[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50213-50242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19950]
[[Page 50213]]
Vol. 77
Monday,
No. 161
August 20, 2012
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Jaguar; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 50214]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AX13
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Jaguar
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the jaguar (Panthera onca) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, we propose
to designate as critical habitat approximately 339,220 hectares
(838,232 acres) in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and
Hidalgo County, New Mexico.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
October 19, 2012. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by
October 4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search field, enter Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2012-0042, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then click
on the Search button. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment
Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. 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: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Drive, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ
85021; telephone 602-242-0210. If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS)
at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
This rule proposes to designate critical habitat for the species.
This is a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for an endangered
mammal, the jaguar (Panthera onca). In total, we are proposing
approximately 339,220 hectares (838,232 acres) for designation as
critical habitat for the jaguar in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise
Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. We are proposing to
designate six critical habitat units for the jaguar in Arizona and New
Mexico as follows:
Approximately 56,241 ha (138,975 ac) in the Baboquivari
Mountains, Arizona.
Approximately 58,104 ha (143,578 ac) in the Tumacacori,
Atascosa, and Pajarito Mountains, Arizona.
Approximately 138,821 ha (343,033 ac) in the Santa Rita,
Patagonia, and Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, Arizona.
Approximately 42,694 ha (105,498 ac) in the Whetstone
Mountains, including connections to the Santa Rita and Huachuca
Mountains, Arizona.
Approximately 40,290 ha (99,559 ac) in the Peloncillo
Mountains, Arizona and New Mexico.
Approximately 3,071 ha (7,590 ac) in the San Luis
Mountains, New Mexico.
We are preparing an economic analysis. To ensure that we consider
the probable economic impacts of the proposed designation, pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are preparing an economic analysis. The
analysis will be used to inform the development of the final
designation of critical habitat for the jaguar. We will publish an
announcement and seek public comments on the draft economic analysis
when it is completed.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our critical habitat designation is based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited
these peer reviewers to comment on our specific assumptions and
conclusions used to develop this proposed critical habitat designation.
Because we will consider all comments and information received during
the comment period, our final determination may differ from this
proposal.
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) including whether there are threats to the species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be
prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of jaguar habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (1972)
(or are currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why;
(c) What period of time surrounding the time of listing (1972)
should be used to determine occupancy and why, and whether or not data
from 1982 to the present should be used in this determination;
(d) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(e) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the jaguar and proposed critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families,
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(6) If lands owned and managed by Fort Huachuca should be
considered for exemption because the Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan for the Fort currently benefits the jaguar, whether or
not the species is specifically addressed.
(7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for
[[Page 50215]]
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of
potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of
including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(8) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such
as your street address, phone number, or email address 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, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
designation of critical habitat for jaguar in this proposed rule. For
more information on the species itself, refer to the Previous Federal
Actions section, below, the final listing clarification rule published
in the Federal Register on July 22, 1997 (62 FR 39147), and the
previous critical habitat prudency determination published in the
Federal Register on July 12, 2006 (71 FR 39335).
Species Information
The jaguar (Panthera onca), a large member of the cat family
(Felidae), is an endangered species that currently occurs from southern
Arizona and New Mexico to southern South America. Jaguars are muscular
cats with relatively short, massive limbs and a deep-chested body. They
are cinnamon-buff in color with many black spots; melanistic (dark
coloration) forms are also known, primarily from the southern part of
the range.
The life history of the jaguar has been summarized by Seymour
(1989, entire) and Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez (2001,
entire), among others. Jaguars breed year-round rangewide, but at the
southern and northern ends of their range there is evidence for a
spring breeding season. Gestation is about 100 days; litters range from
one to four cubs (usually two). Cubs remain with their mother for
nearly 2 years. Females begin sexual activity at 3 years of age, males
at 4. Studies have documented few wild jaguars more than 11 years old,
although a wild male jaguar in Arizona was documented to be at least 15
years of age (Johnson et al. 2011, p. 12), and in Jalisco, Mexico, two
wild females were documented to be at least 12 and 13
(N[uacute][ntilde]ez 2011, pers. comm.). The consensus of jaguar
experts is that the average lifespan of the jaguar is 10 years.
The list of prey taken by jaguars throughout their range includes
more than 85 species (Seymour 1989, p. 4). Known prey include, but are
not limited to, collared peccaries (javelina (Pecari tajacu)), white-
lipped peccaries (Tayassu pecari), capybaras (Hydrochoerus spp.), pacas
(Agouti paca), agoutis (Dasyprocta spp.), armadillos (Dasypus spp.),
caimans (Caiman spp.), turtles (Podocnemis spp.), white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), livestock, and various other reptiles, birds,
and fish (sources as cited in Seymour 1989, p. 4; N[uacute][ntilde]ez
et al. 2000, pp. iii-iv; Rosas-Rosas 2006, p. 17; Rosas-Rosas et al.
2008, pp. 557-558). Jaguars are considered opportunistic feeders,
especially in rainforests, and their diet varies according to prey
density and ease of prey capture (sources as cited in Seymour 1989, p.
4). Jaguars equally use medium- and large-size prey, with a trend
toward use of larger prey as distance increases from the equator
(L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez and Miller 2002, p. 218). Javelina and
white-tailed deer are thought to be the mainstays in the diet of
jaguars in the United States and Mexico borderlands (Brown and
L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 51).
Previous Federal Actions
In 1972, the jaguar was listed as endangered (37 FR 6476; March 30,
1972) in accordance with the Endangered Species Conservation Act of
1969 (ESCA), a precursor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Under the ESCA, the Service
maintained separate listings for foreign species and species native to
the United States. At that time, the jaguar was believed to be extinct
in the United States; thus, the jaguar was included only on the foreign
species list. The jaguar's range was described as extending from the
international boundary of the United States and Mexico southward to
include Central and South America (37 FR 6476). In 1973, the Act
superseded the ESCA. The foreign and native lists were replaced by a
single ``List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,'' which was first
published in the Federal Register on September 26, 1975 (40 FR 44412).
In this regulation, the jaguar's range again was described as including
Central and South America (40 FR 44412), but not the United States.
On July 25, 1979, the Service published a notice (44 FR 43705)
stating that, through an oversight in the listing of the jaguar and six
other endangered species, the United States populations of these
species were not protected by the Act. The notice asserted that it was
always the intent of the Service that all populations of these species,
including the jaguar, deserved to be listed as endangered, whether they
occurred in the United States or in foreign countries. Therefore, the
notice stated that the Service intended to take action as quickly as
possible to propose the U.S. populations of these species (including
the jaguar) for listing.
On July 25, 1980, the Service published a proposed rule (45 FR
49844) to list the jaguar and four of the other species referred to
above in the United States. The proposal for listing the jaguar and
three other species was withdrawn on September 17, 1982 (47 FR 41145).
The notice issued by the Service stated that the Act mandated
withdrawal of proposed rules to list species which have not been
finalized within 2 years of the proposal.
On August 3, 1992, the Service received a petition from the
instructor and students of the American Southwest Sierra Institute and
Life Net to list the jaguar as endangered in the United States. The
petition was dated July 26, 1992. On April 13, 1993 (58 FR 19216), the
Service published a finding that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted, and requested
public comments and biological data on the status of the jaguar. On
July 13, 1994 (59 FR 35674), the Service published a proposed rule to
extend endangered status to the jaguar throughout its range.
On April 10, 1995, Congress enacted a moratorium prohibiting work
on listing actions (Pub. L. 104-6) and eliminated funding for the
Service to conduct final listing activities. The moratorium was lifted
on April 26, 1996, by means of a Presidential waiver, at which time
limited funding for listing actions was made available through the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
[[Page 50216]]
1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, 100 Stat. 1321, 1996). The Service published
guidance for restarting the listing program on May 16, 1996 (61 FR
24722). The listing process for the jaguar was resumed in September
1996, when the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity filed a law
suit and motion for summary judgment for the Secretary to finalize the
listing for the jaguar and four other species. On July 22, 1997, we
published a final rule clarifying that endangered status for the jaguar
extended into the United States (62 FR 39147). For more information on
previous Federal actions concerning the jaguar, please refer to the
July 22, 1997, final clarifying rule (62 FR 39147).
The July 22, 1997, clarifying rule included a determination that
designation of critical habitat for the jaguar was not prudent (62 FR
39147). At that time, we determined that the greatest threat to the
jaguar in the United States was from direct taking of individuals
through shooting or other means. As a consequence, we determined that
designating critical habitat for the jaguar was ``not prudent,''
because ``publication of detailed critical habitat maps and
descriptions in the Federal Register would likely make the species more
vulnerable to activities prohibited under section 9 of the Act.''
Therefore, we believed that a critical habitat designation would
increase the degree of threat to the species.
In response to a complaint by the Center for Biological Diversity,
we agreed to re-evaluate our 1997 prudency determination and make a new
determination by July 3, 2006 as to whether designation of critical
habitat for the jaguar was prudent. In that subsequent finding (July
12, 2006; 71 FR 39335), we noted that since the time of our July 22,
1997, determination, the Jaguar Conservation Team, Arizona Game and
Fish Department, publications, and other sources routinely had given
specific and general locations of jaguars that had been sighted in the
United States, and, as of 2006, these sightings were being documented
through Web sites, public notifications, reports, books, and meeting
notes. Publishing critical habitat maps and descriptions, as part of
designating critical habitat, would not result in the species being
more vulnerable in the United States than it was currently (in 2006).
We then assessed whether designation of critical habitat would be
beneficial to the species. We found that no areas in the United States
met the definition of critical habitat, and, as a result, designation
of critical habitat for the jaguar would not be beneficial to the
species. As a result, we again determined that designation of critical
habitat for the jaguar was not prudent (71 FR 39335). We did not
consider designation of lands outside of the United States in this
analysis, because, under the Act's implementing regulations, critical
habitat cannot be designated in foreign countries (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
The Center for Biological Diversity again challenged the Service's
decision that critical habitat was not prudent for the jaguar. On March
30, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Court) issued an opinion in Center for Biological Diversity v.
Kempthorne, CV 07-372-TUC JMR (Lead) and Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall,
CV08-335 TUC JMR (Consolidated) (D. Ariz., Mar. 30, 2009), that set
aside our previous prudency determination and required that we issue a
new determination as to ``whether to designate critical habitat,''
i.e., whether such designation is prudent, by January 8, 2010. In this
opinion, the Court noted, among other things, that the Service's
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) require that the Service ``shall focus
on the principal biological constituent elements within the defined
area that are essential to the conservation of the species.'' Such
elements include consideration of space for individual and population
growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter;
sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or
seed dispersal; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
On January 13, 2010, we published a notice of determination that we
had reevaluated our previous ``not prudent'' finding regarding critical
habitat designation for the jaguar and the information supporting our
previous findings (75 FR 1741). We also evaluated information and
analysis that became available subsequent to the July 12, 2006,
finding. We determined there were physical and biological features that
can be used by jaguars in the United States. Thus, in responding to the
Court's order, and following a review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, including the ongoing conservation programs
for the jaguar, we determined that the designation of critical habitat
for the jaguar would be beneficial. We also determined that designation
of critical habitat would not be expected to increase the degree of
threat to the species. We solicited comments and information on this
determination, and stated we anticipated publishing a proposed critical
habitat designation in the Federal Register by January 2011.
On October 18, 2010, we sent a letter to the Center for Biological
Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife updating them on our process of
developing a recovery plan and critical habitat for the jaguar. We
stated that, because of scant information currently available for
northern jaguars, we would be convening a bi-national Jaguar Recovery
Team to synthesize information on the jaguar, focusing on a unit
comprising jaguars in the northern portion of their range. We further
stated that we would be working with the Conservation Breeding
Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission/International Union
for Conservation of Nature to conduct a population viability analysis
and a population and habitat viability analysis for the jaguar. We
anticipated that these analyses would assist us in determining those
recovery actions that would be most effective for achieving a viable
jaguar population, as well as providing information relevant to
determining critical habitat for the jaguar. Additionally, we stated
that, based on the unusual situation where the best information on
habitat in the United States essential to the conservation of the
jaguar was being gathered through the recovery planning effort, we
would postpone publishing a proposed critical habitat rule until spring
2012.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided
[[Page 50217]]
under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures
include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it
was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, and soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the
elements of physical or biological features that, when laid out in the
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species'
life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For
example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not
occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of
the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation. We
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Jaguar Habitat Requirements in the United States and U.S.-Mexico
Borderlands Area
Most of the information regarding jaguar habitat requirements comes
from Central and South America; little, if any, is available for the
northwestern-most portion of its range, including the United States.
Jaguar habitat in Central and South America is quite different from
habitat available in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands area, where jaguars
show a high affinity for lowland wet communities, including swampy
savannas or tropical rain forests toward and at middle latitudes. Swank
and Teer (1989, p. 14) state that jaguars prefer a warm, tropical
climate, usually associated with water, and are rarely found in
extensive arid areas. Rabinowitz (1999, p. 97) affirms that the most
robust jaguar populations have been associated with tropical climates
in areas of low elevation with dense cover and year-round water
sources. Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez (2001, p. 43) further
state that, in South and Central America, jaguars usually avoid open
country like grasslands or desertscrub, instead preferring the closed
vegetative
[[Page 50218]]
structure of nearly every tropical forest type.
However, jaguars have been documented in arid areas of northwestern
Mexico and the southwestern United States, including thornscrub,
desertscrub, lowland desert, mesquite grassland, Madrean oak woodland,
and pine-oak woodland communities (Brown and L[oacute]pez
Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, pp. 43-50; Boydston and L[oacute]pez
Gonz[aacute]lez 2005, p. 54; McCain and Childs 2008, p. 7; Rosas-Rosas
and Bender 2012, p. 88). The more open, dry habitat of the southwestern
United States has been characterized as marginal habitat for jaguars in
terms of water, cover, and prey densities (Rabinowitz 1999, p. 97).
However, McCain and Childs (2008, p. 7) documented two male jaguars
(and possibly a third) using an extensive area including habitats of
the Sonoran lowland desert, Sonoran desert scrub, mesquite grassland,
Madrean oak woodland, and pine-oak woodland in mountain ranges in
southern Arizona. Therefore, while habitat in the United States can be
considered marginal when compared to other areas throughout the
species' range, it appears that a few, possibly resident jaguars are
able to use the more open, arid habitat found in the southwestern
United States.
To define the physical and biological features required for jaguar
habitat in the United States, we are relying on studies conducted in
Mexico as close to the U.S.-Mexico border as available. Many of these
studies have been compiled and summarized by the Jaguar Recovery Team
in the Recovery Outline for the Jaguar (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012,
entire) and Digital Mapping in Support of Recovery Planning for the
Northern Jaguar report (Sanderson and Fisher 2011, pp. 1-11). These
documents describe the entire Northwestern Recovery Unit and
Northwestern Management Unit of the jaguar (see Jaguar Recovery
Planning in Relation to Critical Habitat, below) including areas of
Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Nayarit, and Jalisco, Mexico, and south-
central and southeastern Arizona and southeastern New Mexico in the
United States (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 20-24). When U.S.-
specific data are available, we attempt to narrow the focus of our
analysis to information within the United States to determine the
physical and biological features currently present that provide jaguar
habitat north of the border.
The Jaguar Recovery Team (2012, pp. 15-16) determined that high-
quality habitat for jaguars in the Northwestern Recovery Unit and
Northwestern Management Unit includes the following features: (1) High
abundance of native prey, particularly large prey like deer and peccary
and adequate numbers of medium-sized prey; (2) water available within
10 kilometers (km) (6.2 miles (mi)) year round; (3) dense vegetative
cover (to stalk and ambush prey and for denning and resting),
particularly including Sinaloan thornscrub; (4) rugged topography,
including canyons and ridges, and some rocky hills good for denning and
resting; (5) connectivity to allow normal demographic processes to
occur and maintain genetic diversity; (6) expansive areas of adequate
habitat (i.e., area large enough to support 50 to 100 jaguars) with low
human density; (7) low human activity, development, and infrastructure,
including low densities of high-speed roads, mines, and agriculture;
and (8) no to low jaguar persecution or poaching by humans. Therefore,
we are basing our definition of jaguar habitat in the United States on
these features but with modifications more applicable to areas north of
the U.S.-Mexico border (see Physical or Biological Features, below).
Jaguar Recovery Planning in Relation to Critical Habitat
The 2012 Recovery Outline for the Jaguar describes two recovery
units for the jaguar across its range, the Northwestern and Pan
American Recovery Units (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, p. 58). Recovery
units are subunits of the listed species' habitat that are
geographically or otherwise identifiable and essential to the recovery
of the species (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, p. 20).
Recovery units for the jaguar are further divided into core,
secondary, and peripheral areas (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 20-23).
Core areas have both persistent verified records of jaguar occurrence
over time and recent evidence of reproduction. Secondary areas are
those that contain jaguar habitat with either or both historical or
recent records of jaguar presence with no recent record or very few
records of reproduction. In peripheral areas, most historical jaguar
records are sporadic, and there is no or minimal evidence of long-term
presence or reproduction that might indicate colonization or sustained
use of these areas by jaguars.
Potential jaguar habitat in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands area is
part of the secondary area of the Northwestern Management Unit within
the Northwestern Recovery Unit for the jaguar (Jaguar Recovery Team
2012, p. 58). Because such a small portion of the jaguar's range occurs
in the United States, it is anticipated that recovery of the entire
species will rely primarily on actions that occur outside of the United
States; activities that may adversely or beneficially affect jaguars in
the United States are less likely to affect recovery than activities in
core areas of their range (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, p. 38). However,
the portion of the United States is located within a secondary area
that provides a recovery function benefitting the overall recovery unit
(Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 40, 42). For example, specific areas
within this secondary area that provide the physical and biological
features essential to jaguar habitat can contribute to the species'
persistence and, therefore, overall conservation by providing areas to
support some individuals during dispersal movements, by providing small
patches of habitat (perhaps in some cases with a few resident jaguars),
and as areas for cyclic expansion and contraction of the nearest core
area and breeding population in the Northwestern Recovery Unit (about
210 km (130 mi) south of the U.S.-Mexico border in Sonora near the
towns of Huasabas, Sahuaripa (Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez
2001, pp. 108-109), and Nacori Chico (Rosas-Rosas and Bender 2012, pp.
88-89)). Independent peer review cited in our July 22, 1997, clarifying
rule (62 FR 39147, pp. 39153-39154) states that individuals dispersing
into the United States are important because they occupy habitat that
serves as a buffer to zones of regular reproduction and are potential
colonizers of vacant range, and that, as such, areas supporting them
are important to maintaining normal demographics, as well as allowing
for possible range expansion. As described in the Recovery Outline for
the Jaguar, the Northwestern Recovery Unit is essential for the
conservation of the species; therefore, consideration of the spatial
and biological dynamics that allow this unit to function and that
benefit the overall unit is prudent. Providing connectivity from the
United States to Mexico is a key element to maintaining those
processes.
As mentioned above, the U.S. lands within the secondary area of the
Northwestern Recovery Unit are also located within the Northwestern
Management Unit. Management units, as described in the Recovery
Outline, are areas within a recovery unit that might require different
management, be managed by different entities, or encompass different
populations (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, p. 40). The U.S. lands located
within the Northwestern Management Unit simply acknowledge the
existence of different species
[[Page 50219]]
management on either side of the International Border with Mexico. This
additional description of the U.S. lands as part of management unit
does not mean that the habitat in United States has any less
significance within the secondary area of the recovery unit.
Additionally, as thoroughly discussed in the Recovery Outline for
the Jaguar (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 19-20) and Johnson et al.
(2011, pp. 30-31), populations at the edge of a species' range play a
role in maintaining the total genetic diversity of a species; in some
cases, these peripheral populations persist the longest as
fragmentation and habitat loss impact the total range (Channell and
Lomolino 2000, pp. 84-85). The United States and northwestern Mexico
represent the northernmost extent of the jaguar's range, with
populations persisting in distinct ecological conditions (xeric, or
extremely dry, habitat) that occur nowhere else in the species' range
(Sanderson et al. 2002, entire). Peripheral populations such as these
are an important genetic resource in that they may be beneficial to the
protection of evolutionary processes and the environmental systems that
are likely to generate future evolutionary diversity (Lesica and
Allendorf 1995, entire). This may be particularly important considering
the potential threats of global climate change (see ``Climate Change,''
below). The ability for jaguars in the Northwestern Recovery Unit to
utilize physical and biological habitat features in the Northwestern
Management Unit is ecologically important to the recovery of the
species; therefore, maintaining connectivity to Mexico is essential to
the conservation of the jaguar.
Climate Change
The degree to which climate change will affect jaguar habitat in
the United States is uncertain, but it has the potential to adversely
affect the jaguar within the next 50 to 100 years (Jaguar Recovery Team
2012, p. 32). Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah and
Lovejoy 2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial
areas in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more
intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al.
2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p.
1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of
severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et
al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015).
The current prognosis for climate change impacts in the American
Southwest includes fewer frost days; warmer temperatures; greater water
demand by plants, animals, and people; and an increased frequency of
extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, and floods (Weiss
and Overpeck 2005, p. 2074; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 24). How
climate change will affect summer precipitation is less certain,
because precipitation predictions are based on continental-scale
general circulation models that do not yet account for land use and
land cover effects or regional phenomena, such as those that control
monsoonal rainfall in the Southwest (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2075;
Archer and Predick 2008, pp. 23-24). Some models predict dramatic
changes in Southwestern vegetation communities as a result of climate
change (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2074; Archer and Predick 2008, p.
24), especially as wildfires carried by nonnative plants (e.g.,
buffelgrass) potentially become more frequent, promoting the presence
of exotic species over native ones (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2075).
The impact of future drought, which may be long-term and severe
(Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1183-1184; Archer and Predick 2008, entire),
may affect jaguar habitat in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands area, but the
information currently available on the effects of global climate change
and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently precise
estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects. We do not know
whether the changes that have already occurred have affected jaguar
populations or distribution, nor can we predict how the species will
adapt to or be affected by the type and degree of climate changes
forecast. We are not currently aware of any climate change information
specific to the habitat of the jaguar that would indicate what areas
may become important to the species in the future. Therefore, we are
unable to determine what additional areas, if any, may be appropriate
to include in the final critical habitat designation for this species
specifically to address the effects of climate change.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection.
These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for jaguars from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life
history as described below. Additional information can be found in the
final clarifying rule published in the Federal Register on July 22,
1997 (62 FR 39147), the Recovery Outline for the Jaguar (Jaguar
Recovery Team 2012, entire), and the Digital Mapping in Support of
Recovery Planning for the Northern Jaguar report (Sanderson and Fisher
2011, pp. 1-11). We have determined that the following physical or
biological feature is essential for the jaguar: Expansive open spaces
in the southwestern United States with adequate connectivity to Mexico
that contain a sufficient native prey base and available surface water,
have suitable vegetative cover and rugged topography to provide sites
for resting, and have minimal human impact, as further described below.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Expansive open spaces--Jaguars require a significant amount of
space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior.
Jaguars have relatively large home ranges and, according to Brown and
L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez (2001, p. 60), their home ranges are
highly variable and depend on topography, available prey, and
population dynamics. Home ranges need to provide reliable surface
water, available prey, and sites for resting that are removed from the
impacts of human activity and influence (Jaguar Recovery
[[Page 50220]]
Team 2012, pp. 15-16). The availability of these habitat
characteristics can fluctuate within a year (dry versus wet seasons)
and between years (drought years versus wet years).
Specific home ranges for jaguars depend on the sex, season, and
vegetation type. The home ranges of borderland jaguars are presumably
as large or larger than the home ranges of tropical jaguars (Brown and
L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 60; McCain and Childs 2008, pp.
6-7), as jaguars in this area are at the northern limit of their range
and the arid environment contains resources and environmental
conditions that are more variable than those in the tropics (Hass 2002,
as cited in McCain and Childs 2008, p. 6). Therefore, jaguars require
more space in arid areas to obtain essential resources such as food,
water, and cover (discussed below).
Only one limited home range study using standard radio-telemetry
techniques and two home range studies using camera traps have been
conducted for jaguars in northwestern Mexico. Telemetry data from one
adult female tracked for 4 months during the dry season in Sonora
indicated a home range size of 100 square km (37 square mi)
(L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2011, pers. comm.). Additionally, using
camera traps, a male in Sonora was documented using an average home
range of 84 square km (32 square mi) (L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez
2011, pers. comm.). No home range studies using standard radio-
telemetry techniques have been conducted for jaguars in the
southwestern United States, although McCain and Childs (2008, p. 5),
using camera traps, reported one jaguar in southeastern Arizona as
having a minimum observed ``range'' of 1,359 square km (525 square mi)
encompassing two distinct mountain ranges. This study, however, was not
designed to determine home range size; therefore, we are relying on
minimum home-range estimates for male and female jaguars from Sonora,
Mexico (L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2011, pers. comm.) for the minimum
amount of adequate habitat required by jaguars in the United States.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify expansive
open spaces in the United States of at least 84 to 100 square km (32 to
37 square mi) in size with connectivity to Mexico, adequate native prey
and available surface water, suitable vegetative cover and rugged
topography to provide sites for resting, and minimal human impact as
the essential components of the physical or biological feature
essential for the conservation of the jaguar in the United States.
Connectivity between expansive open spaces in the United States and
Mexico--As discussed in the Jaguar Recovery Planning in Relation to
Critical Habitat section, above, connectivity between the United States
and Mexico is essential for the conservation of jaguars. Therefore, we
identify connectivity between expansive open spaces in the United
States and Mexico as an essential component of the physical or
biological feature essential for the conservation of the jaguar in the
United States.
Connectivity between expansive open spaces within the United
States--We know that connectivity between areas of habitat for the
jaguar in the United States is necessary if viable habitat for the
jaguar is to be maintained. This is particularly true in the
mountainous areas of Arizona and New Mexico, where isolated mountain
ranges providing the physical and biological features of jaguar habitat
are separated by valley bottoms that may not possess the features
described in this proposed rule. However, we also know that, based on
home range sizes and research and monitoring, jaguars will use valley
bottoms and other areas of habitat connectivity to move among areas of
higher quality habitat found in isolated mountain ranges. We
acknowledge that jaguars use connective areas to move between mountain
ranges in the United States; however, as they are mainly using them for
passage, jaguars do not linger in these areas. As a result, there is
only one occurrence record of a jaguar in these areas. With only one
record, we are unable to describe the features of these areas because
of a lack of information. Therefore, while we acknowledge that habitat
connectivity within the United States is important, the best available
scientific and commercial information does not allow us to determine
that any particular area within the valleys is essential, and all of
the valley habitat is not essential to the conservation of the species.
Therefore we are not designating any areas within the valleys between
the montane habitat as critical habitat.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Food--Jaguar and large-cat experts believe that high-quality
habitat for jaguars in the northwestern portion of their range should
include a high abundance of native prey, particularly large prey like
white-tailed deer and collared peccary (javelina), as well as an
adequate number of medium-sized prey (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp.
15-16). However, the Jaguar Recovery Team (2012, pp. 15-16) did not
quantify ``high abundance'' or ``adequate number'' of each type of
prey, making it difficult to state the density of prey required to
sustain a resident jaguar in this portion of its range.
Jaguars usually catch and kill their prey by stalking or ambush and
biting through the nape as do most Felidae (members of the cat family)
(Seymour 1989, p. 5). Like other large cats, jaguars rely on a
combination of cover, surprise, acceleration, and body weight to
capture their prey (Schaller 1972 and Hopcraft et al. 2005, as cited by
Cavalcanti 2008, p. 47). Jaguars are considered opportunistic feeders,
and their diet varies according to prey density and ease of prey
capture (sources as cited in Seymour 1989, p. 4). Jaguars equally use
medium- and large-size prey, with a trend toward use of larger prey as
distance increases from the equator (L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez and
Miller 2002, p. 218).
In northeastern Sonora, where the northernmost breeding population
of jaguars occurs, Rosas-Rosas (2006, pp. 24-25) found that large prey
greater than 10 kilograms (kg) (22 pounds (lbs)) accounted for more
than 80 percent of the total biomass consumed. Specifically, cattle
accounted for more than half of the total biomass consumed (57
percent), followed by white-tailed deer (23 percent), and collared
peccary (5.12 percent). Medium-sized prey (1-10 kg; 2-22 lbs),
including lagomorphs (rabbit family) and coatis (Nasua nasua),
accounted for less than 20 percent of biomass. Small prey, less than 1
kg (2 lbs), were not found in scats (Rosas-Rosas 2006, p. 24). At the
Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve in Jalisco, Mexico (which is closed
to livestock grazing), deer and javelina were the two most preferred
prey species for jaguars, with jaguars consuming the equivalent of 85
deer per individual per year (Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez
2001, p. 51). No estimates of the number of javelina consumed were
provided, although in combination with deer, armadillo, and coati,
these four prey items provided 98 percent of the biomass taken by
jaguars (Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 50). Most
jaguar experts believe that collared peccary and deer are mainstays in
the diet of jaguars in the United States and Mexico borderlands (62 FR
39147), although other available prey, including coatis, skunk
(Mephitis spp., Spilogale gracilis), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
jackrabbit (Lepus spp.), domestic livestock, and horses are taken as
well (Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 51;
[[Page 50221]]
Hatten et al. 2005, p. 1024; Rosas-Rosas 2006, p. 24).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify areas
containing adequate numbers of native prey, including deer, javelina,
and medium-sized prey items (such as coatis, skunks, raccoons, or
jackrabbits) as an essential component of the physical and biological
feature essential for the conservation of the jaguar in the United
States.
Water--Several studies have demonstrated that jaguars require
surface water within a reasonable distance year-round. This requirement
likely stems from increased prey abundance at or near water sources
(Cavalcanti 2008, p. 68; Rosas-Rosas et al. 2010, pp. 107-108),
particularly in arid environments, although it is conceivable that
jaguars require a nearby water source for drinking, as well. Seymour
(1989, p. 4) found that jaguars are most commonly found in areas with a
water supply, although the distance to this water supply is not
defined. In northeastern Sonora, Mexico, Rosas-Rosas et al. (2010, p.
107) found that sites of jaguar cattle kills were positively associated
with proximity to permanent water sources. They also found that these
sites were positively associated with proximity to roads, but concluded
that the effect of roads likely represented a response to major
drainages, as roads generally followed major drainages within their
study area.
In the United States, only one modeling study analyzing distance to
water as a feature of jaguar habitat has been conducted. Hatten et al.
(2005, p. 1026) used jaguar records from Arizona dating from 1900 to
2002, selecting the most reliable records (those with physical evidence
or from a reliable witness) and most spatially accurate records (those
with spatial errors of less than 8 km (5 mi)) to create a habitat
suitability model. Of the 57 records they considered, 25 records were
deemed reliable and accurate enough to include in the model. Using a
digital Geographic Information System (GIS) layer that included
perennial and intermittent water sources (streams, rivers, lakes, and
springs), Hatten et al. (2005, p. 1029) found that when perennial and
intermittent water sources were combined, 100 percent of the 25 jaguar
records used for their model were within 10 km (6.2 mi) of a water
source. This distance from water (10 km; 6.2 mi) was then incorporated
into jaguar habitat modeling exercises in New Mexico (Menke and Hayes
2003, pp. 15-16), and in northern Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico
borderlands area (Sanderson and Fisher 2011, pp. 10-11), and was
further acknowledged by jaguar and large cat researchers (primarily
with expertise in the northwestern-most portion of the jaguar range) as
the maximum distance an area could be from a year-round water source to
constitute high-quality jaguar habitat (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp.
15-16).
Using data compiled by Sanderson and Fisher (2011, database) and
McCain and Childs (2008, entire, and unpublished data), we collected
undisputed Class I reports of jaguar locations in the United States
since the time the species was listed (see Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat, below). Our compilation of data resulted in 130
reports of jaguar locations to use in our analysis, of which we found
that approximately 98 percent occurred within 10 km (6.2 mi) of a water
source. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify sources
of surface water within at least 20 km (12.4 mi) of each other such
that a jaguar would be within 10 km (6.2 mi) of a water source at any
given time (i.e., if it were halfway between these water sources) as an
essential component of the physical or biological feature essential for
the conservation of the jaguar in the United States.
Cover or Shelter
Vegetative cover--Jaguars require vegetative cover allowing them to
stalk and ambush prey, as well as providing areas in which to den and
rest (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 15-16). Jaguars are known from a
variety of vegetation communities (Seymour 1989, p. 2), sometimes
called biotic communities or vegetation biomes (Brown 1994, p. 9).
Jaguars have been documented in arid areas in northwestern Mexico and
the southwestern United States, including thornscrub, desertscrub,
lowland desert, mesquite grassland, Madrean oak woodland, and pine-oak
woodland communities (Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, pp.
43-50; Boydston and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2005, p. 54; McCain
and Childs 2008, p. 7; Rosas-Rosas et al. 2010, p. 103). As most of the
information pertaining to jaguar habitat in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands
relies on descriptions of biotic communities from Brown and Lowe (1980,
map) and Brown (1994, entire, including appendices), for purposes of
this document we are using these same sources and descriptions, as
well.
According to Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez (2001, p. 46),
the most important biotic community for jaguars in the southwestern
borderlands (Arizona, New Mexico, Sonora, Chihuahua) is Sinaloan
thornscrub (as described in Brown 1994, pp. 100-105), with 80 percent
of the jaguars killed in the state of Sonora documented in this
vegetation biome (Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 48).
This biotic community, however, is absent in the United States (Brown
and Lowe 1980, map; Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p.
49). Madrean evergreen woodland is also important for borderlands
jaguars; nearly 30 percent of jaguars killed in the borderlands region
were documented in this biotic community (Brown and L[oacute]pez
Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 45). Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez
(2000, p. 538) indicate jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico predominantly
use montane environments, probably because of more amiable temperatures
and prey availability. A smaller, but still notable, number of jaguars
were killed in chaparral and shrub-invaded semidesert grasslands (Brown
and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 48). In Arizona,
approximately 15 percent of the jaguars taken within the State between
the years 1900 and 2000 were in semidesert grasslands (Brown and
L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 49).
The more recent sightings (2001-2007), as described in McCain and
Childs (2008, entire), document jaguars in these same biotic
communities (note that the Madrean evergreen woodland and semidesert
grassland biotic communities encompass the Sonoran lowland desert,
Sonoran desert scrub, mesquite grassland, Madrean oak woodland, and
pine-oak woodland habitats), and the most recent sighting of a jaguar
in Arizona (2011) was in Madrean evergreen woodland, as well (Arizona
Game and Fish Department, unpublished data).
Several modeling studies incorporating vegetation characteristics
have attempted to refine the general understanding of habitats that
have been or might be used by jaguars in the United States. To
characterize vegetation biomes, Hatten et al. (2005, entire) used a
digital vegetation layer based on Brown and Lowe (1980, map) and Brown
(1994, entire). They found that 100 percent of the 25 jaguar records
used for their model were observed in four vegetation biomes,
including: (1) Scrub grasslands of southeastern Arizona (56 percent);
(2) Madrean evergreen forest (20 percent); (3) Rocky Mountain montane
conifer forest (12 percent); and (4) Great Basin conifer woodland (12
percent).
In addition, two studies (Menke and Hayes 2003, entire; Robinson et
al. 2006, entire) attempted to evaluate potential jaguar habitat in New
Mexico
[[Page 50222]]
using methods similar to those described in Hatten et al. (2005, pp.
1025-1028). However, due to the small number of reliable and spatially
accurate records within New Mexico, neither model was able to determine
patterns of habitat use (and associated vegetation communities) for
jaguars in New Mexico, instead relying on literature and expert opinion
for elements to include in the models. These vegetation communities
included Madrean evergreen woodland, which Menke and Hayes (2003, p.
13) considered the most similar to habitats used by the closest
breeding populations of jaguars in Mexico, as well as grasslands
(semidesert, Plains and Great Basin, and subalpine), interior
chaparral, conifer forests and woodlands (Great Basin, Petran montane,
and Petran subalpine), and desertscrub (Chihuahuan, Arizona upland
Sonoran, and Great Basin).
Finally, Sanderson and Fisher (2011, pp. 1-11) created a jaguar
habitat model for northwestern Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico borderlands
area using the methodology described in Hatten et al. (2005, pp. 1025-
1028), but with some modifications. From 54 references published
between the years 1737 and 2010, they compiled 333 potential jaguar
locations from across the United States and northern Mexico (Sanderson
and Fisher 2011, p. 4). These records were not selected to include only
those that were reliable and spatially accurate (as described above in
Hatten et al. 2005, pp. 1025-1026). Instead, they included cultural
evidence (such as a jaguar painting in a cave or a place name including
the word jaguar), sightings of live animals or their sign, mortalities
(such as hunting events or jaguars killed after a predation event), and
observations of possible jaguars (such as a cat, spotted cat, or large
quadruped (four-footed animal)) (details as described in the database
associated with Sanderson and Fisher 2011). Another modification
Sanderson and Fisher (2011, pp. 7-8) made was to substitute a digital
layer describing tree cover for the digital vegetation layer based on
Brown and Lowe (1980, map) and Brown (1994, entire). In doing so,
Sanderson and Fisher (2011, p. 9) determined the percent tree cover at
each of the 333 locations used in their model, reporting that
approximately 70 percent of the locations were in areas with 3 to 60
percent tree cover. They then used this range of tree cover as a
variable delineating jaguar habitat (Sanderson and Fisher 2011, p. 11).
Using the same digital vegetation layer as Hatten et al. (2005, p.
1028) and the tree cover layer used by Sanderson and Fisher (2011, pp.
7-8), we analyzed 130 jaguar locations in the United States and found
that approximately 98 percent of them occurred in Madrean evergreen
woodlands and semidesert grasslands, with 88 percent occurring in areas
containing 3 to 40 percent tree cover. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify Madrean evergreen woodlands and
semidesert grasslands containing 3 to 40 percent tree cover as an
essential component of the physical or biological feature essential for
the conservation of the jaguar in the United States.
Rugged topography--Rugged topography (including canyons, ridges,
and some rocky hills to provide sites for resting) is acknowledged as
an important component of jaguar habitat in the northwestern-most
portion of its range (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 15-16). The
habitat model for the Northern Jaguar Recovery Unit created by
Sanderson and Fisher (2011, p. 9) determined that jaguars in this area
were most frequently found in intermediately, moderately, and highly
rugged terrain. Additionally, one study in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands
area (Boydston and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2005, entire) and one
in northeastern Mexico (Ortega-Huerta and Medley 1999, entire)
incorporate slope as a factor in describing jaguar habitat. Although
slope can provide some understanding of topography (steep slopes
generally indicate a more rugged landscape), it is less descriptive in
terms of quantifying terrain heterogeneity (diversity) (Hatten et al.
2005, pp. 1026-1027). Nonetheless, in these studies, jaguar
distribution was found to be on steeper slopes than those slopes that
were available for the study areas in general (Ortega-Huerta and Medley
1999, p. 261; Boydston and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2005, p. 54),
indicating jaguars were found in more rugged areas in these studies.
Two modeling exercises have been conducted to determine existing
jaguar habitat in the southwestern United States, one in Arizona and
another in New Mexico. To examine the relationship between jaguars and
landscape roughness in Arizona, Hatten et al. (2005, p. 1026)
calculated a terrain ruggedness index (TRI; Riley et al. 1999, as cited
in Hatten et al. 2005, p. 1026) measuring the slope in all directions
of each 1-square-km (0.4-square-mi) cell (pixel) in their model. They
divided the TRI data into seven classes according to relative
roughness: level, nearly level, slightly rugged, intermediately rugged,
moderately rugged, highly rugged, and extremely rugged. With respect to
topography, they found that 92 percent of the 25 jaguar records used in
their model (see ``Water'' in the ``Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals,
or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements'' section, above)
occurred in intermediately rugged to extremely rugged terrain (the
remaining 8 percent were in nearly level terrain).
Menke and Hayes (2003, entire) attempted to evaluate potential
jaguar habitat in New Mexico using methods similar to those described
in Hatten et al. (2005, pp. 1025-1028). While patterns of habitat use
for jaguars could not be determined (due to the small number of
reliable and spatially accurate records within New Mexico, of which
there were seven), all sighting locations occurred in areas that were
assigned a highly rugged value, and terrain ruggedness was the single
variable that appeared to have a high degree of correlation with
locations of jaguar observations in New Mexico.
In addition, Sanderson and Fisher (2011, p. 9) determined that
approximately 70 percent of the 333 locations used in their model for
the Northwestern Recovery Unit of the jaguar were found in
intermediately, moderately, or highly rugged terrain. Similarly, our
analysis of 130 records of jaguar locations in the United States
resulted in approximately 93 percent occurring in intermediately,
moderately, or highly rugged terrain. Therefore, based on this
information, we identify areas of intermediately, moderately, or highly
rugged terrain as an essential component of the physical or biological
feature essential for the conservation of the jaguar in the United
States.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
Human populations can impact jaguars directly by killing
individuals through hunting, poaching, or depredation control, as well
as indirectly through disturbance of normal biological activities, loss
of habitat, and habitat fragmentation. Rangewide, illegal killing of
jaguars is one of the two most significant threats to the jaguar
(Nowell and Jackson 1996, p. 121; N[uacute][ntilde]ez et al. 2002, p.
100; Taber et al. 2002, p. 630; Ch[aacute]vez and Ceballos 2006, p.
10), and, according to the July 22, 1997, clarifying rule (62 FR
39147), the primary threat to jaguars in the United States is illegal
shooting (see listing rule for a detailed discussion). This, however,
is no longer accurate, as the most recent known shooting of a jaguar in
Arizona was in 1986 (Brown and Lopez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 7).
Jaguars are protected by Federal law through the Act and by State law
in Arizona and
[[Page 50223]]
New Mexico. Four of the individual jaguars most recently documented
(since 1996) in Arizona and New Mexico have been documented by lion
hunters, who took photographs of the jaguars and then reported them to
the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the Service. No livestock
predation has been attributed to jaguars since 1947; therefore, none
have been killed in response to predating livestock. While illegal
killing of jaguars continues to be a major threat to jaguars south of
the U.S.-Mexico international border, it does not appear to be a
significant threat within the United States.
In terms of human influence and impact on jaguars other than by
direct killing, human populations have both direct and indirect impacts
on jaguar survival and mortality. For example, an increase in road
density and human settlements tends to fragment habitat and isolate
populations of jaguars and other wildlife. For carnivores in general,
the impacts of high road density have been well documented and
thoroughly reviewed (Noss et al. 1996 and Carroll et al. 2001, as cited
by Menke and Hayes 2003, p. 12). Roads may have direct impacts to
carnivores and carnivore habitats, including roadkill, disturbance,
habitat fragmentation, changes in prey numbers or distribution, and
increased access for legal or illegal harvest (Menke and Hayes 2003, p.
12; Colchero et al. 2010, entire). Studies have also shown that jaguars
selectively use large areas of relatively intact habitat away from
certain forms of human influence. Zarza et al. (2007, pp. 107, 108)
report that towns and roads had an impact on the spatial distribution
of jaguars in the Yucatan peninsula, where jaguars used areas located
more than 6.5 km (4 mi) from human settlements and 4.5 km (2.8 mi) from
roads. In the state of Mexico, Monroy-Vilchis et al. (2008, p. 535)
report that one male jaguar occurred with greater frequency in areas
relatively distant from roads and human populations. In some areas of
western Mexico, however, jaguars (both sexes) have frequently been
recorded near human settlements and roads (N[uacute][ntilde]ez 2011,
pers. comm.). In Marismas Nacionales, Nayarit, a jaguar den was
recently located very close to an agricultural field, apparently 1 km
(0.6 mi) from a small town (N[uacute][ntilde]ez 2011, pers. comm.).
Jaguar presence is affected in different ways by various human
activities; however, direct persecution likely has the most significant
impact.
Because jaguars are secretive animals and generally tend to avoid
highly disturbed areas (Quigley and Crawshaw 1992, entire; Hatten et
al. 2005, p. 1025), human density was a factor considered in jaguar
habitat modeling exercises for Arizona (Hatten et al. 2005, p. 1025),
New Mexico (Menke and Hayes 2003, pp. 9-13; Robinson et al. 2006, pp.
10, 15, 18-20), and the habitat model developed by Sanderson and Fisher
(2011, pp. 5-11) for the northwestern Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico
borderlands area. Hatten et al. (2005, p. 1025) excluded areas within
city boundaries, higher density rural areas visible on satellite
imagery, and agricultural areas from their Arizona habitat model, as
recommended by jaguar experts. All of the jaguar locations used in
their model fell outside of these areas, indicating jaguars are not
found in highly developed or disturbed areas (Figure 6, p. 1031).
Menke and Hayes (2003, pp. 9-13) attempted to evaluate potential
jaguar habitat in New Mexico using methods similar to those described
in Hatten et al. (2005, p. 1025). Because of a lack of comparable
digital data for New Mexico, they instead created a data layer of road
density per square km and classified it into habitat suitability
categories. However, due to the small number of reliable and spatially
accurate jaguar occurrence records within New Mexico (a total of
seven), patterns of habitat use for jaguars could not be determined
from their model, and they did not summarize the road density
categories in which jaguars were found within the State. In the habitat
model for New Mexico developed by Robinson et al. (2006), areas with
continuous row crop agriculture, human residential development in
excess of 1 house per 4 hectares (ha) (10 acres (ac)), or industrial
areas were not considered jaguar habitat, and were therefore excluded
from their model. Similarly to Menke and Hayes (2003, entire), patterns
of habitat use for jaguars could not be determined from their model,
and they did not summarize the human footprint categories in which
jaguars were found within the State.
The habitat model developed by Sanderson and Fisher (2011, pp. 5-
11) included a human influence index (HII) criterion developed by the
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Center for International Earth
Science Information Network (CIESIN) at the Socioeconomic Data and
Applications Center (SEDAC) at Columbia University (SEDAC 2012, p. 1).
Using procedures developed by Sanderson (2002, as described in SEDAC
2012, pp. 1-2), WCS and CIESIN combined scores for eight input layers
(human population density per square km, railroads, major roads,
navigable rivers, coastlines, stable nighttime lighting, urban
polygons, and land cover) to calculate a composite HII for 1-square-km
(0.4-square-mi) grid cells (pixels) worldwide. These numbers were then
normalized to fit within a scale from 1 to 100 within each of six world
biomes (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, and
Oceania). A score of 1 within a biome indicates that that grid cell is
part of the one percent least influenced (or ``wildest'') area in its
biome, while a score of 100 indicates that that area is the most
influenced within the biome. Within the region considered for their
habitat model, Sanderson and Fisher (2011, pp. 5-11) found that roughly
90 percent of the 333 jaguar records used in their model were located
in areas where the HII was less than 30. They therefore considered
lands with a HII of less than 30 as potential jaguar habitat within
their modeling exercise, while lands with a HII equal to or greater
than 30 were excluded. Similarly, in our analysis of 130 reports of
jaguar locations in the United States, we found that approximately 99
percent occurred in areas where the HII was 20 or less. Therefore,
based on this information, we identify areas in which the HII
calculated over 1-square km (0.4-square mi) is 20 or less as an
essential component of the physical or biological feature essential for
the conservation of the jaguar in the United States. These areas are
characterized by minimal to no human population density, no major
roads, or no stable nighttime lighting over any 1-square km (0.4-square
mi) area.
Primary Constituent Elements for Jaguars
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of jaguars in areas occupied at the time of listing,
focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We consider
primary constituent elements to be the elements of physical or
biological features that, when laid out in the appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement to provide for a species' life-history processes,
are essential to the conservation of the species.
The physical or biological feature we identified for the jaguar is:
Expansive open spaces in the southwestern United States with adequate
connectivity to Mexico that contain a sufficient native prey base and
available surface water, have suitable vegetative cover and rugged
topography to provide sites for resting, and have minimal human impact.
Because habitat in the United States is at the edge of the species'
northern range, and is marginal
[[Page 50224]]
compared to known habitat throughout the range, we have determined that
all of the primary constituent elements discussed, below, must be
present in each specific area to constitute high-quality jaguar habitat
in the United States, including connectivity to Mexico (but that
connectivity may be provided either through a direct connection to the
border or by other areas essential for the conservation of the species;
see ``Areas Essential for the Conservation of Jaguars Outside of
Occupied Areas,'' below). Based on our current knowledge of the
physical or biological feature and habitat characteristics required to
sustain the jaguar's vital life-history functions in the Northwestern
Management Unit and the United States, we determine that the primary
constituent elements specific to jaguars are: Expansive open spaces in
the southwestern United States of at least 84 to 100 square km (32 to
37 square mi) in size which:
(1) Provide connectivity to Mexico;
(2) Contain adequate levels of native prey species, including deer
and javelina, as well as medium-sized prey such as coatis, skunks,
raccoons, or jackrabbits;
(3) Include surface water sources available within 20 km (12.4 mi)
of each other;
(4) Contain 3 to 40 percent canopy cover within Madrean evergreen
woodland, generally recognized by a mixture of oak, juniper, and pine
trees on the landscape, or semidesert grassland vegetation communities,
usually characterized by Pleuraphis mutica (tobosagrass) or Bouteloua
eriopoda (black grama) along with other grasses;
(5) Are characterized by intermediately, moderately, or highly
rugged terrain;
(6) Are characterized by minimal to no human population density, no
major roads, or no stable nighttime lighting over any 1-square-km (0.4-
square-mi) area.
Six units proposed to be designated as critical habitat are
currently occupied by jaguars and contain the components of the primary
constituent element in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement
sufficient to support the life-history needs of the species. Two of
these units also contain unoccupied subunits that provide connectivity
to Mexico and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
Jaguar habitat and the features essential to their conservation are
threatened by the direct and indirect effects of increasing human
influence into remote, rugged areas, as well as projects and activities
that sever connectivity to Mexico. These may include, but are not
limited to: significant increases in border-related activities, both
legal and illegal; widening or construction of roadways, power lines,
or pipelines; construction or expansion of human developments; mineral
extraction and mining operations; military activities in remote
locations; and human disturbance related to increased activities in or
access to remote areas.
Jaguars in the United States are understood to be individuals
dispersing north from Mexico, where the closest breeding population
occurs about 210 km (130 mi) south of the U.S.-Mexico border in Sonora
near the towns of Huasabas, Sahuaripa (Brown and L[oacute]pez
Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, pp. 108-109), and Nacori Chico (Rosas-Rosas and
Bender 2012, pp. 88-89). Therefore, impeding jaguar movement from
Mexico to the United States would adversely affect the Northwestern
Recovery Unit's ability to cyclically expand and contract as jaguar
populations in that unit recover.
Continuing threats from construction of border infrastructure (such
as pedestrian fences and roads), as well as illegal activities and
resultant law enforcement response (such as increased human presence,
vehicles, and lighting), may limit movement of jaguars at the U.S-
Mexico border (Service 2007, pp. 23-27; 2008, pp. 73-75). The border
from the Tohono O'odham Nation, Arizona, to southwestern New Mexico has
a mix of pedestrian fence (not permeable to jaguars), vehicle fence
(fence designed to prevent vehicle but not pedestrian entry; it is
generally permeable enough to allow for the passage of jaguars), legacy
(older) pedestrian and vehicle fence, and unfenced segments (primarily
in rugged, mountainous areas). Fences designed to prevent the passage
of humans across the border also prevent passage of jaguars. However,
there is little to no impermeable fence in areas proposed for
designation as critical habitat, and we do not anticipate the
construction of impermeable fence in such areas. Additionally, fences
may cause an increase in illegal traffic and subsequent law enforcement
activities in areas where no fence exists (such as rugged, mountainous
areas). This activity may limit jaguar movement across the border and
result in general disturbance to jaguars and degradation of their
habitat. While current levels of law enforcement activity do not pose a
significant threat, a substantial increase in activity levels could be
of concern. We note that some level of law enforcement activity can be
beneficial, as it decreases illegal traffic. Significant increases in
illegal crossborder activities in the proposed critical habitat areas
could pose a threat to the jaguar, and therefore, border security
actions provide a beneficial decrease in crossborder violations and
their impacts. In summary, special management considerations or
protection of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of jaguar habitat may be needed to alleviate the effects
of border-related activities, allowing for some level of permeability
so that jaguars may pass through the U.S.-Mexico border.
Under section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) is authorized to waive laws where the Secretary
of DHS deems it necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of
border infrastructure in areas of high illegal entry. As noted above,
there are no known plans to construct additional security fences in the
proposed critical habitat. However, if future national security issues
require additional measures and the Secretary of DHS invokes the
waiver, review through the section 7 consultation process would not be
conducted. If DHS chooses to consult with the Service on activities
covered by a waiver, special management considerations would occur on a
voluntary basis.
Widening or construction of roadways, power lines, or pipelines
(all of which usually include maintenance roads), construction or
expansion of human developments, mineral extraction and mining
operations, and military operations on the ground can have the effect
of altering habitat characteristics and increasing human presence in
otherwise remote locations. Activities that can permanently alter
vegetation characteristics, displace native wildlife, affect sources of
water, and/or alter terrain ruggedness, such as construction and
mining, may render an area unsuitable for jaguars. In addition, these
activities, as well as military operations on the ground in remote
areas, bring an increase in human disturbance into jaguar habitat,
potentially fragmenting it further. As
[[Page 50225]]
described in the ``Habitats Protected from Disturbance or
Representative of the Historical, Geographic, and Ecological
Distributions of the Species'' section, above, studies have also shown
that jaguars selectively use large areas of relatively intact habitat
away from human influence (Zarza et al. 2007, pp. 107, 108). Modeling
exercises both in the United States (Menke and Hayes 2003, entire;
Hatten et al. 2005, entire; Robinson et al. 2006, entire) and in
northwestern Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico borderlands area (Sanderson and
Fisher 2011, pp. 1-11) incorporate low levels of human influence when
mapping potential jaguar habitat in the United States. Special
management considerations of the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the jaguar may be needed to alleviate
the effects of road, power line, and pipeline projects; human
developments; mining operations; and ground-based military activities
on jaguar habitat. Future projects should avoid (to the maximum extent
possible) areas identified as meeting the definition of critical
habitat for jaguars, and if unavoidable, should be constructed or
carried out to minimize habitat effects.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
We reviewed available information and supporting data that pertains
to the habitat requirements of the jaguar. Much of this information is
compiled in the Recovery Outline for the Jaguar (Jaguar Recovery Team
2012, entire) and Digital Mapping in Support of Recovery Planning for
the Northern Jaguar report (Sanderson and Fisher 2011, pp. 1-11), which
we regard as the best available information for the jaguar and its
habitat needs in the northern portion of its range. Additionally, we
relied on information provided through modeling exercises for Arizona
(Hatten et al. 2005, entire) and New Mexico (Menke and Hayes 2003,
entire; Robinson et al. 2006, entire) to further refine the habitat
features available in the United States. Other sources of information
include, but are not limited to, Boydston and L[oacute]pez
Gonz[aacute]lez 2005, Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2000,
Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, Cavalcanti 2008, Channell
and Lomolino 2000, Ch[aacute]vez and Ceballos 2006, Colchero et al.
2010, Johnson et al. 2011, Lesica and Allendorf 1995, L[oacute]pez
Gonz[aacute]lez and Miller 2002, McCain and Childs 2008, Monroy-Vilchis
et al. 2008, N[uacute][ntilde]ez et al. 2000, N[uacute][ntilde]ez et
al. 2002, Ortega-Huerta and Medley 1999, Quigley and Crawshaw 1992,
Rabinowitz 1999, Rosas-Rosas 2006, Rosas-Rosas et al. 2008, Rosas-Rosas
et al. 2010, Rosas-Rosas and Bender 2012, Sanderson et al. 2002,
Seymour 1989, Swank and Teer 1989, Taber et al. 2002, Zarza et al.
2007, and comments and information provided during the public comment
period on our January 13, 2010, prudency determination (75 FR 1741).
We have defined the proposed critical habitat as areas with
undisputed Class I records (see Occupied Area at the Time of Listing,
below) containing all of the essential elements of the physical or
biological feature described above, and, in areas not connected
directly to Mexico, unoccupied areas providing connectivity to Mexico
(see ``Areas Essential for the Conservation of Jaguars Outside of
Occupied Areas,'' below).
Occupied Area at the Time of Listing
Determining jaguar occupancy at the time of listing is particularly
difficult. Jaguars were added to the list many years ago, and, by
nature, are cryptic and difficult to detect, so assuming an area is
occupied or unoccupied must be based on limited information that can be
interpreted in several ways. For these reasons, we used the best
information available to us and analyzed areas both as occupied as well
as unoccupied but essential to the conservation of the jaguar. Based on
our analysis, we are including areas which may have been occupied
(meaning they contain an undisputed Class I record, described in the
``Jaguar Sightings in the United States Since 1962'' section, below)
from 1962 to the present. Our reasons for using this time frame are
based on the date the jaguar was listed as endangered under the ESCA,
the biology of the species, and a lack of survey effort for the species
at the time it was listed. However, we acknowledge the uncertainty and
lack of concrete information (undisputed Class I records, described
below) during the period we are defining as occupied at the time of
listing. Therefore, we have evaluated these areas and have also
determined these areas to be essential to the conservation of the
jaguar. Our rationale is explained below.
While the jaguar was not explicitly listed in the United States
until July 22, 1997 (62 FR 39147), we are using the date the jaguar was
listed throughout its range as endangered in accordance with the ESCA,
which is March 30, 1972 (37 FR 6476). Our rationale for using this date
is based on our July 25, 1979, publication (44 FR 43705) in which we
asserted that it was always the intent of the Service that all
populations of these species, including the jaguar, deserved to be
listed as endangered, whether they occurred in the United States or in
foreign countries. Therefore, our intention was to consider the jaguar
endangered throughout its entire range when it was listed as endangered
in 1972, rather than only outside of the United States.
We are including areas in which reports of jaguar exist during the
10 years prior to its listing as occupied at the time of listing,
meaning we are considering records back to 1962. Our rationale for
including these records is based on expert opinion regarding the
average life-span of the jaguar, the consensus being 10 years.
Therefore, we assume that areas that would have been considered
occupied at the time of listing would have included sightings 10 years
prior to its listing, as presumably these areas were still inhabited by
jaguars when the species was listed in 1972.
For this same reason, we are including areas as occupied at the
time of listing in which reports of jaguar exist during the 10 years
after listing, meaning we are considering records up to 1982. If
jaguars were present in an area within 10 years after the time of
listing in 1972, presumably these areas would have been inhabited by
jaguars in 1982.
Additionally, we are including areas as occupied in which reports
of jaguars exist from 1982 to the present. Our reasoning for including
areas in which sightings have occurred after 1982 is that it is likely
those areas were occupied at the time of the original listing, but
jaguars had not been detected because of their rarity, the difficulty
in detecting them, and a lack of surveys for the species, as described
below.
By the time the jaguar was listed in 1972, the species was rare
within the United States, making those individuals that may have been
present more difficult to detect. The gradual decline of the jaguar in
the southwestern United States was concurrent with predator control
measures associated with the settlement of land and the development of
the cattle industry (Brown 1983, p. 460). For example, from 1900 to
1949, 53 jaguars were recorded as killed in the Southwest, whereas only
4 were recorded as killed between 1950 and 1979 (Brown 1983, p. 460).
When a species is rare on the landscape, individuals are difficult to
detect because they are sparsely distributed over a large area
(McDonald 2004, p. 11).
Jaguars, in particular, are territorial and require expansive open
spaces for each individual, meaning large areas may be occupied by just
a few individuals, thus reducing the
[[Page 50226]]
likelihood of detecting them. As evidence, only six, possibly seven,
individual jaguars have been detected in the United States since 1982,
including one that was documented utilizing two distinct mountain
ranges encompassing approximately 1,359 square km (525 square mi)
(McCain and Childs 2008, entire) (see ``Space for Individual and
Population Growth and for Normal Behavior'' section, above). Therefore,
we believe that Class I records within mountain ranges from 1982 to the
present indicate that these mountain ranges were likely occupied by
transient jaguars from Mexico at the time the species was listed, but
individuals remained undetected due to the jaguar's ability to move
long distances within and between mountain ranges.
In addition, many mobile species are difficult to detect in the
wild because of morphological features (such as camouflaged appearance)
or elusive behavioral characteristics (such as nocturnal activity)
(Peterson and Bayley 2004, pp. 173, 175). This presents challenges in
determining whether or not a particular area is occupied because we
cannot be sure that a lack of detection indicates that the species is
absent (Peterson and Bayley 2004, p. 173).
For example, the Sonoran desert tortoise is difficult to monitor in
the wild because of its slow movement and camouflaged appearance,
especially in the smaller hatchling and juvenile age classes. In
addition, the habitat in which Sonoran desert tortoise population
densities are the highest is complex, often with many large boulders,
somewhat dense vegetation, and challenging topographic relief. These
factors can significantly hamper a surveyor's ability to detect them in
the field (Zylstra et al. 2010, p. 1311).
Compounding this problem is the fact that in many animal
populations, not all individuals can be detected using one particular
sampling method. Pollock et al. (2004, p. 43) present the example of
the dugong (sea cow) off the coast of Australia. Using one method of
detection--aerial surveys--some dugongs may be underwater and invisible
to the observers searching for them from aircraft, or the observer may
miss detecting them due to his or her uncertain perception process.
Similarly, terrestrial salamanders in North Carolina and Tennessee most
often occur below the surface of the ground, making detection
particularly difficult, especially when using standard sampling
protocols that only sample the surface population (Pollock et al. 2004,
p. 53). Sampling salamanders subsurface, however, can be problematic
because they require cool, moist conditions, and are prone to
dessicating (drying out) while being handled. Attempting to detect rare
species by using multiple sampling methods or surveying multiple times
is often prohibitively time-consuming and expensive, and may not always
be feasible because of the sensitivity of the species.
Jaguars, specifically, are secretive and nocturnal in nature
(Seymour 1989, p. 2; 62 FR 39147, p. 39153; McCain and Childs 2008, p.
5) and, in the United States and northern Mexico, inhabit rugged,
remote areas that are logistically difficult to survey. Even in studies
designed to detect jaguars using both camera traps and track surveys in
northern Mexico, neither method was completely effective in identifying
individuals due to logistical problems related to rugged topography,
hard soils, absence of roads, and harsh weather conditions (Rosas-Rosas
and Bender 2012, pp. 95-96). In the United States specifically, most of
the recent occurrences of jaguars (after 1996) would not have been
known but for a substantial amount of time and effort being invested by
the Borderlands Jaguar Detection Project (BJDP) (Johnson et al. 2011,
p. 40). From 1997 to 2010, the BJDP maintained 45-50 remote-camera
stations across three counties in Arizona, conducted track and scat
(feces) surveys opportunistically, and followed up on credible sighting
reports from other individuals, resulting in 105 jaguar locations
representing two adult male jaguars and possibly a third of unknown sex
(Johnson et al. 2011, p. 40). From the time the jaguar was listed in
1972 until 1997, no effort was made to detect jaguars in the United
States, and so we cannot be sure that a lack of detection indicates the
species was absent.
Based on the above information, we determine that areas in which
jaguars have been documented from 1982 to the present may have been
occupied at the time of the original listing (March 30, 1972; 37 FR
6476) because: (1) Jaguars were rare on the landscape and distributed
over large, rugged areas, meaning they were difficult to detect; (2)
jaguars are cryptic and nocturnal by nature, making them difficult to
detect; and (3) no survey effort was made to detect them in 1972,
meaning we cannot be sure that a lack of detection indicates the
species was absent. Therefore, based on the best available information
related to jaguar rarity, biology, and survey effort, we determine that
areas containing undisputed Class I records from 1982 to the present
may have been occupied by jaguars at the time of listing.
However, to the extent that uncertainty exists regarding our
analysis of these data, we acknowledge there is an alternative
explanation as to whether or not these areas were occupied at the time
the jaguar was listed in 1972 (37 FR 6476). The lack of jaguar
sightings at that time, as well as some expert opinions cited in our
July 22, 1997, clarifying rule (62 FR 39147) (for example, Swank and
Teer 1989), suggest that jaguars in the United States had declined to
such an extent by that point as to be effectively eliminated.
Therefore, there is an argument to be made that no areas in the United
States were occupied by the species at the time it was listed, or that
only areas containing undisputed Class I records from between 1962 and
1982 (see ``Jaguar Sightings in the United States Since 1962,'' below)
were occupied.
For this reason, we also analyzed whether or not these areas are
essential to the conservation of the species. Through our analysis, we
determine that they are essential to the conservation of the species
for the following reasons: (1) They have demonstrated recent (since
1996) occupancy by jaguars; (2) they contain features that comprise
suitable jaguar habitat; and (3) they contribute to the species'
persistence in the United States by allowing the normal demographic
function and possible range expansion of the Northwestern Recovery
Unit, which is essential to the conservation of the species (as
discussed in the Jaguar Recovery Planning in Relation to Critical
Habitat section, above). Therefore, we include them in the proposed
critical habitat designation.
Jaguar Sightings in the United States Since 1962
We are only considering undisputed Class I reports as valid records
of jaguar locations. Class I reports are those for which some sort of
physical evidence is provided for verification (such as a skin, skull,
or photograph); they are considered ``verified'' or ``highly probable''
as evidence for a jaguar occurrence. Class II records have detailed
information of the observation provided but do not include any physical
evidence of a jaguar. Class II observations are considered ``probable''
or ``possible'' as evidence for a jaguar occurrence. This
classification protocol was developed by adapting criteria published by
Tewes and Everett (1986, entire), based on work in Texas with
jaguarundis and ocelots (Leopardus pardalis). The Arizona-New Mexico
Jaguar Conservation Team (for a
[[Page 50227]]
description and history of this team, see Johnson et al. 2011, pp. 37-
40) reviewed and endorsed the protocol in 1998, for use in evaluating
jaguar occurrence reports for Arizona and New Mexico. Therefore, we are
using the same criteria to evaluate jaguar occurrence reports in the
United States, and consider undisputed Class I records as the best
available information.
Recently (1996 through 2011), five, possibly six, transient male
jaguars have been documented in the United States. Two of these six
male jaguars were photographed in 1996 in the United States: One on
March 7, 1996, in the Peloncillo Mountains, located along the Arizona-
New Mexico border (Glenn 1996, entire; Brown and L[oacute]pez
Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 6), and another on August 31, 1996, in the
Baboquivari Mountains in southern Arizona (Brown and L[oacute]pez
Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 6; McCain and Childs 2008, p. 2). In February
2006, a jaguar was observed and photographed on the northern end of San
Luis Mountains of southwestern New Mexico, very close to the U.S.-
Mexico border (McCain and Childs 2008, p. 2; Arizona Game and Fish
Department 2011a, p. 2). Using remote cameras, jaguars were
photographed in the Pajarito, Atascosa, Tumacacori, Baboquivari, and
Coyote Mountains near the Arizona-Mexico border from 2001 through 2009
(McCain and Childs 2008, entire; Arizona Game and Fish Department
2011a, pp. 1-3). The most recently confirmed jaguar sighting occurred
on November 19, 2011, where a jaguar was observed and photographed in
the Whetstone Mountains in southern Arizona (Arizona Game and Fish
Department 2011b, p. 1; and unpublished data).
Other jaguars documented in the United States since 1962 include
the following: (1) A photograph of a jaguar track taken on April 19,
1995, in the Peloncillo Mountains near the Arizona-New Mexico border;
(2) a male jaguar killed after being tracked by dogs on December 15,
1986, in the Dos Cabezas Mountains in southeastern Arizona; (3) a male
jaguar killed by boys duck hunting along the Santa Cruz River on
October 16, 1971, south of Highway 82 and north of Nogales, Arizona;
and (4) a male jaguar killed during a deer hunt on November 16, 1965,
in the Patagonia Mountains in southern Arizona (Brown and L[oacute]pez
Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, pp. 6-7; Arizona Game and Fish Department 2011a,
pp. 3-4).
There are three jaguar records from 1962 forward that we are not
considering in our analysis. One of these is a female shot on September
28, 1963, in the White Mountains of east-central Arizona, and another
is a male trapped on January 16, 1964, near the Black River in east-
central Arizona. As described in Johnson et al. (2011, p. 9), as well
as from information provided during the public comment period on our
January 13, 2010, prudency determination (75 FR 1741), the validity of
these locations is questionable because of the suspicion that these
animals were released for ``canned hunts'' (hunts involving release of
captive animals). Therefore, we are not including them as undisputed
Class I records. The third exception is a recent sighting of a jaguar
in the Santa Rita Mountains by a border patrol agent in a helicopter
during the summer of 2011. Because the Coronado National Forest was
closed to public entry at that time due to an extremely volatile fire
season, this location could not be verified, and therefore it is not
considered a Class I record.
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We review
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the
species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(e), the Secretary shall designate as critical habitat
areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by a species
only when a designation limited to its present range would be
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. We are proposing
to designate critical habitat for the jaguar within the geographical
area occupied by the species 10 years prior to the time of listing in
1972. We also are proposing to designate specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that
provide connectivity to Mexico, or to another occupied area that
provides connectivity to Mexico (see ``Areas Essential for the
Conservation of Jaguars Outside of Occupied Areas,'' below), because
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Consequently, we are defining areas occupied by jaguars 10 years
prior to the time of its listing as rugged mountain ranges in
southeastern Arizona and extreme southwestern New Mexico: (1) In which
an undisputed Class I record has been documented, and (2) that
currently contain the physical or biological features described above
(see below for the steps we followed to delineate critical habitat
boundaries). Therefore, occupied areas include the Baboquivari,
Quinlan, Coyote, Pajarito, Atascosa, Tumacacori, Patagonia, Canelo
Hills, Huachuca, Santa Rita, Whetstone, and Peloncillo Mountains of
Arizona, and the Peloncillo and San Luis Mountains of New Mexico.
All undisputed Class I records of jaguars documented in the United
States since 1962 have been within the aforementioned mountain ranges,
with the following two exceptions. We are not including the Dos Cabezas
Mountains in Arizona (one male jaguar killed in 1986) as occupied
because, while this mountain range contains some of the primary
constituent elements of the physical or biological feature required for
critical habitat, by itself it is not of an adequate size to meet the
expansive open spaces primary constituent element. Additionally, the
1971 record of a male jaguar killed by hunters was along the Santa Cruz
River, not within a mountain range. As described above under ``Space
for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior,'' this is
the only record found in a valley bottom since the species was listed,
and likely represents a jaguar moving between areas of higher quality
habitat found in the surrounding isolated mountain ranges. Therefore,
because we are unable to describe or delineate the features of areas
connecting mountain ranges in the United States due to a lack of
information, this record does not fall within or near the physical or
biological features described above.
Areas Essential for the Conservation of Jaguars
As described in the ``Occupied Area at the Time of Listing''
section, above, we acknowledge that the lack of jaguar sightings at the
time the species was listed as endangered in 1972 (37 FR 6476), as well
as some expert opinions cited in our July 22, 1997, clarifying rule (62
FR 39147) (for example, Swank and Teer 1989), suggest that jaguars in
the United States had declined to such an extent by that point as to be
effectively eliminated. Only two undisputed Class I records (described
above) exist for jaguars between 1962 and 1982, both of which were
males killed by hunters. To the extent that areas described above may
not have been occupied at the time of listing, we determine that they
are essential to the conservation of the species for the following
reasons: (1) They have demonstrated recent (since 1996) occupancy by
jaguars; (2) they contain features that comprise suitable jaguar
habitat; and (3) they contribute to the species' persistence in the
United States by allowing the normal demographic function and possible
range expansion of the Northwestern Recovery Unit, which is essential
to the conservation of the species (as discussed in the Jaguar Recovery
Planning in Relation to Critical Habitat section, above). Therefore, we
include
[[Page 50228]]
them in the proposed critical habitat designation.
Additionally, as discussed in the Jaguar Recovery Planning in
Relation to Critical Habitat and ``Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior'' sections, above, connectivity to
Mexico is essential for the conservation of jaguars. Jaguars in the
United States are understood to be individuals dispersing from the
nearest core population in Mexico, which includes areas in central
Sonora, southwestern Chihuahua, and northeastern Sinaloa (Jaguar
Recovery Team 2012, p. 21). The closest known breeding population
occurs about 210 km (130 mi) south of the U.S.-Mexico border in Sonora
near the towns of Huasabas, Sahuaripa (Brown and L[oacute]pez
Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, pp. 108-109), and Nacori Chico (Rosas-Rosas and
Bender 2012, pp. 88-89). In several of our Federal Register documents
pertaining to the jaguar, including the notice in which we determined
that designating critical habitat was prudent (75 FR 1741, p. 1743), we
discussed the need to develop and maintain travel corridors for jaguars
between the United States and Mexico to enable a few, possibly resident
individuals to persist north of the international border. Therefore, we
conclude that maintaining travel corridors to Mexico is essential for
the conservation of jaguars in the Northwestern Recovery Unit, and
therefore for the species as a whole.
As we discussed under ``Space for Individual and Population Growth
and for Normal Behavior,'' above, describing these areas of
connectivity within the United States is difficult because of a lack of
information about what these features encompass. However, in some areas
there may be a level of connectivity to Mexico that could be provided
because these areas contain some, but not all, of the PCEs described
above. In the jaguar habitat model developed for northwestern Mexico
and the U.S.-Mexico borderlands area, Sanderson and Fisher (2011, p.
11) described how low human influence is perhaps the most important
feature defining jaguar habitat, as jaguars most often avoid areas with
too much human pressure. Furthermore, their model describes a level of
uncertainty regarding jaguar use of areas with moderate tree cover (in
their model, this is from 3 to 60 percent) and intermediate to high
ruggedness, as jaguars could potentially be found in areas meeting only
one of these habitat qualities. Therefore, we have determined the most
likely areas providing connectivity from occupied areas in the United
States to Mexico are those in which the human influence is low, and
either or both moderate tree cover or intermediately to highly rugged
terrain is present.
Consequently, we are further defining areas essential for the
conservation of jaguars outside of occupied areas as those areas that:
(1) Connect an area that may have been occupied that is isolated within
the United States to Mexico, either through a direct connection to the
international border or through another area that may have been
occupied; and (2) contain low human influence and impact, and either
vegetative cover or rugged terrain. Based on these criteria, we
identified three subunits outside of occupied areas that are essential
for the conservation of jaguars in the United States because they
provide connectivity to Mexico. They include the southern extent of the
Baboquivari Mountains, an east-west connection area between the Santa
Rita Mountains and northwestern extent of the Whetstone Mountains
(including the Empire Mountains), and a north-south connection area
between the southern extent of the Whetstone Mountains and the Huachuca
Mountains (including the Mustang Mountains).
Therefore, we delineated critical habitat boundaries using the
following steps:
(1) We mapped areas containing PCEs 3, 4, 5, and 6 as determined
from GIS data on water availability, vegetation community, tree cover,
ruggedness, and human influence. We did not use data describing
distribution of native prey, as wildlife management agencies in Arizona
and New Mexico have a history of effective game management strategies
resulting in prey species' persistence within occupied areas (for State
philosophies of game management, see Arizona Game and Fish Department
2011c, p. 6 and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2007, p. 4; for
survey information and hunter success rates in Arizona, see Arizona
Game and Fish Department 2011d, pp. 10, 15-40, 98-116). Areas (also
called polygons) that were adjacent to each other (for example,
touching at corners) were merged into one polygon. We then selected
polygons containing an undisputed Class I record of a jaguar from 1962
forward. We also selected polygons that fell partially or entirely
within 1-km (0.4-mi) of these polygons because most of the GIS datasets
we used were of a 1-square-km (0.4-square-mi) resolution (pixel size),
and therefore we determined that this was the distance within which
some mapping error may have occurred. If the area within the selected
polygons surrounding a jaguar record did not meet the minimum size
criterion of 84 square km (32 square mi) when added together, we
removed those polygons from further consideration.
We placed a 1-km (0.4-mi) buffer around the remaining polygons to
account for mapping error, but did not apply this buffer to areas in
which the vegetation community was other than Madrean evergreen
woodland or semidesert grassland, or areas in which the Human Influence
Index (HII) was greater than 20 (see ``Habitats Protected from
Disturbance or Representative of the Historical, Geographic, and
Ecological Distributions of the Species,'' above). The vegetation
community data we used were not mapped at a 1-square-km (0.4-square-mi)
resolution, and therefore we determined the 1-km (0.4-mi) buffer did
not apply to this dataset. Our rationale for ensuring only areas in
which the HII was 20 or less (as described in the ``Habitats Protected
from Disturbance or Representative of the Historical, Geographic, and
Ecological Distributions of the Species'' section, above) were included
in the proposed designation was based on Sanderson and Fisher (2011, p.
11), in which they described low human influence as being essential to
the jaguar; we therefore did not include any areas in which this PCE
was absent because of its importance in describing jaguar habitat.
Small areas of 1 square km (0.4 square mi) or less (our tolerance
buffer as described above) that were excluded within the polygons were
then included, as these areas were of a size in which a mapping error
could have occurred.
(2) If a polygon described in step 1, above, was not connected to
Mexico, we selected and added areas containing low human influence and
impact and either or both vegetative cover or rugged terrain to connect
these areas directly to Mexico or to another occupied area.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
the physical or biological feature necessary for jaguars. The scale of
the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands
[[Page 50229]]
would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical
habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the
specific action would affect the physical or biological feature in the
adjacent critical habitat.
Based on our analyses of areas as both occupied and unoccupied (but
essential for the conservation of the species), we are proposing for
designation of critical habitat lands that we have determined were
occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient elements of the
physical or biological feature to support life-history processes
essential for the conservation of the species, and lands outside of the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing that we have
determined are essential. In our analysis we also evaluated the areas
we proposed as occupied at the time of listing and determine that these
same areas are also essential for the conservation of jaguars in the
Northwestern Recovery Unit, and therefore for the species as a whole.
In summary, while we understand there may be alternative
explanations as to whether or not areas were occupied at the time the
jaguar was listed, we are required to make an administrative decision
regarding occupancy status for purposes of delineating critical habitat
units and applying the policy as described in the Act. Based on our
analyses as discussed under the Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat section, above, it is our determination that the lands
described under ``Occupied Area at the Time of Listing'' were occupied
at the time of listing, and thus are described in the unit
descriptions, below, as being occupied. However, these same areas are
also considered essential, based on our analysis, above. In addition,
we are proposing unoccupied lands outside of the geographical area
occupied at the time of listing because those lands provide
connectivity to Mexico, making them essential for the conservation of
the jaguar.
Therefore, six units are proposed for designation based on
sufficient elements of physical or biological feature being present to
support jaguar life-history processes. The occupied mountain ranges
within the units contain all of the identified elements of the physical
or biological feature necessary for jaguars. The unoccupied areas
denoted as Subunits 1b, 4b, and 4c are essential for the conservation
of the species, as they provide the jaguar connectivity with Mexico and
the Northwestern Recovery Unit.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing six units as critical habitat for the jaguar. The
critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for
the jaguar. The six units we propose as critical habitat are: (1)
Baboquivari Unit divided into subunits (1a) Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit,
including the Northern Baboquivari, Saucito, Quinlan, and Coyote
Mountains, and (1b) the Southern Baboquivari Subunit; (2) Atascosa
Unit, including the Pajarito, Atascosa, and Tumacacori Mountains; (3)
Patagonia Unit, including the Patagonia, Santa Rita, and Huachuca
Mountains and the Canelo Hills; (4) Whetstone Unit, divided into
subunits (4a) Whetstone Subunit, (4b) Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit, and
(4c) Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit; (5) Peloncillo Unit, including the
Peloncillo Mountains both in Arizona and New Mexico; and (6) San Luis
Unit, including the northern extent of the San Luis Mountains at the
New Mexico-Mexico border. Table 1 lists both the occupied and
unoccupied units.
Table 1--Occupancy of Jaguars by Proposed Critical Habitat Units
[All units are in Arizona unless otherwise noted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Occupied at time of listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Baboquivari Unit
1a Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit:
Coyote Mountains......................... Yes.
Quinlan Mountains........................ Yes.
Saucito Mountains........................ Yes.
Northern Baboquivari Mountains........... Yes.
1b Southern Baboquivari Subunit:
Southern Baboquivari Mountains Connection No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Atascosa Unit
Tumacacori Mountains....................... Yes.
Atascosa Mountains......................... Yes.
Pajarito Mountains......................... Yes.
3 Patagonia Unit
Santa Rita Mountains....................... Yes.
Patagonia Mountains........................ Yes.
Canelo Hills............................... Yes.
Huachuca Mountains......................... Yes.
4 Whetstone Unit
4a Whetstone Subunit:
Whetstone Mountains...................... Yes.
4b Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit:
Whetstone-Santa Rita Mountains Connection No.
4c Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit:
Whetstone-Huachuca Mountains Connection.. No.
5 Peloncillo Unit
Peloncillo Mountains (Arizona and New Yes.
Mexico).
6 San Luis Unit
San Luis Mountains (New Mexico)............ Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approximate area of each proposed critical habitat unit is
shown in Table 2.
Table 2--Area of Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Jaguar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State Tribal Private Other Total Total
Unit or subunit -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a--Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit.. 4,360 10,775 8,483 20,962 20,036 49,511 3,003 7,420 0 0 35,882 88,667
1b--Southern Baboquivari Subunit 644 1,591 7,005 17,310 10,853 26,818 1,857 4,589 0 0 20,359 50,308
2--Atascosa Unit................ 53,335 131,793 2,295 5,670 0 0 2,475 6,115 0 0 58,104 143,578
3--Patagonia Unit............... 116,080 286,839 5,618 13,883 0 0 17,115 42,291 8 20 138,821 343,033
4a--Whetstone Subunit........... 16,406 40,541 4,684 11,575 0 0 2,921 7,219 0 0 24,012 59,335
4b--Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit 1,577 3,897 6,543 16,168 0 0 2,566 6,341 0 0 10,686 26,406
4c--Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit.. 1,575 3,892 3,009 7,436 0 0 3,411 8,428 0 0 7,995 19,756
5--Peloncillo Unit.............. 27,387 67,673 7,582 18,736 0 0 5,321 13,150 0 0 40,290 99,559
6--San Luis Unit................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,071 7,590 0 0 3,071 7,590
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50230]]
Grand Total................. 221,364 547,000 45,220 111,741 30,889 76,329 41,740 103,143 8 20 339,220 838,232
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for jaguar, below.
Subunit 1a: Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit
Subunit 1a consists of 35,882 ha (88,667 ac) in the northern
Baboquivari, Saucito, Quinlan, and Coyote Mountains in Pima County,
Arizona. This subunit is generally bounded by the Baboquivari Valley to
the west, State Highway 86 to the north, the Altar Valley to the east,
and Three Peaks to the south. Land ownership within the unit includes
approximately 4,360 ha (10,775 ac) of Federal lands; 20,036 ha (49,511
ac) of Tohono O'odham Nation lands; 8,483 ha (20,962 ac) of Arizona
State lands; and 3,003 ha (7,420 ac) of private lands. The Federal land
is administered by the Service and Bureau of Land Management. We
consider the Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit occupied at the time of listing
(37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972) based on one photo of a jaguar in 1996,
and multiple photos of this same jaguar from 2001-2009 (described in
``Occupied Area at the Time of Listing,'' above), and it may be
currently occupied. It contains all elements of the physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the jaguar, except
for connectivity to Mexico.
The primary land uses within Subunit 1a include ranching, grazing,
border-related activities, Federal land management activities, and
recreational activities throughout the year, including, but not limited
to, hiking, birding, horseback riding, and hunting. Special management
considerations or protections needed within the unit would need to
address increased human disturbances in remote locations through
construction of impermeable fences and widening or construction of
roadways, power lines, or pipelines to ensure all PCEs remain intact.
Subunit 1b: Southern Baboquivari Subunit
Subunit 1b consists of 20,359 ha (50,308 ac) in the southern
Baboquivari Mountains in Pima County, Arizona. This subunit is
generally bounded by the Baboquivari Valley to the west, Three Peaks to
the north, the Altar Valley to the east, and the U.S.-Mexico border to
the south. Land ownership within the unit includes approximately 644 ha
(1,591 ac) of Federal lands; 10,853 ha (26,818 ac) of Tohono O'odham
Nation lands; 7,005 ha (17,310 ac) of Arizona State lands; and 1,857 ha
(4,589 ac) of private lands. The Federal land is administered by the
Service and Bureau of Land Management. The Southern Baboquivari Subunit
provides connectivity to Mexico and was not occupied at the time of
listing, but is essential to the conservation of the jaguar because it
contributes to the species' persistence by providing connectivity to
occupied areas that support individuals during dispersal movements
during cyclical expansion and contraction of the nearest core area and
breeding population in the Northwestern Recovery Unit.
The primary land uses within Subunit 1b include ranching, grazing,
border-related activities, Federal land management activities, and
recreational activities throughout the year, including, but not limited
to, hiking, birding, horseback riding, and hunting.
Unit 2: Atascosa Unit
Unit 2 consists of 58,104 ha (143,578 ac) in the Pajarito,
Atascosa, and Tumacacori Mountains in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties,
Arizona. Unit 2 is generally bounded by the San Luis Mountains
(Arizona) to the west, Arivaca Road to the north, Interstate 19 to the
east, and the U.S.-Mexico border to the south. Land ownership within
the unit includes approximately 53,335 ha (131,793 ac) of Federal
lands; 2,295 ha (5,670 ac) of Arizona State lands; and 2,475 ha (6,115
ac) of private lands. The Federal land is administered by the Coronado
National Forest. We consider the Pajarito-Tumacacori Unit occupied at
the time of listing (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972) based on multiple
photos of two, possibly three, jaguars from 2001-2009 (described in
``Occupied Area at the Time of Listing,'' above), and it may be
currently occupied. It contains all elements of the physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the jaguar.
The primary land uses within Unit 2 include Federal forest
management activities, border-related activities, grazing, and
recreational activities throughout the year, including, but not limited
to, hiking, camping, birding, horseback riding, picnicking,
sightseeing, and hunting. Special management considerations or
protections needed within the unit would need to address increased
human disturbances into remote locations through construction of
impermeable fences and widening or construction of roadways, power
lines, or pipelines to ensure all PCEs remain intact.
Unit 3: Patagonia Unit
Unit 3 consists of 138,821 ha (343,033 ac) in the Patagonia, Santa
Rita, and Huachuca Mountains, as well as the Canelo Hills, in Pima,
Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona. Unit 3 is generally bounded
by Interstate 19 to the west; Interstate 10 to the north; Cienega
Creek, the Mustang Mountains, and Highways 90 and 92 to the east; and
the U.S.-Mexico border to the south. Land ownership within the unit
includes approximately 116,080 ha (286,839 ac) of Federal lands; 5,618
ha (13,883 ac) of Arizona State lands; 17,115 ha (42,291 ac) of private
lands; and 8 ha (20 ac) of other lands. The Federal land is
administered by the Coronado National Forest, Bureau of Land
Management, and Fort Huachuca. We consider the Patagonia Unit occupied
at the time of listing (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972) based on the 1965
record from the Patagonia Mountains (described in ``Occupied Area at
the Time of Listing,'' above), and it may be currently occupied. The
mountain ranges within this unit contain all elements of the physical
or biological feature essential to the conservation of the jaguar.
The primary land uses within Unit 3 include military activities
associated with Fort Huachuca, as well as Federal forest management
activities, border-related activities, grazing, and recreational
activities throughout the year, including, but not limited to, hiking,
camping, birding, horseback riding, picnicking, sightseeing, and
hunting. Special management considerations or protections needed within
the unit would need to address human disturbances through such
activities as military ground maneuvers and increased human presence in
remote locations through mining and development activities,
construction of impermeable fences, and widening or
[[Page 50231]]
construction of roadways, power lines, or pipelines to ensure all PCEs
remain intact.
Subunit 4a: Whetstone Subunit
Subunit 4a consists of 24,012 ha (59,335 ac) in the Whetstone
Mountains in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona. Subunit
4a is generally bounded by Cienega Creek to the west, Interstate 10 to
the north, Highway 90 to the east, and Highway 82 to the south. Land
ownership within the subunit includes approximately 16,406 ha (40,541
ac) of Federal lands; 4,684 ha (11,575 ac) of Arizona State lands; and
2,921 ha (7,219 ac) of private lands. The Federal land is administered
primarily by the Coronado National Forest. We consider the Whetstone
Subunit occupied at the time of listing (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972)
based on photographs taken in 2011 (described in ``Occupied Area at the
Time of Listing,'' above), and it may be currently occupied. The
mountain range within this subunit contains all elements of the
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the
jaguar, except for connectivity to Mexico.
The primary land uses within Subunit 4a include Federal forest
management activities, grazing, and recreational activities throughout
the year, including, but not limited to, hiking, camping, birding,
horseback riding, picnicking, sightseeing, and hunting. Special
management considerations or protections needed within the subunit
would need to address increased human disturbances through development
activities, and widening or construction of roadways, power lines, or
pipelines to ensure all PCEs remain intact.
Subunit 4b: Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit
Subunit 4b consists of 10,686 ha (26,406 ac) between the Santa Rita
Mountains and northern extent of the Whetstone Mountains in Pima
County, Arizona. Subunit 4b is generally bounded by the Santa Rita
Mountains to the west, Interstate 10 to the north, the Whetstone
Mountains to the east, and Wood Canyon to the south. Land ownership
within the subunit includes approximately 1,577 ha (3,897 ac) of
Federal lands; 6,543 ha (16,168 ac) of Arizona State lands; and 2,566
ha (6,341 ac) of private lands. The Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit
provides connectivity from the Whetstone Mountains to Mexico and was
not occupied at the time of listing, but is essential to the
conservation of the jaguar because it contributes to the species'
persistence by providing connectivity to occupied areas that support
individuals during dispersal movements during cyclical expansion and
contraction of the nearest core area and breeding population in the
Northwestern Recovery Unit.
The primary land uses within Subunit 4b include grazing and
recreational activities throughout the year, including, but not limited
to, hiking, camping, birding, horseback riding, picnicking,
sightseeing, and hunting.
Subunit 4c: Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit
Subunit 4c consists of 7,995 ha (19,756 ac) between the Huachuca
Mountains and southern extent of the Whetstone Mountains in Santa Cruz
and Cochise Counties, Arizona. Subunit 4c is generally bounded by
Highway 83 to the west, Highway 82 to the north, Highway 90 to the
east, and the Huachuca Mountains to the south. Land ownership within
the subunit includes approximately 1,575 ha (3,892 ac) of Federal
lands; 3,009 ha (7,436 ac) of Arizona State lands; and 3,411 ha (8,428
ac) of private lands. The Federal land is administered by the Coronado
National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and Fort Huachuca. The
Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit provides connectivity from the Whetstone
Mountains to Mexico and was not occupied at the time of listing, but is
essential to the conservation of the jaguar because it contributes to
the species' persistence by providing connectivity to occupied areas
that support individuals during dispersal movements during cyclical
expansion and contraction of the nearest core area and breeding
population in the Northwestern Recovery Unit.
The primary land uses within Subunit 4c include military activities
associated with Fort Huachuca, as well as Federal forest management
activities, grazing, and recreational activities throughout the year,
including, but not limited to, hiking, camping, birding, horseback
riding, picnicking, sightseeing, and hunting.
Unit 5: Peloncillo Unit
Unit 5 consists of 40,290 ha (99,559 ac) in the Peloncillo
Mountains in Cochise County, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico.
Unit 5 is generally bounded by the San Bernardino Valley to the west,
the San Simone Valley and northern boundary of the Coronado National
Forest to the north, the Animas Valley to the east, and the U.S.-Mexico
border on the south. Land ownership within the unit includes
approximately 27,387 ha (67,673 ac) of Federal lands; 7,582 ha (18,736
ac) of Arizona State lands; and 5,321 ha (13,150 ac) of private lands.
The Federal land is administered by the Coronado National Forest and
Bureau of Land Management. We consider the Peloncillo Unit occupied at
the time of listing (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972) based on a track
documented in 1995 and photographs taken in 1996 (described in
``Occupied Area at the Time of Listing,'' above), and it may be
currently occupied. It contains all elements of the physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the jaguar.
The primary land uses within Unit 5 include Federal forest
management activities, border-related activities, grazing, and
recreational activities throughout the year, including, but not limited
to, hiking, camping, birding, horseback riding, picnicking,
sightseeing, and hunting. Special management considerations or
protections needed within the unit would need to address increased
human disturbances in remote locations through construction of
impermeable fences and widening or construction of roadways, power
lines, or pipelines to ensure all PCEs remain intact.
Unit 6: San Luis Unit
Unit 6 consists of 3,071 ha (7,590 ac) in the northern extent of
the San Luis Mountains in Hidalgo County, New Mexico. Unit 6 is roughly
bounded by the Animas Valley to the west, Highway 79 to the north,
above approximately 1,600 m (5,249 ft) to the east, and the U.S.-Mexico
border to the south. Land ownership within the unit is entirely private
land. We consider the San Luis Unit occupied at the time of listing (37
FR 6476; March 30, 1972) based on photographs taken in 2006 (described
in ``Occupied Area at the Time of Listing,'' above), and it may be
currently occupied. Unit 6 contains almost all elements (PCEs 2-7) of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the jaguar except for PCE 1 (expansive open space). This unit is
included because, while by itself it does not provide at least 84
square km (32 square mi) of jaguar habitat in the United States,
additional habitat can be found immediately adjacent south of the U.S.-
Mexico border, and therefore this area represents a small portion of a
much larger area of habitat.
The primary land uses within Unit 6 include border-related
activities, grazing, and some recreational activities throughout the
year, including, but not limited to, hiking, horseback riding, and
hunting. Special management considerations or protections needed within
the unit would need to address increased human disturbances into remote
locations through construction
[[Page 50232]]
of impermeable fences and widening or construction of roadways, power
lines, or pipelines to ensure all PCEs remain intact.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Determinations of Adverse Effects and Application of the ``Adverse
Modification'' Standard
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure
their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed
species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The key factor
involved in the destruction/adverse modification determination for a
proposed Federal agency action is whether the affected critical habitat
would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species
with implementation of the proposed action after taking into account
any anticipated cumulative effects (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2004, in litt. entire). Activities that may destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat are those that alter the physical or biological
features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value
of critical habitat for the jaguar. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat is to support life-history needs of the species and
provide for the conservation of the species.
In general, there are five possible outcomes in terms of how
proposed Federal actions may affect the PCEs or physical or biological
feature of jaguar critical habitat: (1) No effect; (2) wholly
beneficial effects (e.g., improve habitat condition); (3) both short-
term adverse effects and long-term beneficial effects; (4)
insignificant or discountable adverse effects; or (5) wholly adverse
effects.
Actions with no effect on the PCEs and physical or biological
feature of jaguar critical habitat do not require section 7
consultation, although such actions may still have adverse or
beneficial effects on the species itself that require consultation.
Examples of these actions may include grazing, ranching operations,
routine border security activities, or limited recreational activity,
which we anticipate would not result in adverse effects or adverse
modification to jaguar critical habitat, but may still require section
7 review for effects to the species itself.
Actions with effects to the PCEs or physical and biological feature
of jaguar critical habitat that are discountable, insignificant, or
wholly beneficial are considered as not likely to adversely affect
critical habitat and do not require formal consultation if the Service
[[Page 50233]]
concurs in writing with that Federal action agency determination.
Examples of these actions may include fuels-management activities,
prescribed fire, or closing and re-vegetating roads.
Additionally, actions with adverse effects to the PCEs or physical
or biological feature in the short term, but that result over the long
term in an improvement in the function of the habitat to the jaguar
would likely not constitute adverse modification of critical habitat.
We anticipate actions consistent with the stated goals or recovery
actions of the Recovery Outline for the Jaguar (Jaguar Recovery Team
2012) or the future recovery plan for the species, once completed,
would fall into this category.
Actions that are likely to adversely affect the PCEs or physical or
biological feature of jaguar critical habitat require formal
consultation and the preparation of a Biological Opinion by the
Service. The Biological Opinion sets forth the basis for our section
7(a)(2) determination as to whether the proposed Federal action is
likely to destroy or adversely modify jaguar critical habitat. Some
activities may adversely affect the PCEs, but not result in adverse
modification of critical habitat. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the essential
physical or biological features of the critical habitat to an extent
that appreciably reduces the conservation value of the critical habitat
for the listed species. As discussed above, the conservation role or
value of jaguar critical habitat is to provide areas to support some
individuals during transient movements by providing patches of habitat
(perhaps in some cases with a few resident jaguars), and as areas for
cyclic expansion and contraction of the nearest core area and breeding
population in the Northwestern Recovery Unit. Therefore, actions that
could destroy or adversely modify jaguar critical habitat include those
that would permanently sever connectivity to Mexico or within a
critical habitat unit such that movement of jaguars between habitat in
the United States and Mexico is eliminated. In general, such activities
could include building impermeable fences (such as pedestrian fences
discussed in Special Management Considerations or Protection, above) in
areas of vegetated rugged terrain, or major road construction projects
(such as new highways or significant widening of existing highways).
Activities that may adversely affect the PCEs (such as permanently
displacing native prey species, increasing the distance to water to
more than 10 km (6.2 mi), removing tree cover, altering rugged terrain,
or appreciably increasing human presence on the landscape), but may not
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat could include habitat
clearing, the construction of facilities, or expansion of linear
projects (such as power lines or pipelines) that reduce the amount of
habitat available but that do not permanently sever essential movement
between the United States and Mexico or within a given critical habitat
unit.
At this time, we do not anticipate activities such as grazing,
ranching operations, or limited recreational activity would have
adverse effects to jaguar critical habitat, nor do we anticipate
activities consistent with the stated goals or recovery actions of the
Recovery Outline for the Jaguar (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012) or the
future recovery plan for the species would constitute adverse
modification. We also do not anticipate further impermeable fencing
being built in areas with rugged terrain, as technological solutions
(such as video surveillance) for Homeland Security purposes are more
likely to be applied in these areas. We also are unaware of any plans
to expand highways through proposed jaguar critical habitat. However,
we are aware of one large-scale mining operation (Rosemont Mine) that
is being evaluated within jaguar proposed critical habitat. We will
need to evaluate this project in the context of connectivity to Mexico
to determine if adverse modification to jaguar critical habitat will
likely result from this action.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned
or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use,
that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP
that specifically includes the jaguar within the proposed critical
habitat designation. Fort Huachuca has a completed INRMP that addresses
other endangered and threatened species, but currently it does not
include management actions specific to the jaguar or its habitat. For
this reason, we are not currently considering Fort Huachuca lands as
exempt from jaguar critical habitat designation. However, should Fort
Huachcua's INRMP be amended to include the jaguar before the final
critical habitat rule is completed, or should we receive information
demonstrating the INRMP provides benefits to the jaguar through
measures designed for other species (for example, the Mexican spotted
owl), we would consider exempting lands owned and managed by the Fort
in the final rule.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific
[[Page 50234]]
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative
history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors. The proposed critical habitat areas include Federal, State,
tribal, and private lands, some of which are used for mining and
recreation (such as hiking, camping, horseback riding, and hunting).
Other land uses that may be affected will be identified as we develop
the draft economic analysis for the proposed designation.
We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as
soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public review and
comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be
available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Arizona Ecological Services
Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). During the development of a final designation, we will
consider economic impacts, public comments, and other new information,
and areas may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. Department of Defense lands eligible for
exclusion include Fort Huachuca, as discussed above in Application of
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and lands on which the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) operates along the U.S.-Mexico border. CBP is
tasked with maintaining national security interests along the nation's
international borders. As such, the CBP's activities may qualify for
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In order to achieve and
maintain effective control of the United States border, CBP, through
its component, the United States Border Patrol (USBP), requires
continuing and regular access to certain portions of the area proposed
for designation as critical habitat. Because CBP's border security
mission has an important link to national security, CBP may identify
impacts to national security that may result from designating critical
habitat. While we do not have information currently indicating that the
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense and the remaining
lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the
jaguar will have an impact on national security, we may consider
excluding certain lands in the final rule. Consequently, the Secretary
does not propose to exert his discretion to exclude any areas from the
final designation based on impacts on national security at this time.
However, should Fort Huachuca or another entity identify impacts to
national security that may result from designating critical habitat on
lands owned and managed by the Fort, or on the remaining lands within
the critical habitat footprint, we may consider excluding those lands
in the final rule.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
We are not considering any areas for exclusion at this time from
the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on
partnerships, management, or protection afforded by cooperative
management efforts. Some areas within the proposed designation are
included in management plans or other large-scale HCPs such as the
Malpai Habitat Conservation Plan and lands managed by the Tohono
O'odham Nation. In this proposed rule, we are seeking input from the
public as to whether or not the Secretary should exclude HCP areas or
other such areas under management that benefit the jaguar from the
final revised critical habitat designation. (Please see the Public
Comments section of this proposed rule for instructions on how to
submit comments.)
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers
to comment during this public comment period on our specific
assumptions and conclusions in this proposed designation of critical
habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings
on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times,
and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory
[[Page 50235]]
Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an 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 effects of the rule on small entities
(small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include such businesses as manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer
than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100
employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in
annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than
$27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less
than $11.5 million in annual business, and forestry and logging
operations with fewer than 500 employees and annual business less than
$7 million. To determine whether small entities may be affected, we
will consider the types of activities that might trigger regulatory
impacts under this designation as well as types of project
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant
economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's
business operations.
Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify.
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial,
the Service may also certify.
Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions,
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential
incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated
by the rulemaking itself, and not the potential impacts to indirectly
affected entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to
adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our position that
only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this
designation. Therefore, because Federal agencies are not small
entities, the Service may certify that the proposed critical habitat
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
We acknowledge, however, that in some cases, third-party proponents
of the action subject to permitting or funding may participate in a
section 7 consultation, and thus may be indirectly affected. We believe
it is good policy to assess these impacts if we have sufficient data
before us to complete the necessary analysis, whether or not this
analysis is strictly required by the RFA. While this rule would not
directly regulate these entities, in our draft economic analysis we
will conduct a brief evaluation of the potential number of third
parties participating in consultations on an annual basis in order to
ensure a more complete examination of the incremental effects of this
proposed rule in the context of the RFA.
In conclusion, we believe that, based on our interpretation of
directly regulated entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this
designation of critical habitat would only directly regulate Federal
agencies, which are not by definition small business entities. As such,
we certify that, if promulgated, this designation of critical habitat
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. However, though not necessarily required by
the RFA, in our draft economic analysis for this proposal we will
consider and evaluate the potential effects to third parties that may
be involved with consultations with Federal action agencies related to
this action.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. Because there are no energy facilities within the
footprint of the proposed critical habitat boundaries, and we are
unaware of energy projects currently proposed within the boundaries, we
do not expect the designation of this proposed critical habitat to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required. However, we will further evaluate this
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this
assessment as warranted.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) 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, or tribal
governments, or the private sector,
[[Page 50236]]
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; Aid to Families with Dependent Children 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.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The lands we are proposing for
critical habitat designation are predominantly owned by the U.S. Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and State of Arizona. None of these
government entities fit the definition of ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment if
appropriate.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), this rule is not anticipated to have significant takings
implications. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat
affects only Federal actions. Critical habitat designation does not
affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or
permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that
do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. Due to current
public knowledge of the species' protections and the prohibition
against take of the species both within and outside of the proposed
areas, we do not anticipate that property values would be affected by
the critical habitat designation. However, we have not yet completed
the economic analysis for this proposed rule. Once the economic
analysis is available, we will review and revise this preliminary
assessment as warranted, and prepare a takings implication assessment.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource
agencies in Arizona and New Mexico. The designation of critical habitat
in areas currently occupied by the jaguar may impose nominal additional
regulatory restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, may
have little incremental impact on State and local governments and their
activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments
because the areas that contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined,
and the elements of the features necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This information does not alter
where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it
may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having
them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
elements of physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the jaguar within the designated areas to assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species.
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 recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
[[Page 50237]]
prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with
designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). However,
when the range of the species includes States within the Tenth Circuit,
such as that of jaguar, under the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County
Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429
(10th Cir. 1996), we will undertake a NEPA analysis for critical
habitat designation and notify the public of the availability of the
draft environmental assessment for this proposal when it is finished.
Clarity of the 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:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) 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, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
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; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
There are tribal lands in Arizona included in this proposed
designation of critical habitat. Using the criteria found in the
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section, we have determined
that there are tribal lands that were occupied by jaguar at the time of
listing that contain the features essential for the conservation of the
species, as well as tribal lands unoccupied by the species at the time
of listing that are essential for the conservation of the jaguar in the
United States. We will seek government-to-government consultation with
these tribes throughout the public comment period and during
development of the final designation of jaguar critical habitat. We
will consider these areas for exclusion from the final critical habitat
designation to the extent consistent with the requirements of 4(b)(2)
of the Act. The Tohono O'odham Nation (TON) is the main tribe affected
by this proposed rule. We recently sent a notification letter to the
TON describing the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
and we have engaged in conversations with the TON about the proposal to
the extent possible without disclosing pre-decisional information. In
addition, the TON has a representative on the Jaguar Recovery Team and
so the tribe has been aware that the Service was working on a critical
habitat proposal. We will schedule a meeting with the TON and any other
interested tribes shortly after publication of this proposed rule so
that we can give them as much time as possible to comment. We will also
send letters to all other tribes with interest in the general
geographic area of the jaguar's range, including the following: Gila
River Indian Community; Salt River-Maricopa Indian Community; Ak Chin
Indian Community; San Carlos Apache Nation; Hopi Tribe; Pascua Yaqui
Tribe; Mescalero Apache Tribe; and Yavapai-Apache Nation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Jaguar'' under
``Mammals'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read
as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 50238]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Jaguar........................... Panthera onca....... U.S.A. (AZ, CA, LA, Entire.............. E 5, 622 17.95(a) NA
NM, TX) Mexico,
Central and South
America.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for
``Jaguar (Panthera onca),'' in the same alphabetical order that the
species appears in the table at Sec. 17.11(h), to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(a) Mammals.
* * * * *
Jaguar (Panthera onca)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Pima, Santa Cruz, and
Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico, on the maps
below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of jaguar
consists of expansive open spaces in the southwestern United States of
at least 84 to 100 square kilometers (32 to 37 square miles) in size
which:
(i) Provide connectivity to Mexico;
(ii) Contain adequate levels of native prey species, including deer
and javelina, as well as medium-sized prey such as coatis, skunks,
raccoons, or jackrabbits;
(iii) Include surface water sources available within 20 km (12.4
mi) of each other;
(iv) Contain 3 to 40 percent canopy cover within Madrean evergreen
woodland, generally recognized by a mixture of oak, juniper, and pine
trees on the landscape, or semidesert grassland vegetation communities,
usually characterized by Pleuraphis mutica (tobosagrass) or Bouteloua
eriopoda (black grama) along with other grasses;
(v) Are characterized by intermediately, moderately, or highly
rugged terrain; and
(vi) Are characterized by minimal to no human population density,
no major roads, or no stable nighttime lighting over any 1-square-
kilometer (0.4-square-mile) area.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Digital data layers defining map
units were created using hydrography data, vegetation biomes, tree
cover, terrain ruggedness, Human Influence Index (HII) (see ``Habitats
Protected from Disturbance or Representative of the Historical,
Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species,'' above), and
undisputed Class I jaguar records from 1962 to the present, and were
then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(5) Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 50239]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU12.000
(6) Units 1, 2, 3, and 4: Baboquivari, Atascosa, Patagonia, and
Whetstone Units, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale digital ortho-photo quarter-
quadrangles: Aguirre Peak NE; Aguirre Peak NW; Aguirre Peak SE; Aguirre
Peak SW; Alamo Spring NE; Amado SW; Apache Peak NE; Apache Peak NW;
Apache Peak SE; Apache Peak SW; Arivaca SE; Arivaca SW; Baboquivari
Peak NE; Baboquivari Peak NW; Baboquivari Peak SE; Baboquivari Peak SW;
Bartlett Mountain NE; Bartlett Mountain NW; Bartlett Mountain SE;
Bartlett Mountain SW; Benson SW; Bob Thompson Peak NW; Canelo Pass NE;
Canelo Pass NW; Caponera Peak NE; Caponera Peak NW; Caponera Peak SE;
Chiuli Shaik NE; Chiuli Shaik SE; Corona de Tucson SE; Cumero Canyon
NE; Cumero Canyon SE; Duchesne NE; Duchesne NW; Empire Ranch NE; Empire
Ranch NW; Empire Ranch SW; Fort Huachuca SW; Green Valley SE; Green
Valley SW; Haivana Nakya SE; Harshaw NE; Harshaw NW; Harshaw SE;
Harshaw SW; Helvetia NE; Helvetia NW; Helvetia SE; Helvetia SW;
Huachcua Peak NE; Huachcua Peak NW; Huachcua Peak SE; Huachcua Peak SW;
Kino Springs NE; Kitt Peak NE; Kitt Peak NW; Kitt Peak SE; Kitt Peak
SW; McGrew Spring NW; McGrew Spring SW; Mescal SE; Mescal SW; Mildred
Peak NE; Mildred Peak
[[Page 50240]]
NW; Mildred Peak SW; Miller Peak NE; Miller Peak NW; Miller Peak SE;
Miller Peak SW; Montezuma Pass NE; Montezuma Pass NW; Mount Fagan SE;
Mount Fagan SW; Mt. Hopkins NE; Mt. Hopkins NW; Mt. Hopkins SE; Mt.
Hopkins SW; Mt. Hughes NE; Mt. Hughes NW; Mt. Hughes SE; Mt. Hughes SW;
Mt. Wrightson NE; Mt. Wrightson NW; Mt. Wrightson SE; Mt. Wrightson SW;
Murphy Peak NE; Murphy Peak SE; Murphy Peak SW; Mustang Mountains NE;
Mustang Mountains NW; Mustang Mountains SE; Mustang Mountains SW;
Nicksville SW; O'Donnell Canyon NW; O'Donnell Canyon SE; O'Donnell
Canyon SW; Pajarito Peak NE; Pajarito Peak NW; Palo Alto Ranch NW; Pan
Tak SE; Pan Tak SW; Patagonia NE; Patagonia NW; Patagonia SE; Patagonia
SW; Pena Blanca Lake NE; Pena Blanca Lake NW; Pena Blanca Lake SE; Pena
Blanca Lake SW; Presumido Peak NW; Presumido Peak SE; Presumido Peak
SW; Pyeatt Ranch NE; Pyeatt Ranch NW; Pyeatt Ranch SE; Pyeatt Ranch SW;
Ruby NE; Ruby NW; Ruby SE; Ruby SW; San Cayento Mountains NE; San Juan
Spring NE; San Juan Spring SE; San Pedro SW; Sasabe NW; Saucito
Mountain SE; Sonoita NW; Sonoita SE; Sonoita SW; Spring Water Canyon
NE; Spring Water Canyon NW; Spring Water Canyon SE; The Narrows SE; The
Narrows SW; Tubac NE; Tubac NW; Tubac SE; Tubac SW; Arizona.
(ii) Map of Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 follows:
[[Page 50241]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU12.001
(7) Units 5 and 6: Peloncillo and San Luis Units, Cochise County,
Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale digital ortho-photo quarter-
quadrangles: Black Point NW; Black Point SW; Clanton Draw NW; Clanton
Draw SW; Fitzpatricks SE; Guadalupe Canyon NE; Guadalupe Canyon NW;
Guadalupe Pass NW; Guadalupe Spring NE; Guadalupe Spring NW; Guadalupe
Spring SE; Guadalupe Spring SW; Lang Canyon NE; Lazy J Ranch NE; Lazy J
Ranch SE; Paramore Crater NE; Paramore Crater SE; San Luis Pass SW;
Skeleton Canyon NE; Skeleton Canyon NW; Skeleton Canyon SE; Skeleton
Canyon SW; Whitewater Creek NW; Arizona and New Mexico.
(ii) Map of Units 5 and 6 follows:
[[Page 50242]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU12.002
* * * * *
Dated: August 2, 2012.
Eileen Sobeck,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-19950 Filed 8-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C