Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Jaguar

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:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate critical habitat for the jaguar (

Panthera onca

) under the Endangered Species Act, as amended. In total, approximately 309,263 hectares (764,207 acres) in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. This designation fulfills our obligations under a settlement agreement. The effect of this regulation is to designate critical habitat for jaguar under the Endangered Species Act.

DATES:

This rule is effective on April 4, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

This final rule is available on the Internet at

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Jaguar.htm,

and at

http://www.regulations.gov.

Comments and materials received, as well as some supporting documentation we used in preparing this final rule, including the final economic analysis and final environmental assessment, are available for public inspection at

http://www.regulations.gov.

Some supporting documentation is also available at

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Jaguar.htm.

All of the comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in this rulemaking are available by appointment, during normal business hours at: 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.

The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the administrative record for this critical habitat designation and are available at

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042, and at the Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Office (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Any additional tools or supporting information that we developed for this critical habitat designation will also be available at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and may also be included at

http://www.regulations.gov.

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

Why we need to publish a rule.

This is a final rule to designate critical habitat for the jaguar. Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), any species that is determined to be an endangered or threatened species requires critical habitat to be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), listed the jaguar as an endangered species on March 30, 1972 (37 FR 6476), in accordance with the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, a precursor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On August 20, 2012, we published in the

Federal Register

a proposed critical habitat designation for jaguar (77 FR 50213). Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate 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 critical habitat areas we are designating in this rule constitute our current best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the jaguar. Here we are designating approximately 309,263 hectares (ha) (764,207 acres (ac)) in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico, in six critical habitat units.

• Unit 1, Baboquivari Unit, approximately 25,549 ha (63,134 ac) Baboquivari, Saucito, Quinlan, and Coyote Mountains in Pima County, Arizona.

• Unit 2, Atascosa Unit, approximately 58,624 ha (144,865 ac) in the Tumacacori, Atascosa, and Pajarito Mountains, in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona.

• Unit 3, Patagonia Unit, approximately 142,248 ha (351,501 ac) in the Santa Rita, Patagonia, Empire, and Huachuca Mountains, and Grosvenor and Canelo Hills, in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona.

• Unit 4, Whetstone Unit, approximately 38,149 ha (94,269 ac) in the Whetstone Mountains, including connections to the Empire, Santa Rita and Huachuca Mountains, in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona.

• Unit 5, Peloncillo Unit, approximately 41,571 ha (102,724 ac) in the Peloncillo Mountains, in Cochise County, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico.

• Unit 6, San Luis Unit, approximately 3,122 ha (7,714 ac) in the San Luis Mountains, Hidalgo County, New Mexico.

This rule consists of:

A final rule for designation of critical habitat for the jaguar. The jaguar is already listed under the Act. This rule designates critical habitat essential for the conservation of the species.

We have prepared an economic analysis and environmental assessment of the designation of critical habitat.

In order to consider economic impacts, we have prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation and related factors. We have also completed an environmental assessment to evaluate whether there would be any significant environmental impacts as a result of the critical habitat designation. We announced the availability of both the draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment in the

Federal Register

on July 1, 2013 (78 FR 39237), allowing the public to provide comments on our analyses. We have incorporated the comments and have completed the final economic analysis and final environmental assessment with this final determination.

Peer review and public comment.

We sought comments from seven independent specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from six knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical assumptions, analysis, and whether or not we had used the best available information. Most of the peer reviewers (five of the six) generally concurred with our methods and

conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. One peer reviewer was against critical habitat designation for the jaguar, stating that there is no habitat in the United States at this time that is critical to the survival of the jaguar as a species. Information we received from peer review is incorporated in this final revised designation. We also considered all comments and information received from the public during the comment period.

Previous Federal Actions

On August 20, 2012, we published in the

Federal Register

a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the jaguar (77 FR 50214). In that proposed rule, we proposed to designate approximately 339,220 ha (838,232 ac) as critical habitat in six units located in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. The comment period opened August 20, 2012, and closed October 19, 2012.

On March 12, 2013, we received a report from the Jaguar Recovery Team (described later in this document) entitled Jaguar Habitat Modeling and Database Update (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, entire) that included a revised habitat model for the jaguar in the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit. This report recommended defining habitat patches of less than 100 square kilometers (km

2

) (38.6 square miles (mi

2

)) 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 km

2

(32.4 mi

2

) 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 Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule, above). The revised physical and biological feature and PCEs resulted in changes to the boundaries of our original proposed critical habitat.

On July 1, 2013 (78 FR 39237), we announced the revisions described above to our proposed designation of critical habitat for the jaguar, which now included approximately 347,277 ha (858,137 ac) as critical habitat in six units located in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. We also announced 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. Additionally, we announced the reopening of the comment period. The comment period opened July 1, 2013, and closed August 9, 2013.

On August 15, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Service's motion to extend the deadline for publishing a final critical habitat designation for the jaguar to December 16, 2013. This rescheduled final rulemaking date allowed us to reopen the public comment period again, for which we had received multiple requests. On August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53390), we announced the reopening of the comment period for an additional 15 days. The comment period opened August 29, 2013, and closed September 13, 2013.

All previous Federal actions are described in the proposal and revised proposal to designate critical habitat for the jaguar under the Act published in the

Federal Register

(77 FR 50214; August 20, 2012 and 78 FR 39237; July 1, 2013, respectively) and the final rule clarifying the status of the jaguar in the United States (62 FR 39147; July 22, 1997).

Background

Below we provide a general discussion of jaguar habitat requirements. Additional background information on the jaguar, beyond what is provided below, can be found in the proposed jaguar critical habitat designation published in the

Federal Register

on August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50214), the revisions to our proposed designation of critical habitat for the jaguar published in the

Federal Register

on July 1, 2013 (78 FR 39237), and this final rule clarifying the status of the jaguar in the United States (62 FR 39147; July 22, 1997).

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 available in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands area is quite different from habitat in Central and South America, 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 López González (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 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 López González 2001, pp. 43-50; Boydston and López González 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 desertscrub, mesquite grassland, Madrean oak woodland, and pine-oak woodland in mountain ranges in southern Arizona. Additionally, another male jaguar has been documented utilizing Madrean evergreen woodland habitat in southern Arizona from 2011 through 2013 (see Table 1 in the “Class I Records” section, below). 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.

Jaguar Recovery Planning in Relation to Critical Habitat

Information currently available for northern jaguars is scant; therefore, we convened a binational Jaguar Recovery Team team in 2010 to synthesize information on the jaguar, focusing on a unit comprising jaguars in the northernmost portion of their range, the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit. The team comprises members from the United States and Mexico, and is composed of two subgroups: A technical subgroup and an implementation subgroup. Both subgroups have nearly equal representation from the United States and Mexico. The technical subgroup consists of feline ecologists, conservation biologists, and other

experts, who advise the Jaguar Recovery Team and the Service on appropriate short- and long-term actions necessary to recover the jaguar. The implementation subgroup consists of members who advise the technical subgroup and the Service on ways to achieve timely recovery with minimal social and economic impacts or costs. Specifically, the implementation subgroup consists of landowners and land and wildlife managers from Federal, state, tribal, and private entities. The Jaguar Recovery Team has two co-leaders, one from the United States and one from Mexico; both are members of the technical subgroup, though they serve as co-leaders for the entire Jaguar Recovery Team.

In April 2012, the Jaguar Recovery Team produced the Recovery Outline for the Jaguar. The Recovery Outline serves as an interim guidance document to direct recovery efforts, including recovery planning, for the jaguar until a full recovery plan is developed and approved (a draft recovery plan for the jaguar is expected to be completed in spring 2014). It includes a preliminary strategy for recovery of the species, and recommends high-priority actions to stabilize and recover the species. The Recovery Outline delineates two recovery units for the species, the Northwestern Recovery Unit (encompassing the United States and northwestern Mexico) and the Pan American Recovery Unit (encompassing the rest of the range). The recovery units are further divided into core or secondary areas. Lands within the United States are a part of the Borderlands Secondary Area within the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, p. 10; note that this map updates the map of the Northwestern Recovery Unit shown on p. 58 of the Recovery Outline for the Jaguar).

The Borderlands Secondary Area within the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit for the jaguar (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, p. 58; Sanderson and Fisher 2013, p. 10) is only a small portion of the jaguar's range. Because such a small portion occurs in the United States, researchers anticipate 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. These areas support some individuals during dispersal movements, provide small patches of habitat (perhaps in some cases with a few resident jaguars), and provide 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 López González 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 (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 40, 42), 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.

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 current range, with populations persisting in one of only four distinct xeric (extremely dry) habitats that occur within the species' range (Sanderson

et al.

2002, Appendix 1). 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 proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit to utilize physical and biological habitat features in the borderlands region is ecologically important to the recovery of the species; therefore, maintaining connectivity to Mexico is essential to the conservation of the jaguar.

Through an iterative process incorporating new information and expert opinion (as described in the Jaguar Habitat Modeling and Database Update report produced by Sanderson and Fisher (2013, entire)), the Jaguar Recovery Team developed and refined the habitat requirements for jaguars in the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit. For the portion of this recovery unit encompassing the United States, the habitat features providing jaguar habitat include areas of at least 100 km

2

(38.6 mi

2

) in size (the minimum area necessary to support one jaguar) in which can be found: (1) Tree cover from greater than 1 to 50 percent; (2) intermediately, moderately, or highly rugged terrain; (3) water within 10 km (6.2 mi); (4) an elevation of less than 2,000 meters (m) (6,562 feet (ft)); (5) Sierra Madre Occidental pine-oak forests; and (6) a Human Influence Index (HII) of less than 20 (habitat factors, habitat types, and masks as described in Sanderson and Fisher 2013, pp. 33-34, 38, and 41). Therefore, we are basing our definition of jaguar habitat in the United States on these features (see

Physical or Biological Features,

below).

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

In developing the final jaguar critical habitat designation, we reviewed public comments received on the proposed rule (77 FR 50214; August 20, 2012), the revision to the proposed rule, the draft economic analysis, and the draft environmental assessment (78 FR 39237; July 1, 2013 and 78 FR 53390; August 29, 2013).

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 habitat modeling report we received from the Jaguar Recovery Team in 2011 entitled Jaguar Habitat Modeling and Database (Sanderson and Fisher 2011, pp. 1-11), in which the habitat features preferred by the jaguar in the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit were described based on the best

available science and expert opinion of the Jaguar Recovery Team at that time.

In our revised proposed rule we modified the critical habitat boundaries based on new information received. Since August 20, 2012, the Jaguar Recovery Team continued to revise and refine the habitat features preferred by the jaguar through an iterative process based on additional information and expert opinion, resulting in an updated habitat modeling report entitled Jaguar Habitat Modeling and Database Update (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, entire) that we received on March 12, 2013. Changes to habitat features preferred by jaguars in the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit included: (1) Defining habitat patches of less than 100 km

2

(38.6 mi

2

) in size as too small to support a jaguar (the physical and biological feature formerly described areas of less than 84 km

2

(32.4 mi

2

) as too small); (2) a canopy cover from greater than 1 to 50 percent as suitable in the northern part of the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit (PCE 4 formerly included a range of 3 to 40 percent canopy cover); (3) delineating areas 2,000 m (6,562 ft) and higher as unsuitable (previously there was no PCE related to an upper-elevation limit); and (4) slightly diminishing (from up to or equal to 20 to less than 20) the level of the HII tolerated by jaguars in the northern part of the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit (formerly PCE 6, now PCE 7). When combined and analyzed with a geographic information system (GIS), 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 (see

Primary Constituent Elements for Jaguar,

below, for further information). 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 m (6,562 ft).

In addition to the changes described above, multiple photos of a jaguar in the Santa Rita Mountains taken since our August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50214), proposed designation provided additional information about the occupancy status of Unit 3 (Patagonia Unit) of jaguar critical habitat, which formerly contained only one jaguar record in the Patagonia Mountains from 1965 (see Table 1 in the “Class I Records” section, below). 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 recent jaguar sightings resulted in the changes noted in our July 1, 2013 (78 FR 39237), proposed rule.

In this final rule we are making the following changes. We are excluding and exempting areas from the final designation pursuant to sections 4(b)(2) and 4(a)(3) of the Act, respectively. We are excluding lands owned and managed by the Tohono O'odham Nation, and we are exempting lands owned and managed by Fort Huachuca. Figure 1 displays the excluded and exempted areas in relation to the final critical habitat designation. The exclusion of Tohono O'odham Nation lands in Unit 1 resulted in the appearance of five disconnected areas of land in Subunit 1a and of two disconnected areas of land in Subunit 1b. Figure 2 is a magnified view of Unit 1 displaying the excluded areas in relation to critical habitat for Unit 1. These areas that appear disconnected are not in fact disjunct, as there is continued jaguar habitat within the excluded areas that provides continuity and connectivity among the areas that appear disconnected. The exemption of Fort Huachuca did not result in the appearance of any disconnected areas. (See the Final Critical Habitat Designation section, below, for additional information).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

ER05MR14.000

ER05MR14.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

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 pursuant to 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 part of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical 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 or 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, soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.

Under the second part of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in 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. 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 geographical 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 insure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that affect habitat. 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.

In the following sections we will define the regulatory terms in the definition of critical habitat, as they apply to the jaguar, and then explain how the critical habitat boundaries were developed based on the application of these terms.

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. Based on our analysis, we are including areas as occupied that contain an undisputed Class I record at some time between 1962 to the present (September 11, 2013). 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 further evaluated these areas and have also determined these areas to be essential to the conservation of the jaguar. Our rationale for this approach is explained in the following sections.

Class I Records

Reports of jaguar sightings are sorted into multiple “classes” based on the degree of certainty that a jaguar was sighted. 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 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. Table 1 summarizes these records, below.

TABLE 1—Undisputed Class I * Jaguar Records for Arizona and New Mexico Used for Purposes of Determining Occupancy of Jaguar Critical Habitat, 1962-September 11, 2013

Date

Collector

Sex

Location

Circumstance/documentation

Biotic community

Information source

2013: 9/11, 8/1, 6/17, 5/31, 5/29, 5/17, 5/11, 4/27, 1/16

University of Arizona

Male (same as 2011 male based on pelage comparison)

Santa Rita Mountains

Trail camera photographs

Madrean evergreen woodland, semidesert grassland

USFWS Flickr site:

http://bit.ly/TapYhK.

2012: 12/31, 11/11, 11/10, 10/25

University of Arizona

Male (same as 2011 male based on pelage comparison)

Santa Rita Mountains

Trail camera photographs

Madrean evergreen woodland, semidesert grassland

USFWS Flickr site:

http://bit.ly/TapYhK.

2012: 9/23

AGFD

Male (same as 2011 male based on pelage comparison)

Santa Rita Mountains

Trail camera photograph

Semidesert grassland

USFWS:

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/Jaguar/fNR-jaguar-pics_Dec_2012B.docx.pdf.

2011: 11/19

D Fenn

Male (5th unique AZ-NM jaguar since 1996)

Whetstone Mountains

Treed by hunting dogs; photos and video

Madrean evergreen woodland

AGFD:

http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/jaguar/documents/Web%20Release%20jag%20reports%202012.02.24.pdf.

2008: 8/2

J Childs and E McCain

Male (Macho B)

Atascosa Mountains

Trail camera photograph

Madrean evergreen woodland

J Childs and E McCain, BJDP unpubl. data.

2008: 7/29

J Childs and E McCain

Unknown or Male (Macho B)

Tumacacori Mountains

Trail camera photograph (photo too fuzzy to identify jaguar)

Semidesert grassland

J Childs and E McCain, BJDP unpubl. data.

2007: 7/25, 5/7, 4/25, 4/22, 4/21, 4/3, 3/27, 3/26, 3/25, 3/7, 2/22, 2/12, 2/9, 1/25, 1/22, 1/19, 1/10, 1/1

J Childs and E McCain

Male (Macho B)

Coyote Mountains, Baboquivari Mountains

Trail camera photographs, video, tracks

Madrean evergreen woodland, semidesert grassland

J Childs and E McCain, BJDP unpubl. data; see also McCain and Childs 2008, pp. 3, 7.

2007: 2/22

J Childs and E McCain

Male (Macho B)

Baboquivari Mountains

500-lb calf depredation

Madrean evergreen woodland

J Childs and E McCain, BJDP unpubl. data; see also McCain and Childs 2008, pp. 3, 7.

2006: 12/29, 12/3, 11/20, 10/18, 10/15, 9/26, 6/9, 5/31, 5/27, 5/23, 5/21, 5/14, 5/13, 5/12, 5/10, 5/6, 5/5, 5/4, 5/2, 4/30, 4/28, 4/27, 4/23, 4/18, 4/3, 3/30, 3/27, 3/26

J Childs and E McCain

Male (Macho B)

Coyote Mountains, Baboquivari Mountains, Atascosa Mountains

Trail camera photographs, video, tracks

Madrean evergreen woodland, semidesert grassland, Sonoran desertscrub

J Childs and E McCain, BJDP unpubl. data; see also McCain and Childs 2008, pp. 3, 7.

2006: 2/20

W Glenn

Male (4th unique AZ-NM jaguar since 1996)

South of Animas Mountains on north end of San Luis Mountains

Photographs

Madrean evergreen woodland

AGFD unpubl. data; Childs and Childs 2008, p. 95.

2005: 12/17, 12/12, 11/18, 11/17, 11/16, 11/6, 11/5, 11/4, 7/29, 7/28, 7/26, 7/3, 6/8, 6/3, 1/12, 1/2

J Childs and E McCain

Male (Macho B)

Tumacacori Mountains, Atascosa Mountains

Trail camera photographs and tracks

Madrean evergreen woodland, semidesert grassland

J Childs and E McCain, BJDP unpubl. data; see also McCain and Childs 2008, pp. 3, 7.

2005: 9/26, 7/11

J Childs and E McCain

Unknown

Atascosa Mountains

Tracks

Madrean evergreen woodland

J Childs and E McCain, BJDP unpubl. data; see also McCain and Childs 2008, pp. 3, 7.

2004: 12/31, 12/29, 12/27, 12/19, 12/17, 12/12, 11/28, 11/8, 10/27, 9/26, 8/31

J Childs and E McCain

Male (Macho B)

Atascosa Mountains

Trail camera photographs and track

Madrean evergreen woodland, semidesert grassland

J Childs and E McCain, BJDP unpubl. data; see also McCain and Childs 2008, pp. 3, 7.

2004: 12/7, 9/12, 6/24

J Childs and E McCain

Unknown (possibly Macho A or possible 6th unique AZ-NM jaguar since 1996)

Atascosa Mountains

Trail camera photographs and track

Madrean evergreen woodland

J Childs and E McCain, BJDP unpubl. data; see also McCain and Childs 2008, pp. 3, 7; and McCain and Childs 2008, p. 5 for a description of why this individual could be Macho A or possibly another unique jaguar.

2004: 9/25

J Childs and E McCain

Male (Macho A)

Atascosa Mountains

Trail camera photograph

Madrean evergreen woodland

J Childs and E McCain, BJDP unpubl. data; see also McCain and Childs 2008, pp. 3, 7.

2003: 8/7

J Childs and E McCain

Male (Macho A)

Atascosa Mountains

Trail camera photograph

Madrean evergreen woodland

J Childs and E McCain, BJDP unpubl. data; see also McCain and Childs 2008, pp. 3, 7.

2001: 12/9

J Childs and E McCain

Male (Macho A; 3rd unique jaguar since 1996)

Atascosa Mountains

Trail camera photograph

Madrean evergreen woodland

J Childs and E McCain, BJDP unpubl. data; see also McCain and Childs 2008, pp. 3, 7.

1996: 8/31

J Childs

Male (Macho B; 2nd unique AZ-NM jaguar since 1996)

Baboquivari Mountains

Treed while lion hunting; photographs

Madrean evergreen woodland

Brown and López González 2001, p. 7, McCain and Childs 2008, p. 2.

1996: 3/7

W Glenn

Male (1st unique AZ-NM jaguar since 1996)

Peloncillo Mountains

Bayed while lion hunting with dogs; photographs

Madrean evergreen woodland

Glenn 1996; Brown and López González 2001, p. 6.

1995: 4/19

B Starrett

Unknown

Peloncillo Mountains

Photograph of track

Madrean evergreen woodland

AGFD unpubl. data; NMDGF unpubl. data.

1986: 12

J Klump

Male

Dos Cabezas Mountains

Bayed and killed while lion hunting with dogs

Madrean evergreen woodland

Brown and López González 2001, p. 7.

1971: 11/16

R Farley and T Cartier

Male

Santa Cruz River

Killed by boys duck hunting with shotguns

Madrean evergreen woodland, semidesert grassland

Brown and López González 2001, p. 7.

1965: 11/16

L McGee

Male

Patagonia Mountains

Shot while deer hunting

Madrean evergreen woodland

Brown and López González 2001, p. 7.

* Physical evidence (e.g., skin, skull, photograph, track) was reviewed and accepted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF), or other credible person(s). (BJDP=Borderlands Jaguar Detection Project).

There are several disputed Class I 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 (Brown and López González 2001, p. 7). As described in Johnson

et al.

(2011, p. 9), as well as from information provided during the

public comment period on our August 20, 2012, proposed critical habitat designation (77 FR 50214), 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 other exceptions are any records of the jaguar known as Macho B dating from October 3, 2008, until his final capture on March 2, 2009. We have determined that it is within this timeframe that female jaguar scat may have been used as scent lure at some trail camera locations within the Coronado National Forest that may have affected his behavior; therefore, we are not including these observations as undisputed Class I records.

Time of Listing

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 Endangered Species Conservation Act, 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 seven 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.

Occupancy at the Time of Listing

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 lifespan 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 (1972), presumably these areas would have been inhabited by jaguars when the species was listed in 1972.

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.

Reduced Jaguar Numbers

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 likelihood of detecting them. As evidence, only six, possibly seven, individual jaguars have been detected in the United States since 1982 (five, possibly six, individuals since 1996, as well as the jaguar shot in the Dos Cabezas Mountains in 1986; see Table 1, above), including two that have been documented utilizing two distinct mountain ranges, one of which encompassed approximately 1,359 km

2

(525 mi

2

) (McCain and Childs 2008, entire) (see “Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior” section, below). Therefore, we believe that undisputed 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.

Jaguar Detection Difficulty

In addition to lowered detection probabilities (the probability of detecting a jaguar when present) resulting from the rarity of animals, 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), as is the case for the jaguar. This fact 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, meaning it often contains 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).

Sampling Method Difficulty

Jaguars are difficult to detect due to their rarity, cryptic appearance, elusive behavior, and habitat complexity. Compounding the problem of low detection rates is that not all individuals can be detected using any one particular sampling method or even using multiple methods. 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). Attempting to detect rare species by using multiple sampling methods or surveying multiple times can increase detections or increase confidence that non-detections are true absences; however, this 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, so we cannot be sure that a lack of detection indicates the species was absent.

Summary

Based on the above information, we determine that areas in which jaguars have been documented from 1962 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 1962 to the present (September 11, 2013) may have been occupied by jaguars at the time of listing.

Occupancy Uncertainty

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, an argument could 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 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 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).

Physical or Biological Features

In accordance with sections 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 geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features 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, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.

We derive the specific physical or biological features essential for the jaguar from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the

Federal Register

on August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50214), in the proposed revision of critical habitat published in the

Federal Register

on July 1, 2013 (78 FR 39237), and in the information presented 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), the Digital Mapping in Support of Recovery Planning for the Northern Jaguar report (Sanderson and Fisher 2011, pp. 1-11), and the Jaguar Habitat Modeling and Update report (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, entire). We used the best scientific information available on habitat in the United States essential to the conservation of the jaguar as gathered by the Jaguar Recovery Team through the team's recovery planning effort. A complete list of information sources is available in our Literature Cited located on

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042 and at the field office responsible for the designation (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

above).

To define the physical and biological features required for jaguar habitat in the United States, we reviewed available information and supporting data that pertains to the habitat requirements of the jaguar, focusing 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), the 2011 Digital Mapping in Support of Recovery Planning for the Northern Jaguar preliminary report (Sanderson and Fisher 2011, pp. 1-11) and the 2013 Jaguar Habitat Modeling and Update report (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, entire), which we regard as the best available scientific information for the jaguar and its habitat needs in the northern portion of its range. To define the physical and biological features and associated PCEs required for jaguar habitat in the United States, we relied primarily on information compiled in the Jaguar Habitat Modeling and Database Update report (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, entire). In two cases we substituted data layers for which more detailed, higher-resolution data were available for the United States (see “Cover or Shelter” and “Habitats that are Protected from Disturbance or are Representative of the Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of a Species” sections, below). For a complete list of data sources, see our response to comment number 63 in our Summary of

Comments and Recommendations section.

We have determined that the jaguar requires the following physical or biological feature as further described below: 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, are below 2,000 m (6,562 feet (ft)), and have minimal human impact.

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 López González (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 in rugged terrain for resting that are removed from the impacts of human activity and influence (Jaguar Recovery 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 of the individual, 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 López González 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 km

2

(38.6 mi

2

) (López González 2011, pers. comm.). Additionally, a male in Sonora was documented through camera traps using an average home range of 84 km

2

(32 mi

2

) (López González 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 km

2

(525 mi

2

) 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 (López González 2011, pers. comm.), as well as the expert opinion of the technical subgroup of the Jaguar Recovery Team, which came to the consensus that areas less than 100 km

2

(38.6 mi

2

) were too small to support a jaguar (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, p. 30) 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 100 km

2

(38.6 mi

2

) in size 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 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 expansive open 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 feature of jaguar habitat are separated by valley bottoms that may not possess the feature described in this final rule. However, we also know that, based on home range sizes and research and monitoring, jaguars will use valley bottoms (for example, McCain and Childs 2008, p. 7) 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 (López González 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 (lb)) 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 lb), including lagomorphs (rabbit family) and coatis (

Nasua nasua

), accounted for less than 20 percent of biomass. Small prey, less than 1 kg (2 lb), 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 López González 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 López González 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 López González 2001, p. 51; 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, Hatten

et al.

(2005, p. 1026) analyzed distance to water as a feature of jaguar habitat using jaguar records from Arizona dating from 1900 to 2002, from which they selected 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 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 a jaguar habitat modeling exercise in New Mexico (Menke and Hayes 2003, pp. 15-16), as well.

In the jaguar habitat models developed by Sanderson and Fisher (2011, pp. 10-11; 2013, pp. 33-34) for the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit, 10 km (6.2 mi) was also determined to be the maximum distance from water that could still provide jaguar habitat. In addition, this distance was further acknowledged by the technical subgroup of the Jaguar Recovery Team 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).

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 López González 2001, pp. 43-50; Boydston and López González 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 López González (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 López González 2001, p. 48). This biotic community, however, is absent in the United States (Brown and Lowe 1980, map; Brown and López González 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 López González 2001, p. 45). Brown and López González (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 López González 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 López González 2001, p. 49).

The more recent sightings (2001-2007), as described in McCain and Childs (2008, pp. 3, 7), document jaguars in these same biotic communities (note that the Madrean evergreen woodland and semidesert grassland biotic communities encompass mesquite grassland, Madrean oak woodland, and pine-oak woodland habitats), and the most recent sightings of a jaguar in Arizona (2011-2013) were in Madrean evergreen woodland, as well (see Table 1 in the “Class I Records” section, above).

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 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).

Using the methodology described in Hatten

et al.

(2005, pp. 1025-1028), but with some modifications, Sanderson and Fisher (2011, pp. 1-11; and 2013, entire) created jaguar habitat models for the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit. In the latest version of the model (version 13), Sanderson and Fisher (2013, p. 13) used a data set of 453 jaguar observations (note that Table 1.3 incorrectly states 452 instead of 453) for which the description of the location was sufficient to place it with certainty within 10 km (6.2 mi) of its actual location, and for which a date to the nearest century was available (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, pp. 3-5 and Appendix 2). Sanderson and Fisher (2013, p. 6) substituted a digital layer describing ecoregions (World Wildlife Fund Ecoregions) for the digital biotic community layer based on Brown and Lowe (1980, map) and Brown (1994, entire), however. The reason for this was because the latter two references do not cover the entire Northwestern Recovery Unit for the jaguar; therefore, an appropriate substitution was required for modeling purposes. Within this ecoregion's digital layer, the category given the highest relative weight (0.2) within the United States is called Sierra Madre Occidental pine-oak forests, representing the best jaguar habitat within the borderlands region (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, p. 34). This category most closely resembles the Madrean evergreen woodland biotic community. There is no equivalent category for semidesert grassland in the ecoregions digital layer; instead, Sonoran desert and Chihuahuan desert cover all grassland and desert biotic communities. These two desert categories are given a very low relative weight (0.01), representing poorer quality jaguar habitat within the borderlands region (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, p. 34).

Sanderson and Fisher (2011, p. 7; 2013, pp. 5-6) also added a digital layer to capture canopy cover (called land cover in the reports), as represented by a digital layer called tree cover. In the latest version of the model (version 13), Sanderson and Fisher (2013, p. 20) analyzed the tree cover preferred by jaguars in the Jalisco Core Area (the southernmost part of the Northwestern Recovery Unit) separately from tree cover in all other areas (note that p. 15 of this report incorrectly states that the Sinaloa Secondary Area is included with the Jalisco Core Area in this analysis) to reflect the major habitat shift from the dry tropical forest of Jalisco, Mexico, to the thornscrub vegetation of Sonora, Mexico. The results of these analyses indicate that jaguars in the southernmost part of the Northwestern Recovery Unit (the Jalisco Core Area) seem to inhabit a wider range of tree cover values (greater than 1 to 100 percent), whereas jaguars throughout the rest of the Northwestern Recovery Unit (including the United States) appear to inhabit a narrower range of tree cover values (greater than 1 to 50 percent) (Sanderson and Fisher, p. 20).

Therefore, based on the information above, we identify Madrean evergreen woodlands and semidesert grasslands containing greater than 1 to 50 percent tree cover (or canopy cover) as an essential component of the physical or biological feature essential for the conservation of the jaguar in the United States. Though slightly different than the habitat characteristics included in the latest habitat model produced by the Jaguar Recovery Team, Madrean evergreen woodland and semidesert grassland as described by Brown and Lowe (1980, map) and Brown (1994, entire, including appendices) are included instead of Sierra Madre Occidental pine-oak, Sonoran desert, and Chihuahuan desert vegetation communities described by the World Wildlife Fund Ecoregion data layer because of the higher resolution of these data and more accurate representation of the vegetation communities in the United States and borderlands region and their importance to jaguars within this area (as described above; see also Table 1 in the “Class I Reports” section, above). We directly incorporate the tree cover recommendation within the northern part of the Northwestern Recovery Unit (greater than 1 to 50 percent; Sanderson and Fisher 2013, p. 33) as part of this essential physical or biological feature component.

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 most recent Sanderson and Fisher (2013, p. 17) habitat model for the Northwestern Recovery Unit for the jaguar 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 López González 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 López González 2005, p. 54), indicating jaguars were found in more rugged areas in these studies.

Two modeling exercises incorporating ruggedness 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-km

2

(0.4-mi

2

) 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, through the most recent habitat modeling efforts for the jaguar in the Northwestern Recovery Unit, Sanderson and Fisher (2013, pp. 33-34) determined that intermediately, moderately, or highly rugged terrain represented the best habitat available for jaguars in the northwestern-most part of their range.

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.

Elevation

—Elevation is a component of jaguar habitat in the northwestern-most portion of its range (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, pp. 5, 6, Appendix 2). Based on a visual analysis of the frequency of jaguar observations at different elevations within the northwestern-most portion of the species' range, the technical subgroup of the Jaguar Recovery Team determined that areas above 2,000 m (6,562 ft) did not provide jaguar habitat, as only 3.3 percent (15 of 453) of the observations utilized in the most recent jaguar habitat modeling effort occurred above this elevation (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, pp. 19, 29; note that p. 19 incorrectly states 20 observations above 2,000 m (6,562 ft) instead of 15, and Table 1.3 on p. 13 incorrectly states 452 jaguar observations total instead of 453). In the most recent habitat model for the jaguar in the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit, Sanderson and Fisher (2013, pp. 19, 29) incorporated this upper-elevation limit and excluded areas above 2,000 m (6,562 ft). Therefore, based on this information, we identify areas of less than 2,000 m (6,562 ft) in elevation as an essential component of the physical or biological feature essential for the conservation of the jaguar in the United States.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring

As demonstrated in Table 1, above, from 1962 to the present all undisputed Class I jaguar observations for which the sex of the animal could be determined have been male individuals. Few records of females exist within the United States (see Brown and López González 2001, pp. 6-9 for records from 1900-2000), and even fewer records of jaguar breeding events in the United States have been documented. The most recent known breeding event is from over 100 years ago in 1910 of a female jaguar with one cub at the head of Chevlon Canyon in the Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona (Brown and López González 2001, p. 9). Further, as described in the

Jaguar Recovery Planning in Relation to Critical Habitat

section, above, the recovery function and value of critical habitat within the United States is to 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 (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 40, 42). Since the last known breeding event in the United States was in 1910, the breeding habitat for jaguars in the United States is not clearly understood. Further, while some assessment of breeding habitat has been conducted in Mexico, this habitat is different than the habitat in the United States. Therefore we are not able to identify any additional habitat features needed for purposes of reproduction, beyond those habitat features already identified.

Habitats That Are Protected From Disturbance or Are Representative of the Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of a 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; Núñez

et al.

2002, p. 100; Taber

et al.

2002, p. 630; Chávez 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 was 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 López González 2001, p. 7). Jaguars are protected by Federal law through the Act and by State law in Arizona and 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. 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, 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 (Núñez 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 (Núñez 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) and New Mexico (Menke and Hayes 2003, pp. 9-13; Robinson

et al.

2006, pp. 10, 15, 18-20), and the habitat models developed by Sanderson and Fisher (2011, pp. 5-11 and 2013, entire) 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 km

2

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 ha (10 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 models developed by Sanderson and Fisher (2011, pp. 5-11 and 2013, pp. 33-42) include 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 km

2

, railroads, major roads, navigable rivers, coastlines, stable nighttime lighting, urban polygons, and land cover) to calculate a composite HII for 1-km

2

(0.4-mi

2

) grid cells (pixels) worldwide. These values could range from 0 to 64, with 0 representing no human influence and 64 representing the maximum human influence possible using all 8 measures of human presence.

In the most recent version of the habitat model (version 13), Sanderson and Fisher (2013, pp. 20, 34) analyzed the HII preferred by jaguars in the Jalisco Core Area (the southernmost part of the Northwestern Recovery Unit) separately from the HII in all other areas (note that p. 15 of this report incorrectly states that the Sinaloa Secondary Area is included with the Jalisco Core Area in this analysis) to recognize that jaguars may respond more tolerantly to human influence in the south than they do in the north. The results of these analyses indicate that jaguars in the southernmost part of the Northwestern Recovery Unit (the Jalisco Core Area) seem to inhabit a wider range of HII values (less than 30), whereas jaguars throughout the rest of the Northwestern Recovery Unit (including the United States) appear to inhabit a narrower range of HII values (less than 20) (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, pp. 20, 34).

Therefore, based on this information, we identify areas in which the HII calculated over 1 km

2

(0.4 mi

2

) is less than 20 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-km

2

(0.4-mi

2

) area.

Primary Constituent Elements for Jaguar

Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to identify the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of jaguar in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.

Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent elements specific to jaguars are:

Expansive open spaces in the southwestern United States of at least 100 km

2

(38.6 mi

2

) 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 (

Quercus

spp.), juniper (

Juniperus

spp.), and pine (

Pinus

spp.) 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 below 2,000 m (6,562 feet) in elevation; and

(7) Are characterized by minimal to no human population density, no major roads, or no stable nighttime lighting over any 1-km

2

(0.4-mi

2

) area.

Because habitat in the United States is at the edge of the species' northern range, and is marginal compared to known habitat throughout the range, we have determined that all of the primary constituent elements discussed must be present in each specific area to constitute critical 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,

below).

Special Management Considerations or Protections

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 that 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; 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 (perhaps in some cases becoming resident in the United States), 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 López González 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 designated 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 designated 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 feature 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, 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, we know of no plans to construct additional security fences in the designated 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 continue to occur on a voluntary basis.

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 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 and 2013, entire) incorporate low levels of human influence when mapping potential jaguar habitat in the United States. Special management considerations of the physical and biological feature essential to the conservation of the jaguar may be needed to alleviate the effects on jaguar habitat of new road construction or construction or expansion of power line and pipeline projects; human developments; mining operations; and ground-based military activities. 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.

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 (Table 1 in the “Class I Records,” 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 proposed 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 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 López González 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 the features these areas 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 2011 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 described a level of uncertainty regarding jaguar use of areas with moderate tree cover 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 as those areas without a Class I observation 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 areas that may have been occupied that are also 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 and Empire Mountains and northwestern extent of the Whetstone Mountains, and a north-south connection area between the southern extent of the Whetstone Mountains and the Huachuca Mountains (including the Mustang Mountains).

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.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate 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), Digital Mapping in Support of Recovery Planning for the Northern Jaguar report (Sanderson and Fisher 2011, pp. 1-11), and Jaguar Habitat Modeling and Database Update report (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, entire), which we regard as

the best available information for the jaguar and its habitat needs in the northern portion of its range. A complete list of information sources is available in our Literature Cited located on

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042 and at the field office responsible for the designation (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

above).

In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If, after identifying occupied areas, a determination is made that those areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of the species, in accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we then consider whether designating additional areas—outside those currently occupied—are essential for the conservation of the species. We are designating critical habitat in areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing in 1972. 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

Areas Essential for the Conservation of Jaguars,

above, it is our determination that the lands described 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. We also are designating specific areas without a Class I observation outside the geographical area that may have been occupied by the species at the time of listing. These subunits provide connectivity between subunits that may have been occupied and Mexico because we have determined that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

As discussed above, we are defining the areas that may be occupied by jaguars to include rugged mountain ranges in southeastern Arizona and extreme southwestern New Mexico: (1) In which an undisputed Class I record has been documented (see Table 1 in the “Class I Records” section, above) between 1962 and the present (September 11, 2013), and (2) that currently contain the physical or biological feature described above (see below for the steps we followed to delineate critical habitat boundaries). Therefore, occupied areas may include the Baboquivari, Quinlan, Coyote, Pajarito, Atascosa, Tumacacori, Patagonia, Canelo Hills, Huachuca, Grosvenor Hills, Santa Rita, Empire, 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 critical habitat 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 (100 km

2

(38.6 mi

2

)) to meet the expansive open spaces requirement. 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 feature described above.

We are also designating specific areas without a Class I observation outside the geographical area that may have been occupied by the species at the time of listing. These areas provide connectivity to Mexico, or to another area that may have been occupied that provides connectivity to Mexico (see

Areas Essential for the Conservation of Jaguars,

above), because such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

We delineated (mapped) critical habitat boundaries using the following steps:

(1) We mapped areas containing PCEs 3, 4, 5, and 7 as determined from GIS data on water availability, vegetation community, tree cover, ruggedness, and human influence (for a list of data sources, see our response to comment 63 in the

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

section). We did not use data describing distribution of native prey to map areas because comprehensive, consistent data regarding prey distribution across Arizona and New Mexico is lacking. Therefore, we relied on the best information that is readily available from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (Hunt Arizona 2012 Edition, available at:

http://www.azgfd.gov/regs/HuntArizona2012.pdf

) and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (Harvest Information, available at:

http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/recreation/hunting/

).

Using this information, we determined that white-tailed deer and javelina (the preferred prey of the jaguar in the northwesternmost part of its range) have been present in each critical habitat unit (described in Final Critical Habitat Designation, below) in Arizona for at least 50 years, and have been successfully hunted in each hunt unit overlapping jaguar critical habitat for the same period of time (Game Management Units 30A, 34A, 34B, 35A, 35B, 36A, 36B, and 36C). Historical harvest information from New Mexico is not as readily available; however, based on the most recent harvest information, white-tailed deer and javelina are available in Unit 5 of jaguar critical habitat (Game Management Unit 27), and are likely available in Unit 6 (both described in Final Critical Habitat Designation, below) of jaguar critical habitat (Game Management Unit 26; we can determine that javelina have been successfully harvested in this Game Management Unit, but this particular unit lumps all deer together, so we are unable to distinguish hunt success between mule deer and white-tailed deer). Therefore, while we were unable to map prey distribution within Arizona and New Mexico, we believe adequate levels of prey are available, and have been available for at least 50 years in Arizona.

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 at least one undisputed Class I record of a jaguar from 1962 through September 11, 2013 (Table 1 in the “Class I Records” section, above). 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-km

2

(0.4-mi

2

) 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 did not meet the minimum size criterion of 100 km

2

(38.6 mi

2

) 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 HII was 20 or more (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-km

2

(0.4-mi

2

) 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 less than 20 (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 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. We also removed areas above 2,000 m (6,562 ft) (PCE 6). Small areas of 1 km

2

(0.4 mi

2

) 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. For the same reason, we also removed small areas of 1 km

2

(0.4 mi

2

) or less (our tolerance buffer as described above) around the edges of the polygons if, due to the steps described above, they were disconnected or connected only by corners.

(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 connected directly to Mexico.

Therefore, we are designating six units based on sufficient elements of the essential 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 within the Northwestern Recovery Unit.

When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final rule, 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 final rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands will 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 designating critical habitat lands that we have determined may have been 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 that may have been occupied at the time of listing that we have determined are also essential. In our analysis we also evaluated the areas we consider occupied at the time of listing and determined 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 (see

Areas Essential for the Conservation of Jaguars,

above).

The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public on

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042, and at the field office responsible for the designation (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

above).

Final Critical Habitat Designation

We are designating 6 units as critical habitat for the jaguar. The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best assessment at this time of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. Those 6 units 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, 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 2 lists both the unoccupied units and those that may have been occupied at the time of listing.

Table 2—Occupancy of Jaguar by Designated Critical Habitat Units

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:

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 Mexico)

Yes.

6—San Luis Unit:

San Luis Mountains (New Mexico)

Yes.

The approximate area of each critical habitat unit is shown in Table 3.

Table 3—Designated Critical Habitat Units for Jaguar

Unit or subunit

Federal

Ha

Ac

State

Ha

Ac

Tribal

Ha

Ac

Private

Ha

Ac

Total

Ha

Ac

1a—Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit

4,396

10,862

9,239

22,831

0

0

3,290

8,130

16,925

41,823

1b—Southern Baboquivari Subunit

624

1,543

6,157

15,213

0

0

1,843

4,555

8,624

21,312

2—Atascosa Unit

53,807

132,961

2,296

5,672

0

0

2,522

6,231

58,625

144,865

3—Patagonia Unit

101,354

250,452

11,847

29,274

0

0

29,046

71,775

142,248

351,501

4a—Whetstone Subunit

16,066

39,699

5,445

13,455

0

0

3,774

9,325

25,284

62,479

4b—Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit

532

1,313

4,612

11,396

0

0

0

0

5,143

12,710

4c—Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit

1,350

3,336

2,981

7,366

0

0

3,391

8,379

7,722

19,081

5—Peloncillo Unit

28,393

70,160

7,861

19,426

0

0

5,317

13,138

41,571

102,724

6—San Luis Unit

0

0

0

0

0

0

3,122

7,714

3,122

7,714

Grand Total

206,522

510,326

50,437

124,633

0

0

52,304

129,247

309,263

764,207

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.

Unit 1: Baboquivari Unit

Subunit 1a—Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit:

Subunit 1a consists of 16,925 ha (41,823 ac) in the northern Baboquivari, Saucito, Quinlan, and Coyote Mountains in Pima County, Arizona. The main, larger section of this subunit is generally bounded by the eastern boundary of the Tohono O'odham Nation to the west and north, the western side of the Altar Valley to the east, and up to and including Leyvas Canyon and Three Peaks to the south. There are four small areas of land that are disconnected from the main section of this subunit. One is a privately owned area within the boundaries of the Tohono O'odham Nation approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) west of the main, largest section and approximately 22.7 km (14.1 mi) south of State Highway 86. The second largest area is almost directly north of the main, largest section and is primarily Federally and State owned, with a small amount of private land included within the boundary. Between this area and the main, largest section is a small piece of State land included within the boundary. The last area is north and slightly west of the main section, and is a privately owned area within the boundaries of the Tohono O'odham Nation. Land ownership within the entire unit includes approximately 4,396 ha (10,862 ac) of Federal 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” section, above), and it may be currently occupied, based on jaguar photos from 1996 and from 2001-2008 (see Table 1 in the “Class I Records” section, above). 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. Activities that may require special management may include, for example, habitat clearing, the construction of facilities, expansion of linear projects that may fragment jaguar habitat, some fuels-management activities, and some prescribed fire.

Subunit 1b—Southern Baboquivari Subunit:

Subunit 1b consists of 8,624 ha (21,312 ac) in the southern Baboquivari Mountains in Pima County, Arizona. This subunit is generally bounded by the eastern boundary of the Tohono O'odham Nation 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. There is one small, privately owned area within the boundaries of the Tohono O'odham Nation that is disconnected from the main section of this subunit. It is located approximately 1.2 km (0.75 mi) west of the main, largest section and approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) north of the U.S.-Mexico border. Land ownership within the unit includes approximately 624 ha (1,543 ac) of Federal 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 (144,865 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” section, above), and it may be currently occupied based on multiple photos of two, or possibly three, jaguars from 2001-2008 (see Table 1 in the “Class I Records” section, above). 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. Activities that may require special management may include, for example, habitat clearing, the construction of facilities, expansion of linear projects that may fragment jaguar habitat, some fuels-management activities, and some prescribed fire.

Unit 3: Patagonia Unit

Unit 3 consists of 142,248 ha (351,501 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 101,354 ha (250,452 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, and National Park Service. 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” section, above) and currently occupied based on photos taken from October 2012, through September 11, 2013, of a male jaguar in the Santa Rita Mountains (see Table 1 in the “Class I Records” section, above). 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 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. Activities that may require special management may include, for example, habitat clearing, the construction of facilities, expansion of linear projects that may fragment jaguar habitat, some fuels-management activities, and some prescribed fire.

Unit 4: Whetstone Unit

Subunit 4a—Whetstone Subunit:

Subunit 4a consists of 25,284 ha (62,479 ac) in the Whetstone Mountains, including connections to the Santa Rita and Huachuca 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 4a occupied at the time of listing (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972) (see “Occupied Area at the Time of Listing” section, above), and, based on photographs taken in 2011, it may be currently occupied (see Table 1 in the “Class I Records” section, above). 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 land management activities, grazing, and recreational activities throughout the year, including, but not limited to, hiking, camping, birding, horseback riding, picnicking, sightseeing, and hunting. Activities that may require special management may include, for example, habitat clearing, the construction of facilities, expansion of linear projects that may fragment jaguar habitat, some fuels-management activities, and some prescribed fire.

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 7,722 ha (19,081 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 1,350 ha (3,336 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 and Bureau of Land Management. 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 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 (102,724 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” section, above), and it may be currently occupied based on a track documented in 1995 and photographs taken in 1996 (see Table 1 in the “Class I Records” section, above). 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. Activities that may require special management may include, for example, habitat clearing, the construction of facilities, expansion of linear projects that may fragment jaguar habitat, some fuels-management activities, and some prescribed fire.

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” section, above), and it may be currently occupied based on photographs taken in 2006 (see Table 1 in the “Class I Records” section, above). Unit 6 contains almost all elements of the physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the jaguar except for expansive open space of at least 100 km

2

(38.6 mi

2

). This unit is included because, while by itself it does not provide at least 100 km

2

(38.6 mi

2

) 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. Activities that may require special management may include, for example, habitat clearing, the construction of facilities, expansion of linear projects that may fragment jaguar habitat, some fuels-management activities, and some prescribed fire.

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 and 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 (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 not likely to adversely affect critical habitat and do not require formal consultation if the Service concurs in writing with that Federal action agency determination. Examples of these actions may include some fuels-management activities, prescribed fire, or closing and re-vegetating roads.

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 either, although due to the adverse effects, these actions may require formal consultation. We anticipate that actions consistent with the stated goals or recovery actions of the Recovery Outline for the Jaguar (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, entire) 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 feature 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 that may fragment jaguar habitat and 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, entire) 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 jaguar critical habitat. We are aware of two large-scale mining operations. One is the Rosemont Mine that has been evaluated within jaguar revised proposed critical habitat (this consultation was completed prior to this final rule designating critical habitat). We have evaluated this project through the section 7 consultation process, and our determination is that it does not constitute destruction or adverse modification of jaguar critical habitat. The other is the Hermosa Mine, but this project is only in the planning phase and the Service has not received mine development plans. Consequently, section 7 consultation has not been initiated.

We are aware of two large-scale mining operations. One is the Rosemont Mine that has been evaluated within jaguar revised proposed critical habitat (this consultation was completed prior to this final rule designating critical habitat). We have evaluated this project through the section 7 consultation process, and our determination is that it does not constitute destruction or adverse modification of jaguar critical habitat. The other is the Hermosa Mine but this is only in the planning phase and the Service has not received mine development plans. Consequently, section 7 consultation has not been initiated.

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 geographical 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.”

We consult with the military on the development and implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs developed by military installations located within the range of the critical habitat designation for the jaguar to determine if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of Defense lands with completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the final critical habitat designation.

Approved INRMPs

Fort Huachuca—Unit 3 and Subunit 4c, Arizona

Fort Huachuca is located in Cochise County, in southeast Arizona, about 24 km (15 mi) north of the border with Mexico. Fort Huachuca is home to the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and the U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM)/9th Army Signal Command. There are approximately of 6,421 ha (15,867 ac) of critical habitat on Fort Huachuca. Approximately 6,117 ha (15,115 ac) are in Unit 3, and approximately 304 ha (752 ac) are in Subunit 4c.

Habitat features essential to jaguar conservation exist on Fort Huachuca. Nearly 95 percent of the activities on Fort Huachuca are military intelligence and communications systems testing and training. Other activities on the installation include field-training exercises, aviation activities, live-fire qualification and training, vehicle maneuver training, and administrative and support activities. Fort Huachuca's military mission is not heavily land-based. Generally, direct and repeated impacts have been restricted to localized areas. Fort Huachuca has an approved INRMP, completed in 2002 and updated in 2013 to specifically address the jaguar. Appendix 7 was added to focus on specific benefits of the INRMP to federally listed species, including the jaguar. Appendix 7 outlines how INRMP management actions provide conservation benefits for the jaguar. These actions include: ecosystem and hunting management intended to ensure adequate jaguar prey; water resource protection measures; fire management activities that maintain canopy cover; prohibition of recreation at night; briefings on threatened and endangered species; and a cooperative relationship with the University of Arizona's Wild Cat Research and Conservation Center. The U.S. Army is committed to working closely with the Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department to continually refine the existing INRMP as part of the Sikes Act's INRMP review process. Based on our review of the INRMP for this military installation, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we

have determined that the portion of Unit 3 and Subunit 4c within this installation, identified as meeting the definition of critical habitat, is subject to the INRMP, and that conservation efforts identified in this INRMP will provide a benefit to the jaguar. Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act.

Fort Huachuca's 2013 INRMP includes benefits for jaguars and their habitat that were not included in their previous INRMP. The INRMP protects the PCEs, through:

(1) Providing connectivity to Mexico

a. Providing connectivity to Mexico through lands owned by the Fort by maintaining wildlife-permeable fencing around the perimeter of the Fort;

b. Minimal training and testing occurring in the rugged areas of the Huachuca Mountains because the vast majority of training and testing can effectively be conducted elsewhere (access to the mountains is limited by rugged topography and single lane, four-wheel drive dirt roads);

c. Maintaining large open areas in the mountains on the Fort by avoiding construction activities in those areas;

d. Developing partnerships to protect land and natural resources beyond the installation and across administrative boundaries;

i. Obtaining conservation easements on private lands from private landowners within the Sierra Vista subwatershed (an area of approximately 6,475 km

2

(2,500 mi

2

) in size containing the Fort, City of Sierra Vista, Huachuca City, and most of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area) to reduce the potential for incompatible land use by buffering agricultural and undeveloped areas under airspace and to manage the regional water table adjacent to the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area through the Army Compatible Use Buffer Program.

(2) Containing adequate levels of native prey

a. Employing an ecosystem management approach benefiting all native species, including jaguars and their prey;

b. Coordinating with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to limit the number of deer and javelina hunting permits issued within the Fort's boundaries to ensure adequate prey are available for the top predators known to occur on the installation.

(3) Including surface water sources w

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.