b.7). The
Regulatory Flexibility Act allows that the initial and final regulatory
flexibility analyses may contain ``more general descriptive statements
if quantification is not practicable or reliable'' (5 U.S.C. 607). We
received information during the public comment period that we used to
prepare the final economic analysis. While we received other
information, it tended to be anecdotal, describing impacts to a
specific firm or individual, which is insufficient to describe
industry-wide impacts. However, we used some anecdotal information to
better describe how some firms or individuals will be impacted. The
Service believes the analysis is based on the best reasonably
obtainable information.
(78) Comment: The Service ignored information submitted by industry
participants and trade associations in response to its 2008 notice of
inquiry. In addition, the Service misused the information it was
provided by respondents to the notice.
Our Response: Industry responses to the 2008 notice of inquiry (73
FR 5784; January 31, 2008) were a primary source of information for the
economic analysis. Trade association data were the only source for most
of the sales and price information in the economic analysis, and the
associations are cited repeatedly in the report. The Service sought
clarification of the data provided by a trade association with a
representative of the association and the consultant who prepared the
submission. The additional information obtained from the conversations
was applied in the draft economic analysis.
Many industry participants provided anecdotal information about
their situations or made quantitative assertions. While informative, we
cannot extrapolate anecdotal data about
[[Page 12735]]
individuals or businesses to describe the industry as a whole. However,
in the final economic analysis, some anecdotal information from the
public comments is used to better depict potential impacts.
(79) Comment: The Service employs baseless assumptions to estimate
the information it lacks.
Our Response: Using informed assumptions for reasonable ranges to
fill data gaps is a well-recognized economic technique. By applying a
range of prices and quantities, the economic analysis derives the
approximate scale of retail sales from the partial information
available. The analysis is transparent and the assumptions can be
easily replaced with more reliable information when it becomes
available. Additional information, such as interstate sales from
Florida, was received during the second comment period. This
information was used to revise the draft economic analysis to more
accurately depict the impact to industry. Industry profiles were not
submitted during public comment and are not publicly available.
Therefore, some assumptions are still necessary in the economic
analysis.
(80) Comment: The economic analysis ignores wholesalers,
transporters, and vendors of food and ancillary equipment.
Our Response: The economic analysis includes an input-output
analysis that takes into account all of the industries that contribute
to delivering the product to the consumer. Wholesalers and equipment
used in the production of snakes for sale are included in the input-
output analysis based on retail sales. Shipping cost information on
individual sales has been obtained since we made the draft economic
analysis available (March 12, 2010; 75 FR 11808). This information was
used to revise the economic analysis.
(81) Comment: The Service also ignores pricing premiums for snakes,
particularly for color morphs, dwarfs, etc.
Our Response: The aggregate information available and provided by
the trade associations was insufficient to segment the market for
different classes of snake for the draft economic analysis. The
knowledge that ``pricing premiums reach up to 60 times the price of a
`normal' snake'' (PIJAC, August 2, 2010, FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015-4531.1,
p. 4) suggests that there are at least two market segments for a
species--one for `normal' snakes and one for high-end collectible
snakes. We received additional pricing information during the 2010
public comment periods that more accurately depicts pricing premiums,
and we used it in the revised economic analysis.
(82) Comment: The initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)
underestimates the economic impact on small entities.
Our Response: We revised the IRFA to incorporate new information
submitted during the course of the public comment periods.
(83) Comment: The IRFA does not discuss significant alternatives.
Our Response: The subject of the proposed rule was amending the
regulations at 50 CFR 16.15 to add nine species of constrictor snakes
to the list of injurious species under the Lacey Act. Management of
feral snake populations is a much broader topic that the Service is
vigorously pursuing but that is not within the purview of this
rulemaking. Therefore, the alternatives considered in the environmental
assessment are the only relevant choices.
(84) Comment: The draft economic analysis fails to quantify the
benefits of the proposed rule.
Our Response: The benefits of the rule include both avoided costs
of extirpating feral snake populations and maintained ecological
services from areas that might have been harmed by released snakes.
Little information is available about either of these sources that
would allow the quantification of benefits. OMB Circular A-4, guidance
for implementing E.O. 12866, recognizes that benefits are rarely fully
quantified and recommends a qualitative discussion of the sources of
benefits. We added this discussion to the final economic analysis
(2012, 2015).
(85) Comment: The draft economic analysis lacks clarity in its
exposition.
Our Response: The Service sought public comments on the draft
economic analysis made available with the proposed rule published in
the Federal Register (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). Per public comments
received, the Service added additional clarification to the final
economic analysis (2015) for this final rule. Please refer to the full
revised final economic analysis and regulatory flexibility analysis,
which are available in the docket for this rule (at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015).
(86) Comment: A recent economic report conducted by a third-party
economics firm, Blue Sky Consulting Group, shows that the listing of
the reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, Beni
anaconda, and boa constrictor would not have a drastic effect on small
businesses that deal in the sale of reptiles, concluding that listing
would result in little or no net change in economic activity, consumer
spending, or employment. Any decline in consumer spending and economic
activity related to these five snakes would be offset by increased
spending and economic activity in other sub-sectors of the reptile
trade and in other sectors of the economy, with little or no net change
in overall economic activity or employment. In addition, to the extent
that Lacey Act listing reduces the likelihood of these species becoming
established as invasive species, Federal, State, and local agencies
will experience reduced costs for habitat restoration and invasive
species control. The Blue Sky report also found that the Service's
economic analysis did not assess the extent to which reductions in
employment in the snake trade (for listed species) would be offset by
gains in other areas of the economy as consumers reallocate spending
away from listed species to unlisted species, to other reptile pets, or
to other goods and services. This may have created a mistaken
impression that listing constrictor snake species under the Lacey Act
would result in a net reduction in consumer spending, employment, and
economic activity.
Our Response: The Service agrees with this comment. As we stated in
our 2012 final economic analysis, ``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
described in this economic analysis. There are no marketing data that
estimate how consumer preference may change due to the listing thus
changing the types of snakes that businesses sell. This analysis does
not account for this type of substitution effect.'' In other words, we
did not make assumptions for which we had no specific information, even
though such substitutions would likely occur. This makes our estimate
more of a worst-case scenario.
(87) Comment: An economic assessment of the reptile industry
commissioned by the U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) and
prepared by Georgetown Economic Services (GES), a subsidiary of USARK's
lobbying firm, failed to take into account that a restriction on one
particular consumer spending option usually has an approximate zero net
effect on employment or macroeconomic activity. Consumers will simply
replace the product with another similar product. For example, in 1975,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the sale or distribution
of turtles with shells that measure less
[[Page 12736]]
than 4 inches in length in response to findings that pet turtles were
responsible for a substantial number of Salmonella infections
nationwide. The industry claimed economic risk in response to the ban.
However, the ban on small turtle sales resulted in an increase in the
number of other reptiles, such as iguanas, sold as pets. The trade will
invariably shift to these other species if the selling of the large
snakes is curtailed.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 86.
(88) Comment: The Small Business Administration (SBA) suggested
that, at a minimum, the Service publish a supplemental initial
regulatory flexibility analysis that fully addresses the issues in the
2010 IRFA.
Our Response: The service believes that SBA's concerns were
adequately addressed in the 2012 final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) on which the 2015 FRFA is based, and that a supplemental IRFA is
not needed.
(89) Comment: According to the GES report, listing the 10 [sic]
constrictor snakes on the injurious wildlife list would cost small
businesses as much as $104 million in the first year and as much as
$1.2 billion over 10 years.
Our Response: The GES report concluded that the economic costs to
the industry over the first 10 years of lost revenues to be between
$505 million and $1.2 billion. However, that figure is based on a
discount rate of 3.25 percent and an annual growth rate of 7 percent
(Collis and Fenili 2011), whereas the Office of Management and Budget
(Circular A-94, October 29, 1992) states that Federal agencies use a
discount rate of 7 percent. Additionally, it is not clear that an
assumption of a 7 percent annual growth rate over a period of 10 years
in the future is justified. Using a 7 percent discount rate without the
assumption of a 7 percent annual growth rate (zero growth rate), the
range would be $568 million to $779 million, which is within the GES
estimate of $372 million to $900.9 million, using a discount rate of
3.25 percent and a zero annual growth rate.
(90) Comment: Referring to the GES report, an economist stated that
the analysis has serious flaws because of these reasons: (a) Ignores
likely substitution effects on the part of both the reptile industry
and reptile owners, which leads to a likely large upward bias in the
resulting estimates of negative economic impacts from the proposed
rule. (b) Focuses only on the negative impacts on one small segment of
the reptile industry (that is, breeders and importers of these nine
large constrictor snakes) and snake owners that may result from the
implementation of the proposed rule, while completely ignoring the
positive impacts the rule would have in terms of benefits for native
wildlife, including endangered and threatened species, avoided control
and eradication expenditures by government agencies, and human safety.
(c) Uses an inappropriate discount rate that by itself leads to a
substantial (close to 20 percent) overstating of the projected future
costs of the rule. (d) Incorrectly applies the term ``economic losses''
when referring to what in fact are reductions in revenues for this
small segment of the reptile industry.
Our Response: In general, the Service concurs with these
statements; using the OMB discount rate of 7 percent results in a 16
percent decrease in the 10-year aggregate cost compared with using a
3.25 discount rate with an assumption of zero annual growth.
Biological
(91) Comment: With the exception of predation by a Python molurus
bivittatus on endangered Key Largo woodrats (Neotoma floridana smalli),
there is no evidence of significant adverse environmental, human
health, or economic impacts by these feral populations.
Our Response: Based upon what we know of the diet of Burmese
pythons (77 FR 3330; January 23, 2012) in their native ranges and in
Florida, and the four large constrictor snakes that are the subjects of
this rule (snakes that share the same traits), we find that federally
protected species, such as the endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow
(Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis), the endangered Florida panther (Puma
(=Felis) concolor coryi), and the endangered American crocodile
(Crocodylus acutus), are at risk of predation by these constrictors if
they become feral. Reed and Rodda (2009) list a total of 64 federally
and State-listed endangered or threatened species at risk from giant
constrictors in Florida alone. As discussed earlier, additional Federal
and State-listed species are at risk in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Texas, and
other areas of the United States from the reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda. Please see
our response to Comment 37 regarding the Burmese pythons linked to
declines of up to 99 percent of populations of small- and medium-sized
mammals as prey in Everglades National Park.
(92) Comment: The majority of these species have never been
documented as being introduced into new environments. Despite having
been detected in the vicinity of the Everglades since the 1970s,
Burmese pythons are still limited to that general area.
Our Response: Of the four species we are listing in this rule, two
are not yet in trade, another is involved in trade in minor amounts,
and one is somewhat common in trade. Thus, their listing is intended to
prevent their establishment in the wild through escapes or releases.
The Burmese python illustrates the need to be proactive; although
individual pythons had been regularly observed in the Everglades region
since the mid-1990s, it was not until 2006 that a reproducing
population was documented to be present there. By that time, the
population was well established over a sizable area.
(93) Comment: The Burmese python population in south Florida was
significantly reduced by the 2009-2010 winter cold weather.
Our Response: This comment refers to the previously listed Burmese
python (77 FR 3330; January 23, 2012). Many Burmese pythons died during
the record cold 2009-2010 winter, but many survived to reproduce and
expand their range in south Florida (see the Final Environmental
Assessment 2015).
(94) Comment: There is no scientific information indicating that
large body size increases the likelihood that a species will become
invasive. In fact, the opposite is likely the case since large-bodied
animals are more readily evident and thus more likely to be removed
from the environment before they can establish a viable population.
Our Response: The list of traits shared by the giant constrictors
includes many of the traits that either increase the severity of their
probable ecological impacts or exacerbate the challenge of controlling
or eradicating them. The cryptic coloration of these snakes is a common
form of camouflage where the snakes are similar to their surroundings,
making them very difficult to detect and be removed from the
environment. Burmese pythons have established viable populations partly
because they are hard to detect, have high reproductivity, and occupy a
variety of habitat types, and the four species listed in this final
rule have the same traits. Thus, in comparison to potential invaders
lacking these traits, this group of snakes constitutes a particularly
high risk. A large body size would be a disadvantage for an animal
whose size sets it off from its surrounding environment, such as a
bear, which stands 1-1.2 m (3-4 ft) above ground level. However, even
the largest pythons and anacondas extend only a foot above ground
level, and are easily concealed by ground vegetation or water. A large
[[Page 12737]]
body size would also be a disadvantage for predators that hunt actively
on a regular basis, because they would stand out more. Neither of these
situations is true for the large constrictors, which are primarily sit-
and-wait predators and which move along very low to the ground. These
attributes, combined with the fact that these snakes have no similar
ecological equivalents in the United States with respect to size of
prey items they can consume, make them a successful predator on
na[iuml]ve wildlife that may otherwise not even have native predators
(such as Florida panthers), thus increasing the likelihood that they
will successfully invade areas of the United States that have suitable
climate. In a study to determine why so few invasive reptiles in
Florida succeeded as well as the Burmese python, Reed et al. (2012)
found that the snake's giant size was one of the highest correlated
factors.
(95) Comment: Which of the nine species of constrictor snakes are
definitely reproducing in the wild in the United States?
Our Response: Of the four large constrictor snakes we are listing
in this final rule, none is currently confirmed breeding in the wild in
the United States. The purpose of this final rule is to prevent these
species from establishing populations in the wild.
(96) Comment: Neither the State nor the Federal Government has made
substantial investments in strategic programs for the eradication or
control of Burmese python on the lands they manage. In South Florida,
the cost of eradication of the Burmese python has been relatively
small.
Our Response: [Refers to previously listed species; see 77 FR 3330,
January 23, 2012]
(97) Comment: The most effective and least costly methods would
focus on preventing establishment of any potentially invasive species
and would include early detection and rapid response (EDRR).
Eradication of established populations is very rarely effective and
always costly.
Our Response: We agree. We also agree that EDRR programs can be of
benefit once prevention options have been exhausted or proven to be
ineffective. Sometimes considered the ``second line of defense'' after
prevention, EDRR is a critical component of any effective invasive
species management program. When new invasive species infestations are
detected, a prompt and coordinated containment and eradication response
can reduce environmental and economic impacts. This action results in
lower cost and less resource damage than implementing a long-term
control program after the species is established. Early detection of
new infestations requires vigilance and regular monitoring of the
managed area and surrounding ecosystem. An EDRR system will provide an
important second line of defense against invasive animals that will
work in concert with a first line of defense--that is, Federal
regulations to prevent unwanted introductions by listing as injurious
wildlife. Prevention is why we are listing the four large constrictor
snakes that are the subjects of this final rule, which are either not
yet found in the United States or not yet found to be reproducing in
the United States.
(98) Comment: Two papers published in the journal Biological
Invasions, one by USDA wildlife researchers and another authored by
scientists at several research institutions including the University of
Florida, have concluded that Burmese pythons cannot survive for any
length of time outside south Florida unless they have the ability to
find appropriate burrows or cavities to allow hibernation for several
months during the winter. Given that this snake is primarily a tropical
and subtropical species, it may not have evolved the behavior or
physiology to successfully hibernate. Another paper (Jacobson et al.
2012) calls into question the fundamental premise of the USGS climate
work that pythons can migrate north out of south Florida and across the
southern third of the United States. Although this study specifically
addresses Burmese pythons, it has clear implications for the
reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, Beni
anaconda, and boa constrictor.
Our Response: This comment refers specifically to a previously
listed species (see 77 FR 3330, January 23, 2012) but the relevant
science also applies conceptually to the reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda, because
they share with the Burmese python such traits as how they regulate
their body temperature.
The winter of January 2010 was one of the coldest on record in
southern Florida. Burmese pythons were documented to tolerate these
conditions. In the USDA study (Avery et al. 2010), two of nine (22
percent) of the Burmese pythons survived the cold spell. This study was
conducted in Gainesville, Florida, 400 km (248.5 mi) north of the known
range where they are currently reproducing; this region of Florida also
experienced record cold weather. The Mazzotti et al. (2010) study,
which was conducted within the Everglades region, found that 1 of 10
telemetered Burmese pythons survived (10 percent) and 59 of 99 (60
percent) of nontelemetered pythons survived. Subsequently there have
been sightings and recent removals of Burmese pythons and Northern
African pythons in south Florida, including a mating aggregation of
Burmese pythons with one gravid female and four males (Snow 2010).
Therefore, despite the coldest winter on record since at least the
1940s (NOAA 2010), south Florida still has reproducing populations of
nonnative large constrictor snakes. While the abundance of pythons
clearly declined during this record cold winter, the population has
recovered rapidly in south Florida, where the average female reaches
reproductive maturity within 3 years and can subsequently produce more
than 30 (but up to 107) eggs per clutch annually or biennially (Harvey
et al. 2008).
Dorcas et al. (2011) published another study in Biological
Invasions. They relocated 10 Burmese pythons from the Everglades to an
outdoor research setting in South Carolina. The following January, they
all died. However, they had not had a chance to acclimate to a milder
winter before getting hit with record cold. Dorcas et al. (2011)
concluded: ``Some pythons in our study were able to withstand long
periods of considerably colder weather than is typical for South
Florida, suggesting that some snakes currently inhabiting Florida could
survive typical winters in areas of the southeastern United States more
temperate than the region currently inhabited by pythons. Moreover, our
results are specific to translocated pythons from southern Florida.
Burmese pythons originating from more temperate localities within their
native range may be more tolerant of cold temperatures and would
presumably be more likely to successfully become established in
temperate areas of North America. The susceptibility to cold we
observed may reflect a tropical origin of the Florida pythons or
acclimatization of snakes to warm southern Florida winters early in
life.'' If the snakes in any of the research studies had been provided
such refugia as gopher tortoise burrows, they may have shown that they
could survive even lower temperatures without hibernating. Given the
climate flexibility exhibited by the Burmese python in its native range
(as analyzed through USGS' climate-matching predictions in the United
States), we would expect new generations within the leading edge of the
population's nonnative range to become increasingly
[[Page 12738]]
adaptable and able to expand to colder climates. Likewise, we would
also expect the reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green
anaconda, and Beni anaconda to have the same climate flexibility, and
new generations along the leading edge may become increasingly
adaptable and able to expand to colder climates.
A subsequent paper (Jacobson et al. 2012) concluded that it would
be unlikely that Burmese pythons will be able to expand to or colonize
more temperate areas of Florida and adjoining States due to their lack
of behavioral and physiological traits to seek refuge from cold
temperatures. However, there is nothing in the paper that undermines
the original approaches or conclusions of Rodda et al. (2009). Many
factors, including temperature, may limit the distribution of pythons
in the United States, but Jacobson et al. (2012) give no insight to
what those limitations might be. Based on the rationale described in
the paper, most of the continental United States is unsuitable even for
native snakes, and that is not the case.
(99) Comment: The ``Reed and Rodda Report'' was only subject to an
internal review process. Any policy changes or legislation that will
have an effect on the freedoms of American citizens should be based on
sound scientific evidence as well as the merit of a true scientific
peer review process.
Our Response: Dr. Susan Haseltine, Associate Director for Biology,
USGS, responded on January 23, 2010, to a press release issued by a
reptile-trade organization and an accompanying letter by a group of
veterinarians and other scientists regarding the USGS peer review
process. She said, ``The USGS provides unbiased, objective scientific
information upon which other entities may base judgments. To ensure
objectivity, independent scientific review is required of every USGS
publication. Standards require a minimum of two reviews, and adequacy
of the author's responses to reviews is assessed by both research
managers and independent scientists within the USGS. USGS went well
beyond the requirements by soliciting reviews from 20 reviewers (18 of
them external to the USGS). Reviewers comprised a large portion of the
global expertise on both the biology of giant constrictor snakes and
the management of invasive snakes.''
The USGS follows mandatory fundamental science practices for peer
review, which can be read at the following Internet site: http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502-3.html. This policy establishes the
requirements for peer review of USGS information products and applies
to all USGS scientific and technical information, whether it is
published by the USGS or an outside entity.
(100) Comment: For the 2012 final rule, the Service neglected
relevant information and scientific reports brought to its attention
during the comment period or published shortly thereafter. The Service
also neglected information in reports contrary to conclusions they
drew. Some studies were selectively quoted, giving misleading
impressions about their findings. These legal errors cannot be repeated
as the Service makes a determination regarding reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa
constrictor.
Our Response: For the final rule published on January 23, 2012 (77
FR 3330), the Service reviewed all documents that were provided to us
prior to the final determinations being made. We used information that
we found to be relevant, including citing papers that we found not
defensible, for which we explained why (see Need for the Final Rule
above). For this final rule, we reopened the comment period on the
proposed rule for an additional 30 days (see 79 FR 35719, June 24,
2014), and we considered all relevant information, including
information that we had received after the decisions for the first four
species of constrictor snakes had been made, along with other available
information concerning the reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda,
green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa constrictor.
(101) Comment: The National Park Service (NPS) described where boa
constrictors, reticulated pythons, and two of the anacondas have been
captured outside of captivity in Florida and other States. NPS also
comments that the potential range for the boa constrictor includes NPS
units such as Cumberland Island and Gulf Coast national seashores, Cape
Canaveral, Virgin Islands National Park, and other sites in Puerto
Rico, the Florida Keys, and elsewhere. The reticulated python has been
found on the loose in Florida, California, Colorado, Hawaii, and
Massachusetts. The potential range for the three the anacondas includes
Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Our Response: We considered the information submitted by NPS and
have incorporated that information into our analysis where appropriate.
In this rule, we are adding reticulated python, DeSchauensee's
anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list of injurious
wildlife. For reasons discussed above in the section Withdrawal of the
Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species, we are
withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as an injurious
reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
(102) Comment: NPS's review of biological studies shows that: (a)
The probability of detection of Burmese pythons in the environment is
extremely low because they are highly cryptic in a variety of native
and nonnative habitats. The reticulated python, DeSchauensee's
anaconda, green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa constrictor are also
highly cryptic and thus difficult to detect. Similar to the Burmese
python, they would likely be present, breeding, and causing impacts to
the environment long before an invasion is fully recognized. By the
time there is sufficient evidence gathered to determine that an
invasion has occurred, a population will likely have expanded beyond
the stage of eradication or containment. (b) Peer-review science
confirms the serious environmental impact of Burmese pythons on
wildlife in the Everglades. The green anaconda is the largest and
heaviest of the constrictor snakes and has a prey base that includes
aquatic species in larger proportion than the Burmese python. The boa
constrictor is the most arboreal of the constrictor species addressed
in this rulemaking process and is known to take birds from all forest
strata in addition to preying on mammals. The reticulated python is
noted as a good swimmer, is tolerant of salt water, and is likely able
to colonize coastal islands from mainland shores. Such traits suggest
potential to cause as much or greater damage to wildlife than the
Burmese python has, particularly when cumulative impacts are
considered. (c) Because an invasion of cryptic constrictor snakes, such
as the reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda,
Beni anaconda, and boa constrictor, can only be determined after a
large number are present in the environment, control and management
after they become established in the wild is costly and both time and
labor intensive. Further, eradication may never be possible. Current
control and management tools for the Burmese python are extremely
limited in their success, in spite of nearly 10 years of research and
management efforts. If we use the several decades of information on the
effort to contain brown tree snakes in Guam as a guide, efforts to
develop landscape-scale control tools for constrictor snakes in south
Florida is likely to require tens of millions of
[[Page 12739]]
dollars and several decades. The most effective and affordable means of
control for invasions by large constrictor species is prevention from
introduction, whether accidental or intentional. (d) Trade and
transportation have been cited as the ultimate drivers of invasive
species introductions, including those on NPS lands. Personal ownership
via the pet trade is the principal pathway by which large constrictor
species have been introduced into the environment in south Florida.
Efforts in education and outreach are extensive but are not able to
prevent all intentional or accidental releases of captive snakes into
the wild. For the six large constrictor species that have been found
outside of captivity in Florida, personal ownership in the pet trade
was demonstrated as the principal pathway that has resulted in their
presence in the environment. (e) New information on Burmese pythons has
documented unprovoked attacks by wild pythons on humans in Everglades
National Park. Attacks by reticulated pythons on humans in their native
range are documented and include multiple fatalities. NPS is concerned
about impacts to human health and safety as well as impacts to native
wildlife and habitats on NPS lands.
Our Response: The Service concurs with these comments. In this
rule, we are adding the reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda,
green anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list of injurious wildlife.
For reasons discussed above in the section Withdrawal of the Boa
Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species, we are
withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as an injurious
reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
(103) Comment: An authority on the physiology and biology of
pythons and boas makes these two conclusions: (a) These snakes are
unable to expand their populations beyond southern Florida and will
undoubtedly experience periodic population die-offs resulting from
episodes of freezing temperatures. (b) It is doubtful that these
species present a risk to natural populations of vertebrates because
the amount of food that they eat is trivial compared to the yearly
intake of a similar size carnivore (such as feral cats). (c) Finally,
these snakes are valuable for scientific and biomedical research.
Our Response: We believe the species can potentially spread, but we
will likely not know for certain until it is too late to act. Some
individual snakes may die from cold weather, but some Burmese pythons,
which are closely related, have already survived record cold
temperatures in Florida. For the second statement, we believe that many
large constrictors will attain much larger sizes than feral cats and
that they will, therefore, consume each more than the 5 kilograms per
year that the commenter estimates in his public comment. If these prey
items are declining species, the snake predation will pose a risk to
natural populations of vertebrates. Finally, scientific and biomedical
researchers will still be able to obtain permits for importation and
interstate transportation.
(104) Comment: The subspecies Boa constrictor imperator is
indigenous to the Sonoran Desert of northern Mexico but has never
naturally expanded its range to include the United States.
Our Response: For reasons discussed above in the section Withdrawal
of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species, we
are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as an
injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
(105) Comment: In 2013, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission launched ``The Python Challenge,'' a legal hunt designed to
highlight the problem of these invasive predators. This hunt attracted
roughly 1,600 hunters, yet only 68 snakes were captured.
Our Response: [Refers to a previously listed species; 77 FR 3330,
January 23, 2012.] This hunt was organized to heighten public awareness
of the invasive species problem. The hunt confirmed how difficult it is
even for dedicated hunters to locate the cryptic animals. The
reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni
anaconda are just as cryptically colored and just as difficult to
locate in the field.
Other
(106) Comment: The Service has not thoroughly considered the full
implications of the rule regarding effects on the pet industry.
Our Response: We understand that the implications of this rule are
complex. We have endeavored to consider all aspects of listing the
reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni
anaconda as injurious, including alternatives, using the best available
information. Please see Alternatives to Listing, below, for an
explanation of the alternatives that we considered. We have also made
every effort to consider all of the indirect and cumulative effects.
For reasons discussed above in the section Withdrawal of the Boa
Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species, we are
withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as an injurious
reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010), thus decreasing the effects on
the pet industry.
(107) Comment: Because the addition of any species to the lists of
injurious species under the Lacey Act results in the nationwide ban of
that species, a nationwide impact study should be performed.
Our Response: The commenter did not explain what type of nationwide
impact study should be performed. We did, in fact, develop two
nationwide impact studies, an economic analysis and an environmental
assessment, drafts of which we posted on http://www.regulations.gov on
March 12, 2010, with the proposed rule, and final versions of which are
also available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-
FHC-2008-0015 for the species listed in 2012 and the species we are
listing in this final rule. We used the best available information, and
we believe these impact studies are sufficient. We also believe we made
a good-faith effort to locate information (see also response to Comment
57).
(108) Comment: We request an extension of the comment period for
the proposed rule to provide our members much needed time to provide
comments, data, and analysis that will be instrumental to the Service's
final decision.
Our Response: We received requests for an extension of the public
comment period for up to 90 days. We granted two additional 30-day
comment periods to the original 60 days, for a total of 120 days for
the proposed rule's comment period. We believe that amount of time was
sufficient, even for a complex rule, considering we were seeking
similar information to that for the 2008 notice of inquiry (73 FR 5784;
January 31, 2008).
(109) Comment: One commenter referred to a memo written in 2007 by
a former Service Assistant Director and Chief of Law Enforcement. The
comment quoted the memo, ``The injurious species provisions of the
Lacey Act were clearly not designed to deal with a species that is
already a significant part of the pet trade in the United States'' and
``It could, however, make a felon out of a reptile enthusiast in
Wisconsin who sells one python to an individual in Minnesota.'' The
commenter stated that the Service has not made a case for the rule.
Our Response: The memo that the commenter referred to was an
information memorandum to the Service's Director regarding the petition
to list the Burmese python from the South Florida Water Management
District in 2006. The memo described
[[Page 12740]]
various options that the Service and others could consider. The
statements quoted by the commenter are verbatim. However, at the time
the memo was written, the USGS risk assessment (Reed and Rodda 2009)
had not yet been completed. No decision had been made by the Service at
the time of the memo. The Service's memo acknowledges, ``We expect to
have the risk assessment--an essential first step in any evaluation for
injurious designation--completed in approximately one year.'' That was,
however, an underestimation of the time it would take to prepare such a
thorough document and have it extensively peer-reviewed. Once that risk
assessment was completed, it became clear that all nine species
included in our March 12, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 11808) should be
evaluated by the Service for possible listing as injurious.
The memo's statement, ``The injurious species provisions of the
Lacey Act were clearly not designed to deal with a species that is
already a significant part of the pet trade in the United States'' is
true in that the pet trade was not established to the degree it is
today when the Lacey Act was passed by Congress in 1900. That does not,
however, mean that the injurious species provisions cannot be an
effective tool in invasive species management. The reason that we are
listing the reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green
anaconda, and Beni anaconda as injurious is that the listings may
prevent their establishment in vulnerable parts of the country. In
addition, two of the species are not currently part of the constrictor
pet trade, and the reticulated python and green anaconda comprise less
than 1 percent each of total constrictor snake imports (for the genera
Python, Boa, and Eunectes) for 2008 to 2010. Therefore, taking the
proactive step to list them as injurious species now will reduce the
likelihood that their numbers will increase in the United States and
pose a risk to native wildlife in the future. The Service has
determined, however, that the boa constrictor should not be listed as
an injurious species under the Lacey Act for the reasons explained in
the section Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an
Injurious Species, including, in part, that the species is widely held
in captivity in the United States in high numbers, often as pets.
As for the comment from the memo, ``It could, however, make a felon
out of a reptile enthusiast in Wisconsin who sells one python to an
individual in Minnesota,'' that statement was also quoted correctly and
is correct under certain situations. However, those situations are more
representative of worst-case scenarios. A variety of other laws are
often violated when people engage in illegal wildlife trafficking, some
of which are Federal felonies. However, a stand-alone violation of the
interstate transport or import prohibitions under 18 U.S.C. 42 is a
misdemeanor, not a felony. Please also see our response to Comment 30
for an explanation of the misdemeanor and felony violations.
Alternatives to Listing
(110) Comment: This is a summary of the alternatives suggested
through the public comment process. Where noted, they are explained
further in the text of the preamble above.
(a) List some or all of the nine species, but:
Exempt color and pattern genetic mutations of these snakes
from the listing as albinos, leucistics, etc.
Our Response: The commenter explains that albinos and leucistic
(having reduced pigmentation) snakes have a far lesser chance of
survival in any wild environment. Not listing these color and pattern
mutations would have a smaller financial impact on the industry and no
financial impact on the government. The commenter may be correct that
such color variations may have a lesser chance of survival in the wild.
However, the survival differential is unknown, so we have assumed that
all color variations still pose a substantial risk to the welfare of
wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States. Furthermore, if
snakes escape to the wild, their offspring may not have the same
obvious color pattern and may perpetuate normally patterned populations
given gene dominance, expression, mutation, and natural selection.
Exempt hybrids.
Our Response: We realize that hybrids often are worth significantly
more money than the parent species separately. Allowing hybrids would
preserve more of the income of some breeders. However, we have
determined that hybrids are at least the same risk as the parent
species are to the welfare of wildlife or wildlife resources of the
United States. The Wildlife Society commented, ``Hybrids between two
invasive species are also invasive themselves and must be listed as
injurious along with the exotic parental species. Hybrids maintain many
of the characteristics of the parent species; this means that hybrids
will retain an ability to reach the large sizes and continue the
voracious dietary habits of the parental species, and they will cause
as much damage to native threatened and endangered species and the
environment as pure species ancestors. Many closely related constrictor
species are known to hybridize, and it is likely that many of the
invasive constrictors noted in the proposed rule have this same
ability. Some hybrid combinations may result in sterile offspring,
however, some do remain fertile. Furthermore, each individual snake
still has the capability of causing extensive damage within its
lifetime.''
Do not list the species Boa constrictor.
Our Response: For reasons discussed above in the section Withdrawal
of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as an Injurious Species, we
are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa constrictor as an
injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010).
List regionally only where there is a climate match.
Our Response: Creating this type of geographical restriction or
exemption (or both) under the Lacey Act would make enforcement of the
regulations by the Federal Government, in cooperation with the affected
States, virtually impossible. Furthermore, the authority to list
regionally is unclear and untested.
Allow for the interstate travel for captive-bred animals.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 66.
Remove the status of the Port of Miami as an agricultural
port and a port of entry. Move the port of entry north, maybe to one of
the New England ports where the weather will eradicate anything that
would be lost or illegally released.
Our Response: This alternative is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. In addition, it is highly impractical. While Miami is the
port with the most imports of the reticulated python, green anaconda,
and boa constrictor (94.2 percent from 2011 to 2013; Final Economic
Analysis 2015), two other warm-weather southern ports (Los Angeles and
Dallas-Fort Worth) also received imports of thousands of the species
identified in the March 12, 2010, proposed rule. These three ports
account for 99 percent of all imports of the reticulated python, green
anaconda, and boa constrictor.
The Service should consider paying restitution to or
compensating these people for their losses, by buying the animals and
the businesses that will no longer exist, suddenly made worthless, at
fair market value, and then debating the question on how to dispose of
those animals.
Our Response: This rule does not affect people's ability to own,
possess,
[[Page 12741]]
or transport snakes within States, if allowed by State law. In
addition, neither the Service nor the Department of the Interior has
programs or authorities to compensate people for losses that may be
related to this injurious wildlife listing. The Service can work with
the affected States and industry, and offer technical assistance to
provide environmentally risk-free approaches to disposing of
constrictor snakes that businesses or pet owners no longer want to
keep. Please also see our response to Comment 13 where we provide
options for people to dispose of snakes responsibly.
(b) Do not list any of the species. Instead:
Let the States regulate their own captive wildlife, such
as following FWC's comprehensive approach in Florida.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 19.
Allow the industry to self-regulate and educate with the
Internet, etc.; United States Association of Reptile Keepers best
management practices; State and local risk assessment industry best
management practices (BMPs) as suggested by Dr. Frank Mazzotti; and
HabitattitudeTM.
Our Response: We fully support all of these suggestions and look
forward to working with all entities that endorse them. However, they
are voluntary actions, with no guarantee that organizations or their
members will cooperate. Of note is that these opportunities have been
available for many years, but, for example, USARK has not published
large constrictor snake best management practices to protect the
environment (such as asking the public not to release nonnative species
into the wild) on their Web site as of this date. We believe that both
voluntary and regulatory actions are necessary to safeguard our
ecosystems with more assurance.
Issue permits and registrations, require microchipping,
apply severe fines and criminal charges, etc., for the miskeeping or
release of these animals in any State.
Our Response: These alternatives do have potential for preventing
accidental and intentional escapes. However, the Service does not have
the authority to issue permits for pets or for any use of injurious
species other than for medical, zoological, educational, or scientific
purposes.
(c) PIJAC offered to discuss options with the Service in detail
including developing a comprehensive, State-led prevention and early
detection and rapid response program.
Our Response: Industry and State partnerships are very important to
the Service and Department of the Interior in our efforts to manage
invasive species. As examples, the Department signed a memorandum of
understanding with PIJAC in 2009, to create public awareness--through
such public campaigns as Habitattitude\TM\--about the threat of
invasive species and to promote responsible pet ownership practices to
prevent the accidental or intentional release of invasive species by
pet owners. The Service also partners with States to develop a national
aquatic invasive species program, and we support many State management
actions through cost-share grants for implementation of State Aquatic
Nuisance Species Management Plans. These partnerships with industry and
States are essential aspects of managing the invasive species problem
facing the nation and have been found to be particularly important in
developing the most effective means for controlling the further
establishment, spread, and damage from boa constrictors, as explained
in the section Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from Consideration as
an Injurious Species. Also important, however, is the Federal
Government's authority to regulate importation and interstate transport
of species found to be injurious wildlife under 18 U.S.C. 42 when
appropriate. This authority is one important aspect of an overall
national strategy to reduce the risks from introduction and spread of
harmful nonnative species.
(d) AZA offered an alternative to adopting the proposal by
supporting a coordinated regional response to Florida's pythons, and
invasive species in general, through a multipronged approach:
A national educational program should be developed to
bring the risks of invasive species to a broad audience and emphasize
responsible pet ownership and gardening practices.
Our Response: The Service is working with stakeholders on
Habitattitude\TM\ and Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! National campaigns. The
Service also worked on the development of ANSTF's Water Gardening
Guidelines, which became available to the public in 2014.
Increased support and coordination is needed for State and
local early detection, rapid response, and eradication efforts,
including organized volunteer invasive species corps to help protect
local ecosystems.
Our Response: The most effective and least costly methods should
focus on preventing establishment of potentially invasive species (see
our response to Comment 97), which is the intent of this rule.
Guidelines should be developed to help States evaluate and
manage the particular invasion risks in their region, including
improved data collection and record-keeping, containment facility
standards, and legitimate methods for unwanted pet disposition.
Our Response: We are unclear if this recommendation is directed
toward the Service. We suggest that it is more appropriate for AFWA to
address this recommendation.
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 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 forgo (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
[[Page 12742]]
amount the consumer would be willing to pay for that unit (U.S. Office
of Management and Budget 1996, section C-1).''
Large constrictor snakes are commonly kept as pets in U.S.
households, displayed by zoological institutions, used for science and
research, and used as educational tools. Because none of the four
species we are listing in this rule is native to the United States, the
species are obtained by importing or breeding in captivity. We provided
a draft economic analysis to the public at the time the March 12, 2010,
proposed rule (75 FR 11808) was published (on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015) and offered two
public comment periods totaling 90 days. Using the comments we received
on the draft economic analysis and new information we acquired, we
revised the economic analysis and provided the final version on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015 for the four
species we listed as injurious in 2012 (see 77 FR 3330, January 23,
2012). We opened another 30-day public comment period on June 24, 2014
(79 FR 35719) on the five remaining species in the proposed rule, for a
total of 120 public comment days. We prepared another economic analysis
for the four species that are the subjects of this final rule
(reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni
anaconda) using the same protocols as in 2012. We provide a summary
here of the part of the final economic analysis (2015) relevant to
those four species.
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 transport, producers, breeders, and suppliers would be
affected in several ways. Depending on the characteristics of a given
business (such as what portion of their sales depends on out-of-State
sales or imports), sales revenue would be reduced or eliminated, thus
decreasing total producer surplus compared to the situation without the
regulation. Consumers (pet owners or potential pet owners) would be
affected by having a more limited choice of constrictor snakes or, in
cases where species were not available within their State, no choice at
all if out-of-State sales are prohibited. Consequently, total consumer
surplus would decrease compared to no injurious listing. 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 this rule. In this case, consumer surplus would
increase compared to no injurious listing. If comprehensive information
were available on these different types of producer and consumer
surpluses, a comparison of benefits and costs would be relatively
straightforward. However, information is not currently available on
these values, so a quantitative comparison of benefits and costs is not
possible.
The data currently available are limited to the number of
constrictor snake imports each year, the estimated number of
constrictor snakes bred in the United States, and a range of retail
prices for each constrictor snake species. Using data for the three
genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes, we provide the value of the
reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, Beni
anaconda, and boa constrictor sold as a rough approximation for the
social cost of this final rulemaking and alternatives considered. We
provide qualitative discussion on the potential benefits of this
rulemaking. In addition, we used an input-output model in an attempt to
estimate the secondary or multiplier effects of this rulemaking--job
impacts, job income impacts, and tax revenue impacts (discussed below).
With this rule, the importation and interstate transport of four
species of large constrictor snakes (reticulated python, DeSchauensee's
anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda) will be prohibited, except
as specifically permitted. The annual retail value losses as a result
of this rule are estimated to range from $1.9 million to $4.1 million
(Final Economic Analysis 2015).
The broad indicator of the economic impacts of the alternatives,
economic output or aggregate sales, includes three types of effects:
Direct, indirect, and induced. The direct effects are the changes in
annual retail value due to the implementation of a given alternative.
``Indirect effects result from changes in sales for suppliers to the
directly affected businesses (including trade and services at the
retail, wholesale and producer levels). Induced effects are associated
with further shifts in spending on food, clothing, shelter and other
consumer goods and services, as a consequence of the change in workers
and payroll of directly and indirectly affected businesses'' (Weisbrod
and Weisbrod 1997). The indirect and induced effects represent any
multiplier effects due to the loss of revenue. These cost estimates
include the various potential scenarios we considered.
Businesses or individuals importing or transporting listed species
across State lines could face penalties for Lacey Act violations. The
penalty for a Lacey Act violation is not more than 6 months in prison
and not more than a $5,000 fine for an individual, and not more than a
$10,000 fine for an organization.
Under this final rule, the probability of the four species of large
constrictor snakes establishing populations within the United States
should decrease compared to the ``no action'' alternative. The change
in probability is unknown.
Alternatives Considered
The draft economic analysis (2010) considered two other
alternatives, in addition to listing all (Alternative 2) or none
(Alternative 1) of the nine species under consideration. Alternative 3
would list the seven species known to be in trade in the United States
(that is, all but the Beni and DeSchauensee's anacondas). Alternative 4
would list the five species judged to have a high ``overall risk
potential'' in the USGS evaluation (Reed and Rodda 2009), while
excluding the four species judged to have a medium overall risk
potential (that is, the two nontraded species, plus the green anaconda
and reticulated python).
For the final economic analysis for this final rule (2015), our
alternatives changed because we had already listed four species as
injurious (see 77 FR 3330, January 23, 2012). Therefore, Alternative 2A
would list the five species remaining from the proposed rule
(reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, Beni
anaconda, and boa constrictor); Alternative 2B would list the four
species we are listing in this final rule (reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda);
Alternative 3 would list the three species that are currently in trade
(reticulated python, green anaconda, and boa constrictor); and
Alternative 4 would list only the boa constrictor, which is the only
species of the five remaining ones that Reed and Rodda (2009)
determined to have a high risk potential (all nine species, however,
are injurious).
Compared to the alternative of listing all five species (2A),
Alternative 2B would have less effect on current sales revenues or
indirect economic impacts from the loss of such revenues, because there
are currently no sales revenues from two of these species and the rule
does not include the boa constrictor, the one remaining species with
the highest overall risk potential (Reed and Rodda
[[Page 12743]]
2009). Only the reticulated python is the subject of noticeable trade,
and that is less than 4 percent of imported constrictor snakes of the
genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes (Final Economic Analysis 2015).
Alternative 2A would have the same economic impacts as Alternative 3,
because the two species that are not in Alternative 3 are not in trade.
Alternative 3 would, however, allow consumers to substitute the two
species not in trade (in addition to the many other substitute species
already available) for the purchase of the prohibited species, thus
reducing economic impacts to the degree that there would be substitute
purchases of these two species. However, the possibility of substitute
purchases is itself a potential problem in that the two currently
nontraded species are so similar in appearance to the green and yellow
anacondas that it would be difficult for enforcement officials to
distinguish green or yellow anacondas that were mislabeled as Beni or
DeSchauensee's anacondas. In addition, acting to prevent the
importation of these two species before trade in them emerges means
that environmental injury from them can be prevented, which is far more
effective than waiting until after injury has already occurred to act
to limit it.
Alternative 4 (listing only the one species determined to have a
high ``overall risk potential'' in Reed and Rodda (2009)) would limit
the rule to the species with the greatest potential for environmental
injury. Of the four species that would not be listed under this
alternative, two anacondas are not currently in trade in the United
States, and one (the green anaconda) is in very limited trade (less
than half a percent of imported constrictor snakes of the genera
Python, Boa, and Eunectes). The economic impact of the one-species
alternative (Alternative 4) would be slightly less than the five-
species alternative (Alternative 2A) and the three-species alternative
(Alternative 3) because the boa is the primary species in trade of the
five species, but greater than the four-species alternative, which does
not include the boa (Alternative 2B).
The relative level of risk associated with each species is
determined by the criteria specified in the section Lacey Act
Evaluation Criteria. Even in the case of those species with medium
risk, the particular areas where the climate match occurs are notable
for the number of endangered species found there (such as Hawaii,
southern Florida, and Puerto Rico). That fact, the potential that
yellow anacondas would be difficult for enforcement officials to
distinguish if mislabeled as DeSchauensee's anacondas and green
anacondas would be difficult for enforcement officials to distinguish
if mislabeled as Beni anacondas, and the fact that the opportunity to
act preventively before most of these species became established would
be lost under this alternative all argued in favor of Alternatives 2A,
2B, and 3.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (that is, small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a
regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a
threshold for ``significant impact'' and a threshold for a
``substantial number of small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A final regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared
for the four species listed in 2012 (see 77 FR 3330, January 23, 2012)
and another was prepared for the four species in this final rule in
2015, which we briefly summarize below. See ADDRESSES or http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015 for the
complete documents.
This rule lists four constrictor snake species (reticulated python,
DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda) as
injurious species under the Lacey Act. Entities impacted by the listing
include: (1) Companies importing live snakes, gametes, viable eggs, and
hybrids; (2) companies (breeders and wholesalers) with interstate sales
of live snakes, gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids; (3) entities selling
reptile-related products and services (pet stores, veterinarians, and
shipping companies); and (4) research organizations, zoos, and
educational operations. Importation of the four constrictor snakes will
be prohibited, except as specifically authorized. Impacts to entities
breeding or selling these snakes domestically will depend on the amount
of interstate sales within the constrictor snake market. Impacts also
are dependent upon whether or not consumers substitute the purchase of
an animal that is not listed, which would thereby reduce economic
impacts.
For businesses importing any of the four large constrictor snakes
we are listing in this final rule, the maximum impact of this
rulemaking will result in 20 to 28 small businesses (39 percent) having
a reduction in their retail sales of 1 percent.
In addition to companies that import snakes, entities that breed
and sell large constrictor snakes will also be impacted. These entities
include distributors, retailers, breeders and hobbyists, and exhibitors
and trade shows. We do not know the total number of businesses, large
or small, that sell or breed the two species we are listing in this
rule that are currently in trade domestically. However, we know
approximately the number of businesses that sell or breed large
constrictor snake species of the genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes and
that, overall, the reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green
anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa constrictor represent 39 percent of
all U.S.-bred large constrictor snake sales of those three genera.
Because we do not know exactly how many businesses sell those five
species, we extrapolated the percentage of sales to determine the
number of affected businesses. Thus, we assume that 8 percent of
businesses sell or breed the reticulated python and green anaconda (the
two snake species in U.S. trade in this final rule) and that
approximately 60 to 85 percent of these entities would qualify as small
businesses. Therefore, approximately 490 to 1,281 small businesses will
be affected. Impacts to this group of businesses as a whole could
represent an 8 percent reduction in retail value.
In addition to snake sales, ancillary and support services comprise
part of the snake industry. Four major categories include: (1) Food
suppliers (such as for frozen or live rats and mice), (2) equipment
suppliers (such as for cages, containers, lights, and other nonfood
items), (3) veterinary care and other health-related items, and (4)
shipping companies. The decrease in constrictor-snake-industry economic
output and related employment from baseline conditions is $5.3 to 11.4
million for the reticulated python and green anaconda. This estimate
includes impacts to the support service businesses. The number of
businesses
[[Page 12744]]
that provide these services to the large constrictor snake market is
unreported. Thus, we do not know the impact to these types of
individual businesses.
Under the final rule, the interstate transport of the reticulated
python and green anaconda (the two constrictor snakes currently in U.S.
trade in this final rule) will be discontinued, except as specifically
permitted. Thus, any revenue that would be potentially earned from this
portion of the business will be eliminated. The amount of sales
impacted is completely dependent on the percentage of interstate
transport. That is, the impact depends on where businesses are located
and where their customers are located.
This final rule may have a significant economic effect on a small
number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more. According to the final economic analysis (USFWS 2015), the annual
retail value losses for the four constrictor snake species we are
listing in this final rule are estimated to range from $1.9 million to
$4.1 million. In addition, businesses would also face the risk of fines
if caught importing or transporting these constrictor snakes, gametes,
viable eggs, or hybrids across State lines. The penalty for a Lacey Act
violation under the injurious wildlife provisions is not more than 6
months in prison and not more than a $5,000 fine for an individual and
not more than a $10,000 fine for an organization.
b. Will 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 will 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. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
This final rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100
million per year. This final rule will not have a significant or unique
effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not required.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), the rule does
not have significant takings implications. A takings implication
assessment is not required. This rule will not impose significant
requirements or limitations on private property use. Any person who
possesses one or more snakes of the four species we are listing in this
rule can continue to possess, sell, or transport them within their
State boundaries.
Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have
federalism implications. This rule will not have substantial direct
effects on States, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
among the various levels of government. The rule does not have
substantial direct effects on States because it: (1) Imposes no
affirmative obligations on any State, (2) preempts no State law, (3)
does not limit the policymaking discretion of the States, (4) requires
no State to expend any funds, and (5) imposes no compliance costs on
any State. Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to proceed
cautiously when there are ``uncertainties regarding the constitutional
or statutory authority of the national government,'' but there are no
such uncertainties here. The statutory authority of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to designate injurious species pursuant to the Lacey
Act is clear. The Executive Order also encourages early consultation
with State and local officials, which the Service has done. Therefore,
in accordance with Executive Order 13132, we determine that this rule
does not have federalism implications or preempt State law, and
therefore a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Executive Order. The rule has been reviewed to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, was written to minimize litigation,
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a
general standard, and promotes simplification and burden reduction.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
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, which expires May 31, 2017. 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 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
Department of the Interior NEPA regulations (43 CFR part 46), and the
Departmental Manual in 516 DM 8. This action is being taken to protect
the natural resources of the United States. A final environmental
assessment and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) have been
prepared and are available for review by written request (see
ADDRESSES) or at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-
FHC-2008-0015. The final environmental assessment was based on the
proposed listing of the reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda,
green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa constrictor as injurious and was
revised based on comments from peer reviewers and the public. By adding
reticulated python and DeSchauensee's, green, and Beni anacondas to the
list of injurious wildlife, we intend to prevent their new
introduction, further introduction, and establishment into natural
areas of the United States to protect native wildlife species, the
survival and welfare of wildlife and wildlife resources, and the health
and welfare of human beings. If
[[Page 12745]]
we did not list these constrictor snakes as injurious, the species are
more likely to expand in captivity in States where they are not already
found in the wild; this would increase the risk of their escape or
intentional release and subsequent establishment in new areas, which
would likely negatively affect native fish and wildlife, and humans.
Releases of the four constrictor snakes into natural areas of the
United States are likely to occur, and the species are likely to become
established in additional U.S. natural areas such as national wildlife
refuges and parks, negatively affecting native fish and wildlife
populations and ecosystem form, function, and structure. For reasons
discussed above in the section Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from
Consideration as an Injurious Species, we are withdrawing our proposal
to list the boa constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; March
12, 2010).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal tribes on a government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to
work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy
ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the
same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian
culture, and to make information available to tribes. We have evaluated
potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have
determined that there are no potential effects. This rule involves the
importation and interstate movement of three live anaconda species and
one live python species, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids that are not
native to the United States. We are unaware of trade in these species
by tribes.
Effects on Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not
expected to affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore,
this action is a not a significant energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
References Cited
A complete list of all references used in this rulemaking is
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015.
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the South
Florida Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 16
Fish, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service amends part 16, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 16--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 42.
0
2. Amend Sec. 16.15 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 16.15 Importation of live reptiles or their eggs.
(a) The importation, transportation, or acquisition of any live
specimen, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of the species listed in this
paragraph is prohibited except as provided under the terms and
conditions set forth at Sec. 16.22:
(1) Boiga irregularis (brown tree snake).
(2) Python molurus (including P. molurus molurus (Indian python)
and P. molurus bivittatus (Burmese python)).
(3) Python reticulatus, Broghammerus reticulatus, or Malayopython
reticulatus (reticulated python).
(4) Python sebae (Northern African python or African rock python).
(5) Python natalensis (Southern African python or African rock
python).
(6) Eunectes notaeus (yellow anaconda).
(7) Eunectes deschauenseei (DeSchauensee's anaconda).
(8) Eunectes murinus (green anaconda).
(9) Eunectes beniensis (Beni anaconda).
* * * * *
Dated: February 25, 2015.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2015-05125 Filed 3-6-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P