[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39237-39250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15688]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AX13


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the public comment period on the August 20, 2012, proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the jaguar (Panthera onca) under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and we announce 
revisions to our proposed designation of critical habitat for the 
jaguar. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis 
and draft environmental assessment of the revised proposed designation 
of critical habitat for jaguar and an amended required determinations 
section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment period to allow 
all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the 
revised proposed rule, the associated draft economic analysis and draft 
environmental assessment, and the amended required determinations 
section. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they 
will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. In addition, 
we announce a public informational session and public hearing on the 
revised proposed designation of critical habitat for the jaguar.

DATES: Written comments: The comment period for the proposed rule 
published August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50214), is reopened. We will consider 
comments received or postmarked on or before August 9, 2013. Comments 
submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 
ADDRESSES) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 
date.
    Public informational session and public hearing: We will hold a 
public informational session and public hearing on this proposed rule 
on July 30, 2013, at Buena High School Performing Arts Center, 5225 
Buena School Blvd., Sierra Vista, Arizona 85615. There will be an 
informational meeting from 3:30-5:00 p.m., and the public hearing will 
occur from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the same location.

ADDRESSES:
    Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed rule, 
draft economic analysis, and draft environmental assessment on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-
0042 or by mail from the Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the 
following methods, or at the public hearing:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments by searching for Docket No. FWS-
R2-ES-2012-0042, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit comments by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: 
Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042; Division of 
Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 
N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
    Public informational session and public hearing: The public

[[Page 39238]]

informational session and hearing will be held at Buena High School 
Performing Arts Center, 5225 Buena School Blvd., Sierra Vista, Arizona 
85615. People needing reasonable accommodation in order to attend and 
participate in the public hearing should contact Steve Spangle, Field 
Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Office, as 
soon as possible (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Fish and 
Wildlife Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Drive, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 
85021; by telephone (602-242-0210); or by facsimile (602-242-2513). 
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call 
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We are reopening the comment period for our proposed critical 
habitat designation for the jaguar that was published in the Federal 
Register on August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50214). We are specifically seeking 
comments on the revised proposed designation and the draft economic and 
environmental analyses, which are now available, for the revised 
proposed critical habitat designation; see ADDRESSES for information on 
how to submit your comments. We will consider information and 
recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly 
interested in comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit 
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be 
prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of jaguar habitat;
    (b) What areas occupied at the time of listing (1972) (or currently 
occupied) that contain features essential to the conservation of the 
species we should include in the designation and why;
    (c) What period of time surrounding the time of listing (1972) 
should be used to determine occupancy and why, and whether or not data 
from 1982 to the present should be used in this determination;
    (d) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change;
    (e) What areas not occupied at the time of listing (and that do not 
contain all of the primary constituent elements comprising proposed 
jaguar critical habitat) are essential for the conservation of the 
species and why; and
    (f) If an area is essential but was not occupied at the time of 
listing, what are the habitat features that are essential, and which of 
these features are the most important?
    (3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the jaguar and proposed critical habitat.
    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation; in particular, we seek information on any impacts on small 
entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas 
from the proposed designation that exhibit these impacts.
    (6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic 
impacts in the draft economic analysis is complete and accurate and the 
description of the environmental impacts in the draft environmental 
assessment is complete and accurate.
    (7) If lands owned and managed by Fort Huachuca (Fort) should be 
considered for exemption because the integrated natural resources 
management plan for the Fort currently benefits the jaguar, whether or 
not management activities specifically address the species.
    (8) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (77 
FR 50214; August 20, 2012) during the initial comment period from 
August 20, 2012, to October 19, 2012, please do not resubmit them. We 
have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully 
consider them in the preparation of our final rule. Our final 
determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration 
all written comments and any additional information we receive during 
both comment periods. On the basis of public comments and other 
relevant information, we may, during the development of our final 
determination on the proposed critical habitat designation, find that 
areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the revised 
proposed rule, draft economic analysis, or draft environmental 
assessment by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We 
request that you send comments only by the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted 
on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing the revised proposed rule, draft 
economic analysis, and draft environmental assessment, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042, or by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological 
Services Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule, the draft 
economic analysis, and the draft environmental assessment on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2012-
0042, or by mail from the Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat for jaguar in this document. For 
more information on the species, the species' habitat, and

[[Page 39239]]

previous Federal actions concerning the jaguar, refer to the proposed 
designation of critical habitat, published in the Federal Register on 
August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50214). The proposed rule is available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042) or 
from the Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

    On August 20, 2012, we published a proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat for the jaguar (77 FR 50214). In that proposed rule, 
we proposed to designate approximately 838,232 acres (ac) (339,220 
hectares (ha)) as critical habitat in six units located in Pima, Santa 
Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. 
That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending October 19, 2012. We 
received requests for a public hearing; therefore, a public hearing 
will be held (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
    In 2013, we received a report from the Jaguar Recovery Team that 
included a revised habitat model for jaguar in the proposed 
Northwestern Recovery Unit (Sanderson and Fisher 2013, entire). This 
report recommended defining habitat patches of less than 100 square 
kilometers (km) (38.6 square miles (mi)) in size as unsuitable for 
jaguars; therefore, we incorporated this information into the physical 
and biological feature for the jaguar, which formerly described areas 
of less than 84 square km (32.4 square mi) as unsuitable. Additionally, 
the report recommended slight changes to some of the habitat features 
we used to describe the primary constituent elements (PCEs) comprising 
jaguar critical habitat (see Changes from Previously Proposed Critical 
Habitat, below). The revised physical and biological feature and PCEs 
resulted in changes to the boundaries of our original proposed critical 
habitat, and we are revising our proposal for jaguar critical habitat 
in this document. In this revised rule, we propose to designate 
approximately 858,137 ac (347,277 ha) as critical habitat in six units 
located in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo 
County, New Mexico.

Critical Habitat

    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas 
within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is 
listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may require special management considerations or protection, and 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at 
the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is 
made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or 
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions 
affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their 
proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

Changes From Previously Proposed Critical Habitat

    On August 20, 2012, we published in the Federal Register a proposed 
rule to designate critical habitat for the jaguar (77 FR 50214). We 
based the physical and biological feature and PCEs on a preliminary 
report we received from the Jaguar Recovery Team in 2011, in which the 
habitat features preferred by the jaguar were described based on the 
best available science and expert opinion of the team at that time.
    Since then, the Jaguar Recovery Team continued to revise and refine 
these habitat features, resulting in a habitat model that we received 
in 2013. The changes included: (1) Defining habitat patches of less 
than 100 square km (38.6 square mi) in size as unsuitable (the physical 
and biological feature formerly described areas of less than 84 square 
km (32.4 square mi) as unsuitable); (2) delineating areas 2,000 meters 
(6,562 feet) and higher as unsuitable (previously there was no PCE 
related to an upper-elevation limit); (3) including a canopy cover from 
greater than 1 to 50 percent as suitable (PCE 4 formerly included a 
range of 3 to 40 percent canopy cover); and (4) slightly diminishing 
the level of human influence tolerated by jaguars in the northern part 
of the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit (PCE 6). When combined, 
these changes added some new areas containing all of the PCEs, while 
other areas no longer contained all of the PCEs, and therefore were 
removed. An increase in area was usually due to the increased range in 
canopy cover (from greater than 1 to 50 percent, instead of 3 to 40 
percent), while a decrease in area was usually due to the upper 
elevation limit of 2,000 meters (6,562 feet).
    In addition to the changes described above, recent photos (October 
2012 through January 2013) have been taken of a jaguar in the Santa 
Rita Mountains. While our understanding of the habitat features did not 
change drastically between 2012 and 2013, the combination of a slightly 
different physical and biological feature and several PCEs (as 
described above) and the new jaguar sightings have resulted in the 
proposed revisions to our August 20, 2012, proposed critical habitat 
rule for the jaguar that are described in this document.
Primary Constituent Elements for Jaguars
    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
feature and habitat characteristics required to sustain the jaguar's 
vital life-history functions in the Northwestern Recovery Unit and the 
United States, we determine that the primary constituent elements 
specific to jaguars are: Expansive open spaces in the southwestern 
United States of at least 100 square km (38.6 square mi) in size which:
    (1) Provide connectivity to Mexico;
    (2) Contain adequate levels of native prey species, including deer 
and javelina, as well as medium-sized prey such as coatis, skunks, 
raccoons, or jackrabbits;
    (3) Include surface water sources available within 20 km (12.4 mi) 
of each other;
    (4) Contain from greater than 1 to 50 percent canopy cover within 
Madrean evergreen woodland, generally recognized by a mixture of oak, 
juniper, and pine trees on the landscape, or semidesert grassland 
vegetation communities, usually characterized by Pleuraphis mutica 
(tobosagrass) or Bouteloua eriopoda (black grama) along with other 
grasses;
    (5) Are characterized by intermediately, moderately, or highly 
rugged terrain;
    (6) Are characterized by minimal to no human population density, no 
major roads, or no stable nighttime lighting over any 1-square-km (0.4-
square-mi) area; and
    (7) Are below 2,000 m (6,562 feet) in elevation.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing six units as critical habitat for the jaguar. The 
critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best 
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for 
the jaguar. The six units we propose as critical habitat are: (1) 
Baboquivari Unit divided into subunits (1a) Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit, 
including the Northern Baboquivari, Saucito, Quinlan, and Coyote 
Mountains, and (1b) the Southern Baboquivari Subunit; (2) Atascosa 
Unit, including the Pajarito, Atascosa, and

[[Page 39240]]

Tumacacori Mountains; (3) Patagonia Unit, including the Patagonia, 
Santa Rita, Empire, and Huachuca Mountains, and the Canelo and 
Grosvenor Hills; (4) Whetstone Unit, divided into subunits (4a) 
Whetstone Subunit, (4b) Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit, and (4c) 
Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit; (5) Peloncillo Unit, including the 
Peloncillo Mountains both in Arizona and New Mexico; and (6) San Luis 
Unit, including the northern extent of the San Luis Mountains at the 
New Mexico-Mexico border. Table 1 lists both the unoccupied units and 
those that may have been occupied at the time of listing.

    Table 1--Occupancy of Jaguars by Proposed Critical Habitat Units
            [All units are in Arizona unless otherwise noted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Occupied at time of
                      Unit                               listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Baboquivari Unit
1a--Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit:
    Coyote Mountains...........................  Yes.
    Quinlan Mountains..........................  Yes.
    Saucito Mountains..........................  Yes.
    Northern Baboquivari Mountains.............  Yes.
1b--Southern Baboquivari Subunit:
    Southern Baboquivari Mountains Connection..  No.
2--Atascosa Unit:
    Tumacacori Mountains.......................  Yes.
    Atascosa Mountains.........................  Yes.
    Pajarito Mountains.........................  Yes.
3--Patagonia Unit:
    Empire Mountains...........................  Yes.
    Santa Rita Mountains.......................  Yes.
    Grosvenor Hills............................  Yes.
    Patagonia Mountains........................  Yes.
    Canelo Hills...............................  Yes.
    Huachuca Mountains.........................  Yes.
4--Whetstone Unit
4a--Whetstone Subunit:
    Whetstone Mountains........................  Yes.
4b--Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit:
    Whetstone-Santa Rita Mountains Connection..  No.
4c--Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit:
    Whetstone-Huachuca Mountains Connection....  No.
5--Peloncillo Unit:
    Peloncillo Mountains (Arizona and New        Yes.
     Mexico).
6--San Luis Unit:
    San Luis Mountains (New Mexico)............  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The approximate area of each proposed critical habitat unit is 
shown in Table 2.

                                             Table 2--Area of Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Jaguar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Federal              State              Tribal              Private         Total     Total
                   Unit or subunit                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Ha        Ac        Ha        Ac        Ha        Ac        Ha        Ac        Ha        Ac
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a--Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit......................     4,396    10,862     9,239    22,831    20,764    51,308     3,290     8,130    37,689    93,130
1b--Southern Baboquivari Subunit....................       624     1,543     6,157    15,213    10,829    26,759     1,843     4,555    19,453    48,070
2--Atascosa Unit....................................    53,807   132,961     2,296     5,672         0         0     2,522     6,231    58,625   144,864
3--Patagonia Unit...................................   107,471   265,566    11,847    29,274         0         0    29,046    71,775   148,364   366,615
4a--Whetstone Subunit...............................    16,066    39,699     5,445    13,455         0         0     3,774     9,325    25,284    62,478
4b--Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit....................       532     1,313     4,612    11,396         0         0         0         0     5,143    12,710
4c--Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit......................     1,654     4,088     2,981     7,366         0         0     3,391     8,379     8,026    19,832
5--Peloncillo Unit..................................    28,393    70,160     7,861    19,426         0         0     5,317    13,138    41,571   102,723
6--San Luis Unit....................................         0         0         0         0         0         0     3,122     7,714     3,122     7,714
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grand Total.....................................   212,943   526,191    50,437   124,633    31,593    78,067    52,304   129,246   347,277   858,137
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for jaguar, below.
Subunit 1a: Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit
    Subunit 1a consists of 37,689 ha (93,130 ac) in the northern 
Baboquivari, Saucito, Quinlan, and Coyote Mountains in Pima County, 
Arizona. This subunit is generally bounded by the eastern side of the 
Baboquivari Valley to the west, State Highway 86 to the north, the 
western side of the Altar Valley to the east, and up to and including 
Leyvas and Bear Canyons to

[[Page 39241]]

the south. Land ownership within the unit includes approximately 4,396 
ha (10,862 ac) of Federal lands; 20,764 ha (51,308 ac) of Tohono 
O'odham Nation lands; 9,239 ha (22,831 ac) of Arizona State lands; and 
3,290 ha (8,130 ac) of private lands. The Federal land is administered 
by the Service and Bureau of Land Management. We consider the 
Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit occupied at the time of listing (37 FR 6476; 
March 30, 1972) (see ``Occupied Area at the Time of Listing'' in our 
August 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50214)), and it may be currently 
occupied, based on jaguar photos from 1996 and from 2001-2008. It 
contains all elements of the physical or biological feature essential 
to the conservation of the jaguar, except for connectivity to Mexico.
    The primary land uses within Subunit 1a include ranching, grazing, 
border-related activities, Federal land management activities, and 
recreational activities throughout the year, including, but not limited 
to, hiking, birding, horseback riding, and hunting. Special management 
considerations or protections needed within the subunit would need to 
address threats presented by increased human disturbances in remote 
locations through construction of impermeable fences and widening or 
construction of roadways, power lines, or pipelines.
Subunit 1b: Southern Baboquivari Subunit
    Subunit 1b consists of 19,453 ha (48,070 ac) in the southern 
Baboquivari Mountains in Pima County, Arizona. This subunit is 
generally bounded by the eastern side of the Baboquivari Valley to the 
west, up to but not including Leyvas and Bear Canyons to the north, the 
western side of the Altar Valley to the east, and the U.S.-Mexico 
border to the south. Land ownership within the unit includes 
approximately 624 ha (1,543 ac) of Federal lands; 10,829 ha (26,759 ac) 
of Tohono O'odham Nation lands; 6,157 ha (15,213 ac) of Arizona State 
lands; and 1,843 ha (4,555 ac) of private lands. The Federal land is 
administered by the Service and Bureau of Land Management. The Southern 
Baboquivari Subunit provides connectivity to Mexico and was not 
occupied at the time of listing, but is essential to the conservation 
of the jaguar because it contributes to the species' persistence by 
providing connectivity to occupied areas.
    The primary land uses within Subunit 1b include ranching, grazing, 
border-related activities, Federal land management activities, and 
recreational activities throughout the year, including, but not limited 
to, hiking, birding, horseback riding, and hunting.
Unit 2: Atascosa Unit
    Unit 2 consists of 58,625 ha (144,864 ac) in the Pajarito, 
Atascosa, and Tumacacori Mountains in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, 
Arizona. Unit 2 is generally bounded by the eastern side of San Luis 
Mountains (Arizona) to the west, roughly 4 km (2.5 mi) south of Arivaca 
Road to the north, Interstate 19 to the east, and the U.S.-Mexico 
border to the south. Land ownership within the unit includes 
approximately 53,807 ha (132,961 ac) of Federal lands; 2,296 ha (5,672 
ac) of Arizona State lands; and 2,522 ha (6,231 ac) of private lands. 
The Federal land is administered by the Coronado National Forest and 
Bureau of Land Management. We consider the Atascosa Unit occupied at 
the time of listing (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972) (see ``Occupied Area 
at the Time of Listing'' in our August 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 
50214)), and it may be currently occupied based on multiple photos of 
two, or possibly three, jaguars from 2001-2008. It contains all 
elements of the physical or biological feature essential to the 
conservation of the jaguar.
    The primary land uses within Unit 2 include Federal land management 
activities, border-related activities, grazing, and recreational 
activities throughout the year, including, but not limited to, hiking, 
camping, birding, horseback riding, picnicking, sightseeing, and 
hunting. Special management considerations or protections needed within 
the unit would need to address threats posed by increased human 
disturbances into remote locations through construction of impermeable 
fences and widening or construction of roadways, power lines, or 
pipelines.
Unit 3: Patagonia Unit
    Unit 3 consists of 148,364 ha (366,615 ac) in the Patagonia, Santa 
Rita, Empire, and Huachuca Mountains, as well as the Canelo and 
Grosvenor Hills, in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona. 
Unit 3 is generally bounded by a line running roughly 3 km (1.9 mi) 
east of Interstate 19 to the west; a line running roughly 6 km (3.7 mi) 
south of Interstate 10 to the north; Cienega Creek and Highways 83, 90, 
and 92 to the east, including the eastern slopes of the Empire 
Mountains; and the U.S.-Mexico border to the south. Land ownership 
within the unit includes approximately 107,471 ha (265,566 ac) of 
Federal lands; 11,847 ha (29,274 ac) of Arizona State lands; and 29,046 
ha (71,775 ac) of private lands. The Federal land is administered by 
the Coronado National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, National Park 
Service, and Fort Huachuca. We consider the Patagonia Unit occupied at 
the time of listing (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972) based on the 1965 
record from the Patagonia Mountains (see ``Occupied Area at the Time of 
Listing'' in our August 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50214)) and 
currently occupied based on photos taken from October 2012, through 
January 2013, of a male jaguar in the Santa Rita Mountains. The 
mountain ranges within this unit contain all elements of the physical 
or biological feature essential to the conservation of the jaguar.
    The primary land uses within Unit 3 include military activities 
associated with Fort Huachuca, as well as Federal land management 
activities, border-related activities, grazing, and recreational 
activities throughout the year, including, but not limited to, hiking, 
camping, birding, horseback riding, picnicking, sightseeing, and 
hunting. Special management considerations or protections needed within 
the unit would need to address threats posed by human disturbances 
through such activities as military ground maneuvers and increased 
human presence in remote locations through mining and development 
activities, construction of impermeable fences, and widening or 
construction of roadways, power lines, or pipelines.
Subunit 4a: Whetstone Subunit
    Subunit 4a consists of 25,284 ha (62,478 ac) in the Whetstone 
Mountains in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona. Subunit 
4a is generally bounded by a line running roughly 4 km (2.5 mi) east of 
Cienega Creek to the west, a line running roughly 6 km (3.7 mi) south 
of Interstate 10 to the north, Highway 90 to the east, and Highway 82 
to the south. Land ownership within the subunit includes approximately 
16,066 ha (39,699 ac) of Federal lands; 5,445 ha (13,455 ac) of Arizona 
State lands; and 3,774 ha (9,325 ac) of private lands. The Federal land 
is administered by the Coronado National Forest and Bureau of Land 
Management. We consider the Whetstone Subunit occupied at the time of 
listing (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972) (see ``Occupied Area at the Time 
of Listing'' in our August 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50214)), and, 
based on photographs taken in 2011, it may be currently occupied. The 
mountain range within this subunit contains all elements of the 
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the 
jaguar, except for connectivity to Mexico.

[[Page 39242]]

    The primary land uses within Subunit 4a include Federal land 
management activities, grazing, and recreational activities throughout 
the year, including, but not limited to, hiking, camping, birding, 
horseback riding, picnicking, sightseeing, and hunting. Special 
management considerations or protections needed within the subunit 
would need to address threats posed by increased human disturbances as 
a result of development activities, and widening or construction of 
roadways, power lines, or pipelines.
Subunit 4b: Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit
    Subunit 4b consists of 5,143 ha (12,710 ac) between the Empire 
Mountains and northern extent of the Whetstone Mountains in Pima 
County, Arizona. Subunit 4b is generally bounded by (but does not 
include): The eastern slopes of the Empire Mountains to the west, a 
line running roughly 6 km (3.7 mi) south of Interstate 10 to the north, 
the western slopes of the Whetstone Mountains to the east, and 
Stevenson Canyon to the south. Land ownership within the subunit 
includes approximately 532 ha (1,313 ac) of Federal lands and 4,612 ha 
(11,396 ac) of Arizona State lands. The Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit 
provides connectivity from the Whetstone Mountains to Mexico and was 
not occupied at the time of listing, but is essential to the 
conservation of the jaguar because it contributes to the species' 
persistence by providing connectivity to occupied areas.
    The primary land uses within Subunit 4b include grazing and 
recreational activities throughout the year, including, but not limited 
to, hiking, camping, birding, horseback riding, picnicking, 
sightseeing, and hunting.
Subunit 4c: Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit
    Subunit 4c consists of 8,026 ha (19,832 ac) between the Huachuca 
Mountains and southern extent of the Whetstone Mountains in Santa Cruz 
and Cochise Counties, Arizona. Subunit 4c is generally bounded by 
Highway 83, Elgin-Canelo Road, and Upper Elgin Road to the west; 
Highway 82 to the north; a line running roughly 4 km (2.5 mi) west of 
Highway 90 to the east; and up to but not including the Huachuca 
Mountains to the south. Land ownership within the subunit includes 
approximately 1,654 ha (4,088 ac) of Federal lands; 2,981 ha (7,366 ac) 
of Arizona State lands; and 3,391 ha (8,379 ac) of private lands. The 
Federal land is administered by the Coronado National Forest, Bureau of 
Land Management, and Fort Huachuca. The Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit 
provides connectivity from the Whetstone Mountains to Mexico and was 
not occupied at the time of listing, but is essential to the 
conservation of the jaguar because it contributes to the species' 
persistence by providing connectivity to occupied areas.
    The primary land uses within Subunit 4c include military activities 
associated with Fort Huachuca, as well as Federal forest management 
activities, grazing, and recreational activities throughout the year, 
including, but not limited to, hiking, camping, birding, horseback 
riding, picnicking, sightseeing, and hunting.
Unit 5: Peloncillo Unit
    Unit 5 consists of 41,571 ha (102,723 ac) in the Peloncillo 
Mountains in Cochise County, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. 
Unit 5 is generally bounded by the eastern side of the San Bernardino 
Valley to the west, Skeleton Canyon Road and the northern boundary of 
the Coronado National Forest to the north, the western side of the 
Animas Valley to the east, and the U.S.-Mexico border on the south. 
Land ownership within the unit includes approximately 28,393 ha (70,160 
ac) of Federal lands; 7,861 ha (19,426 ac) of Arizona State lands; and 
5,317 ha (13,138 ac) of private lands. The Federal land is administered 
by the Coronado National Forest and Bureau of Land Management. We 
consider the Peloncillo Unit occupied at the time of listing (37 FR 
6476; March 30, 1972) (see ``Occupied Area at the Time of Listing'' in 
our August 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50214)), and it may be 
currently occupied based on a track documented in 1995 and photographs 
taken in 1996. It contains all elements of the physical or biological 
feature essential to the conservation of the jaguar.
    The primary land uses within Unit 5 include Federal land management 
activities, border-related activities, grazing, and recreational 
activities throughout the year, including, but not limited to, hiking, 
camping, birding, horseback riding, picnicking, sightseeing, and 
hunting. Special management considerations or protections needed within 
the unit would need to address threats posed by increased human 
disturbances in remote locations through construction of impermeable 
fences and widening or construction of roadways, power lines, or 
pipelines.
Unit 6: San Luis Unit
    Unit 6 consists of 3,122 ha (7,714 ac) in the northern extent of 
the San Luis Mountains in Hidalgo County, New Mexico. Unit 6 is 
generally bounded by the eastern side of the Animas Valley to the west, 
a line running roughly 1.5 km (0.9 mi) south of Highway 79 to the 
north, an elevation line at approximately 1,600 m (5,249 ft) on the 
east side of the San Luis Mountains, and the U.S.-Mexico border to the 
south. Land within the unit is entirely privately owned. We consider 
the San Luis Unit occupied at the time of listing (37 FR 6476; March 
30, 1972) (see ``Occupied Area at the Time of Listing'' in our August 
20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50214)), and it may be currently 
occupied based on photographs taken in 2006. Unit 6 contains almost all 
elements (PCEs 2-7) of the physical or biological feature essential to 
the conservation of the jaguar except for PCE 1 (expansive open space). 
This unit is included because, while by itself it does not provide at 
least 100 square km (38.6 square mi) of jaguar habitat in the United 
States, additional habitat can be found immediately adjacent south of 
the U.S.-Mexico border, and therefore this area represents a small 
portion of a much larger area of habitat.
    The primary land uses within Unit 6 include border-related 
activities, grazing, and some recreational activities throughout the 
year, including, but not limited to, hiking, horseback riding, and 
hunting. Special management considerations or protections needed within 
the unit would need to address threats posed by increased human 
disturbances into remote locations through construction of impermeable 
fences and widening or construction of roadways, power lines, or 
pipelines.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national 
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat 
if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the 
benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such 
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
    When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the 
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a

[[Page 39243]]

result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, 
permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits 
of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery 
of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from 
designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical 
habitat.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. We are 
considering excluding lands owned and managed by the Tohono O'odham 
Nation from critical habitat. The Tohono O'odham Nation has indicated 
that they are preparing a Jaguar Management Plan, which we expect to 
receive during this comment period. However, the final decision on 
whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data 
available at the time of the final designation, including information 
obtained during the comment period and information about the economic 
impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic 
analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is 
available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).

Draft Economic Analysis

    The draft economic analysis describes the economic impacts of all 
potential conservation efforts for the jaguar; some of these costs will 
likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat. 
The economic impact of the proposed critical habitat designation is 
analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and 
``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario 
represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections 
already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and 
other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, 
represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is 
designated. The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the 
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts 
and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the 
designation of critical habitat for the species.
    Most courts have held that the Service only needs to consider the 
incremental impacts imposed by the critical habitat designation over 
and above those impacts imposed as a result of listing the species. For 
example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reached this conclusion 
twice within the last few years, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to 
hear any further appeal from those rulings (Arizona Cattle Growers' 
Assoc. v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 116, (9th Cir. June 4, 2010) cert. denied, 
179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1362, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475 (2011); Home 
Builders Association of Northern California v. United States Fish & 
Wildlife Service, 616 F. 3rd 983 (9th Cir. 2010) cert. denied, 179 L. 
Ed. 2d 300, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1362, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475 (2011)).
    However, the prevailing court decisions in the Tenth Circuit Court 
of Appeals do not allow the incremental analysis approach. Instead, the 
Tenth Circuit requires that the Service consider both the baseline 
economic impacts imposed due to listing the species and the additional 
incremental economic impacts imposed by designating critical habitat 
(New Mexico Cattle Growers Ass'n v. FWS, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. May 
11, 2001)). As a consequence, an economic analysis for critical habitat 
that is being proposed for designation within States that fall within 
the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit (as this designation does) should 
include a coextensive cost evaluation which addresses, and quantifies 
to the extent feasible, all of the conservation-related impacts 
associated with the regulatory baseline (those resulting under the 
jeopardy standard under section 7 of the Act, and under sections 9 and 
10 of the Act). In other words, the allocation of impacts should show 
those that are part of the regulatory baseline and those that are 
unique to the critical habitat designation. For a further description 
of the methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2.3, ``Analytic 
Framework and Scope of the Analysis,'' of the draft economic analysis.
    The draft economic analysis provides estimated costs of the 
foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat 
designation for the jaguar over the next 20 years, which was determined 
to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning 
information is available for most activities to forecast activity 
levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. It identifies potential 
incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat 
designation; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over 
and above those baseline costs attributed to listing.
    The draft economic analysis quantifies economic impacts of jaguar 
conservation efforts associated with the following categories of 
activity: (1) Federal land management; (2) border protection 
activities; (3) mining; (4) transportation activities; (5) development; 
(6) military activities; (7) livestock grazing and other activities; 
and (8) Tohono O'odham Nation activities. Chapter 11 of the draft 
economic analysis provides the quantification of economic impacts of 
jaguar conservation efforts.
    Given the secretive and transient nature of the jaguar and the fact 
that Federal land managers already take steps to protect the jaguar 
even without critical habitat, we do not anticipate recommending 
incremental conservation measures to avoid adverse modification of 
critical habitat over and above those recommended to avoid jeopardy of 
the species, except in cases where an activity could create a situation 
in which a unit of critical habitat could become inaccessible to 
jaguars. The loss of one critical habitat unit would not constitute 
jeopardy to the species, but it may constitute destruction or adverse 
modification.
    Major construction projects (such as new highways, significant 
widening of existing highways, or construction of large facilities or 
mines) could sever connectivity within these critical habitat units and 
subunits, and could constitute adverse modification. However, at this 
time we are unable to identify the conservation measures that will be 
requested to avoid adverse modification, and we are therefore unable to 
quantify these impacts.
    Therefore, the total projected incremental costs of administrative 
efforts resulting from section 7 consultations on the jaguar are 
approximately $360,000 over 20 years ($31,000 on an annualized basis), 
assuming a 7 percent discount rate. The analysis estimates future 
potential administrative impacts based on the historical rate of 
consultations on the jaguar in areas proposed for critical habitat, as 
discussed in Chapter 2 of the draft economic analysis.
    As stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the 
public on the draft economic analysis and draft environmental 
assessment, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule, as revised by 
this document, and our amended required determinations. We may revise 
the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address 
information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, 
we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the 
benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the 
area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this 
species.

[[Page 39244]]

Draft Environmental Assessment

    The purpose of the draft environmental assessment, prepared 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.), is to identify and disclose the environmental 
consequences resulting from the proposed action of designating critical 
habitat for the jaguar. In the draft environmental assessment, three 
alternatives are evaluated: The No Action Alternative; Alternative A, 
the proposed rule; and Alternative B, the proposed rule with exclusion 
and exemption areas. The no action alternative is required by NEPA for 
comparison to the other alternatives analyzed in the draft 
environmental assessment. The no action alternative is equivalent to no 
designation of critical habitat for the jaguar. Our preliminary 
determination is that designation of critical habitat for the jaguar 
will not have significant impacts on the environment. However, we will 
further evaluate this issue as we complete our final environmental 
assessment.
    As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the 
public on the draft environmental assessment, as well as all aspects of 
the proposed rule, the draft economic analysis, and our amended 
required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting 
documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the 
comment period on the environmental consequences resulting from our 
proposed designation of critical habitat.

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our August 20, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50214), we indicated 
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several 
statutes and executive orders until the information concerning 
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on 
landowners and stakeholders became available in the draft economic 
analysis. We have now made use of the draft economic analysis data to 
make these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information 
in our proposed rule concerning Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 
13563 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, 
and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), and 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). However, 
based on the draft economic analysis data, we are amending our required 
determinations concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.), E.O. 12630 (Takings), and the President's memorandum of April 
29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American 
Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951).

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Based on our draft economic analysis of the 
proposed designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether 
the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we 
may revise this determination as part of our final rulemaking.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply 
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
the jaguar would affect a substantial number of small entities, we 
considered the number of small entities affected within particular 
types of economic activities, such as mining, transportation 
construction, development, and agriculture and grazing. In order to 
determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that the 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or 
category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities 
potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have 
any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect 
activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of 
critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, 
or authorized by Federal agencies. Because the jaguar is listed as an 
endangered species under the Act, in areas where the jaguar is present, 
Federal agencies are required to consult with us under section 7 of the 
Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the 
species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, 
consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation 
process.
    In the draft economic analysis, we evaluated the potential economic 
effects on small entities resulting from implementation of conservation 
actions related to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the 
jaguar. The designation of critical habitat for the jaguar is unlikely 
to directly affect any small entities. The costs associated with the 
designation are likely to be limited to the incremental impacts 
associated with administrative costs of section 7 consultations. Small 
entities may participate in section 7 consultation as a third party 
(the primary consulting parties being the Service and the Federal 
action agency). It is therefore possible that the small entities may 
spend additional time considering critical habitat due to the need for 
a section 7 consultation for the jaguar. Additional incremental costs 
of consultation that would be borne by the Federal action agency and 
the Service are not relevant to this screening analysis as these 
entities (Federal agencies) are not small. It is uncertain

[[Page 39245]]

whether any third parties involved with mining or transportation would 
be considered small entities when fully operational; however, assuming 
that they would qualify as small entities, the cost of consultation 
represents less than 1 percent of each company's annual revenues. 
Potential impacts to agriculture and grazing related to foregone 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) funding are not 
quantified; however, we do not expect small entities to bear a direct 
burden. Please refer to the draft economic analysis of the proposed 
critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of 
potential economic impacts.
    The Service's current understanding of recent case law is that 
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential impacts of 
rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking; 
therefore, they are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to 
those entities not directly regulated. The designation of critical 
habitat for an endangered or threatened species only has a regulatory 
effect where a Federal action agency is involved in a particular action 
that may affect the designated critical habitat. Under these 
circumstances, only the Federal action agency is directly regulated by 
the designation, and, therefore, consistent with the Service's current 
interpretation of RFA and recent case law, the Service may limit its 
evaluation of the potential impacts to those identified for Federal 
action agencies. Under this interpretation, there is no requirement 
under the RFA to evaluate potential impacts to entities not directly 
regulated, such as small businesses. However, Executive Orders 12866 
and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of 
available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent 
feasible) and qualitative terms. Consequently, it is the current 
practice of the Service to assess to the extent practicable these 
potential impacts, if sufficient data are available, whether or not 
this analysis is believed by the Service to be strictly required by the 
RFA. In other words, while the effects analysis required under the RFA 
is limited to entities directly regulated by the rulemaking, the 
effects analysis under the Act, consistent with the E.O. regulatory 
analysis requirements, can take into consideration impacts to both 
directly and indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and 
reasonable.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the 
Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the 
above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify 
that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in 
connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was 
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 
1042 (1996)). However, when the range of the species includes States 
within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of the jaguar, under the Tenth 
Circuit ruling in Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we will undertake a 
NEPA analysis for critical habitat designation. In accordance with the 
Tenth Circuit, we have completed a draft environmental assessment to 
identify and disclose the environmental consequences resulting from the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the jaguar. Our 
preliminary determination is that the designation of critical habitat 
for the jaguar would not have significant impacts on the environment.

E.O. 12630 (Takings)

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the jaguar in a proposed takings implications assessment. 
The economic analysis found that no significant economic impacts are 
likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for the 
jaguar. Based on information contained in the economic analysis and 
described within this document, it is not likely that economic impacts 
to a property owner would be of a sufficient magnitude to support a 
takings action. Therefore, the proposed takings implications assessment 
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the jaguar does 
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected 
by the designation. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we 
complete our final economic analysis.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    On May 16, 2012, we sent a letter to the Tohono O'odham Nation (the 
one Tribe that owns and manages land within the proposed designation) 
and Bureau of Indian Affairs notifying them of our intent to propose 
critical habitat for the jaguar. On August 24, 2012, we notified all 
Tribes potentially affected by our proposal to designate jaguar 
critical habitat via email, then followed up by sending a letter to 
each Tribal leader on September 28, 2012. Potentially affected Tribes 
include: The Ak Chin Community, Gila River Indian Community, Hope 
Tribe, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Tribe, San 
Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O'odham Tribe, and White Mountain Apache 
Tribe. Additionally, on September 27, 2012, we met with Tohono O'odham 
Nation staff to discuss the proposed designation.

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Office, Southwest Region, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of 
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to 
be amended on August 20, 2012, at 77 FR 50214, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec.  17.95, the entry proposed for ``Jaguar (Panthera onca)'' 
at 77 FR 50214, by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(6), and 
(a)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

[[Page 39246]]

    (a) Mammals.
* * * * *
    Jaguar (Panthera onca)
* * * * *
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of jaguar 
consist of expansive open spaces in the southwestern United States of 
at least 100 square kilometers (km) (38.6 square miles (mi)) in size 
which:
    (i) Provide connectivity to Mexico;
    (ii) Contain adequate levels of native prey species, including deer 
and javelina, as well as medium-sized prey such as coatis, skunks, 
raccoons, or jackrabbits;
    (iii) Include surface water sources available within 20 km (12.4 
mi) of each other;
    (iv) Contain from greater than 1 to 50 percent canopy cover within 
Madrean evergreen woodland, generally recognized by a mixture of oak, 
juniper, and pine trees on the landscape, or semidesert grassland 
vegetation communities, usually characterized by Pleuraphis mutica 
(tobosagrass) or Bouteloua eriopoda (black grama) along with other 
grasses;
    (v) Are characterized by intermediately, moderately, or highly 
rugged terrain;
    (vi) Are characterized by minimal to no human population density, 
no major roads, or no stable nighttime lighting over any 1-square-km 
(0.4-square-mi) area; and
    (vii) Are below 2,000 meters (6,562 feet) in elevation.
* * * * *
    (5) Index map follows:

[[Page 39247]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY13.018

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    (6) Units 1, 2, 3, and 4: Baboquivari, Atascosa, Patagonia, and 
Whetstone Units, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise

[[Page 39248]]

Counties, Arizona. Map of Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY13.019


[[Page 39249]]


    (7) Units 5 and 6: Peloncillo and San Luis Units, Cochise County, 
Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. Map of Units 5 and 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY13.020


[[Page 39250]]


* * * * *

    Dated: June 7, 2013.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-15688 Filed 6-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C