[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39237-39250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15688]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Jaguar
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period on the August 20, 2012, proposed
designation of critical habitat for the jaguar (Panthera onca) under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and we announce
revisions to our proposed designation of critical habitat for the
jaguar. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis
and draft environmental assessment of the revised proposed designation
of critical habitat for jaguar and an amended required determinations
section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment period to allow
all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the
revised proposed rule, the associated draft economic analysis and draft
environmental assessment, and the amended required determinations
section. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they
will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. In addition,
we announce a public informational session and public hearing on the
revised proposed designation of critical habitat for the jaguar.
DATES: Written comments: The comment period for the proposed rule
published August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50214), is reopened. We will consider
comments received or postmarked on or before August 9, 2013. Comments
submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date.
Public informational session and public hearing: We will hold a
public informational session and public hearing on this proposed rule
on July 30, 2013, at Buena High School Performing Arts Center, 5225
Buena School Blvd., Sierra Vista, Arizona 85615. There will be an
informational meeting from 3:30-5:00 p.m., and the public hearing will
occur from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the same location.
ADDRESSES:
Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed rule,
draft economic analysis, and draft environmental assessment on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-
0042 or by mail from the Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the
following methods, or at the public hearing:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments by searching for Docket No. FWS-
R2-ES-2012-0042, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
(2) By hard copy: Submit comments 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).
Public informational session and public hearing: The public
[[Page 39238]]
informational session and hearing will be held at Buena High School
Performing Arts Center, 5225 Buena School Blvd., Sierra Vista, Arizona
85615. People needing reasonable accommodation in order to attend and
participate in the public hearing should contact Steve Spangle, Field
Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Office, as
soon as possible (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
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; by telephone (602-242-0210); or by facsimile (602-242-2513).
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We are reopening the comment period for our proposed critical
habitat designation for the jaguar that was published in the Federal
Register on August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50214). We are specifically seeking
comments on the revised proposed designation and the draft economic and
environmental analyses, which are now available, for the revised
proposed critical habitat designation; see ADDRESSES for information on
how to submit your comments. We will consider information and
recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly
interested in 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 occupied at the time of listing (1972) (or currently
occupied) that contain features essential to the conservation of the
species we should include 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;
(e) What areas not occupied at the time of listing (and that do not
contain all of the primary constituent elements comprising proposed
jaguar critical habitat) are essential for the conservation of the
species and why; and
(f) If an area is essential but was not occupied at the time of
listing, what are the habitat features that are essential, and which of
these features are the most important?
(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, we seek information on any impacts on small
entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas
from the proposed designation that exhibit these impacts.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic
impacts in the draft economic analysis is complete and accurate and the
description of the environmental impacts in the draft environmental
assessment is complete and accurate.
(7) If lands owned and managed by Fort Huachuca (Fort) should be
considered for exemption because the integrated natural resources
management plan for the Fort currently benefits the jaguar, whether or
not management activities specifically address the species.
(8) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for 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.
(9) 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.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (77
FR 50214; August 20, 2012) during the initial comment period from
August 20, 2012, to October 19, 2012, please do not resubmit them. We
have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully
consider them in the preparation of our final rule. Our final
determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration
all written comments and any additional information we receive during
both comment periods. On the basis of public comments and other
relevant information, we may, during the development of our final
determination on the proposed critical habitat designation, find that
areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the revised
proposed rule, draft economic analysis, or draft environmental
assessment by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We
request that you send comments only by the methods described in the
ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top
of your document that we withhold this information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing the revised proposed rule, draft
economic analysis, and draft environmental assessment, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042, 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). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule, the draft
economic analysis, and the draft environmental assessment on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2012-
0042, or by mail from the 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
the designation of critical habitat for jaguar in this document. For
more information on the species, the species' habitat, and
[[Page 39239]]
previous Federal actions concerning the jaguar, refer to the proposed
designation of critical habitat, published in the Federal Register on
August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50214). The proposed rule is available online at
http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042) or
from the Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
On August 20, 2012, we published a proposed rule to designate
critical habitat for the jaguar (77 FR 50214). In that proposed rule,
we proposed to designate approximately 838,232 acres (ac) (339,220
hectares (ha)) as critical habitat in six units located in Pima, Santa
Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico.
That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending October 19, 2012. We
received requests for a public hearing; therefore, a public hearing
will be held (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
In 2013, we received a report from the Jaguar Recovery Team that
included a revised habitat model for jaguar in the proposed
Northwestern Recovery Unit (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, entire). This
report recommended defining habitat patches of less than 100 square
kilometers (km) (38.6 square miles (mi)) in size as unsuitable for
jaguars; therefore, we incorporated this information into the physical
and biological feature for the jaguar, which formerly described areas
of less than 84 square km (32.4 square mi) as unsuitable. Additionally,
the report recommended slight changes to some of the habitat features
we used to describe the primary constituent elements (PCEs) comprising
jaguar critical habitat (see Changes from Previously Proposed Critical
Habitat, below). The revised physical and biological feature and PCEs
resulted in changes to the boundaries of our original proposed critical
habitat, and we are revising our proposal for jaguar critical habitat
in this document. In this revised rule, we propose to designate
approximately 858,137 ac (347,277 ha) as critical habitat in six units
located in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo
County, New Mexico.
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas
within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is
listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection, and
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at
the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is
made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions
affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their
proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Changes From Previously Proposed Critical Habitat
On August 20, 2012, we published in the Federal Register a proposed
rule to designate critical habitat for the jaguar (77 FR 50214). We
based the physical and biological feature and PCEs on a preliminary
report we received from the Jaguar Recovery Team in 2011, in which the
habitat features preferred by the jaguar were described based on the
best available science and expert opinion of the team at that time.
Since then, the Jaguar Recovery Team continued to revise and refine
these habitat features, resulting in a habitat model that we received
in 2013. The changes included: (1) Defining habitat patches of less
than 100 square km (38.6 square mi) in size as unsuitable (the physical
and biological feature formerly described areas of less than 84 square
km (32.4 square mi) as unsuitable); (2) delineating areas 2,000 meters
(6,562 feet) and higher as unsuitable (previously there was no PCE
related to an upper-elevation limit); (3) including a canopy cover from
greater than 1 to 50 percent as suitable (PCE 4 formerly included a
range of 3 to 40 percent canopy cover); and (4) slightly diminishing
the level of human influence tolerated by jaguars in the northern part
of the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit (PCE 6). When combined,
these changes added some new areas containing all of the PCEs, while
other areas no longer contained all of the PCEs, and therefore were
removed. An increase in area was usually due to the increased range in
canopy cover (from greater than 1 to 50 percent, instead of 3 to 40
percent), while a decrease in area was usually due to the upper
elevation limit of 2,000 meters (6,562 feet).
In addition to the changes described above, recent photos (October
2012 through January 2013) have been taken of a jaguar in the Santa
Rita Mountains. While our understanding of the habitat features did not
change drastically between 2012 and 2013, the combination of a slightly
different physical and biological feature and several PCEs (as
described above) and the new jaguar sightings have resulted in the
proposed revisions to our August 20, 2012, proposed critical habitat
rule for the jaguar that are described in this document.
Primary Constituent Elements for Jaguars
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 Recovery 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 100 square km (38.6 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 from greater than 1 to 50 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; and
(7) Are below 2,000 m (6,562 feet) in elevation.
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
[[Page 39240]]
Tumacacori Mountains; (3) Patagonia Unit, including the Patagonia,
Santa Rita, Empire, and Huachuca Mountains, and the Canelo and
Grosvenor 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 unoccupied units and
those that may have been occupied at the time of listing.
Table 1--Occupancy of Jaguars by Proposed Critical Habitat Units
[All units are in Arizona unless otherwise noted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied at time of
Unit 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:
Empire Mountains........................... Yes.
Santa Rita Mountains....................... Yes.
Grosvenor Hills............................ 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 Total Total
Unit or subunit ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a--Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit...................... 4,396 10,862 9,239 22,831 20,764 51,308 3,290 8,130 37,689 93,130
1b--Southern Baboquivari Subunit.................... 624 1,543 6,157 15,213 10,829 26,759 1,843 4,555 19,453 48,070
2--Atascosa Unit.................................... 53,807 132,961 2,296 5,672 0 0 2,522 6,231 58,625 144,864
3--Patagonia Unit................................... 107,471 265,566 11,847 29,274 0 0 29,046 71,775 148,364 366,615
4a--Whetstone Subunit............................... 16,066 39,699 5,445 13,455 0 0 3,774 9,325 25,284 62,478
4b--Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit.................... 532 1,313 4,612 11,396 0 0 0 0 5,143 12,710
4c--Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit...................... 1,654 4,088 2,981 7,366 0 0 3,391 8,379 8,026 19,832
5--Peloncillo Unit.................................. 28,393 70,160 7,861 19,426 0 0 5,317 13,138 41,571 102,723
6--San Luis Unit.................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,122 7,714 3,122 7,714
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total..................................... 212,943 526,191 50,437 124,633 31,593 78,067 52,304 129,246 347,277 858,137
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 37,689 ha (93,130 ac) in the northern
Baboquivari, Saucito, Quinlan, and Coyote Mountains in Pima County,
Arizona. This subunit is generally bounded by the eastern side of the
Baboquivari Valley to the west, State Highway 86 to the north, the
western side of the Altar Valley to the east, and up to and including
Leyvas and Bear Canyons to
[[Page 39241]]
the south. Land ownership within the unit includes approximately 4,396
ha (10,862 ac) of Federal lands; 20,764 ha (51,308 ac) of Tohono
O'odham Nation lands; 9,239 ha (22,831 ac) of Arizona State lands; and
3,290 ha (8,130 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) (see ``Occupied Area at the Time of Listing'' in our
August 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50214)), and it may be currently
occupied, based on jaguar photos from 1996 and from 2001-2008. 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 subunit would need to
address threats presented by increased human disturbances in remote
locations through construction of impermeable fences and widening or
construction of roadways, power lines, or pipelines.
Subunit 1b: Southern Baboquivari Subunit
Subunit 1b consists of 19,453 ha (48,070 ac) in the southern
Baboquivari Mountains in Pima County, Arizona. This subunit is
generally bounded by the eastern side of the Baboquivari Valley to the
west, up to but not including Leyvas and Bear Canyons to the north, the
western side of the Altar Valley to the east, and the U.S.-Mexico
border to the south. Land ownership within the unit includes
approximately 624 ha (1,543 ac) of Federal lands; 10,829 ha (26,759 ac)
of Tohono O'odham Nation lands; 6,157 ha (15,213 ac) of Arizona State
lands; and 1,843 ha (4,555 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.
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 58,625 ha (144,864 ac) in the Pajarito,
Atascosa, and Tumacacori Mountains in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties,
Arizona. Unit 2 is generally bounded by the eastern side of San Luis
Mountains (Arizona) to the west, roughly 4 km (2.5 mi) south of 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 53,807 ha (132,961 ac) of Federal lands; 2,296 ha (5,672
ac) of Arizona State lands; and 2,522 ha (6,231 ac) of private lands.
The Federal land is administered by the Coronado National Forest and
Bureau of Land Management. We consider the Atascosa Unit occupied at
the time of listing (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972) (see ``Occupied Area
at the Time of Listing'' in our August 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR
50214)), and it may be currently occupied based on multiple photos of
two, or possibly three, jaguars from 2001-2008. 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 land 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 threats posed by increased human
disturbances into remote locations through construction of impermeable
fences and widening or construction of roadways, power lines, or
pipelines.
Unit 3: Patagonia Unit
Unit 3 consists of 148,364 ha (366,615 ac) in the Patagonia, Santa
Rita, Empire, and Huachuca Mountains, as well as the Canelo and
Grosvenor Hills, in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona.
Unit 3 is generally bounded by a line running roughly 3 km (1.9 mi)
east of Interstate 19 to the west; a line running roughly 6 km (3.7 mi)
south of Interstate 10 to the north; Cienega Creek and Highways 83, 90,
and 92 to the east, including the eastern slopes of the Empire
Mountains; and the U.S.-Mexico border to the south. Land ownership
within the unit includes approximately 107,471 ha (265,566 ac) of
Federal lands; 11,847 ha (29,274 ac) of Arizona State lands; and 29,046
ha (71,775 ac) of private lands. The Federal land is administered by
the Coronado National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, National Park
Service, 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 (see ``Occupied Area at the Time of
Listing'' in our August 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50214)) and
currently occupied based on photos taken from October 2012, through
January 2013, of a male jaguar in the Santa Rita Mountains. 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 land 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 threats posed by 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
construction of roadways, power lines, or pipelines.
Subunit 4a: Whetstone Subunit
Subunit 4a consists of 25,284 ha (62,478 ac) in the Whetstone
Mountains in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona. Subunit
4a is generally bounded by a line running roughly 4 km (2.5 mi) east of
Cienega Creek to the west, a line running roughly 6 km (3.7 mi) south
of Interstate 10 to the north, Highway 90 to the east, and Highway 82
to the south. Land ownership within the subunit includes approximately
16,066 ha (39,699 ac) of Federal lands; 5,445 ha (13,455 ac) of Arizona
State lands; and 3,774 ha (9,325 ac) of private lands. The Federal land
is administered by the Coronado National Forest and Bureau of Land
Management. We consider the Whetstone Subunit occupied at the time of
listing (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972) (see ``Occupied Area at the Time
of Listing'' in our August 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50214)), and,
based on photographs taken in 2011, 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.
[[Page 39242]]
The primary land uses within Subunit 4a include Federal land
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 threats posed by increased human disturbances as
a result of development activities, and widening or construction of
roadways, power lines, or pipelines.
Subunit 4b: Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit
Subunit 4b consists of 5,143 ha (12,710 ac) between the Empire
Mountains and northern extent of the Whetstone Mountains in Pima
County, Arizona. Subunit 4b is generally bounded by (but does not
include): The eastern slopes of the Empire Mountains to the west, a
line running roughly 6 km (3.7 mi) south of Interstate 10 to the north,
the western slopes of the Whetstone Mountains to the east, and
Stevenson Canyon to the south. Land ownership within the subunit
includes approximately 532 ha (1,313 ac) of Federal lands and 4,612 ha
(11,396 ac) of Arizona State 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.
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 8,026 ha (19,832 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, Elgin-Canelo Road, and Upper Elgin Road to the west;
Highway 82 to the north; a line running roughly 4 km (2.5 mi) west of
Highway 90 to the east; and up to but not including the Huachuca
Mountains to the south. Land ownership within the subunit includes
approximately 1,654 ha (4,088 ac) of Federal lands; 2,981 ha (7,366 ac)
of Arizona State lands; and 3,391 ha (8,379 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.
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 41,571 ha (102,723 ac) in the Peloncillo
Mountains in Cochise County, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico.
Unit 5 is generally bounded by the eastern side of the San Bernardino
Valley to the west, Skeleton Canyon Road and the northern boundary of
the Coronado National Forest to the north, the western side of the
Animas Valley to the east, and the U.S.-Mexico border on the south.
Land ownership within the unit includes approximately 28,393 ha (70,160
ac) of Federal lands; 7,861 ha (19,426 ac) of Arizona State lands; and
5,317 ha (13,138 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) (see ``Occupied Area at the Time of Listing'' in
our August 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50214)), and it may be
currently occupied based on a track documented in 1995 and photographs
taken in 1996. 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 land 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 threats posed by increased human
disturbances in remote locations through construction of impermeable
fences and widening or construction of roadways, power lines, or
pipelines.
Unit 6: San Luis Unit
Unit 6 consists of 3,122 ha (7,714 ac) in the northern extent of
the San Luis Mountains in Hidalgo County, New Mexico. Unit 6 is
generally bounded by the eastern side of the Animas Valley to the west,
a line running roughly 1.5 km (0.9 mi) south of Highway 79 to the
north, an elevation line at approximately 1,600 m (5,249 ft) on the
east side of the San Luis Mountains, and the U.S.-Mexico border to the
south. Land within the unit is entirely privately owned. We consider
the San Luis Unit occupied at the time of listing (37 FR 6476; March
30, 1972) (see ``Occupied Area at the Time of Listing'' in our August
20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50214)), and it may be currently
occupied based on photographs taken in 2006. Unit 6 contains almost all
elements (PCEs 2-7) of the physical or biological feature 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 100 square km (38.6 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 threats posed by increased human
disturbances into remote locations through construction of impermeable
fences and widening or construction of roadways, power lines, or
pipelines.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat
if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the
benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a
[[Page 39243]]
result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded,
permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits
of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery
of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from
designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical
habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. We are
considering excluding lands owned and managed by the Tohono O'odham
Nation from critical habitat. The Tohono O'odham Nation has indicated
that they are preparing a Jaguar Management Plan, which we expect to
receive during this comment period. However, the final decision on
whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data
available at the time of the final designation, including information
obtained during the comment period and information about the economic
impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic
analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is
available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).
Draft Economic Analysis
The draft economic analysis describes the economic impacts of all
potential conservation efforts for the jaguar; some of these costs will
likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat.
The economic impact of the proposed critical habitat designation is
analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and
``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario
represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections
already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and
other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore,
represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated. The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts
and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the
designation of critical habitat for the species.
Most courts have held that the Service only needs to consider the
incremental impacts imposed by the critical habitat designation over
and above those impacts imposed as a result of listing the species. For
example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reached this conclusion
twice within the last few years, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to
hear any further appeal from those rulings (Arizona Cattle Growers'
Assoc. v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 116, (9th Cir. June 4, 2010) cert. denied,
179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1362, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475 (2011); Home
Builders Association of Northern California v. United States Fish &
Wildlife Service, 616 F. 3rd 983 (9th Cir. 2010) cert. denied, 179 L.
Ed. 2d 300, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1362, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475 (2011)).
However, the prevailing court decisions in the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals do not allow the incremental analysis approach. Instead, the
Tenth Circuit requires that the Service consider both the baseline
economic impacts imposed due to listing the species and the additional
incremental economic impacts imposed by designating critical habitat
(New Mexico Cattle Growers Ass'n v. FWS, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. May
11, 2001)). As a consequence, an economic analysis for critical habitat
that is being proposed for designation within States that fall within
the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit (as this designation does) should
include a coextensive cost evaluation which addresses, and quantifies
to the extent feasible, all of the conservation-related impacts
associated with the regulatory baseline (those resulting under the
jeopardy standard under section 7 of the Act, and under sections 9 and
10 of the Act). In other words, the allocation of impacts should show
those that are part of the regulatory baseline and those that are
unique to the critical habitat designation. For a further description
of the methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2.3, ``Analytic
Framework and Scope of the Analysis,'' of the draft economic analysis.
The draft economic analysis provides estimated costs of the
foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat
designation for the jaguar over the next 20 years, which was determined
to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning
information is available for most activities to forecast activity
levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. It identifies potential
incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat
designation; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over
and above those baseline costs attributed to listing.
The draft economic analysis quantifies economic impacts of jaguar
conservation efforts associated with the following categories of
activity: (1) Federal land management; (2) border protection
activities; (3) mining; (4) transportation activities; (5) development;
(6) military activities; (7) livestock grazing and other activities;
and (8) Tohono O'odham Nation activities. Chapter 11 of the draft
economic analysis provides the quantification of economic impacts of
jaguar conservation efforts.
Given the secretive and transient nature of the jaguar and the fact
that Federal land managers already take steps to protect the jaguar
even without critical habitat, we do not anticipate recommending
incremental conservation measures to avoid adverse modification of
critical habitat over and above those recommended to avoid jeopardy of
the species, except in cases where an activity could create a situation
in which a unit of critical habitat could become inaccessible to
jaguars. The loss of one critical habitat unit would not constitute
jeopardy to the species, but it may constitute destruction or adverse
modification.
Major construction projects (such as new highways, significant
widening of existing highways, or construction of large facilities or
mines) could sever connectivity within these critical habitat units and
subunits, and could constitute adverse modification. However, at this
time we are unable to identify the conservation measures that will be
requested to avoid adverse modification, and we are therefore unable to
quantify these impacts.
Therefore, the total projected incremental costs of administrative
efforts resulting from section 7 consultations on the jaguar are
approximately $360,000 over 20 years ($31,000 on an annualized basis),
assuming a 7 percent discount rate. The analysis estimates future
potential administrative impacts based on the historical rate of
consultations on the jaguar in areas proposed for critical habitat, as
discussed in Chapter 2 of the draft economic analysis.
As stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the draft economic analysis and draft environmental
assessment, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule, as revised by
this document, and our amended required determinations. We may revise
the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address
information we receive during the public comment period. In particular,
we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the
benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the
area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this
species.
[[Page 39244]]
Draft Environmental Assessment
The purpose of the draft environmental assessment, prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), is to identify and disclose the environmental
consequences resulting from the proposed action of designating critical
habitat for the jaguar. In the draft environmental assessment, three
alternatives are evaluated: The No Action Alternative; Alternative A,
the proposed rule; and Alternative B, the proposed rule with exclusion
and exemption areas. The no action alternative is required by NEPA for
comparison to the other alternatives analyzed in the draft
environmental assessment. The no action alternative is equivalent to no
designation of critical habitat for the jaguar. Our preliminary
determination is that designation of critical habitat for the jaguar
will not have significant impacts on the environment. However, we will
further evaluate this issue as we complete our final environmental
assessment.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the draft environmental assessment, as well as all aspects of
the proposed rule, the draft economic analysis, and our amended
required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting
documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the
comment period on the environmental consequences resulting from our
proposed designation of critical habitat.
Required Determinations--Amended
In our August 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50214), we indicated
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several
statutes and executive orders until the information concerning
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on
landowners and stakeholders became available in the draft economic
analysis. We have now made use of the draft economic analysis data to
make these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information
in our proposed rule concerning Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and
13563 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O.
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution,
and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), and
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). However,
based on the draft economic analysis data, we are amending our required
determinations concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), E.O. 12630 (Takings), and the President's memorandum of April
29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American
Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951).
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
(i.e., 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. Based on our draft economic analysis of the
proposed designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether
the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we
may revise this determination as part of our final rulemaking.
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 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 agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered 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.
To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for
the jaguar would affect a substantial number of small entities, we
considered the number of small entities affected within particular
types of economic activities, such as mining, transportation
construction, development, and agriculture and grazing. In order to
determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that the
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or
category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities
potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have
any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of
critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted,
or authorized by Federal agencies. Because the jaguar is listed as an
endangered species under the Act, in areas where the jaguar is present,
Federal agencies are required to consult with us under section 7 of the
Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the
species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation,
consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation
process.
In the draft economic analysis, we evaluated the potential economic
effects on small entities resulting from implementation of conservation
actions related to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the
jaguar. The designation of critical habitat for the jaguar is unlikely
to directly affect any small entities. The costs associated with the
designation are likely to be limited to the incremental impacts
associated with administrative costs of section 7 consultations. Small
entities may participate in section 7 consultation as a third party
(the primary consulting parties being the Service and the Federal
action agency). It is therefore possible that the small entities may
spend additional time considering critical habitat due to the need for
a section 7 consultation for the jaguar. Additional incremental costs
of consultation that would be borne by the Federal action agency and
the Service are not relevant to this screening analysis as these
entities (Federal agencies) are not small. It is uncertain
[[Page 39245]]
whether any third parties involved with mining or transportation would
be considered small entities when fully operational; however, assuming
that they would qualify as small entities, the cost of consultation
represents less than 1 percent of each company's annual revenues.
Potential impacts to agriculture and grazing related to foregone
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) funding are not
quantified; however, we do not expect small entities to bear a direct
burden. Please refer to the draft economic analysis of the proposed
critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of
potential economic impacts.
The Service's current understanding of recent case law is that
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential impacts of
rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking;
therefore, they are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to
those entities not directly regulated. The designation of critical
habitat for an endangered or threatened species only has a regulatory
effect where a Federal action agency is involved in a particular action
that may affect the designated critical habitat. Under these
circumstances, only the Federal action agency is directly regulated by
the designation, and, therefore, consistent with the Service's current
interpretation of RFA and recent case law, the Service may limit its
evaluation of the potential impacts to those identified for Federal
action agencies. Under this interpretation, there is no requirement
under the RFA to evaluate potential impacts to entities not directly
regulated, such as small businesses. However, Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent
feasible) and qualitative terms. Consequently, it is the current
practice of the Service to assess to the extent practicable these
potential impacts, if sufficient data are available, whether or not
this analysis is believed by the Service to be strictly required by the
RFA. In other words, while the effects analysis required under the RFA
is limited to entities directly regulated by the rulemaking, the
effects analysis under the Act, consistent with the E.O. regulatory
analysis requirements, can take into consideration impacts to both
directly and indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and
reasonable.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the
Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the
above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify
that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
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 prepare
environmental analyses as defined by 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 the 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. In accordance with the
Tenth Circuit, we have completed a draft environmental assessment to
identify and disclose the environmental consequences resulting from the
proposed designation of critical habitat for the jaguar. Our
preliminary determination is that the designation of critical habitat
for the jaguar would not have significant impacts on the environment.
E.O. 12630 (Takings)
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the jaguar in a proposed takings implications assessment.
The economic analysis found that no significant economic impacts are
likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for the
jaguar. Based on information contained in the economic analysis and
described within this document, it is not likely that economic impacts
to a property owner would be of a sufficient magnitude to support a
takings action. Therefore, the proposed takings implications assessment
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the jaguar does
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected
by the designation. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we
complete our final economic analysis.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
On May 16, 2012, we sent a letter to the Tohono O'odham Nation (the
one Tribe that owns and manages land within the proposed designation)
and Bureau of Indian Affairs notifying them of our intent to propose
critical habitat for the jaguar. On August 24, 2012, we notified all
Tribes potentially affected by our proposal to designate jaguar
critical habitat via email, then followed up by sending a letter to
each Tribal leader on September 28, 2012. Potentially affected Tribes
include: The Ak Chin Community, Gila River Indian Community, Hope
Tribe, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Tribe, San
Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O'odham Tribe, and White Mountain Apache
Tribe. Additionally, on September 27, 2012, we met with Tohono O'odham
Nation staff to discuss the proposed designation.
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Office, Southwest Region,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
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 further amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to
be amended on August 20, 2012, at 77 FR 50214, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.95, the entry proposed for ``Jaguar (Panthera onca)''
at 77 FR 50214, by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(6), and
(a)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
[[Page 39246]]
(a) Mammals.
* * * * *
Jaguar (Panthera onca)
* * * * *
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of jaguar
consist of expansive open spaces in the southwestern United States of
at least 100 square kilometers (km) (38.6 square miles (mi)) 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 from greater than 1 to 50 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;
(vi) 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; and
(vii) Are below 2,000 meters (6,562 feet) in elevation.
* * * * *
(5) Index map follows:
[[Page 39247]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY13.018
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
(6) Units 1, 2, 3, and 4: Baboquivari, Atascosa, Patagonia, and
Whetstone Units, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise
[[Page 39248]]
Counties, Arizona. Map of Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY13.019
[[Page 39249]]
(7) Units 5 and 6: Peloncillo and San Luis Units, Cochise County,
Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. Map of Units 5 and 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY13.020
[[Page 39250]]
* * * * *
Dated: June 7, 2013.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-15688 Filed 6-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C