11808 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register at 65 

FR 19477, April 11, 2000, or you may 

visit http://www.regulations.gov. 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, send 

three copies of your complete 

submission, including the information 

you claim to be confidential business 

information, to the Chief Counsel, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Include a cover letter supplying the 

information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation (49 CFR part 512). 

In addition, send two copies from 

which you have deleted the claimed 

confidential business information to 

Docket Management, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, Room 

W12–140, Washington, DC 20590, or 

submit them electronically, in the 

manner described at the beginning of 

this notice. 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

NHTSA will consider all comments 

that Docket Management receives before 

the close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent the research 

schedule allows, NHTSA will try to 

consider comments that Docket 

Management receives after that date, but 

we cannot ensure that we will be able 

to do so.3

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date we will continue 

to file relevant information in the docket 

as it becomes available. Further, some 

commenters may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the docket for new 

material. 

Issued: March 5, 2010. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5177 Filed 3–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 16 

RIN 1018-AV68 

[FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015] 

[94140-1342-0000-N3] 

Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing the 

Boa Constrictor, Four Python Species, 

and Four Anaconda Species as 

Injurious Reptiles 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

draft environmental assessment and 

draft economic analysis. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) proposes to amend its 

regulations to add Indian python 

(Python molurus, including Burmese 

python Python molurus bivittatus), 

reticulated python (Broghammerus 

reticulatus or Python reticulatus), 

Northern African python (Python 

sebae), Southern African python 

(Python natalensis), boa constrictor (Boa 

constrictor), yellow anaconda (Eunectes 

notaeus), DeSchauensee’s anaconda 

(Eunectes deschauenseei), green 

anaconda (Eunectes murinus), and Beni 

anaconda (Eunectes beniensis) to the list 

of injurious reptiles. This listing would 

prohibit the importation of any live 

animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of 

these nine constrictor snakes into the 

United States, except as specifically 

authorized. The best available 

information indicates that this action is 

necessary to protect the interests of 

humans, wildlife, and wildlife resources 

from the purposeful or accidental 

introduction and subsequent 

establishment of these large constrictor 

snake populations into ecosystems of 

the United States. If the proposed rule 

is made final, live snakes, gametes, or 

hybrids of the nine species or their 

viable eggs could be imported only by 

permit for scientific, medical, 

educational, or zoological purposes, or 

without a permit by Federal agencies 

solely for their own use. The proposed 

rule, if made final, would also prohibit 

any interstate transportation of live 

snakes, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids 

of the nine species currently held in the 

United States. If the proposed rule is 

made final, interstate transportation 

could be authorized for scientific, 

medical, educational, or zoological 

purposes. 

DATES: We will consider comments we 

receive on or before May 11, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. 

FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015; Division of 

Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 

22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Supervisor, South Florida Ecological 

Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, 

FL 32960-3559; telephone 772-562-3909 

ext. 256. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- 

877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Action 

On June 23, 2006, the Service 

received a petition from the South 

Florida Water Management District 

(District) requesting that Burmese 

pythons be considered for inclusion in 

the injurious wildlife regulations under 

the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42). The 

District is concerned about the number 

of Burmese pythons found in Florida, 

particularly in Everglades National Park 

and on the District’s widespread 

property in South Florida. 

The Service published a notice of 

inquiry in the Federal Register (73 FR 

5784; January 31, 2008) soliciting 

available biological, economic, and 

other information and data on the 

Python, Boa, and Eunectes genera for 

possible addition to the list of injurious 

wildlife under the Lacey Act and 

provided a 90–day public comment 

period. The Service received 1,528 

comments during the public comment 

period that closed April 30, 2008. We 

reviewed all comments received for 

substantive issues and information 

regarding the injurious nature of species 

in the Python, Boa, and Eunectes 

genera. Of the 1,528 comments, 115 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11809 

provided economic, ecological, and 

other data responsive to 10 specific 

questions in the notice of inquiry. Most 

individuals submitting comments 

responded to the notice of inquiry as 

though it was a proposed rule to list 

constrictor snakes in the Python, Boa, 

and Eunectes genera as injurious under 

the Lacey Act. As a result, most 

comments expressed either opposition 

or support for listing the large 

constrictor snakes species and did not 

provide substantive information. We 

considered the information provided in 

the 115 applicable comments in the 

preparation of the draft environmental 

assessment, draft economic analysis, 

and this proposed rule. 

For the injurious wildlife evaluation 

in this proposed rule, we considered: (1) 

The substantive information that we 

received during the notice of inquiry, (2) 

information from the United States 

Geological Survey’s (USGS) ‘‘Giant 

Constrictors: Biological and 

Management Profiles and an 

Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine 

Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, 

and the Boa Constrictor’’ (Reed and 

Rodda 2009), and (3) the latest findings 

regarding the nine large constrictor 

snakes in Florida and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The 

USGS’s risk assessment (Reed and 

Rodda 2009) can be viewed at the 

following web sites: http:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015 and http:// 

www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/ 

Publications/ 

pub_abstract.asp?PubID=22691. Reed 

and Rodda (2009) provided the primary 

biological, management, and risk 

information for this proposed rule. The 

risk assessment was prepared at the 

request of the Service and the National 

Park Service. 

Background 

Purpose of Listing as Injurious 

The purpose of listing the Indian 

python (Python molurus, including 

Burmese python P. molurus bivittatus), 

reticulated python (Broghammerus 

reticulatus or Python reticulatus), 

Northern African python (Python 

sebae), Southern African python 

(Python natalensis), boa constrictor (Boa 

constrictor), yellow anaconda (Eunectes 

notaeus), DeSchauensee’s anaconda 

(Eunectes deschauenseei), green 

anaconda (Eunectes murinus), and Beni 

anaconda (Eunectes beniensis) 

(hereafter, collectively the nine 

constrictor snakes) as injurious wildlife 

would be to prevent the accidental or 

intentional introduction of and the 

possible subsequent establishment of 

populations of these snakes in the wild 

in the United States. 

Why the Nine Species Were Selected for 

Consideration as Injurious Species 

The four true giants (with maximum 

lengths well exceeding 6 m [20 ft]) are 

the Indian python, Northern African 

python, reticulated python, and green 

anaconda; they are prevalent in 

international trade. The boa constrictor 

is large, prevalent in international trade, 

and already established in South 

Florida. The Southern African python, 

yellow anaconda, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda exhibit 

many of the same biological 

characteristics as the previous five 

species that pose a risk of establishment 

and negative effects in the United 

States. The Service is striving to prevent 

the introduction and establishment of 

all nine species into new areas of the 

United States due to concerns about the 

injurious effects of all nine species 

consistent with 18 U.S.C. 42. 

Need for the Proposed Rule 

The threat posed by the Indian python 

(including Burmese python) and other 

large constrictor snakes is evident. 

Thousands of Indian pythons (including 

Burmese pythons) are now breeding in 

the Everglades and threaten many 

imperiled species and other wildlife. In 

addition, other species of large 

constrictors are or may be breeding in 

South Florida, including boa 

constrictors and Northern African 

pythons. Reticulated pythons, yellow 

anacondas, and green anacondas have 

also been reported in the wild in 

Florida. Indian pythons (including 

Burmese pythons), reticulated pythons, 

African pythons, boa constrictors, and 

yellow anacondas have been reported in 

the wild in Puerto Rico. The Southern 

African python, yellow anaconda, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, and Beni 

anaconda exhibit many of the same 

biological characteristics as the previous 

five species that pose a risk of 

establishment and negative effects in the 

United States. 

The USGS risk assessment used a 

method called ‘‘climate matching’’ to 

estimate those areas of the United States 

exhibiting climates similar to those 

experienced by the species in their 

respective native ranges (Reed and 

Rodda 2009). Considerable uncertainties 

exist about the native range limits of 

many of the giant constrictors, and a 

myriad of factors other than climate can 

influence whether a species could 

establish a population in a particular 

location. While we acknowledge this 

uncertainty, these tools also serve as a 

useful predictor to identify vulnerable 

ecosystems at risk from injurious 

wildlife prior to the species actually 

becoming established (Lodge et al. 

2006). Based on climate alone, many 

species of large constrictors are likely to 

be limited to the warmest areas of the 

United States, including parts of 

Florida, extreme south Texas, Hawaii, 

and insular territories. For a few 

species, large areas of the continental 

United States appear to have suitable 

climatic conditions. There is a high 

probability that large constrictors would 

establish populations in the wild within 

their respective thermal and 

precipitation limits due to common lifehistory traits that make them successful 

invaders, such as being habitat 

generalists that are tolerant of 

urbanization and capable of feeding on 

a wide range of size-appropriate 

vertebrates (reptiles, mammals, birds, 

amphibians, and fish; Reed and Rodda 

2009). While a few of the largest species 

have been known to attack humans in 

their native ranges, such attacks appear 

to be rare. 

Of the nine large constrictor snakes 

assessed by Reed and Rodda (2009), five 

were shown to pose a high risk to the 

health of the ecosystem, including the 

Indian python or Burmese python, 

Northern African python, Southern 

African python, yellow anaconda, and 

boa constrictor. The remaining four 

large constrictors—the reticulated 

python, green anaconda, Beni anaconda, 

and DeSchauensee’s anaconda—were 

shown to pose a medium risk. None of 

the large constrictors that were assessed 

was classified as low risk. As compared 

to many other vertebrates, large 

constrictors pose a relatively high risk 

for being injurious. They are highly 

adaptable to new environments and 

opportunistic in expanding their 

geographic range. Furthermore, since 

they are a novel, top predator, they can 

threaten the stability of native 

ecosystems by altering the ecosystem’s 

form, function, and structure. 

Most of these nine species are 

cryptically marked, which makes them 

difficult to detect in the field, 

complicating efforts to identify the 

range of populations or deplete 

populations through visual searching 

and removal of individuals. There are 

currently no tools available that would 

appear adequate for eradication of an 

established population of giant snakes 

once they have spread over a large area. 

Listing Process 

The regulations contained in 50 CFR 

part 16 implement the Lacey Act (Act; 

18 U.S.C. 42) as amended. Under the 

terms of the Act, the Secretary of the 

Interior is authorized to prescribe by 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11810 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

regulation those wild mammals, wild 

birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, 

amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring 

or eggs of any of the foregoing that are 

injurious to humans, to the interests of 

agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or 

to the wildlife or wildlife resources of 

the United States. The lists of injurious 

wildlife species are found at 50 CFR 

16.11–16.15. 

We are evaluating each of the nine 

species of constrictor snakes 

individually and will list only those 

species that we determine to be 

injurious. If we determine that any or all 

of the nine constrictor snakes in this 

proposed rule are injurious, then, as 

with all listed injurious animals, their 

importation into, or transportation 

between, the States, the District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, or any territory or possession of 

the United States by any means 

whatsoever is prohibited, except by 

permit for zoological, educational, 

medical, or scientific purposes (in 

accordance with permit regulations at 

50 CFR 16.22), or by Federal agencies 

without a permit solely for their own 

use, upon filing a written declaration 

with the District Director of Customs 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Inspector at the port of entry. The rule 

would not prohibit intrastate transport 

of the listed constrictor snake species 

within States. Any regulations 

pertaining to the transport or use of 

these species within a particular State 

would continue to be the responsibility 

of that State. 

The Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria are 

used as a guide to evaluate whether a 

species does or does not qualify as 

injurious under the Act. The analysis 

developed using the criteria serves as a 

basis for the Service’s regulatory 

decision regarding injurious wildlife 

species listings. A species does not have 

to be established, currently imported, or 

present in the wild in the United States 

for the Service to list it as injurious. The 

objective of such a listing would be to 

prevent that species’ importation and 

likely establishment in the wild, thereby 

preventing injurious effects consistent 

with 18 U.S.C. 42. 

If the data indicate that a species is 

injurious, a proposed rule will be 

developed. The proposed rule provides 

the public with a period to comment on 

the proposed listing and associated 

documents. 

If a determination is made to not 

finalize the listing, the Service will 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

explaining why the species is not added 

to the list of injurious wildlife. If a 

determination is made to list a species 

as injurious after evaluating the 

comments received during the proposed 

rule’s comment period, a final rule 

would be published. The final rule 

contains responses to comments 

received on the proposed rule, states the 

final decision, and provides the 

justification for that decision. If listed, 

species determined to be injurious will 

be codified in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

Introduction Pathways for Large 

Constrictor Snakes 

The primary pathway for the entry of 

the nine constrictor snakes into the 

United States is the commercial trade in 

pets. The main ports of entry for imports 

are Miami, Los Angeles, Baltimore, 

Dallas-Ft. Worth, Detroit, Chicago, and 

San Francisco. From there, many of the 

live snakes are transported to animal 

dealers, who then transport the snakes 

to pet retailers. Large constrictor snakes 

are also bred in the United States and 

sold within the country. 

A typical pathway of a large 

constrictor snake includes a pet store. 

Often, a person will purchase a 

hatchling snake (0.5 meters (m) [(22 

inches (in)]) at a pet store or reptile 

show for as little as $35. The hatchling 

grows rapidly, even when fed 

conservatively, so a strong snake-proof 

enclosure is necessary. All snakes are 

adept at escaping, and pythons are 

especially powerful when it comes to 

breaking out of cages. In captivity, they 

are fed pre-killed mice, rats, rabbits, and 

chickens. A tub of fresh water is needed 

for the snake to drink and soak in. As 

the snake grows too big for a tub in its 

enclosure, the snake will have to be 

bathed in a bathtub. Under captive 

conditions, pythons will grow very fast. 

An Indian python, for example, will 

grow to more than 20 feet long, weigh 

200 pounds, live more than 25 years, 

and must be fed rabbits and the like. 

Owning a giant snake is a difficult, 

long-term, somewhat expensive 

responsibility. For this reason, many 

snakes are released by their owners into 

the wild when they can no longer care 

for them, and other snakes escape from 

inadequate enclosures. This is a 

common pathway to invading the 

ecosystem by large constrictor snakes 

(Fujisaki et al. 2009). 

In aggregate, the trade in giant 

constrictors is significant. From 1999 to 

2008, more than 1.8 million live 

constrictor snakes of 12 species were 

imported into the United States (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Of all 

the constrictor snake species imported 

into the United States, the selection of 

nine constrictor snakes for evaluation as 

injurious wildlife was based on concern 

over the giant size of these particular 

snakes combined with their quantity in 

international trade. The four largest 

species of snakes—Indian python, 

Northern African python, reticulated 

python, and green anaconda—were 

selected, as well as similar and closely 

related species, and the boa constrictor. 

These giant constrictor snakes constitute 

a high risk of injuriousness in relation 

to those taxa with lower trade volumes, 

are large in size with maximum lengths 

exceeding 6 m (20 ft), and have a high 

likelihood of establishment in various 

habitats of the United States. The 

Southern African python, yellow 

anaconda, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

and Beni anaconda exhibit many of the 

same biological characteristics as the 

previous five species that pose a risk of 

establishment and negative effects in the 

United States. 

By far the strongest factor influencing 

the chances of these large constrictors 

establishing in the wild is the number 

of release events and the numbers of 

individuals released. With a sufficient 

number of either unintentional or 

intentional release events, these species 

will establish in ecosystems with 

suitable conditions for survival and 

reproduction. This is likely the case at 

Everglades National Park, where the 

core nonnative Burmese python 

population in Florida is now located. 

Therefore, allowing unregulated 

importation and interstate transport of 

these exotic species will increase the 

risk of these new species becoming 

established through increased 

opportunities for release. A second 

factor that is strongly and consistently 

associated with the success of an 

invasive species’ establishment is a 

history of it successfully establishing 

elsewhere outside its native range. For 

example, in addition to the established 

Indian (including Burmese) python 

population in Florida, we now know 

that boa constrictors are established at 

the Deering Estate at Cutler preserve in 

South Florida, and the Northern African 

python is established west of Miami, 

Florida, in the vicinity known as the 

Bird Drive Basin Recharge Area. A third 

factor strongly associated with 

establishment success is having a good 

climate or habitat match between where 

the species naturally occurs and where 

it is introduced. These three factors 

have all been consistently demonstrated 

to increase the chances of establishment 

by all invasive vertebrate taxa, including 

the nine large constrictor snakes in this 

proposed rule (Bomford 2008). 

However, as stated above, a species 

does not have to be established, 

currently imported, or present in the 

wild in the United States for the Service 

to list it as injurious. The objective of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11811 

such a listing would be to prevent that 

species’ importation and likely 

establishment in the wild, thereby 

preventing injurious effects consistent 

with 18 U.S.C. 42. 

Public Comments 

We are soliciting substantive public 

comments and supporting data on the 

draft environmental assessment, the 

draft economic analysis, and this 

proposed rule to add the Indian 

(including Burmese) python, reticulated 

python (Broghammerus reticulatus or 

Python reticulatus), Northern African 

python, Southern African python, boa 

constrictor, yellow anaconda, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list 

of injurious wildlife under the Lacey 

Act. The draft environmental 

assessment, the draft economic analysis, 

the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, 

and this proposed rule will be available 

on http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 

comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an 

address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If your written 

comments provide personal identifying 

information, you may request at the top 

of your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015, or 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at the South Florida Ecological 

Services Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

We are soliciting public comments 

and supporting data to gain additional 

information, and we specifically seek 

comment regarding the Indian python 

(Python molurus, including Burmese 

python P. m. bivittatus), reticulated 

python (Broghammerus reticulatus or 

Python reticulatus), Northern African 

python (Python sebae), Southern 

African python (Python natalensis), boa 

constrictor (Boa constrictor), yellow 

anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda (Eunectes 

deschauenseei), green anaconda 

(Eunectes murinus), and Beni anaconda 

(Eunectes beniensis) on the following 

questions: 

(1) What regulations does your State 

have pertaining to the use, transport, or 

production of any of the nine constrictor 

snakes? What are relevant Federal, 

State, or local rules that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the proposed 

rule? 

(2) How many of the nine constrictor 

snakes species are currently in 

production for wholesale or retail sale, 

and in how many and which States? 

(3) How many businesses sell one or 

more of the nine constrictor snake 

species? 

(4) How many businesses breed one or 

more of the nine constrictor snake 

species? 

(5) What are the annual sales for each 

of the nine constrictor snake species? 

(6) How many, if any, of the nine 

constrictor snake species are permitted 

within each State? 

(7) What would it cost to eradicate 

individuals or populations of the nine 

constrictor snakes, or similar species, if 

found? What methods are effective? 

(8) What are the costs of 

implementing propagation, recovery, 

and restoration programs for native 

species that are affected by the nine 

constrictor snake species, or similar 

species? 

(9) What State threatened or 

endangered species would be impacted 

by the introduction of any of the nine 

constrictor snake species? 

(10) What species have been 

impacted, and how, by any of the nine 

constrictor snake species? 

(11) What provisions in the proposed 

rule should the Service consider with 

regard to: (a) The impact of the 

provision(s) (including any benefits and 

costs), if any, and (b) what alternatives, 

if any, the Service should consider, as 

well as the costs and benefits of those 

alternatives, paying specific attention to 

the effect of the rule on small entities? 

(12) How could the proposed rule be 

modified to reduce any costs or burdens 

for small entities consistent with the 

Service’s requirements? 

(13) Why we should or should not 

include hybrids of the nine constrictor 

species analyzed in this rule, and if the 

hybrids possess the same biological 

characteristics as the parent species. 

Species Information 

Indian python (Python molurus, 

including Burmese python P. molurus 

bivittatus) 

Native Range 

The species Python molurus ranges 

widely over southern and southeast 

Asia (Reed and Rodda 2009). Reed and 

Rodda (2009) state that, at times, the 

species has been divided into 

subspecies recognizable primarily by 

color. The most widely used common 

name for the entire species is Indian 

python, with P. molurus bivittatus 

routinely distinguished as the Burmese 

python. Because the pet trade is 

composed almost entirely of P. m. 

bivittatus, most popular references 

simply use Burmese python. However, 

hereafter, we refer to the species as 

Indian python (for the entire species), 

unless specifically noted as Burmese (to 

refer to the subspecies, or where 

information sources used that name). 

The subspecies, Python molurus 

molurus is listed as endangered in its 

native lands under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531, et seq.) under the common 

name of Indian python. P. molurus 

molurus is also listed by the Convention 

on International Trade in Threatened 

and Endangered Species (CITES) under 

Appendix I but uses no common name. 

All other subspecies in the genus 

Python are listed in CITES Appendix II. 

This rule as proposed would list all 

members of Python molurus as 

injurious. 

In its native range, the Indian python 

occurs in virtually every habitat from 

lowland tropical rainforest (Indonesia 

and Southeast Asia) to thorn-scrub 

desert (Pakistan) and grasslands 

(Sumbawa, India) to montane warm 

temperate forests (Nepal and China) 

(Reed and Rodda 2009). This species 

inhabits an extraordinary range of 

climates, including both temperate and 

tropical, as well as both very wet and 

very dry environments (Reed and Rodda 

2009). 

Biology 

The Indian python’s life history is 

fairly representative of large constrictors 

because juveniles are relatively small 

when they hatch, but nevertheless are 

independent from birth, grow rapidly, 

and mature in a few years. Mature males 

search for mates, and the females wait 

for males to find them during the mating 

season, then lay eggs to repeat the cycle. 

Male Indian pythons do not need to 

copulate with females for fertilization of 

viable eggs. Instead, the female 

apparently can fertilize her eggs with 

her own genetic material, though it is 

not known how often this occurs in the 

wild. Several studies of captives 

reported viable eggs from females kept 

for many years in isolation (Reed and 

Rodda). 

In a sample of eight clutches 

discovered in southern Florida (one nest 

and seven gravid females), the average 

clutch size was 36 eggs, but pythons 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11812 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

have been known to lay as many as 107 

eggs in one clutch. Adult females from 

recent captures in Everglades National 

Park have been found to be carrying 

more than 85 eggs (Harvey et al. 2008). 

The Burmese python (Python molurus 

bivittatus) is one of the largest snakes in 

the world; it reaches lengths of up to 7 

m (23 ft) and weights of over 90 

kilograms (kg)(almost 200 pounds (lbs)). 

Hatchlings range in length from 50 to 80 

centimeters (cm)(19 to 31 inches (in)) 

and can more than double in size within 

the first year (Harvey et al. 2008). As is 

true with all snakes, pythons grow 

throughout their lives. Reed and Rodda 

(2009) cite Bowler (1977) for two 

records of Burmese pythons living more 

than 28 years (up to 34 years, 2 months 

for one snake that was already an adult 

when acquired). 

Like all of the giant constrictors, 

Indian pythons are extremely cryptic in 

coloration. They are silent hunters that 

lie in wait along pathways used by their 

prey and then ambush them. They blend 

so well into their surroundings that 

observers have released marked snakes 

for research purposes and lost sight of 

them 5 feet away (Roybal, pers. comm. 

2010). 

With only a few reported exceptions, 

Indian pythons eat terrestrial 

vertebrates, although they eat a wide 

variety of terrestrial vertebrates (lizards, 

frogs, crocodilians, snakes, birds, and 

mammals). Special attention has been 

paid to the large maximum size of prey 

taken from python stomachs, both in 

their native range and nonnative 

occurrences in the United States. The 

most well-known large prey items 

include alligators, antelopes, dogs, deer, 

jackals, goats, porcupines, wild boars, 

pangolins, bobcats, pea fowl, frigate 

birds, great blue herons, langurs, and 

flying foxes; a leopard has even been 

reported as prey (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

To accommodate the large size of prey, 

Indian pythons have the ability to grow 

stomach tissue quickly to digest a large 

meal (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

Reticulated Python (Broghammerus 

reticulatus or Python reticulatus) 

Native Range 

Although native range boundaries are 

disputed, reticulated pythons 

conservatively range across much of 

mainland Southeast Asia (Reed and 

Rodda 2009). They are found from sea 

level up to more than 1,300 m (4,265 ft) 

and inhabit lowland primary and 

secondary tropical wet forests, tropical 

open dry forests, tropical wet montane 

forests, rocky scrublands, swamps, 

marshes, plantations and cultivated 

areas, and suburban and urban areas. 

Reticulated pythons occur primarily in 

areas with a wet tropical climate. 

Although they also occur in areas that 

are seasonally dry, reticulated pythons 

do not occur in areas that are 

continuously dry or very cold at any 

time (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

Biology 

The reticulated python is most likely 

the world’s longest snake (Reed and 

Rodda 2009). Adults can grow to a 

length of more than 8.7 m (28.5 ft). Like 

all pythons, the reticulated python is 

oviparous (lays eggs). The clutch sizes 

range from 8 to 124, with typical 

clutches of 20 to 40 eggs. Hatchlings are 

at least 61 cm (2 ft) in total length (Reed 

and Rodda 2009). We have no data on 

life expectancy in the wild, but several 

captive specimens have lived for nearly 

30 years (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

The size range of the prey of 

reticulated pythons is essentially the 

same as that of the Indian python, as far 

as is known (Reed and Rodda 2009), and 

has included chickens, rats, monitor 

lizards, civet cats, bats, an immature 

cow, various primates, deer, goats, cats, 

dogs, ducks, rabbits, tree shrews, 

porcupines, and many species of birds. 

A host of internal and external 

parasites plague wild reticulated 

pythons (Auliya 2006). The pythons in 

general are hosts to various protozoans, 

nematodes, ticks, and lung arthropods 

(Reed and Rodda 2009). Captive 

reticulated pythons can carry ticks of 

agricultural significance (potential 

threat to domestic livestock) in Florida 

(Burridge et al. 2000, 2006; Clark and 

Doten 1995). 

The reticulated python can be an 

aggressive and dangerous species of 

giant constrictor to humans. Reed and 

Rodda (2009) cite numerous sources of 

people being bitten, attacked, and even 

killed by reticulated pythons in their 

native range. 

Northern African Python (Python sebae) 

Native Range 

Python sebae and Python natalensis 

are closely related, large-bodied pythons 

of similar appearance found in subSaharan Africa (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

The most common English name for this 

species complex has been African rock 

python. After P. sebae was split from P. 

natalensis, some authors added 

‘‘Northern’’ or ‘‘Southern’’ as a prefix to 

this common name. Reed and Rodda 

2009 adopted Broadley’s (1999) 

recommendations and refer to these 

snakes as the Northern and Southern 

African pythons; hereafter, we refer to 

them as Northern and Southern African 

pythons, or occasionally as African 

pythons. 

Northern African pythons range from 

the coasts of Kenya and Tanzania across 

much of central Africa to Mali and 

Mauritania, as well as north to Ethiopia 

and perhaps Eritrea; in arid zones, their 

range is apparently limited to the 

vicinity of permanent water (Reed and 

Rodda 2009). In Nigeria, Northern 

African pythons are reported from 

suburban, forest, pond and stream, and 

swamp habitats, including extensive use 

of Nigerian mangrove habitats. In the 

arid northern parts of its range, 

Northern African pythons appear to be 

limited to wetlands, including the 

headwaters of the Nile, isolated 

wetlands in the Sahel of Mauritania and 

Senegal, and the Shabelle and Jubba 

Rivers of Somalia (Reed and Rodda 

2009). The Northern African python 

inhabits regions with some of the 

highest mean monthly temperatures 

identified for any of the giant 

constrictors, with means of greater than 

35 °C (95 °F) in arid northern localities 

(Reed and Rodda 2009). 

Biology 

Northern African pythons are 

primarily ambush foragers, lying in wait 

for prey in burrows, along animal trails, 

and in water. Northern African pythons 

are oviparous. Branch (1988) reports 

that an ‘‘average’’ female of 3 to 4 m (10 

to 13 ft) total length would be expected 

to lay 30 to 40 eggs, while others report 

an average clutch of 46 eggs, individual 

clutches from 20 to ‘‘about 100,’’ and 

clutch size increasing correspondingly 

in relation to the body length of the 

female (Pope 1961). In captivity, 

Northern African pythons have lived for 

27 years (Snider and Bowler 1992). As 

with most of the giant constrictors, adult 

African pythons primarily eat 

endothermic (warm-blooded) prey from 

a wide variety of taxa. Domestic animals 

consumed by African pythons include 

goats, dogs, and a domestic turkey 

consumed by an individual in suburban 

South Florida. 

Southern African Python (Python 

natalensis) 

Native Range 

The Southern African python is found 

from Kenya southwest to Angola and 

south through parts of Namibia and 

much of eastern South Africa. 

Distributions of the species overlap 

somewhat, although the southern 

species tends to inhabit higher areas in 

regions where both species occur (Reed 

and Rodda 2009). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11813 

Biology 

Little is known about Southern 

African pythons. They are oviparous. As 

with most of the giant constrictors, adult 

African pythons primarily eat 

endothermic (warm-blooded) prey from 

a wide variety of taxa. The Southern 

African pythons consume a variety of 

prey types that includes those listed for 

Northern African pythons. 

Boa Constrictor (Boa constrictor) 

Native Range 

Boa constrictors range widely over 

North America (Mexico), Central 

America, and South America, including 

dozens of marine and lacustrine islands, 

and have one of the widest latitudinal 

distributions of any snake in the world. 

In their native range, boa constrictors 

inhabit environments from sea level to 

1,000 m (3,280 ft), including wet and 

dry tropical forest, savanna, very dry 

thorn scrub, and cultivated fields. They 

are commonly found in or along rivers 

and streams because they are capable 

swimmers (Reed and Rodda 2009; Snow 

et al. 2007). 

Biology 

The maximum length of this species 

is roughly 4 m (13 ft). Boa constrictors 

are ovoviviparous (bear live young after 

eggs hatch inside mother). The average 

clutch size is 35 eggs. Snake longevity 

records from captive-bred populations 

can be 38 to 40 years (Reed and Rodda 

2009). 

The boa constrictor has a broad diet, 

consuming prey from a wide variety of 

vertebrate taxa. Young boa constrictors 

will eat mice, small birds, lizards, and 

amphibians. The size of the prey item 

will increase as the snake gets older and 

larger. The boa constrictor is an ambush 

predator and will lie in wait for an 

appropriate prey to come along, at 

which point it will attack (Reed and 

Rodda 2009; Snow et al. 2007). 

The subspecies Boa constrictor 

occidentalis is listed by CITES under 

Appendix I but uses no common name. 

This rule as proposed would list all 

subspecies of Boa constrictor as 

injurious. 

Yellow Anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) 

Native Range 

The yellow anaconda (E. notaeus) has 

a larger distribution in subtropical and 

temperate areas of South America than 

the DeSchauensee’s anaconda and has 

received more scientific attention. The 

yellow anaconda appears to be 

restricted to swampy, seasonally 

flooded, or riverine habitats throughout 

its range. The yellow anaconda exhibits 

a fairly temperate climate range, 

including localities with cold-season 

monthly mean temperatures around 10 

°C (50 °F) and no localities with 

monthly means exceeding 30 °C (86 °F) 

in the warm season (Reed and Rodda 

2009). 

Biology 

The yellow anaconda bears live young 

(ovoviviparous). The recorded number 

of yellow anaconda offspring range from 

10 to 37, with a maximum of 56. In 

captivity, yellow anacondas have lived 

for over 20 years. Yellow anacondas 

appear to be generalist predators on a 

range of vertebrates. The anacondas in 

general exhibit among the broadest diet 

range of any snake, including 

ectotherms (lizards, crocodilians, 

turtles, snakes, fish) and endotherms 

(birds, mammals), and yellow 

anacondas have typical diets. 

DeSchauensee’s Anaconda (Eunectes 

deschauenseei) 

Native Range 

This species has a much smaller range 

than does the yellow anaconda and is 

largely confined to the Brazilian island 

of Marajo ́, nearby areas around the 

mouth of the Amazon River, and several 

drainages in French Guiana. 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda is known 

from a small number of specimens and 

has a limited range in northeast South 

America. Although not well studied, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda apparently 

prefers swampy habitats that may be 

seasonally flooded. DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda is known from only a few 

localities in northeast South America, 

and its known climate range is 

accordingly very small. While the 

occupied range exhibits moderate 

variation in precipitation across the 

year, annual temperatures tend to range 

between 25 oC (77 oF) and 30 oC (86 oF). 

Whether the species could tolerate 

greater climatic variation is unknown. 

Biology 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda appears to 

be the smallest of the anacondas, 

although the extremely limited number 

of available specimens does not allow 

unequivocal determination of maximal 

body sizes. Dirksen and Henderson 

(2002) record a maximum total length of 

available specimens as 1.92 m (6.3 (ft)) 

in males and 3.0 m (9.8 (ft)) in females. 

The DeSchauensee’s anaconda is livebearing. In captivity, DeSchauensee’s 

anacondas have been reported to live for 

17 years, 11 months (Snider and Bowler 

1992). Clutch sizes of DeSchauensee’s 

anacondas ranged from 3 to 27 (mean 

10.6 ± 9.6) in a sample of five museum 

specimens (Pizzatto and Marques 2007), 

a range far greater than reported in some 

general works (for example, 3-7 

offspring; Walls, 1998). 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda is reported 

to consume mammals, fish, and birds, 

and its overall diet is assumed to be 

similar to that of the yellow anaconda 

(Reed and Rodda 2009). 

Green Anaconda (Eunectes murinus) 

Native Range 

The native range of green anaconda 

includes aquatic habitats in much of 

South America below 850 m (2,789 ft) 

elevation plus the insular population on 

Trinidad, encompassing the Amazon 

and Orinoco Basins; major Guianan 

rivers; the San Francisco, Parana, and 

Paraguay Rivers in Brazil; and extending 

south as far as the Tropic of Capricorn 

in northeast Paraguay. The range of 

green anaconda is largely defined by 

availability of aquatic habitats. 

Depending on location within the wide 

distribution of the species, these appear 

to include deep, shallow, turbid, and 

clear waters, and both lacustrine and 

riverine habitats (Reed and Rodda 

2009). 

Biology 

Reed and Rodda (2009) describe the 

green anaconda as truly a giant snake, 

with fairly reliable records of lengths 

over 7 m (23 ft) and having a very stout 

body. Very large anacondas are almost 

certainly the heaviest snakes in the 

world, ranging up to 200 kg (441 lbs) 

(Bisplinghof and Bellosa 2007), even 

though reticulated pythons, for 

example, may attain greater lengths. 

The green anaconda bears live young. 

The maximum recorded litter size is 82, 

removed from a Brazilian specimen, but 

the typical range is 28 to 42 young. 

Neonates (newly born young) are 

around 70 to 80 cm (27.5 to 31.5 in) long 

and receive no parental care. Because of 

their small size, they often fall prey to 

other animals. If they survive, they grow 

rapidly until they reach sexual maturity 

in their first few years (Reed and Rodda 

2009). While reproduction is typically 

sexual, Reed and Rodda (2009) report 

that a captive, female green anaconda 

that was 5 years old in 1976 and that 

had no access to males gave birth in 

2002 to 23 females. This raises the 

possibility that green anacondas are 

facultatively parthenogenic, and that, 

theoretically, a single female green 

anaconda could establish a population. 

The green anaconda is considered a 

top predator in South American 

ecosystems. Small anacondas appear to 

primarily consume birds, and as they 

mature, they undergo an ontogenetic 

prey shift to large mammals and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11814 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

reptiles. The regular inclusion of fish in 

the diet of the anacondas (including 

other members of the genus Eunectes) 

increases their dietary niche breadth in 

relation to the other giant constrictors, 

which rarely consume fish. Green 

anacondas consume a wide variety of 

endotherms and ectotherms from higher 

taxa, including such large prey as deer 

and crocodilians (alligators are a type of 

crocodilian). The regular inclusion of 

fish, turtles, and other aquatic 

organisms in their diet increases their 

range of prey even beyond that of 

reticulated or Indian pythons. 

Organisms that regularly come in 

contact with aquatic habitats are likely 

to be most commonly consumed by 

green anacondas (Reed and Rodda 

2009). Green anacondas would have a 

ready food supply anywhere that the 

climate and habitat matched their native 

range. Since green anacondas are known 

to prey upon crocodilians, they could 

potentially thrive on alligators, which 

are common in the southeastern United 

States. 

Beni Anaconda (Eunectes beniensis) 

Native Range 

The Beni anaconda is a recently 

described and poorly known anaconda 

closely related to the green anaconda 

(Reed and Rodda 2009). The native 

range of the Beni anaconda is the Itenez/ 

Guapore River in Bolivia along the 

border with Brazil, as well as the Baures 

River drainage in Bolivia. The green and 

Beni anacondas are similar in size and 

the range of the Beni anaconda is within 

the range of the green anaconda 

(Bolivia). 

Biology 

Eunectes beniensis is a recently 

described species from northern Bolivia, 

previously considered to be contained 

within E. murinus. Eunectes beniensis 

was discovered in the Beni Province, 

Bolivia—thus the labeled name of Beni 

anaconda and another alias of Bolivian 

anaconda. Based on morphological and 

molecular genetic evidence, E. beniensis 

is more closely related to E. notaeus and 

E. deschauenseei than to E. murinus. 

The phylogenetic relationships within 

Eunectes are currently best described as: 

E. murinus [E. beniensis (E. 

deschauenseei, E. notaeus)]. To an 

experienced herpetologist, E. beniensis 

is easily recognizable by its brown to 

olive-brownish ground color in 

combination with five head stripes and 

less than 100 large, dark, solid dorsal 

blotches that always lack lighter centers. 

To a novice, E. beniensis and E. murinus 

are similar in appearance. The primarily 

nocturnal anaconda species tends to 

spend most of its life in or around 

water. 

Summary of the Presence of the Nine 

Constrictor Snakes in the United States 

Of the nine constrictor snake species 

that are proposed for listing as injurious, 

six have been reported in the wild in the 

United States and two have been 

confirmed as reproducing in the wild in 

the United States; six have been 

imported commercially into the United 

States during the period 1999 to 2008 

(Table 1). 

TABLE 1. THE SPECIES OF NINE SNAKES PROPOSED FOR LISTING AS INJURIOUS THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN THE UNITED

STATES, ARE KNOWN TO BE BREEDING IN THE UNITED STATES, AND HAVE BEEN IMPORTED FOR TRADE. 

Species Reported in the wild in U.S.? Reproducing in the wild in U.S.? Imported into U.S. for trade?* 

Indian (or Burmese) python Yes Yes Yes 

Reticulated python Yes No Yes 

Northern African python Yes Possible Yes 

Southern African python No No Unknown** 

Boa constrictor Yes Yes Yes 

Yellow anaconda Yes No Yes 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda No No Unknown** 

Green anaconda Yes No Yes 

Beni anaconda No No Unknown** 

*Data from Draft Economic Analysis (USFWS 2010) 

** It is possible that this species has been imported into the U.S. incorrectly identified as one of the other species under consideration in this 

rule. 

Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria 

We use the criteria below to evaluate 

whether a species does or does not 

qualify as injurious under the Lacey 

Act, 18 U.S.C. 42. The analysis that is 

developed using these criteria serves as 

a general basis for the Service’s 

regulatory decision regarding injurious 

wildlife species listings (not just for the 

nine proposed snake species). Biologists 

within the Service who are 

knowledgeable about a species being 

evaluated will assess both the factors 

that contribute to and the factors that 

reduce the likelihood of injuriousness. 

(1) Factors that contribute to being 

considered injurious: 

•The likelihood of release or escape; 

• Potential to survive, become 

established, and spread; 

• Impacts on wildlife resources or 

ecosystems through hybridization 

and competition for food and 

habitats, habitat degradation and 

destruction, predation, and 

pathogen transfer; 

• Impact to threatened and 

endangered species and their 

habitats; 

• Impacts to human beings, forestry, 

horticulture, and agriculture; and 

•Wildlife or habitat damages that may 

occur from control measures. 

(2) Factors that reduce the likelihood 

of the species being considered as 

injurious: 

• Ability to prevent escape and 

establishment; 

• Potential to eradicate or manage 

established populations (for 

example, making organisms sterile); 

• Ability to rehabilitate disturbed 

ecosystems; 

• Ability to prevent or control the 

spread of pathogens or parasites; 

and 

• Any potential ecological benefits to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11815 

introduction. 

To obtain some of the information for 

the above criteria, we used Reed and 

Rodda (2009). Reed and Rodda (2009) 

developed the Organism Risk Potential 

scores for each species using a widely 

utilized risk assessment procedure that 

was published by the Aquatic Nuisance 

Species Task Force (ANSTF 1996). This 

procedure incorporates four factors 

associated with probability of 

establishment and three factors 

associated with consequences of 

establishment, with the combination of 

these factors resulting in an overall 

Organism Risk Potential (ORP) for each 

species. For the nine constrictor snakes 

under consideration, the risk of 

establishment ranged from medium 

(reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni 

anaconda) to high (Indian python, 

Northern African python, Southern 

African python, boa constrictor, and 

yellow anaconda). 

For the nine constrictor snakes under 

consideration, the consequences of 

establishment range from low 

(DeSchauensee’s anaconda and Beni 

anaconda) to medium (reticulated 

python, yellow anaconda, and green 

anaconda) to high (Indian python, 

Northern African python, Southern 

African python, and boa constrictor). 

The overall ORP, which is derived from 

an algorithm of both probability of 

establishment and consequences of 

establishment, was found to range from 

medium (reticulated python, green 

anaconda, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

and Beni anaconda) to high (Indian 

python, Northern African python, 

Southern African python, boa 

constrictor, yellow anaconda). 

Certainties were highly variable 

within each of the seven elements of the 

risk assessment, varying from very 

uncertain to very certain. In general, the 

highest certainties were associated with 

those species unequivocally established 

in Florida (Indian python and boa 

constrictor) because of enhanced 

ecological information on these species 

from studies in both their native range 

and in Florida. The way in which these 

sub-scores are obtained and combined is 

set forth in an algorithm created by the 

ANSTF (Table 2). 

TABLE 2. THE ALGORITHM THAT THE ANSTF DEFINED FOR COMBINING THE TWO PRIMARY SUB-SCORES (REED AND RODDA

2009) 

Probability of 

Establishment 

Consequences of 

Establishment 

Organism Risk 

Potential (ORP) 

High High High 

Medium High High 

Low High Medium 

High Medium High 

Medium Medium Medium 

Low Medium Medium 

High Low Medium 

Medium Low Medium 

Low Low Low 

Similar algorithms are used for 

deriving the primary sub-scores from 

the secondary sub-scores. However, the 

scores are fundamentally qualitative, in 

the sense that there is no unequivocal 

threshold that is given in advance to 

determine when a given risk passes 

from being low to medium, and so forth. 

Therefore, we viewed the process as one 

of providing relative ranks for each 

species. Thus a high ORP score 

indicates that such a species would 

likely entail greater consequences or 

greater probability of establishment than 

would a species whose ORP was 

medium or low (that is, high > medium 

> low). High-risk species are Indian 

pythons, Northern and Southern African 

pythons, boa constrictors, and yellow 

anacondas. High-risk species, if 

established in this country, put larger 

portions of the U.S. mainland at risk, 

constitute a greater ecological threat, or 

are more common in trade and 

commerce. Medium-risk species were 

reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni 

anaconda. These species constitute 

lesser threats in these areas, but still are 

potentially serious threats. Because all 

nine species share characteristics 

associated with greater risks, none was 

found to be a low risk. 

For the purposes of this proposed 

rule, a hybrid is any progeny from any 

cross involving parents of these nine 

constrictor snake species. Such progeny 

are likely to possess the same biological 

characteristics of the parent species that, 

through our analysis, leads us to find 

that they are injurious to humans and to 

wildlife and wildlife resources of the 

United States. 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for Indian Python 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

The Indian python has been reported 

as captured in many areas in Florida 

(see Figure 4 in the draft environmental 

assessment). In South Florida, more 

than 1,300 live and dead Burmese 

pythons, including gravid females, have 

been removed from in and around 

Everglades National Park in the last 10 

years by authorized agents, park staff, 

and park partners, indicating that they 

are already established (National Park 

Service 2010). In the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, the Indian python has been 

collected or reported (eight individuals 

collected, including a 3-m (10-ft) albino) 

from the municipality of Adjuntas, the 

northern region of the island (Arecibo), 

and the eastern region of the island 

(Humacao) (Saliva, pers. comm. 2009). 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

The likelihood of release or escape 

from captivity of Indian python is high 

as evidenced by the releases and effects 

of those releases in Florida and Puerto 

Rico. When Indian pythons escape 

captivity or are released into the wild, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

they have survived and are likely to 

continue to survive and become 

established with or without 

reproduction. For example, in the past 

10 years, more than 1,300 Burmese 

pythons have been removed from 

Everglades National Park and vicinity 

(National Park Service 2010) alone and 

others have been captured from other 

natural areas on the west side of South 

Florida, the Florida Keys (Higgins, pers. 

comm. 2009), and farther up the 

peninsula, including Sarasota and 

Indian River County (Lowman, pers. 

comm. 2009; Dangerfield, pers. comm. 

2010). Moreover, released Indian 

pythons would likely spread to areas of 

the United States with a suitable 

climate. These areas were determined in 

the risk assessment (Reed and Rodda 

2009) for all nine constrictor snakes by 

comparing the type of climate the 

species inhabited in their native ranges 

to areas of similar climate in the United 

States (climate matching). Due to the 

wide rainfall tolerance and extensive 

semi-temperate range of Indian python, 

large areas of the southern United States 

mainland appear to have a climate 

suitable for survival of this species. 

Areas of the United States that are 

climatically matched at present include 

along the coasts and across the south 

from Delaware to Oregon, as well as 

most of California, Texas, Oklahoma, 

Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South 

and North Carolina. In addition to these 

areas of the U.S. mainland, the 

territories of Guam, Northern Mariana 

Islands, American Samoa, Virgin 

Islands, and Puerto Rico appear to have 

suitable climate. Areas of the State of 

Hawaii with elevations under about 

2,500 m (8,202 ft) would also appear to 

be climatically suitable. Indian pythons 

are highly likely to spread and become 

established in the wild due to common 

traits shared by the giant constrictors, 

including large size, habitat generalist, 

tolerance of urbanization, high 

reproductive potential, long distance 

disperser, early maturation, rapid 

growth, longevity, and ‘‘sit and wait’’ 

style of predation. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(including Threatened and Endangered 

Species) 

As discussed above under Biology, the 

Indian python grows to lengths greater 

than 7 m (23 ft) and can weigh up to 90 

kg (200 lbs). This is longer than any 

native terrestrial predator (including 

bears) in the United States and its 

territories and heavier than most native 

predators (including many bears). 

American black bears (Ursus 

americanus) vary in size depending on 

sex, food availability and quality, and 

other factors. Male black bears can grow 

to more than six feet long and weigh up 

to 295 kg (650 lbs); females rarely reach 

that length and do not weigh more than 

79 kg (175 lbs) (Smithsonian Institution 

2010). Among the largest of the native 

predators of the Southeast is the 

American alligator (Alligator 

mississippiensis). The average length for 

an adult female American alligator is 2.6 

m (8.2 ft), and the average length for a 

male is 3.4 m (11.2 ft) (Smithsonian 

Institution 2010). 

In comparison with the Indian 

python, the largest snake native to North 

America is the indigo snake 

(Drymarchon corais), attaining a size of 

about 2.5 m (8 ft) (Monroe and Monroe 

1968). A subspecies of the indigo snake 

is the eastern indigo snake (D. corais 

couperi), which grows to a similar 

maximum length. The eastern indigo 

snake inhabits Georgia and Florida and 

is listed as federally threatened by the 

Service. 

Unlike prey species in the Indian 

python’s native range, none of our 

native species has evolved defenses to 

avoid predation by such a large snake. 

Thus, naı ̈ve native wildlife anywhere in 

the United States would be very likely 

to fall prey to Indian pythons (or any of 

the other eight constrictor snakes). At all 

life stages, Indian pythons can and will 

compete for food with native species; in 

other words, baby pythons will eat 

small prey, and the size of their prey 

will increase as they grow. Based on an 

analysis of their diets in Florida, Indian 

pythons, once introduced and 

established, are likely to outcompete 

native predators (such as the federally 

listed Florida panther, eastern indigo 

snake, native boas, hawks), feeding on 

the same prey and thereby reducing the 

supply of prey for the native predators. 

Indian pythons are generalist predators 

that consume a wide variety of mammal 

and bird species, as well as reptiles, 

amphibians, and occasionally fish. This 

constrictor can easily adapt to prey on 

novel wildlife (species that they are not 

familiar with), and they need no special 

adaptations to capture and consume 

them. Pythons in Florida have 

consumed prey as large as white-tailed 

deer and adult American alligators. 

Three federally endangered Key Largo 

woodrats (Neotoma floridana smalli) 

were consumed by a Burmese python in 

the Florida Keys in 2007. The extremely 

small number of remaining Key Largo 

woodrats suggests that the current status 

of the species is precarious (USFWS 

2008); this means that a new predator 

that has been confirmed to prey on the 

endangered woodrats is a serious threat 

to the continued existence of the 

species. 

The United States, particularly the 

Southeast, has one of the most diverse 

faunal communities that are potentially 

vulnerable to predation by the Indian 

python. Juveniles of these giant 

constrictors will climb to remove prey 

from bird nests and capture perching or 

sleeping birds. Most of the South has 

suitable climate and habitat for Indian 

pythons. The greatest biological impact 

of an introduced predator, such as the 

Indian python, is the likely loss of 

imperiled native species. Based on the 

food habits and habitat preferences of 

the Indian python in its native range, 

the species is likely to invade the 

habitat, prey on, and further threaten 

most of the federally threatened or 

endangered fauna in climate-suitable 

areas of the United States. Indian 

pythons are also likely to threaten 

numerous other potential candidates for 

Federal protection. Candidate species 

are plants and animals for which the 

Service has sufficient information on 

their biological status and threats to 

propose them as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act, but for which development 

of a proposed listing regulation is 

precluded by other higher priority 

listing activities. For example, the 

current candidate list includes several 

bat species that inhabit the Indian 

python’s climate-matched regions. 

The draft environmental assessment 

includes lists of species that are 

federally threatened or endangered in 

climate-suitable States and territories, 

such as Florida, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto 

Rico, and the Virgin Islands. These lists 

include only the species of the sizes and 

types that would be expected to be 

directly affected by predation by Indian 

pythons and the other eight large 

constrictors. For example, plants and 

marine species are excluded. In Florida, 

14 bird species, 15 mammals, and 2 

reptiles that are threatened or 

endangered could be preyed upon by 

Indian pythons or be outcompeted by 

them for prey. Hawaii has 32 bird 

species and one mammal that are 

threatened or endangered that would be 

at risk of predation. Puerto Rico has 

eight bird species and eight reptile 

species that are threatened or 

endangered that would be at risk of 

predation. The Virgin Islands have one 

bird species and three reptiles that are 

threatened or endangered that would be 

at risk of predation. Guam has six bird 

species and two mammals that are 

threatened or endangered that would be 

at risk of predation. 

According to the climate suitability 

maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11817 

threatened and endangered species from 

all of Florida, most of Hawaii, and all of 

Puerto Rico would be at risk from the 

establishment of Indian pythons. While 

we did not itemize the federally 

threatened and endangered species from 

California, Texas, and other States, there 

are likely several hundred species in 

those and other States that would be at 

risk from Indian pythons. In addition, 

we assume that Guam, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and other territories would have 

suitable habitat and climate to support 

Indian pythons, and these also have 

federally threatened and endangered 

species that would be at risk if Indian 

pythons became established. 

The likelihood and magnitude of the 

effect on threatened and endangered 

species is high. Indian pythons are thus 

highly likely to negatively affect 

threatened and endangered birds and 

mammals, as well as unlisted native 

species. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

The introduction or establishment of 

Indian pythons may have negative 

impacts on humans primarily from the 

loss of native wildlife biodiversity, as 

discussed above. These losses would 

affect the aesthetic, recreational, and 

economic values currently provided by 

native wildlife and healthy ecosystems. 

Educational values would also be 

diminished through the loss of 

biodiversity and ecosystem health. 

Human fatalities from nonvenomous 

snakes in the wild are rare, probably 

only a few per year worldwide (Reed 

and Rodda 2009). However, although 

attacks on people by Indian pythons are 

improbable, they are possible given the 

large size that some individual snakes 

can reach. 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for Indian Python 

Control 

No effective tools are currently 

available to detect and remove 

established large constrictor 

populations. Traps with drift fences or 

barriers are the best option, but their use 

on a large scale is prohibitively 

expensive, largely because of the labor 

cost of baiting, checking, and 

maintaining the traps daily. 

Additionally, some areas cannot be 

effectively trapped due to the expanse of 

the area and type of terrain, the 

distribution of the target species, and 

the effects on any nontarget species. 

While the Department of the Interior, 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS), and State of 

Florida entities have conducted limited 

research on control tools, there are 

currently no such tools available that 

would appear adequate for eradication 

of an established population of large 

constrictor snakes, such as the Indian 

python, once they have spread over a 

large area. 

Efforts to eradicate the Indian python 

in Florida have become increasingly 

intense as the species is reported in new 

locations across the State. Natural 

resource management agencies are 

expending already-scarce resources to 

devise methods to capture or otherwise 

control any large constrictor snake 

species. These agencies recognize that 

control of large constrictor snakes (as 

major predators) on lands that they 

manage is necessary to prevent the 

likely adverse impacts to the ecosystems 

occupied by the invasive snakes. 

The draft economic analysis for the 

nine constrictor snakes (USFWS January 

2010), provides the following 

information about the expenditures for 

research and eradication in Florida, 

primarily for Indian pythons, which 

provides some indication of the efforts 

to date. The Service spent about 

$600,000 over a 3–year period (2007 to 

2009) on python trap design, 

deployment, and education in the 

Florida Keys to prevent the potential 

extinction of the endangered Key Largo 

woodrat at Crocodile Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge. The South Florida 

Water Management District spent 

$334,000 between 2005 and 2009 and 

anticipates spending an additional 

$156,600 on research, salaries, and 

vehicles in the next several years. An 

additional $300,000 will go for the 

assistance of USDA, Wildlife Services 

(part of USDA Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service). The USDA Wildlife 

Research Center (Gainesville FL Field 

Station) has spent $15,800 from 2008 to 

2009 on salaries, travel, and supplies. 

The USGS, in conjunction with the 

University of Florida, has spent over 

$1.5 million on research, radio 

telemetry, and the development, testing, 

and implementation of constrictor snake 

traps. All these expenditures total $2.9 

million from 2005 to approximately 

2012, or roughly an average of $363,000 

per year. However, all of these efforts 

have failed to provide a method for 

eradicating large constrictor snakes in 

Florida. 

Kraus (2009) exhaustively reviewed 

the literature on invasive herpetofauna. 

While he found a few examples of local 

populations of amphibians that had 

been successfully eradicated, he found 

no such examples for reptiles. He also 

states that, ‘‘Should an invasive 

[nonnative] species be allowed to spread 

widely, it is usually impossible—or at 

best very expensive - to eradicate it.’’ 

The Indian python is unlikely to be one 

of those species that could be 

eradicated. 

Eradication will almost certainly be 

unachievable for a species that is hard 

to detect and remove at low densities, 

which is the case with all of the nine 

large constrictor snakes. They are wellcamouflaged and stealthy, and, 

therefore, nearly impossible to see in the 

wild. Most of the protective measures 

available to prevent the escape of Indian 

pythons are currently (and expected to 

remain) cost-prohibitive and laborintensive. Even with protective 

measures in place, the risks of 

accidental escape are not likely to be 

eliminated. Since effective measures to 

prevent the establishment in new 

locations or eradicate, manage, or 

control the spread of established 

populations of the Indian python are not 

currently available, the ability to 

rehabilitate or recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species is low. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of a faunal 

biomass could potentially provide a 

food source for some native carnivores, 

species native to the United States are 

unlikely to possess the hunting ability 

for such large, camouflaged snakes and 

would not likely turn to large 

constrictor snakes as a food source. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

this unlikely benefit. There are no other 

potential ecological benefits for the 

introduction of Indian pythons into the 

United States. 

Conclusion 

The Indian python is one of the 

largest snakes in the world, reaching 

lengths of up to 7 m (23 ft) and weights 

of over 90 kilograms (kg)(almost 200 

pounds (lbs)). This is longer than any 

native, terrestrial animal in the United 

States, including alligators, and three 

times longer than the longest native 

snake species. Native fauna have no 

experience defending against this type 

of novel, giant predator. Hatchlings are 

about the size of average adult native 

snakes and can more than double in size 

within the first year. In addition, Indian 

pythons reportedly can fertilize their 

own eggs and have viable eggs after 

several years in isolation. Even one 

female Indian python that escapes 

captivity could produce dozens of large 

young at one time (average clutch size 

is 36, with a known clutch of 107). 

Furthermore, an individual is likely to 

live for 20 to 30 years. Even a single 

python in a small area, such as one of 

the Florida Keys or insular islands, can 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11818 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

devastate the population of a federally 

threatened or endangered species. There 

are currently no effective control 

methods for Indian pythons, nor are any 

anticipated in the near future. 

Therefore, because Indian pythons 

have already established populations in 

some areas of the United States; are 

likely to spread from their current 

established range to new natural areas 

in the United States; are likely to 

become established in disjunct areas of 

the United States with suitable climate 

and habitat if released there; are likely 

to prey on and compete with native 

species (including threatened and 

endangered species); and it would be 

difficult to eradicate or reduce large 

populations or to recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species, the Service 

finds the Indian python to be injurious 

to humans and to wildlife and wildlife 

resources of the United States. 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for Reticulated Python 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

In Florida, two known instances of 

reticulated python removals have been 

documented in Vero Beach and 

Sebastian, Florida. A 5.5 m (18 ft) 

reticulated python was struck by a 

person mowing along a canal on 58th

Avenue in Vero Beach in 2007, and a 

reticulated python was removed along 

Roseland Road in Sebastian, Florida 

(Dangerfield, pers. comm. 2010). In the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

reticulated pythons have been collected 

in the western region of the island 

(Aguadilla and Mayaguez), and the 

southern region of the island 

(Guayama), including a 5.5-m (18-ft) 

long specimen. 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

The likelihood of release or escape 

from captivity of reticulated python is 

high. Reticulated pythons 

(Broghammerus reticulatus or Python 

reticulatus) have escaped or been 

released into the wild in Florida and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Reticulated pythons are highly likely to 

survive in natural ecosystems (primarily 

extreme southern habitats) of the United 

States. Reticulated pythons have a more 

tropical distribution than Indian 

pythons. Accordingly, the area of the 

mainland United States showing a 

climate match is smaller, exclusively 

subtropical, and limited to southern 

Florida and extreme southern Texas. 

Low and mid-elevation sites in the 

United States’ tropical territories (Guam, 

Northern Mariana Islands, American 

Samoa, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico) and 

Hawaii also appear to be climatematched to the requirements of 

reticulated pythons. If they escape or are 

intentionally released, they are likely to 

survive and become established within 

their respective thermal and 

precipitation limits. Reticulated pythons 

are highly likely to spread and become 

established in the wild due to common 

traits shared by the giant constrictors, 

including large size, habitat generalist, 

tolerance of urbanization, sit-and-wait 

style of predation, high reproductive 

potential, long-distance disperser, rapid 

growth, longevity, early maturation, and 

a generalist predator. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(including Threatened and Endangered 

Species) 

Reticulated pythons (Broghammerus 

reticulatus or Python reticulatus) are 

highly likely to prey on native species, 

including threatened and endangered 

species. Their natural diet includes 

mammals and birds. An adverse effect 

of reticulated python on select 

threatened and endangered species is 

likely to be moderate to high. 

Please see Potential Impacts to Native 

Species (including Threatened and 

Endangered Species) under Factors that 

Contribute to the Injuriousness for 

Indian Python for a description of the 

impacts that reticulated pythons would 

have on native species. These impacts 

are applicable to reticulated pythons by 

comparing their prey type with the 

suitable climate areas and the listed 

species found in those areas; suitable 

climate areas and the listed species can 

be found in the draft environmental 

assessment. 

According to the climate suitability 

maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), 

threatened and endangered species from 

parts of Florida, southern Texas, 

Hawaii, and Puerto Rico would be at 

risk from the establishment of 

reticulated pythons. In addition, we 

assume that Guam, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and other territories would have 

suitable habitat and climate to support 

reticulated pythons, and these also have 

federally threatened and endangered 

species that would be at risk if 

reticulated pythons became established. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

Like all pythons, reticulated pythons 

are nonvenomous. Captive reticulated 

pythons can carry ticks of agricultural 

significance (potential threat to 

domestic livestock) in Florida (Burridge 

et al. 2000, 2006; Clark and Doten 1995). 

The reticulated python can be an 

aggressive and dangerous species of 

giant constrictor to humans. Reed and 

Rodda (2009) cite numerous sources of 

people being bitten, attacked, and even 

killed by reticulated pythons in their 

native range. 

The introduction or establishment of 

reticulated pythons may have negative 

impacts on humans primarily from the 

loss of native wildlife biodiversity, as 

discussed above. These losses would 

affect the aesthetic, recreational, and 

economic values currently provided by 

native wildlife and healthy ecosystems. 

Educational values would also be 

diminished through the loss of 

biodiversity and ecosystem health. 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for Reticulated Python 

Control 

Eradication, management, or control 

of the spread of reticulated python will 

be highly unlikely once the species is 

established. Please see the Control 

section for the Indian python for reasons 

why the reticulated python is difficult 

to control, all of which apply to this 

species. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of a faunal 

biomass could potentially provide a 

food source for some native carnivores, 

species native to the United States are 

unlikely to possess the hunting ability 

for such large, camouflaged snakes and 

would not likely turn to large 

constrictor snakes as a food source. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

this unlikely benefit. There are no other 

potential ecological benefits from the 

introduction into the United States or 

establishment in the United States of 

reticulated pythons. 

Conclusion 

The reticulated python can grow to a 

length of more that 8.7 m (28.5 ft); this 

is longer than any native, terrestrial 

animal in the United States. Native 

fauna have no experience defending 

against this type of novel, giant 

predator. Several captive reticulated 

pythons have lived for nearly 30 years. 

The reticulated python can be an 

aggressive and dangerous species to 

humans. Therefore, even one escaped 

individual can cause injury to wildlife 

and possibly humans for several 

decades. Captive reticulated pythons 

can carry ticks of agricultural 

significance (potential threat to 

domestic livestock) in Florida. 

Because reticulated pythons are likely 

to escape captivity or be released into 

the wild if imported to areas of the 

United States that have suitable climate 

and habitat and do not currently contain 

the species; are likely to survive, 

become established, and spread if 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11819 

escaped or released; are likely to prey 

on and compete with native species for 

food and habitat (including threatened 

and endangered species); are likely to be 

disease vectors for livestock; and 

because they would be difficult to 

prevent, eradicate, or reduce large 

populations; control spread to new 

locations; or recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species, the Service 

finds reticulated python to be injurious 

to humans and to wildlife and wildlife 

resources of the United States. 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for Northern African 

Python 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

Several Northern African pythons 

have been found in Florida and 

elsewhere in the United States—most of 

these are assumed to be escaped or 

released pets (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

From 2005 to 2009, adults and 

hatchlings have been captured, 

confirming the presence of a population 

of Northern African pythons along the 

western border of Miami, adjacent to the 

Everglades. From May 2009 to January 

2010, four specimens were found by 

herpetologists and the Miami-Dade 

County Anti-Venom Response Unit, 

including hatchlings and adults 

collected from an area of about 2 

kilometers (1.6 miles) in diameter 

known as the Bird Drive Recharge Basin 

(Miami-Dade County). Dr. Kenneth 

Krysko, Senior Biological Scientist, 

Division of Herpetology, Florida 

Museum of Natural History, University 

of Florida, is preparing a summary of 

recent collections and observations of 

the Northern African Python from the 

Bird Drive Recharge Basin in MiamiDade County. One Northern African 

python has also been collected on State 

Road 72 approximately 6.43 km (4 mi) 

east of Myakka River State Park, 

Sarasota County, Florida. 

In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

African pythons have been found in the 

western region of the island (Mayaguez), 

the San Juan metro area, and the 

southern region of the island 

(Guayama). 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

Northern African pythons have 

escaped captivity or been released into 

the wild in Florida and Puerto Rico and 

are likely to continue to escape and be 

released into the wild.. Based on Reed 

and Rodda (2009), extrapolation of 

climate from the native range and 

mapped to the United States for 

Northern African pythons exhibit a 

climate match that includes a large 

portion of peninsular Florida, extreme 

south Texas, and parts of Hawaii and 

Puerto Rico. Northern African pythons 

are highly likely to spread and become 

established in the wild due to common 

traits shared by the giant constrictors, 

including large size, habitat generalist, 

tolerance of urbanization, high 

reproductive potential, long distance 

disperser, early maturation, rapid 

growth, longevity, and a generalist sitand-wait style of predation. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(including Threatened and Endangered 

Species) 

Northern African pythons are highly 

likely to prey on native species, 

including threatened and endangered 

species. As with most of the giant 

constrictors, adult African pythons 

primarily eat endothermic prey from a 

wide variety of taxa. Adverse effects of 

Northern African pythons on selected 

threatened and endangered species are 

likely to be moderate to high. 

Please see Potential Impacts to Native 

Species (including Threatened and 

Endangered Species) under Factors that 

Contribute to the Injuriousness for 

Indian Python for a description of the 

impacts that Northern African pythons 

would have on native species. These 

impacts are applicable to Northern 

African pythons by comparing their 

prey type with the suitable climate areas 

and the listed species found in those 

areas; suitable climate areas and the 

listed species can be found in the draft 

environmental assessment. 

According to the climate suitability 

maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), 

threatened and endangered species from 

parts of Florida, most of Hawaii, and all 

of Puerto Rico would be at risk from the 

establishment of Northern African 

pythons. In addition, we assume that 

Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other 

territories would have suitable habitat 

and climate to support Northern African 

pythons, and these also have federally 

threatened and endangered species that 

would be at risk if Northern African 

pythons became established. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

The introduction or establishment of 

Northern African pythons may have 

negative impacts on humans primarily 

from the loss of native wildlife 

biodiversity, as discussed above. These 

losses would affect the aesthetic, 

recreational, and economic values 

currently provided by native wildlife 

and healthy ecosystems. Educational 

values would also be diminished 

through the loss of biodiversity and 

ecosystem health. 

African pythons (both wild and 

captive-bred) are noted for their bad 

temperament and readiness to bite if 

harassed by people. Although African 

pythons can easily kill an adult person, 

attacks on humans are uncommon (Reed 

and Rodda 2009). 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for Northern African 

Python 

Control 

As with the other giant constrictors, 

prevention, eradication, management, or 

control of the spread of Northern 

African pythons will be highly unlikely. 

Please see the Control section for the 

Indian python for reasons why the 

Northern African pythons would be 

difficult to control, all of which apply 

to this large constrictor. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of a faunal 

biomass could potentially provide a 

food source for some native carnivores, 

species native to the United States are 

unlikely to possess the hunting ability 

for such large, camouflaged snakes and 

would not likely turn to large 

constrictor snakes as a food source. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

this unlikely benefit. There are no other 

potential ecological benefits from the 

introduction into the United States or 

establishment in the United States of 

Northern African pythons. 

Conclusion 

Northern African pythons are longlived (some have lived in captivity for 

27 years). The species feeds primarily 

on warm-blooded prey (mammals and 

birds). Northern African pythons have 

been found to be reproducing in Florida. 

Therefore, they pose a risk to native 

wildlife, including threatened and 

endangered species. African pythons 

(both wild and captive-bred) are noted 

for their bad temperament and have 

reportedly also attacked humans. 

Because Northern African pythons are 

likely to escape or be released into the 

wild if imported to the United States; 

are likely to spread from their current 

established range to new natural areas 

in the United States; are likely to prey 

on native species (including threatened 

and endangered species); and because it 

would be difficult to eradicate or reduce 

large populations, or recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species, the Service 

finds the Northern African python to be 

injurious to humans and to wildlife and 

wildlife resources of the United States. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11820 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness of the Southern African 

Python 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

Occurrences of the Southern African 

python in the United States are 

unknown. 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

Southern African pythons are likely to 

escape or be released into the wild if 

imported into the United States. The 

Southern African python climate match 

extends slightly farther to the north in 

Florida than the Northern African 

python and also includes portions of 

Texas from the Big Bend region to the 

southeasternmost extent of the State. If 

Southern African pythons escape or are 

intentionally released, they are likely to 

survive or become established within 

their respective thermal and 

precipitation limits. Southern African 

pythons are highly likely to spread and 

become established in the wild due to 

common traits shared by the giant 

constrictors, including large size, habitat 

generalist, tolerance of urbanization, 

high reproductive potential, long 

distance disperser, early maturation, 

rapid growth, longevity, and a generalist 

sit-and-wait style of predation. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(including Threatened and Endangered 

Species) 

Southern African pythons are highly 

likely to prey on native species, 

including threatened and endangered 

species. As with most of the giant 

constrictors, adult African pythons 

primarily eat endothermic prey from a 

wide variety of taxa. Adverse effects of 

Southern African pythons on selected 

threatened and endangered species are 

likely to be moderate to high. 

Please see Potential Impacts to Native 

Species (including Threatened and 

Endangered Species) under Factors that 

Contribute to the Injuriousness for 

Indian Python for a description of the 

impacts that Southern African pythons 

would have on native species. These 

impacts are applicable to Southern 

African pythons by comparing their 

prey type with the suitable climate areas 

and the listed species found in those 

areas; suitable climate areas and the 

listed species can be found in the draft 

environmental assessment. 

According to the climate suitability 

maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), 

threatened and endangered species from 

parts of Florida, Texas, Hawaii, and 

Puerto Rico would be at risk from the 

establishment of Southern African 

pythons. In addition, we assume that 

Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other 

territories would have suitable habitat 

and climate to support Southern African 

pythons, and these also have federally 

threatened and endangered species that 

would be at risk if Southern African 

pythons became established. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

The introduction or establishment of 

Southern African pythons may have 

negative impacts on humans primarily 

from the loss of native wildlife 

biodiversity, as discussed above. These 

losses would affect the aesthetic, 

recreational, and economic values 

currently provided by native wildlife 

and healthy ecosystems. Educational 

values would also be diminished 

through the loss of biodiversity and 

ecosystem health. 

African pythons (both wild and 

captive-bred) are noted for their bad 

temperament and readiness to bite if 

harassed by people. Although African 

pythons can easily kill an adult person, 

attacks on humans are uncommon (Reed 

and Rodda 2009). 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for Southern African 

Python 

Control 

As with the other giant constrictors, 

prevention, eradication, management, or 

control of the spread of Southern 

African pythons will be highly unlikely. 

Please see the Control section for the 

Indian python for reasons why the 

Southern African pythons would be 

difficult to control, all of which apply 

to these large constrictors. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of a faunal 

biomass could potentially provide a 

food source for some native carnivores, 

species native to the United States are 

unlikely to possess the hunting ability 

for such large, camouflaged snakes and 

would not likely turn to large 

constrictor snakes as a food source. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

this unlikely benefit. There are no other 

potential ecological benefits from the 

introduction into the United States or 

establishment in the United States of 

Southern African pythons. 

Conclusion 

Southern African pythons are longlived. This species feeds primarily on 

warm-blooded prey (mammals and 

birds). Therefore, they pose a risk to 

native wildlife, including threatened 

and endangered species. Their climate 

match extends slightly farther to the 

north in Florida than the Northern 

African python and also includes 

portions of Texas from the Big Bend 

region to the southeasternmost extent of 

the State. Because Southern African 

pythons are likely to escape or be 

released into the wild if imported to the 

United States; are likely to survive, 

become established, and spread if 

escaped or released; are likely to prey 

on and compete with native species for 

food and habitat (including threatened 

and endangered species); and because it 

would be difficult to prevent, eradicate, 

or reduce large populations; control 

spread to new locations; or recover 

ecosystems disturbed by the species, the 

Service finds the Southern African 

python to be injurious to humans and to 

the wildlife and wildlife resources of 

the United States. 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for Boa Constrictor 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

At the 180-hectare (444-acre) Deering 

Estate in Cutler, Florida (a preserve at 

the edge of Biscayne Bay in Miami-Dade 

County), boa constrictors are found in 

multiple habitats, including tropical 

hardwood hammocks, dirt roads and 

trails, landscaped areas, and pine 

rocklands. In addition, 15 boa 

constrictors have been removed in 

Indian River County, Florida, by animal 

damage control officers (Dangerfield, 

pers. comm. 2010). 

In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

approximately 100 boa constrictors have 

been collected or reported in the wild 

throughout the island, but primarily on 

the west side of the island (particularly 

Mayaguez). The Puerto Rico Department 

of Natural and Environmental Resources 

believes that this species is frequently 

breeding on the island (Saliva, pers. 

comm. 2009) 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

Boa constrictors (Boa constrictor) 

have escaped captivity or been released 

into the wild in Florida and Puerto Rico 

(Snow et al. 2007; Reed and Rodda 

2009), and, therefore, the likelihood of 

release or escape from captivity is high. 

Boa constrictors are highly likely to 

survive in natural ecosystems of the 

United States. The suitable climate 

match area with the boa constrictor’s 

native range (excluding the Argentine 

boa B. c. occidentalis) includes 

peninsular Florida south of 

approximately Orlando and extreme 

south Texas, as well as parts of Hawaii 

and Puerto Rico (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

As discussed above, nonnative 

occurrences in the United States already 

include South Florida and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. If boa 

constrictors escape or are intentionally 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11821 

released, they are likely to survive or 

become established within their 

respective thermal and precipitation 

limits. Boa constrictors are highly likely 

to spread and become established in the 

wild due to common traits shared by the 

giant constrictors, including large size, 

habitat generalist, tolerance of 

urbanization, high reproductive 

potential, long distance disperser, early 

maturation, rapid growth, longevity, and 

a generalist sit-and-wait style of 

predation. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(including Threatened and Endangered 

Species) 

Boa constrictors are highly likely to 

prey on native species, including 

threatened and endangered species. As 

with most of the giant constrictors, adult 

boa constrictors primarily eat 

endothermic prey from a wide variety of 

taxa. Boa constrictors are ambush 

predators, and as such will often lie in 

wait to attack appropriate prey. A 

sample of 47 boas from an introduced 

population on Aruba contained 52 prey 

items, of which 40 percent were birds, 

35 percent were lizards, and 25 percent 

were mammals (Quick et al. 2005). 

Potential prey at the Deering Estate at 

Cutler (Miami-Dade County) includes 

about 160 species of native resident or 

migratory bird species, a variety of small 

and medium-sized mammalian species, 

and native and exotic lizard species 

(Snow et al. 2007). They have also been 

known to actively hunt, particularly in 

regions with a low concentration of 

suitable prey, and this behavior 

generally occurs at night. Adverse 

effects of boa constrictors on threatened 

and endangered species is likely to be 

moderate to high. 

Please see Potential Impacts to Native 

Species (including Threatened and 

Endangered Species) under Factors that 

Contribute to the Injuriousness for 

Indian Python for a description of the 

impacts that boa constrictors would 

have on native species. These impacts 

are applicable to boa constrictors by 

comparing their prey type with the 

suitable climate areas and the listed 

species found in those areas; suitable 

climate areas and the listed species can 

be found in the draft environmental 

assessment. 

According to the climate suitability 

maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), 

threatened and endangered species from 

parts of Florida, Texas, New Mexico, 

Arizona, California, and Hawaii, and all 

of Puerto Rico would be at risk from the 

establishment of boa constrictors. In 

addition, we assume that Guam, the 

U.S. Virgin Islands, and other territories 

would have suitable habitat and climate 

to support boa constrictors, and these 

also have federally threatened and 

endangered species that would be at risk 

if boa constrictors became established. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

The introduction or establishment of 

boa constrictors may have negative 

impacts on humans primarily from the 

loss of native wildlife biodiversity, as 

discussed above. These losses would 

affect the aesthetic, recreational, and 

economic values currently provided by 

native wildlife and healthy ecosystems. 

Educational values would also be 

diminished through the loss of 

biodiversity and ecosystem health. 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for Boa Constrictor 

Control 

Prevention, eradication, management, 

or control of the spread of boa 

constrictors once established will be 

highly unlikely. Please see the ‘‘Control’’ 

section for the Indian python for reasons 

why the boa constrictor would be 

difficult to control, all of which apply 

to this large constrictor. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of a faunal 

biomass could potentially provide a 

food source for some native carnivores, 

species native to the United States are 

unlikely to possess the hunting ability 

for such large, camouflaged snakes and 

would not likely turn to large 

constrictor snakes as a food source. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

this unlikely benefit. There are no other 

potential ecological benefits from the 

introduction into the United States or 

establishment in the United States of 

boa constrictors. 

Conclusion 

Boa constrictors have one of the 

widest latitudinal distributions of any 

snake in the world. In their native range, 

boa constrictors inhabit environments 

from sea level to 1,000 m (3,280 ft), 

including wet and dry tropical forest, 

savanna, very dry thorn scrub, and 

cultivated fields. Nonnative occurrences 

in the United States include South 

Florida and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico. Boa constrictors are the 

most commonly imported of the nine 

proposed constrictor snakes. If boas 

escape or are intentionally released into 

new areas, they are likely to survive or 

become established within their 

respective thermal limits. Boa 

constrictors are highly likely to spread 

and become established in the wild due 

to common traits shared by the giant 

constrictors, including large size, habitat 

generalist, tolerance of urbanization, 

high reproductive potential, long 

distance disperser, early maturation, 

rapid growth, longevity, and a generalist 

sit-and-wait style of predation. 

Because boa constrictors are likely to 

escape or be released into the wild if 

imported to the United States; are likely 

to spread from their current established 

range to new natural areas in the United 

States; are likely to prey on native 

species (including threatened and 

endangered species); and because it 

would be difficult to eradicate or reduce 

large populations, or recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species, the Service 

finds the boa constrictor to be injurious 

to humans and to wildlife and wildlife 

resources of the United States. 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for Yellow Anaconda 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

An adult yellow anaconda was 

collected from Big Cypress National 

Reserve in southern Florida in January 

2007, and another individual was 

photographed basking along a canal 

about 25 km (15.5 mi) north of that 

location in January 2008. In 2008, an 

unnamed observer reportedly captured 

two anacondas that most closely fit the 

description of the yellow anaconda 

farther to the east near the Palm Beach, 

Florida, county line. In the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a few 

individuals of the yellow anaconda have 

been collected in the central region of 

the island (Villalba area). 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

Yellow anacondas have escaped or 

been released into the wild in Florida 

and Puerto Rico and are likely to escape 

or be released into the wild. Yellow 

anacondas are highly likely to survive in 

natural ecosystems of the United States. 

The yellow anaconda has a native-range 

distribution that includes highly 

seasonal and fairly temperate regions in 

South America. When projected to the 

United States, the climate space 

occupied by yellow anaconda maps to a 

fairly large area, including virtually all 

of peninsular Florida and a corner of 

southeast Georgia (to about the latitude 

of Brunswick), as well as large parts of 

southern and eastern Texas and a small 

portion of southern California. Large 

areas of Hawaii and Puerto Rico appear 

to exhibit suitable climates, and 

additional insular United States 

possessions (Guam, Northern Marianas, 

American Samoa, and so on) would 

probably be suitable as well. Within the 

areas deemed suitable, however, the 

yellow anaconda would be expected to 

occupy only habitats with permanent 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11822 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

surface water. Yellow anacondas are 

highly likely to spread to suitable 

permanent surface water areas because 

of their large size, high reproductive 

potential, early maturation, rapid 

growth, longevity, and generalistsurprise attack predation. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(including Threatened and Endangered 

Species) 

Yellow anacondas are highly likely to 

prey on native species, including select 

threatened and endangered species. The 

prey list suggests that yellow anacondas 

employ both ‘‘ambush predation’’ and 

‘‘wide-foraging’’ strategies (Reed and 

Rodda 2009). The snakes forage 

predominately in open, flooded 

habitats, in relatively shallow water; 

wading birds are their most common 

prey. They have also been known to 

prey on fish, turtles, small caimans, 

lizards, birds, eggs, small mammals, and 

fish carrion (Reed and Rodda). 

Threatened and endangered species 

occupying flooded areas, such as the 

Everglades, would be at risk. 

Please see Potential Impacts to Native 

Species (including Threatened and 

Endangered Species) under Factors that 

Contribute to the Injuriousness for 

Indian Python for a description of the 

impacts that yellow anacondas would 

have on native species. These impacts 

are applicable to yellow anacondas by 

comparing their prey type with the 

suitable climate areas and the listed 

species found in those areas; suitable 

climate areas and the listed species can 

be found in the draft environmental 

assessment. 

According to the climate suitability 

maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), 

threatened and endangered species from 

parts of Florida, Texas, Hawaii, and 

Puerto Rico would be at risk from the 

establishment of yellow anacondas. In 

addition, we assume that Guam, the 

U.S. Virgin Islands, and other territories 

would have suitable habitat and climate 

to support yellow anacondas, and these 

also have federally threatened and 

endangered species that would be at risk 

if yellow anacondas became established. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

The introduction or establishment of 

yellow anacondas may have negative 

impacts on humans primarily from the 

loss of native wildlife biodiversity, as 

discussed above. These losses would 

affect the aesthetic, recreational, and 

economic values currently provided by 

native wildlife and healthy ecosystems. 

Educational values would also be 

diminished through the loss of 

biodiversity and ecosystem health. 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for Yellow Anaconda 

Control 

Prevention, eradication, management, 

or control of the spread of yellow 

anacondas will be highly unlikely. 

Please see the ‘‘Control’’ section for the 

Indian python for reasons why yellow 

anacondas would be difficult to control, 

all of which apply to this large 

constrictor. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of a faunal 

biomass could potentially provide a 

food source for some native carnivores, 

species native to the United States are 

unlikely to possess the hunting ability 

for such large, camouflaged snakes and 

would not likely turn to large 

constrictor snakes as a food source. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

this unlikely benefit. There are no other 

potential ecological benefits from the 

introduction into the United States or 

establishment in the United States of 

yellow anacondas. 

Conclusion 

Yellow anacondas are highly likely to 

survive in natural ecosystems of the 

United States. The species has a nativerange distribution that includes highly 

seasonal and fairly temperate regions in 

South America. When projected to the 

United States, the climate space 

occupied by yellow anaconda maps to a 

fairly large area, including virtually all 

of peninsular Florida and a corner of 

southeast Georgia (to about the latitude 

of Brunswick), as well as large parts of 

southern and eastern Texas and a small 

portion of southern California. Large 

areas of Hawaii and Puerto Rico appear 

to exhibit suitable climates, and 

additional insular U.S. possessions 

(such as Guam, Northern Marianas, 

American Samoa) would probably be 

suitable as well. Yellow anacondas are 

highly likely to spread to suitable 

permanent surface water areas because 

of their large size, high reproductive 

potential, early maturation, rapid 

growth, longevity, and generalistsurprise attack predation. 

Because the yellow anacondas are 

likely to escape captivity or be released 

into the wild if imported to the United 

States (note that the yellow anaconda 

has already been found in the wild in 

Florida); are likely to survive, become 

established, and spread if escaped or 

released; are likely to prey on and 

compete with native species for food 

and habitat (including threatened and 

endangered species); and because it 

would be difficult to prevent, eradicate, 

or reduce large populations; control 

spread to new locations; or recover 

ecosystems disturbed by the species, the 

Service finds the yellow anaconda to be 

injurious to humans and to wildlife and 

wildlife resources of the United States. 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

Occurrences of the DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda in the United States are 

unknown. 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda is likely to 

escape or be released into the wild if 

imported into the United States. Reed 

and Rodda’s (2009) map identified no 

areas of the continental United States or 

Hawaii that appear to have precipitation 

and temperature profiles similar to 

those observed in the species’ native 

range, although the southern margin of 

Puerto Rico and its out-islands (for 

example, Vieques and Culebra) appear 

suitable. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(including Threatened and Endangered 

Species) 

The DeSchauensee’s anaconda would 

likely have a similar potential impact as 

the yellow anaconda. DeSchauensee’s 

anacondas are highly likely to prey on 

native species, including select 

threatened and endangered species. 

Anacondas employ both ‘‘ambush 

predation’’ and ‘‘wide-foraging’’ 

strategies (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

Threatened and endangered wildlife 

occupying the DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda’s preferred habitats would be 

at risk. 

Please see Potential Impacts to Native 

Species (including Threatened and 

Endangered Species) under Factors that 

Contribute to the Injuriousness for 

Indian Python for a description of the 

impacts that DeSchauensee’s anacondas 

would have on native species. These 

impacts are applicable to 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas by 

comparing their prey type with the 

suitable climate areas and the listed 

species found in those areas; suitable 

climate areas and the listed species can 

be found in the draft environmental 

assessment. 

According to the climate suitability 

maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), 

threatened and endangered species from 

part of Puerto Rico would be at risk 

from the establishment of 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas. In addition, 

we assume that Guam, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and other territories would have 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11823 

suitable habitat and climate to support 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas, and these 

also have federally threatened and 

endangered species that would be at risk 

if DeSchauensee’s anacondas became 

established. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

The introduction or establishment of 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas may have 

negative impacts on humans primarily 

from the loss of native wildlife 

biodiversity, as discussed above. These 

losses would affect the aesthetic, 

recreational, and economic values 

currently provided by native wildlife 

and healthy ecosystems. Educational 

values would also be diminished 

through the loss of biodiversity and 

ecosystem health. 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for DeSchauensee’s 

Anaconda 

Control 

Prevention, eradication, management, 

or control of the spread of 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas will be 

highly unlikely. Please see the ‘‘Control’’ 

section for the Indian python for reasons 

why yellow anacondas would be 

difficult to control, all of which apply 

to this large constrictor. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of a faunal 

biomass could potentially provide a 

food source for some native carnivores, 

species native to the United States are 

unlikely to possess the hunting ability 

for such large, camouflaged snakes and 

would not likely turn to large 

constrictor snakes as a food source. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

this unlikely benefit. There are no other 

potential ecological benefits from the 

introduction into the United States or 

establishment in the United States of 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas. 

Conclusion 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas are highly 

likely to spread to suitable permanent 

surface water areas because of their 

large size, high reproductive potential, 

early maturation, rapid growth, 

longevity, and generalist-surprise attack 

predation. DeSchauensee’s anacondas 

are highly likely to survive in natural 

ecosystems of a small but vulnerable 

region of the United States, such the 

southern margin of Puerto Rico and its 

out-islands. 

Because DeSchauensee’s anacondas 

are likely to escape captivity or be 

released into the wild if imported to the 

United States; are likely to survive, 

become established, and spread if 

escaped or released; are likely to prey 

on and compete with native species for 

food and habitat (including threatened 

and endangered species); and because 

they would be difficult to prevent, 

eradicate, or reduce large populations; 

control spread to new locations; or 

recover ecosystems disturbed by the 

species, the Service finds the 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda to be 

injurious to humans and to wildlife and 

wildlife resources of the United States. 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for Green Anaconda 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

An individual green anaconda 

(approximately 2.5 m (8.2 ft) total 

length) was found dead on US 41 in the 

vicinity of Fakahatchee Strand Preserve 

State Park in Florida in December 2004 

(Reed and Rodda 2009). There are 

reports of two medium-sized adults and 

a juvenile green anaconda observed but 

not collected in this general area. A 3.65 

m (12 ft) green anaconda was removed 

from East Lake Fish Camp in northern 

Oceola County, Florida, on January 13, 

2010. This was the first live green 

anaconda to be caught in the wild in 

Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 2010). 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

Green anacondas have escaped 

captivity or been released into the wild 

in Florida, and the likelihood of escape 

or release is medium. Green anacondas 

are likely to survive in natural 

ecosystems of the United States. Much 

of peninsular Florida (roughly south of 

Gainesville) and extreme south Texas 

exhibit climatic conditions similar to 

those experienced by green anacondas 

in their large South American native 

range. Lower elevations in Hawaii and 

all of Puerto Rico have apparently 

suitable climates, but the rest of the 

country appears to be too cool or arid. 

Within the climate-matched area, 

however, anacondas would not be at 

risk of establishment in sites lacking 

surface water. The primarily nocturnal 

anaconda species tends to spend most of 

its life in or around water. Green 

anacondas are highly likely to spread 

and become established in the wild due 

to rapid growth to a large size (which 

encourages pet owners to release them), 

a high reproductive potential, early 

maturation, and a sit-and-wait style of 

predation. There is evidence that green 

anacondas are facultatively (if no other 

males are available) parthenogenic. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(including Threatened and Endangered 

Species) 

Green anacondas are highly likely to 

prey on native species, including 

threatened and endangered species. 

They are primarily aquatic and eat a 

wide variety of prey, including fish, 

birds, mammals, and other reptiles. 

Please see Potential Impacts to Native 

Species (including Threatened and 

Endangered Species) under Factors that 

Contribute to the Injuriousness for 

Indian Python for a description of the 

impacts that green anacondas would 

have on native species. These impacts 

are applicable to green anacondas by 

comparing their prey type with the 

suitable climate areas and the listed 

species found in those areas; suitable 

climate areas and the listed species can 

be found in the draft environmental 

assessment. 

According to the climate suitability 

maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), 

threatened and endangered species from 

parts of Florida, Hawaii, and most of 

Puerto Rico would be at risk from the 

establishment of green anacondas. In 

addition, we assume that Guam, the 

U.S. Virgin Islands, and other territories 

would have suitable habitat and climate 

to support green anacondas, and these 

also have federally threatened and 

endangered species that would be at risk 

if green anacondas became established. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

The introduction or establishment of 

green anacondas may have negative 

impacts on humans primarily from the 

loss of native wildlife biodiversity, as 

discussed above. These losses would 

affect the aesthetic, recreational, and 

economic values currently provided by 

native wildlife and healthy ecosystems. 

Educational values would also be 

diminished through the loss of 

biodiversity and ecosystem health. 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for Green Anaconda 

Control 

Prevention, eradication, management, 

or control of the spread of green 

anacondas as once established in the 

United States will be highly unlikely. 

Please see the ‘‘Control’’ section for the 

Indian python for reasons why green 

anacondas would be difficult to control, 

all of which apply to this large 

constrictor. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of a faunal 

biomass could potentially provide a 

food source for some native carnivores, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

species native to the United States are 

unlikely to possess the hunting ability 

for such large, camouflaged snakes and 

would not likely turn to large 

constrictor snakes as a food source. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

this unlikely benefit. There are no other 

potential ecological benefits from the 

introduction into the United States or 

establishment in the United States of 

green anacondas. 

Conclusion 

The green anaconda is the among the 

world’s heaviest snakes, ranging up to 

200 kg (441 lbs). Large adults are 

heavier than almost all native, terrestrial 

predators in the United States, even 

many bears. Native fauna have no 

experience defending themselves 

against this type of novel, giant 

predator. The range of the green 

anaconda is largely defined by the 

availability of aquatic habitats. These 

include deep and shallow, turbid and 

clear, and lacustrine and riverine 

systems. Most of these habitats are 

found in Florida, including the 

Everglades, which is suitable climate for 

the species. Green anacondas are top 

predators in South America, consuming 

birds, mammals, fish, and reptiles; prey 

size includes deer and crocodilians. 

This diet is even broader than the diet 

of Indian and reticulated pythons. There 

is evidence that female green anacondas 

are facultatively parthenogenic and 

could therefore reproduce even if a 

single female is released or escapes into 

the wild. 

Because green anacondas are likely to 

escape or be released into the wild if 

imported to the United States (note that 

the green anaconda has already been 

found in the wild in Florida); are likely 

to survive, become established, and 

spread if escaped or released; are likely 

to prey on and compete with native 

species for food and habitat (including 

threatened and endangered species); 

and because it would be difficult to 

prevent, eradicate, or reduce large 

populations; control spread to new 

locations; or recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species, the Service 

finds the green anaconda to be injurious 

to humans and to wildlife and wildlife 

resources of the United States. 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for Beni Anaconda 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

Occurrences of the Beni anaconda in 

the United States are unknown. 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

Beni anacondas are likely to escape or 

be released into the wild if imported 

into the United States, in part because 

of their large size (which encourages pet 

owners to release them). Beni anacondas 

are highly likely to survive in natural 

ecosystems of the United States. The 

Beni anaconda is known from few 

specimens in a small part of Bolivia, 

and Reed and Rodda (2009) judged the 

number of available localities to be 

insufficient for an attempt to delineate 

its climate space or extrapolate this 

space to the United States. Beni 

anacondas are known from sites with 

low seasonality (mean monthly 

temperatures approximately 22.5 oC (72 oF) to 27.5 oC (77 oF), and mean 

monthly precipitation about 5 to 30 cm 

(2 to 12 in). It is unknown whether the 

species’ native distribution is limited by 

factors other than climate; if the small 

native range is attributable to ecological 

(for example, competition with green 

anacondas), or historical (for example, 

climate change) factors. If so, then Reed 

and Rodda’s (2009) qualitative estimate 

of the climatically suitable areas of the 

United States would represent 

underprediction. As a component of the 

risk assessment, the Beni anaconda’s 

colonization potential is described by 

Reed and Rodda (2009) as capable of 

survival in small portions of the 

mainland or on America’s tropical 

islands (Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American 

Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana 

Islands, Virgin Islands). 

Beni anacondas are highly likely to 

spread and become established in the 

wild due to rapid growth to a large size, 

a high reproductive potential, early 

maturation, and a sit-and-wait style of 

predation. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(including Threatened and Endangered 

Species) 

Beni anacondas are highly likely to 

prey on native species, including 

threatened and endangered species. 

They are primarily aquatic and eat a 

wide variety of prey, including fish, 

birds, mammals, and other reptiles. 

Please see Potential Impacts to Native 

Species (including Threatened and 

Endangered Species) under Factors that 

Contribute to the Injuriousness for 

Indian Python for a description of the 

impacts that Beni anacondas would 

have on native species. These impacts 

are applicable to Beni anacondas by 

comparing their prey type with the 

suitable climate areas and the listed 

species found in those areas; suitable 

climate areas and the listed species can 

be found in the draft environmental 

assessment. 

According to the climate suitability 

maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), 

threatened and endangered species from 

parts of Hawaii, and most of Puerto Rico 

would be at risk from the establishment 

of Beni anacondas. In addition, we 

assume that Guam, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and other territories would have 

suitable habitat and climate to support 

Beni anacondas, and these also have 

federally threatened and endangered 

species that would be at risk if Beni 

anacondas became established. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

The introduction or establishment of 

Beni anacondas may have negative 

impacts on humans primarily from the 

loss of native wildlife biodiversity, as 

discussed above. These losses would 

affect the aesthetic, recreational, and 

economic values currently provided by 

native wildlife and healthy ecosystems. 

Educational values would also be 

diminished through the loss of 

biodiversity and ecosystem health. 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for Beni Anaconda 

Control 

Prevention, eradication, management, 

or control of the spread of Beni 

anacondas as once established in the 

United States will be highly unlikely. 

Please see the ‘‘Control’’ section for the 

Indian python for reasons why Beni 

anacondas would be difficult to control, 

all of which apply to this large 

constrictor. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of a faunal 

biomass could potentially provide a 

food source for some native carnivores, 

species native to the United States are 

unlikely to possess the hunting ability 

for such large, camouflaged snakes and 

would not likely turn to large 

constrictor snakes as a food source. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

this unlikely benefit. There are no other 

potential ecological benefits from the 

introduction into the United States or 

establishment in the United States of 

Beni anacondas. 

Conclusion 

Large adults are heavier than almost 

all native, terrestrial predators in the 

United States, even many bears. Native 

fauna have no experience defending 

themselves against this type of novel, 

giant predator. The range of the Beni 

anaconda is largely defined by the 

availability of aquatic habitats. Beni 

anacondas are top predators in South 

America, consuming birds, mammals, 

fish, and reptiles; prey size includes 

deer and crocodilians. This diet is even 

broader than the diet of Indian and 

reticulated pythons. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11825 

Because the Beni anaconda are likely 

to escape or be released into the wild if 

imported to the United States; are likely 

to survive, become established, and 

spread if escaped or released; are likely 

to prey on and compete with native 

species for food and habitat (including 

threatened and endangered species); 

and because it would be difficult to 

prevent, eradicate, or reduce large 

populations; control spread to new 

locations; or recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species, the Service 

finds the Beni anaconda to be injurious 

to humans and to wildlife and wildlife 

resources of the United States. 

Conclusions for the Nine Constrictor 

Snakes 

Indian python 

The Indian python is one of the 

largest snakes in the world, reaching 

lengths of up to 7 m (23 ft) and weights 

of over 90 kilograms (kg) (almost 200 

pounds (lbs)). This is longer than any 

native, terrestrial animal in the United 

States, including alligators, and three 

times longer than the longest native 

snake species. Native fauna have no 

experience defending against this type 

of novel, giant predator. Hatchlings are 

about the size of average adult native 

snakes and can more than double in size 

within the first year. In addition, Indian 

pythons reportedly can fertilize their 

own eggs and have viable eggs after 

several years in isolation. The life 

expectancy of Indian pythons is 20 to 30 

years. Even a single python (especially 

a female) in a small area, such as one 

of the Florida Keys or insular islands, 

can devastate the population of a 

federally threatened or endangered 

species. There are currently no effective 

control methods for Indian pythons, nor 

are any anticipated in the near future. 

Therefore, because Indian pythons 

have already established populations in 

some areas of the United States; are 

likely to spread from their current 

established range to new natural areas 

in the United States; are likely to 

become established in disjunct areas of 

the United States with suitable climate 

and habitat if released there; are likely 

to prey on and compete with native 

species (including threatened and 

endangered species); and it would be 

difficult to eradicate or reduce large 

populations or to recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species, the Service 

finds the Indian python to be injurious 

to humans and to wildlife and wildlife 

resources of the United States. 

Reticulated python 

The reticulated python can grow to a 

length of more that 8.7 m (28.5 ft); this 

is longer than any native, terrestrial 

animal in the United States. Native 

fauna have no experience defending 

against this type of novel, giant 

predator. Several captive reticulated 

pythons have lived for nearly 30 years. 

The reticulated python can be an 

aggressive and dangerous species to 

humans. Therefore, even one escaped 

individual can cause injury to wildlife 

and possibly humans for several 

decades. Captive reticulated pythons 

can carry ticks of agricultural 

significance (potential threat to 

domestic livestock) in Florida. 

Because reticulated pythons are likely 

to escape captivity or be released into 

the wild if imported to areas of the 

United States that have suitable climate 

and habitat and do not currently contain 

the species; are likely to survive, 

become established, and spread if 

escaped or released; are likely to prey 

on and compete with native species for 

food and habitat (including threatened 

and endangered species); are likely to be 

disease vectors for livestock; and 

because they would be difficult to 

prevent, eradicate, or reduce large 

populations; control spread to new 

locations; or recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species, the Service 

finds reticulated python to be injurious 

to humans and to wildlife and wildlife 

resources of the United States. 

Northern African Pythons 

Northern African pythons are longlived (some have lived in captivity for 

27 years). The species feeds primarily 

on warm-blooded prey (mammals and 

birds). Northern African pythons have 

been found to be reproducing in Florida. 

Therefore, they pose a risk to native 

wildlife, including threatened and 

endangered species. African pythons 

(both wild and captive-bred) are noted 

for their bad temperament and have 

reportedly also attacked humans. 

Because Northern African pythons are 

likely to escape or be released into the 

wild if imported to the United States; 

are likely to spread from their current 

established range to new natural areas 

in the United States; are likely to prey 

on native species (including threatened 

and endangered species); and because it 

would be difficult to eradicate or reduce 

large populations, or recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species, the Service 

finds the Northern African python to be 

injurious to humans and to wildlife and 

wildlife resources of the United States. 

Southern African pythons 

Southern African pythons are longlived. This species feeds primarily on 

warm-blooded prey (mammals and 

birds). Therefore, they pose a risk to 

native wildlife, including threatened 

and endangered species. Their climate 

match extends slightly farther to the 

north in Florida than the Northern 

African python and also includes 

portions of Texas from the Big Bend 

region to the southeasternmost extent of 

the State. Because Southern African 

pythons are likely to escape or be 

released into the wild if imported to the 

United States; are likely to survive, 

become established, and spread if 

escaped or released; are likely to prey 

on and compete with native species for 

food and habitat (including threatened 

and endangered species); and because it 

would be difficult to prevent, eradicate, 

or reduce large populations; control 

spread to new locations; or recover 

ecosystems disturbed by the species, the 

Service finds the Southern African 

python to be injurious to humans and to 

the wildlife and wildlife resources of 

the United States. 

Boa constrictor 

Boa constrictors have one of the 

widest latitudinal distributions of any 

snake in the world. In their native range, 

boa constrictors inhabit environments 

from sea level to 1,000 m (3,280 ft), 

including wet and dry tropical forest, 

savanna, very dry thorn scrub, and 

cultivated fields. Nonnative occurrences 

in the United States include South 

Florida and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico. Boa constrictors are the 

most commonly imported of the nine 

proposed constrictor snakes. If boas 

escape or are intentionally released into 

new areas, they are likely to survive or 

become established within their 

respective thermal and precipitation 

limits. Boa constrictors are highly likely 

to spread and become established in the 

wild due to common traits shared by the 

giant constrictors, including large size, 

habitat generalist, tolerance of 

urbanization, high reproductive 

potential, long distance disperser, early 

maturation, rapid growth, longevity, and 

a generalist sit-and-wait style of 

predation. 

Because boa constrictors are likely to 

escape or be released into the wild if 

imported to the United States; are likely 

to spread from their current established 

range to new natural areas in the United 

States; are likely to prey on native 

species (including threatened and 

endangered species); and because it 

would be difficult to eradicate or reduce 

large populations, or recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species, the Service 

finds the boa constrictor to be injurious 

to humans and to wildlife and wildlife 

resources of the United States. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Yellow anaconda 

Yellow anacondas are highly likely to 

survive in natural ecosystems of the 

United States. The species has a nativerange distribution that includes highly 

seasonal and fairly temperate regions in 

South America. When projected to the 

United States, the climate space 

occupied by yellow anaconda maps to a 

fairly large area, including virtually all 

of peninsular Florida and a corner of 

southeast Georgia (to about the latitude 

of Brunswick), as well as large parts of 

southern and eastern Texas and a small 

portion of southern California. Large 

areas of Hawaii and Puerto Rico appear 

to exhibit suitable climates, and 

additional insular U.S. possessions 

(such as Guam, Northern Marianas, 

American Samoa) would probably be 

suitable as well. Yellow anacondas are 

highly likely to spread to suitable 

permanent surface water areas because 

of their large size, high reproductive 

potential, early maturation, rapid 

growth, longevity, and generalistsurprise attack predation. 

Because the yellow anacondas are 

likely to escape captivity or be released 

into the wild if imported to the United 

States (note that the yellow anaconda 

has already been found in the wild in 

Florida); are likely to survive, become 

established, and spread if escaped or 

released; are likely to prey on and 

compete with native species for food 

and habitat (including threatened and 

endangered species); and because it 

would be difficult to prevent, eradicate, 

or reduce large populations; control 

spread to new locations; or recover 

ecosystems disturbed by the species, the 

Service finds the yellow anaconda to be 

injurious to humans and to wildlife and 

wildlife resources of the United States. 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas are highly 

likely to spread to suitable permanent 

surface water areas because of their 

large size, high reproductive potential, 

early maturation, rapid growth, 

longevity, and generalist-surprise attack 

predation. DeSchauensee’s anacondas 

are highly likely to survive in natural 

ecosystems of a small but vulnerable 

region of the United States, such the 

southern margin of Puerto Rico and its 

out-islands. 

Because the DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda is likely to escape captivity or 

be released into the wild if imported to 

the United States; are likely to survive, 

become established, and spread if 

escaped or released; are likely to prey 

on and compete with native species for 

food and habitat (including threatened 

and endangered species); and because it 

would be difficult to prevent, eradicate, 

or reduce large populations; control 

spread to new locations; or recover 

ecosystems disturbed by the species, the 

Service finds the DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda to be injurious to humans and 

to wildlife and wildlife resources of the 

United States. 

Green anaconda 

The green anaconda is the among the 

world’s heaviest snakes, ranging up to 

200 kg (441 lbs). Large adults are 

heavier than almost all native, terrestrial 

predators in the United States, even 

many bears. Native fauna have no 

experience defending themselves 

against this type of novel, giant 

predator. The range of the green 

anaconda is largely defined by the 

availability of aquatic habitats. These 

include deep and shallow, turbid and 

clear, and lacustrine and riverine 

systems. Most of these habitats are 

found in Florida, including the 

Everglades, which is suitable climate for 

the species. Green anacondas are top 

predators in South America, consuming 

birds, mammals, fish, and reptiles; prey 

size includes deer and crocodilians. 

This diet is even broader than the diet 

of Indian and reticulated pythons. There 

is evidence that female green anacondas 

are facultatively parthenogenic and 

could therefore reproduce even if a 

single female is released or escapes into 

the wild. 

Because green anacondas are likely to 

escape or be released into the wild if 

imported to the United States (note that 

the green anaconda has already been 

found in the wild in Florida); are likely 

to survive, become established, and 

spread if escaped or released; are likely 

to prey on and compete with native 

species for food and habitat (including 

threatened and endangered species); 

and because it would be difficult to 

prevent, eradicate, or reduce large 

populations; control spread to new 

locations; or recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species, the Service 

finds the green anaconda to be injurious 

to humans and to wildlife and wildlife 

resources of the United States. 

Beni anaconda 

Large adults are heavier than any 

almost all native, terrestrial predators in 

the United States, even many bears. 

Native fauna have no experience 

defending themselves against this type 

of novel, giant predator. The range of 

the Beni anaconda is largely defined by 

the availability of aquatic habitats. Beni 

anacondas are top predators in South 

America, consuming birds, mammals, 

fish, and reptiles; prey size includes 

deer and crocodilians. This diet is even 

broader than the diet of Indian and 

reticulated pythons. 

Because the Beni anaconda are likely 

to escape or be released into the wild if 

imported to the United States; are likely 

to survive, become established, and 

spread if escaped or released; are likely 

to prey on and compete with native 

species for food and habitat (including 

threatened and endangered species); 

and because it would be difficult to 

prevent, eradicate, or reduce large 

populations; control spread to new 

locations; or recover ecosystems 

disturbed by the species, the Service 

finds the Beni anaconda to be injurious 

to humans and to wildlife and wildlife 

resources of the United States. 

Summary of Risk Potentials 

Reed and Rodda (2009) found that all 

of the nine constrictor snakes pose high 

or medium risks to the interests of 

humans, wildlife, and wildlife resources 

of the United States. These risk 

potentials utilize the criteria for 

evaluating species as described by 

ANSTF (1996) (see Lacey Act 

Evaluation Criteria above). That all nine 

species are high or medium risks 

supports our finding that all nine 

constrictor species should be added to 

the list of injurious reptiles under the 

Lacey Act. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 

12866. OMB bases its determination 

upon the following four criteria: 

(1) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(2) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(3) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Executive Order 12866 Regulatory 

Planning and Review (U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget 1993) and a 

subsequent document, Economic 

Analysis of Federal Regulations under 

Executive Order 12866 (U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget 1996), identify 

guidelines or ‘‘best practices’’ for the 

economic analysis of Federal 

regulations. With respect to the 

regulation under consideration, an 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11827 

analysis that comports with the Circular 

A-4 would include a full description 

and estimation of the economic benefits 

and costs associated with 

implementation of the regulation. These 

benefits and costs would be measured 

by the net change in consumer and 

producer surplus due to the regulation. 

Both producer and consumer surplus 

reflect opportunity cost as they measure 

what people would be willing to forego 

(pay) in order to obtain a particular good 

or service. ‘‘Producers’ surplus is the 

difference between the amount a 

producer is paid for a unit of good and 

the minimum amount the producer 

would accept to supply that unit. 

Consumers’ surplus is the difference 

between what a consumer pays for a 

unit of a good and the maximum 

amount the consumer would be willing 

to pay for that unit (U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget 1996, section 

C-1).’’ 

In the context of the regulation under 

consideration, the economic effects to 

three groups would be addressed: (1) 

producers; (2) consumers; and (3) 

society. With the prohibition of imports 

and interstate shipping, producers, 

breeders, and suppliers would be 

affected in several ways. Depending on 

the characteristics of a given business 

(such as what portion of their sales 

depends on out-of-state sales or 

imports), sales revenue would be 

reduced or eliminated, thus decreasing 

total producer surplus compared to the 

situation without the regulation. 

Consumers (pet owners or potential pet 

owners) would be affected by having a 

more limited choice of constrictor 

snakes or, in some cases, no choice at 

all if out-of-state sales are prohibited. 

Consequently, total consumer surplus 

would decrease compared to the 

situation without the regulation. Certain 

segments of society may value knowing 

that the risk to natural areas and other 

potential impacts from constrictor snake 

populations is reduced by implementing 

one of the proposed alternatives. In this 

case, consumer surplus would increase 

compared to the situation without the 

regulation. If comprehensive 

information were available on these 

different types of producer and 

consumer surplus, a comparison of 

benefits and costs would be relatively 

straightforward. However, information 

is not currently available on these 

values so a quantitative comparison of 

benefits and costs is not possible. 

The limited data currently available 

are estimates of the number of 

constrictor snake imports each year, the 

number of constrictor snakes bred in the 

United States, and a range of retail 

prices for each constrictor snake 

species. We provide the value of the 

foregone snakes sold as a rough 

approximation for the social cost of this 

proposed rulemaking. We provide 

qualitative discussion on the potential 

benefits of this rulemaking. In addition, 

we used an input-output model in an 

attempt to estimate the secondary or 

multiplier effects of this rulemaking-job 

impacts, job income impacts, and tax 

revenue impacts (discussed below). 

Given the paucity of the data to estimate 

the social cost and given the uncertainty 

associated with the appropriateness of 

using an input-output model due to the 

scale effect, we present preliminary 

results in this regulatory impact 

analysis. We ask for data that might 

shed light on estimating the social 

benefit and cost of this rulemaking. We 

also ask for information regarding the 

appropriateness of using IMPLAN 

model to gauge the secondary effects 

and if appropriate, the associated 

uncertainties with the estimates. For the 

final rulemaking, we plan to investigate 

the appropriateness of using IMPLAN 

model, and adjust the presentation of 

results accordingly. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

[SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601, et 

seq.), whenever a Federal agency is 

required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (that 

is, small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies that the rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility 

analysis to be required, impacts must 

exceed a threshold for ‘‘significant 

impact’’ and a threshold for a 

‘‘substantial number of small entities.’’ 

See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. An Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which 

we briefly summarize below, was 

prepared to accompany this rule. See 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section or http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008- 

0015 for the complete document. 

This proposed rule, if made final, 

would list nine constrictor snake 

species [Indian python (Python 

molurus), reticulated python 

(Broghammerus reticulatus or Python 

reticulatus), Northern African python 

(Python sebae), Southern African 

python (Python natalensis), boa 

constrictor (Boa constrictor), yellow 

anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda (Eunectes 

deschauenseei), green anaconda 

(Eunectes murinus), and Beni anaconda 

(Eunectes beniensis)] as injurious 

species under the Lacey Act. Entities 

impacted by the listing would include: 

(1) Companies importing live snakes, 

gametes, viable eggs, hybrids; and (2) 

companies (breeders and wholesalers) 

with interstate sales of live snakes, 

gametes, viable eggs, hybrids. 

Importation of the nine constrictor 

snakes would be eliminated, except as 

specifically authorized. Impacts to 

entities breeding or selling these snakes 

domestically would depend on the 

amount of interstate sales within the 

constrictor snake market. Impacts also 

are dependent upon whether or not 

consumers would substitute the 

purchase of an animal that is not listed, 

which would thereby reduce economic 

impacts. 

For businesses importing large 

constrictor snakes, the maximum impact 

of this rulemaking would result in 197 

to 270 small businesses (66 percent) 

having a reduction in their retail sales 

of between 24 percent and 49 percent. 

However, this rulemaking would have 

an unknown impact on these small 

businesses because we do not know: (1) 

Whether these businesses sell other 

snakes and reptiles as well, (2) if the 

listed snakes are more profitable than 

nonlisted snakes or other aspects of the 

business, or (3) if consumers would 

substitute the purchase of other snakes 

that are not listed. 

For businesses breeding or selling 

large constrictor snakes domestically, 

approximately 62 to 85 percent of these 

entities would qualify as small 

businesses. Under the proposed rule, 

the interstate transport of the nine 

constrictor snakes would be 

discontinued, except as specifically 

permitted. Thus, any revenue that 

would be potentially earned from this 

portion of business would be 

eliminated. The amount of sales 

impacted is completely dependent on 

the percentage of interstate transport. 

That is, the impact depends on where 

businesses are located and where their 

customers are located. Since 

information is not currently available on 

interstate sales of large constrictor 

snakes, we assume that a sales reduction 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

of between 20 and 80 percent would 

most likely include the actual impact on 

out-of-state sales. 

Therefore, this proposed rule may 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

defined under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The proposed rule is not a major rule 

under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act. This rule: 

a. Would not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

According to the draft economic 

analysis (USFWS, 2010), the annual 

retail value losses for the nine 

constrictor snake species are estimated 

to range from $3.6 million to $10.7 

million. The 10–year retail value losses 

to the large constrictor snake market are 

estimated to range from $37.5 million to 

$93.6 million discounted at 3 percent or 

range from $32.1 million to $80.1 

million discounted at 7 percent. In 

addition, businesses would also face the 

risk of fines if caught transporting these 

constrictor snakes, gametes, viable eggs, 

or hybrids across State lines. The 

penalty for a Lacey Act violation is not 

more than 6 months in prison and not 

more than a $5,000 fine for an 

individual and not more than a $10,000 

fine for an organization. 

b. Would not cause a major increase 

in costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. Businesses breeding 

or selling the listed snakes would be 

able to substitute other species and 

maintain business by seeking unusual 

morphologic forms in other snakes. 

Some businesses, however, may close. 

We do not have data for the potential 

substitutions and therefore, we do not 

know the number of businesses that 

may close. 

c. Would not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 

the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule would not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, 

tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)-(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ 

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’ 

(b) The rule would not have a 

significant or unique effect on State, 

local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. A statement containing 

the information required by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), the rule does not have 

significant takings implications. A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. This rule would not impose 

significant requirements or limitations 

on private property use. 

Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule does 

not have significant Federalism effects. 

A Federalism assessment is not 

required. This rule would not have 

substantial direct effects on States, in 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

we determine that this rule does not 

have sufficient Federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

Federalism Assessment. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order. The 

rule has been reviewed to eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity, was 

written to minimize litigation, provides 

a clear legal standard for affected 

conduct rather than a general standard, 

and promotes simplification and burden 

reduction. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose new 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. OMB has approved the 

information collection requirements 

associated with the required permits 

and assigned OMB Control No. 1018- 

0093. An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have reviewed this rule in 

accordance with the criteria of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the 

Departmental Manual in 516 DM. This 

action is being taken to protect the 

natural resources of the United States. A 

draft environmental assessment has 

been prepared and is available for 

review by written request (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section) 

or at http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015. By 

adding Indian python, reticulated 

python, Northern African python, 

Southern African python, boa 

constrictor, yellow anaconda, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list 

of injurious wildlife, we intend to 

prevent their new introduction, further 

introduction, and establishment into 

natural areas of the United States to 

protect native wildlife species, the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11829 

survival and welfare of wildlife and 

wildlife resources, and the health and 

welfare of humans. If we do not list the 

nine constrictor snakes as injurious, the 

species may expand in captivity to 

States where they are not already found; 

this would increase the risk of their 

escape or intentional release and 

establishment in new areas, which 

would likely threaten native fish and 

wildlife, and humans. Indian pythons, 

boa constrictors, and Northern African 

pythons are established in southern 

Florida and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico. Releases of the nine 

constrictor snakes into natural areas of 

the United States are likely to occur 

again, and the species are likely to 

become established in additional U.S. 

natural areas such as national wildlife 

refuges and parks, threatening native 

fish and wildlife populations and 

ecosystem form, function, and structure. 

Clarity of Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, and the sections where you 

feel lists or tables would be useful. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship with Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments of the Interior’s manual at 

512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 

responsibility to communicate 

meaningfully with recognized Federal 

tribes on a government-to-government 

basis. In accordance with Secretarial 

Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act), we readily 

acknowledge our responsibilities to 

work directly with tribes in developing 

programs for healthy ecosystems, to 

acknowledge that tribal lands are not 

subject to the same controls as Federal 

public lands, to remain sensitive to 

Indian culture, and to make information 

available to tribes. We have evaluated 

potential effects on federally recognized 

Indian tribes and have determined that 

there are no potential effects. This rule 

involves the importation and interstate 

movement of live boa constrictors, four 

python species, and four anaconda 

species, gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids. 

We are unaware of trade in these species 

by tribes. 

Effects on Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. This rule is 

not expected to affect energy supplies, 

distribution, and use. Therefore, this 

action is a not a significant energy 

action and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references used 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the South Florida 

Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, 

FL (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the South 

Florida Ecological Services Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 16 

Fish, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service proposes to amend part 16, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 16—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 16 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 42. 

2. Amend § 16.15 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 16.15 Importation of live reptiles or their 

eggs. 

(a) The importation, transportation, or 

acquisition of any live specimen, 

gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of the 

species listed in this paragraph is 

prohibited except as provided under the 

terms and conditions set forth in § 

16.22: 

(1) Boiga irregularis (brown tree 

snake). 

(2) Python molurus (Indian [including 

Burmese] python). 

(3) Broghammerus reticulatus or 

Python reticulatus (reticulated 

python). 

(4) Python sebae (Northern African 

python). 

(5) Python natalensis (Southern 

African python). 

(6) Boa constrictor (boa constrictor). 

(7) Eunectes notaeus (yellow 

anaconda). 

(8) Eunectes deschauenseei 

(DeSchauensee’s anaconda). 

(9) Eunectes murinus (green 

anaconda). 

(10) Eunectes beniensis (Beni 

anaconda). 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 5, 2010. 

Thomas L. Strickland, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4956 Filed 3–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 100122041–0118–01] 

RIN 0648–AY59 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries off West Coast States; 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2010 

Tribal Fishery for Pacific Whiting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule is issued 

consistent with a regulatory framework 

that was established in 1996 to 

implement the Washington coastal 

treaty Indian tribes’ rights to harvest 

Pacific Coast groundfish. Washington 

coastal treaty Indian tribes mean the 

Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Indian Tribes 

and the Quinault Indian Nation. The 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS