Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Jaguar, 50213-50242 [2012-19950]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50213-50242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19950]



[[Page 50213]]

Vol. 77

Monday,

No. 161

August 20, 2012

Part II





 Department of the Interior





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





 Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 50214]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the jaguar (Panthera onca) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, we propose 
to designate as critical habitat approximately 339,220 hectares 
(838,232 acres) in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and 
Hidalgo County, New Mexico.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
October 19, 2012. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 
October 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search field, enter Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2012-0042, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then click 
on the Search button. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment 
Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2012-0042; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    This rule proposes to designate critical habitat for the species. 
This is a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for an endangered 
mammal, the jaguar (Panthera onca). In total, we are proposing 
approximately 339,220 hectares (838,232 acres) for designation as 
critical habitat for the jaguar in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise 
Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. We are proposing to 
designate six critical habitat units for the jaguar in Arizona and New 
Mexico as follows:
     Approximately 56,241 ha (138,975 ac) in the Baboquivari 
Mountains, Arizona.
     Approximately 58,104 ha (143,578 ac) in the Tumacacori, 
Atascosa, and Pajarito Mountains, Arizona.
     Approximately 138,821 ha (343,033 ac) in the Santa Rita, 
Patagonia, and Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, Arizona.
     Approximately 42,694 ha (105,498 ac) in the Whetstone 
Mountains, including connections to the Santa Rita and Huachuca 
Mountains, Arizona.
     Approximately 40,290 ha (99,559 ac) in the Peloncillo 
Mountains, Arizona and New Mexico.
     Approximately 3,071 ha (7,590 ac) in the San Luis 
Mountains, New Mexico.
    We are preparing an economic analysis. To ensure that we consider 
the probable economic impacts of the proposed designation, pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are preparing an economic analysis. The 
analysis will be used to inform the development of the final 
designation of critical habitat for the jaguar. We will publish an 
announcement and seek public comments on the draft economic analysis 
when it is completed.
    We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our critical habitat designation is based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited 
these peer reviewers to comment on our specific assumptions and 
conclusions used to develop this proposed critical habitat designation. 
Because we will consider all comments and information received during 
the comment period, our final determination may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) including whether there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit 
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be 
prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of jaguar habitat;
    (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (1972) 
(or are currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the 
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and 
why;
    (c) What period of time surrounding the time of listing (1972) 
should be used to determine occupancy and why, and whether or not data 
from 1982 to the present should be used in this determination;
    (d) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (e) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of the species and why.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the jaguar and proposed critical habitat.
    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families, 
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these 
impacts.
    (6) If lands owned and managed by Fort Huachuca should be 
considered for exemption because the Integrated Natural Resources 
Management Plan for the Fort currently benefits the jaguar, whether or 
not the species is specifically addressed.
    (7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for

[[Page 50215]]

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of 
potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of 
including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (8) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. You may request 
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such 
as your street address, phone number, or email address from public 
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
designation of critical habitat for jaguar in this proposed rule. For 
more information on the species itself, refer to the Previous Federal 
Actions section, below, the final listing clarification rule published 
in the Federal Register on July 22, 1997 (62 FR 39147), and the 
previous critical habitat prudency determination published in the 
Federal Register on July 12, 2006 (71 FR 39335).

Species Information

    The jaguar (Panthera onca), a large member of the cat family 
(Felidae), is an endangered species that currently occurs from southern 
Arizona and New Mexico to southern South America. Jaguars are muscular 
cats with relatively short, massive limbs and a deep-chested body. They 
are cinnamon-buff in color with many black spots; melanistic (dark 
coloration) forms are also known, primarily from the southern part of 
the range.
    The life history of the jaguar has been summarized by Seymour 
(1989, entire) and Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez (2001, 
entire), among others. Jaguars breed year-round rangewide, but at the 
southern and northern ends of their range there is evidence for a 
spring breeding season. Gestation is about 100 days; litters range from 
one to four cubs (usually two). Cubs remain with their mother for 
nearly 2 years. Females begin sexual activity at 3 years of age, males 
at 4. Studies have documented few wild jaguars more than 11 years old, 
although a wild male jaguar in Arizona was documented to be at least 15 
years of age (Johnson et al. 2011, p. 12), and in Jalisco, Mexico, two 
wild females were documented to be at least 12 and 13 
(N[uacute][ntilde]ez 2011, pers. comm.). The consensus of jaguar 
experts is that the average lifespan of the jaguar is 10 years.
    The list of prey taken by jaguars throughout their range includes 
more than 85 species (Seymour 1989, p. 4). Known prey include, but are 
not limited to, collared peccaries (javelina (Pecari tajacu)), white-
lipped peccaries (Tayassu pecari), capybaras (Hydrochoerus spp.), pacas 
(Agouti paca), agoutis (Dasyprocta spp.), armadillos (Dasypus spp.), 
caimans (Caiman spp.), turtles (Podocnemis spp.), white-tailed deer 
(Odocoileus virginianus), livestock, and various other reptiles, birds, 
and fish (sources as cited in Seymour 1989, p. 4; N[uacute][ntilde]ez 
et al. 2000, pp. iii-iv; Rosas-Rosas 2006, p. 17; Rosas-Rosas et al. 
2008, pp. 557-558). Jaguars are considered opportunistic feeders, 
especially in rainforests, and their diet varies according to prey 
density and ease of prey capture (sources as cited in Seymour 1989, p. 
4). Jaguars equally use medium- and large-size prey, with a trend 
toward use of larger prey as distance increases from the equator 
(L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez and Miller 2002, p. 218). Javelina and 
white-tailed deer are thought to be the mainstays in the diet of 
jaguars in the United States and Mexico borderlands (Brown and 
L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 51).

Previous Federal Actions

    In 1972, the jaguar was listed as endangered (37 FR 6476; March 30, 
1972) in accordance with the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 
1969 (ESCA), a precursor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Under the ESCA, the Service 
maintained separate listings for foreign species and species native to 
the United States. At that time, the jaguar was believed to be extinct 
in the United States; thus, the jaguar was included only on the foreign 
species list. The jaguar's range was described as extending from the 
international boundary of the United States and Mexico southward to 
include Central and South America (37 FR 6476). In 1973, the Act 
superseded the ESCA. The foreign and native lists were replaced by a 
single ``List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,'' which was first 
published in the Federal Register on September 26, 1975 (40 FR 44412). 
In this regulation, the jaguar's range again was described as including 
Central and South America (40 FR 44412), but not the United States.
    On July 25, 1979, the Service published a notice (44 FR 43705) 
stating that, through an oversight in the listing of the jaguar and six 
other endangered species, the United States populations of these 
species were not protected by the Act. The notice asserted that it was 
always the intent of the Service that all populations of these species, 
including the jaguar, deserved to be listed as endangered, whether they 
occurred in the United States or in foreign countries. Therefore, the 
notice stated that the Service intended to take action as quickly as 
possible to propose the U.S. populations of these species (including 
the jaguar) for listing.
    On July 25, 1980, the Service published a proposed rule (45 FR 
49844) to list the jaguar and four of the other species referred to 
above in the United States. The proposal for listing the jaguar and 
three other species was withdrawn on September 17, 1982 (47 FR 41145). 
The notice issued by the Service stated that the Act mandated 
withdrawal of proposed rules to list species which have not been 
finalized within 2 years of the proposal.
    On August 3, 1992, the Service received a petition from the 
instructor and students of the American Southwest Sierra Institute and 
Life Net to list the jaguar as endangered in the United States. The 
petition was dated July 26, 1992. On April 13, 1993 (58 FR 19216), the 
Service published a finding that the petition presented substantial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted, and requested 
public comments and biological data on the status of the jaguar. On 
July 13, 1994 (59 FR 35674), the Service published a proposed rule to 
extend endangered status to the jaguar throughout its range.
    On April 10, 1995, Congress enacted a moratorium prohibiting work 
on listing actions (Pub. L. 104-6) and eliminated funding for the 
Service to conduct final listing activities. The moratorium was lifted 
on April 26, 1996, by means of a Presidential waiver, at which time 
limited funding for listing actions was made available through the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

[[Page 50216]]

1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, 100 Stat. 1321, 1996). The Service published 
guidance for restarting the listing program on May 16, 1996 (61 FR 
24722). The listing process for the jaguar was resumed in September 
1996, when the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity filed a law 
suit and motion for summary judgment for the Secretary to finalize the 
listing for the jaguar and four other species. On July 22, 1997, we 
published a final rule clarifying that endangered status for the jaguar 
extended into the United States (62 FR 39147). For more information on 
previous Federal actions concerning the jaguar, please refer to the 
July 22, 1997, final clarifying rule (62 FR 39147).
    The July 22, 1997, clarifying rule included a determination that 
designation of critical habitat for the jaguar was not prudent (62 FR 
39147). At that time, we determined that the greatest threat to the 
jaguar in the United States was from direct taking of individuals 
through shooting or other means. As a consequence, we determined that 
designating critical habitat for the jaguar was ``not prudent,'' 
because ``publication of detailed critical habitat maps and 
descriptions in the Federal Register would likely make the species more 
vulnerable to activities prohibited under section 9 of the Act.'' 
Therefore, we believed that a critical habitat designation would 
increase the degree of threat to the species.
    In response to a complaint by the Center for Biological Diversity, 
we agreed to re-evaluate our 1997 prudency determination and make a new 
determination by July 3, 2006 as to whether designation of critical 
habitat for the jaguar was prudent. In that subsequent finding (July 
12, 2006; 71 FR 39335), we noted that since the time of our July 22, 
1997, determination, the Jaguar Conservation Team, Arizona Game and 
Fish Department, publications, and other sources routinely had given 
specific and general locations of jaguars that had been sighted in the 
United States, and, as of 2006, these sightings were being documented 
through Web sites, public notifications, reports, books, and meeting 
notes. Publishing critical habitat maps and descriptions, as part of 
designating critical habitat, would not result in the species being 
more vulnerable in the United States than it was currently (in 2006). 
We then assessed whether designation of critical habitat would be 
beneficial to the species. We found that no areas in the United States 
met the definition of critical habitat, and, as a result, designation 
of critical habitat for the jaguar would not be beneficial to the 
species. As a result, we again determined that designation of critical 
habitat for the jaguar was not prudent (71 FR 39335). We did not 
consider designation of lands outside of the United States in this 
analysis, because, under the Act's implementing regulations, critical 
habitat cannot be designated in foreign countries (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
    The Center for Biological Diversity again challenged the Service's 
decision that critical habitat was not prudent for the jaguar. On March 
30, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona 
(Court) issued an opinion in Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Kempthorne, CV 07-372-TUC JMR (Lead) and Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall, 
CV08-335 TUC JMR (Consolidated) (D. Ariz., Mar. 30, 2009), that set 
aside our previous prudency determination and required that we issue a 
new determination as to ``whether to designate critical habitat,'' 
i.e., whether such designation is prudent, by January 8, 2010. In this 
opinion, the Court noted, among other things, that the Service's 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) require that the Service ``shall focus 
on the principal biological constituent elements within the defined 
area that are essential to the conservation of the species.'' Such 
elements include consideration of space for individual and population 
growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or 
other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; 
sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or 
seed dispersal; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    On January 13, 2010, we published a notice of determination that we 
had reevaluated our previous ``not prudent'' finding regarding critical 
habitat designation for the jaguar and the information supporting our 
previous findings (75 FR 1741). We also evaluated information and 
analysis that became available subsequent to the July 12, 2006, 
finding. We determined there were physical and biological features that 
can be used by jaguars in the United States. Thus, in responding to the 
Court's order, and following a review of the best available scientific 
and commercial information, including the ongoing conservation programs 
for the jaguar, we determined that the designation of critical habitat 
for the jaguar would be beneficial. We also determined that designation 
of critical habitat would not be expected to increase the degree of 
threat to the species. We solicited comments and information on this 
determination, and stated we anticipated publishing a proposed critical 
habitat designation in the Federal Register by January 2011.
    On October 18, 2010, we sent a letter to the Center for Biological 
Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife updating them on our process of 
developing a recovery plan and critical habitat for the jaguar. We 
stated that, because of scant information currently available for 
northern jaguars, we would be convening a bi-national Jaguar Recovery 
Team to synthesize information on the jaguar, focusing on a unit 
comprising jaguars in the northern portion of their range. We further 
stated that we would be working with the Conservation Breeding 
Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission/International Union 
for Conservation of Nature to conduct a population viability analysis 
and a population and habitat viability analysis for the jaguar. We 
anticipated that these analyses would assist us in determining those 
recovery actions that would be most effective for achieving a viable 
jaguar population, as well as providing information relevant to 
determining critical habitat for the jaguar. Additionally, we stated 
that, based on the unusual situation where the best information on 
habitat in the United States essential to the conservation of the 
jaguar was being gathered through the recovery planning effort, we 
would postpone publishing a proposed critical habitat rule until spring 
2012.

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided

[[Page 50217]]

under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures 
include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with 
scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency 
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or 
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action 
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but 
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it 
was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the 
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary 
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal 
wetlands, water quality, tide, and soil type) that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the 
elements of physical or biological features that, when laid out in the 
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species' 
life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For 
example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not 
occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of 
the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation. We 
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions 
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or 
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated 
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to 
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other 
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at 
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Jaguar Habitat Requirements in the United States and U.S.-Mexico 
Borderlands Area

    Most of the information regarding jaguar habitat requirements comes 
from Central and South America; little, if any, is available for the 
northwestern-most portion of its range, including the United States. 
Jaguar habitat in Central and South America is quite different from 
habitat available in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands area, where jaguars 
show a high affinity for lowland wet communities, including swampy 
savannas or tropical rain forests toward and at middle latitudes. Swank 
and Teer (1989, p. 14) state that jaguars prefer a warm, tropical 
climate, usually associated with water, and are rarely found in 
extensive arid areas. Rabinowitz (1999, p. 97) affirms that the most 
robust jaguar populations have been associated with tropical climates 
in areas of low elevation with dense cover and year-round water 
sources. Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez (2001, p. 43) further 
state that, in South and Central America, jaguars usually avoid open 
country like grasslands or desertscrub, instead preferring the closed 
vegetative

[[Page 50218]]

structure of nearly every tropical forest type.
    However, jaguars have been documented in arid areas of northwestern 
Mexico and the southwestern United States, including thornscrub, 
desertscrub, lowland desert, mesquite grassland, Madrean oak woodland, 
and pine-oak woodland communities (Brown and L[oacute]pez 
Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, pp. 43-50; Boydston and L[oacute]pez 
Gonz[aacute]lez 2005, p. 54; McCain and Childs 2008, p. 7; Rosas-Rosas 
and Bender 2012, p. 88). The more open, dry habitat of the southwestern 
United States has been characterized as marginal habitat for jaguars in 
terms of water, cover, and prey densities (Rabinowitz 1999, p. 97). 
However, McCain and Childs (2008, p. 7) documented two male jaguars 
(and possibly a third) using an extensive area including habitats of 
the Sonoran lowland desert, Sonoran desert scrub, mesquite grassland, 
Madrean oak woodland, and pine-oak woodland in mountain ranges in 
southern Arizona. Therefore, while habitat in the United States can be 
considered marginal when compared to other areas throughout the 
species' range, it appears that a few, possibly resident jaguars are 
able to use the more open, arid habitat found in the southwestern 
United States.
    To define the physical and biological features required for jaguar 
habitat in the United States, we are relying on studies conducted in 
Mexico as close to the U.S.-Mexico border as available. Many of these 
studies have been compiled and summarized by the Jaguar Recovery Team 
in the Recovery Outline for the Jaguar (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, 
entire) and Digital Mapping in Support of Recovery Planning for the 
Northern Jaguar report (Sanderson and Fisher 2011, pp. 1-11). These 
documents describe the entire Northwestern Recovery Unit and 
Northwestern Management Unit of the jaguar (see Jaguar Recovery 
Planning in Relation to Critical Habitat, below) including areas of 
Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Nayarit, and Jalisco, Mexico, and south-
central and southeastern Arizona and southeastern New Mexico in the 
United States (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 20-24). When U.S.-
specific data are available, we attempt to narrow the focus of our 
analysis to information within the United States to determine the 
physical and biological features currently present that provide jaguar 
habitat north of the border.
    The Jaguar Recovery Team (2012, pp. 15-16) determined that high-
quality habitat for jaguars in the Northwestern Recovery Unit and 
Northwestern Management Unit includes the following features: (1) High 
abundance of native prey, particularly large prey like deer and peccary 
and adequate numbers of medium-sized prey; (2) water available within 
10 kilometers (km) (6.2 miles (mi)) year round; (3) dense vegetative 
cover (to stalk and ambush prey and for denning and resting), 
particularly including Sinaloan thornscrub; (4) rugged topography, 
including canyons and ridges, and some rocky hills good for denning and 
resting; (5) connectivity to allow normal demographic processes to 
occur and maintain genetic diversity; (6) expansive areas of adequate 
habitat (i.e., area large enough to support 50 to 100 jaguars) with low 
human density; (7) low human activity, development, and infrastructure, 
including low densities of high-speed roads, mines, and agriculture; 
and (8) no to low jaguar persecution or poaching by humans. Therefore, 
we are basing our definition of jaguar habitat in the United States on 
these features but with modifications more applicable to areas north of 
the U.S.-Mexico border (see Physical or Biological Features, below).

Jaguar Recovery Planning in Relation to Critical Habitat

    The 2012 Recovery Outline for the Jaguar describes two recovery 
units for the jaguar across its range, the Northwestern and Pan 
American Recovery Units (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, p. 58). Recovery 
units are subunits of the listed species' habitat that are 
geographically or otherwise identifiable and essential to the recovery 
of the species (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, p. 20).
    Recovery units for the jaguar are further divided into core, 
secondary, and peripheral areas (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 20-23). 
Core areas have both persistent verified records of jaguar occurrence 
over time and recent evidence of reproduction. Secondary areas are 
those that contain jaguar habitat with either or both historical or 
recent records of jaguar presence with no recent record or very few 
records of reproduction. In peripheral areas, most historical jaguar 
records are sporadic, and there is no or minimal evidence of long-term 
presence or reproduction that might indicate colonization or sustained 
use of these areas by jaguars.
    Potential jaguar habitat in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands area is 
part of the secondary area of the Northwestern Management Unit within 
the Northwestern Recovery Unit for the jaguar (Jaguar Recovery Team 
2012, p. 58). Because such a small portion of the jaguar's range occurs 
in the United States, it is anticipated that recovery of the entire 
species will rely primarily on actions that occur outside of the United 
States; activities that may adversely or beneficially affect jaguars in 
the United States are less likely to affect recovery than activities in 
core areas of their range (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, p. 38). However, 
the portion of the United States is located within a secondary area 
that provides a recovery function benefitting the overall recovery unit 
(Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 40, 42). For example, specific areas 
within this secondary area that provide the physical and biological 
features essential to jaguar habitat can contribute to the species' 
persistence and, therefore, overall conservation by providing areas to 
support some individuals during dispersal movements, by providing small 
patches of habitat (perhaps in some cases with a few resident jaguars), 
and as areas for cyclic expansion and contraction of the nearest core 
area and breeding population in the Northwestern Recovery Unit (about 
210 km (130 mi) south of the U.S.-Mexico border in Sonora near the 
towns of Huasabas, Sahuaripa (Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 
2001, pp. 108-109), and Nacori Chico (Rosas-Rosas and Bender 2012, pp. 
88-89)). Independent peer review cited in our July 22, 1997, clarifying 
rule (62 FR 39147, pp. 39153-39154) states that individuals dispersing 
into the United States are important because they occupy habitat that 
serves as a buffer to zones of regular reproduction and are potential 
colonizers of vacant range, and that, as such, areas supporting them 
are important to maintaining normal demographics, as well as allowing 
for possible range expansion. As described in the Recovery Outline for 
the Jaguar, the Northwestern Recovery Unit is essential for the 
conservation of the species; therefore, consideration of the spatial 
and biological dynamics that allow this unit to function and that 
benefit the overall unit is prudent. Providing connectivity from the 
United States to Mexico is a key element to maintaining those 
processes.
    As mentioned above, the U.S. lands within the secondary area of the 
Northwestern Recovery Unit are also located within the Northwestern 
Management Unit. Management units, as described in the Recovery 
Outline, are areas within a recovery unit that might require different 
management, be managed by different entities, or encompass different 
populations (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, p. 40). The U.S. lands located 
within the Northwestern Management Unit simply acknowledge the 
existence of different species

[[Page 50219]]

management on either side of the International Border with Mexico. This 
additional description of the U.S. lands as part of management unit 
does not mean that the habitat in United States has any less 
significance within the secondary area of the recovery unit.
    Additionally, as thoroughly discussed in the Recovery Outline for 
the Jaguar (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 19-20) and Johnson et al. 
(2011, pp. 30-31), populations at the edge of a species' range play a 
role in maintaining the total genetic diversity of a species; in some 
cases, these peripheral populations persist the longest as 
fragmentation and habitat loss impact the total range (Channell and 
Lomolino 2000, pp. 84-85). The United States and northwestern Mexico 
represent the northernmost extent of the jaguar's range, with 
populations persisting in distinct ecological conditions (xeric, or 
extremely dry, habitat) that occur nowhere else in the species' range 
(Sanderson et al. 2002, entire). Peripheral populations such as these 
are an important genetic resource in that they may be beneficial to the 
protection of evolutionary processes and the environmental systems that 
are likely to generate future evolutionary diversity (Lesica and 
Allendorf 1995, entire). This may be particularly important considering 
the potential threats of global climate change (see ``Climate Change,'' 
below). The ability for jaguars in the Northwestern Recovery Unit to 
utilize physical and biological habitat features in the Northwestern 
Management Unit is ecologically important to the recovery of the 
species; therefore, maintaining connectivity to Mexico is essential to 
the conservation of the jaguar.
Climate Change
    The degree to which climate change will affect jaguar habitat in 
the United States is uncertain, but it has the potential to adversely 
affect the jaguar within the next 50 to 100 years (Jaguar Recovery Team 
2012, p. 32). Climate change will be a particular challenge for 
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated 
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their 
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic 
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most 
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah and 
Lovejoy 2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial 
areas in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more 
intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying 
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 
2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 
1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of 
severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et 
al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015).
    The current prognosis for climate change impacts in the American 
Southwest includes fewer frost days; warmer temperatures; greater water 
demand by plants, animals, and people; and an increased frequency of 
extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, and floods (Weiss 
and Overpeck 2005, p. 2074; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 24). How 
climate change will affect summer precipitation is less certain, 
because precipitation predictions are based on continental-scale 
general circulation models that do not yet account for land use and 
land cover effects or regional phenomena, such as those that control 
monsoonal rainfall in the Southwest (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2075; 
Archer and Predick 2008, pp. 23-24). Some models predict dramatic 
changes in Southwestern vegetation communities as a result of climate 
change (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2074; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 
24), especially as wildfires carried by nonnative plants (e.g., 
buffelgrass) potentially become more frequent, promoting the presence 
of exotic species over native ones (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2075).
    The impact of future drought, which may be long-term and severe 
(Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1183-1184; Archer and Predick 2008, entire), 
may affect jaguar habitat in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands area, but the 
information currently available on the effects of global climate change 
and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently precise 
estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects. We do not know 
whether the changes that have already occurred have affected jaguar 
populations or distribution, nor can we predict how the species will 
adapt to or be affected by the type and degree of climate changes 
forecast. We are not currently aware of any climate change information 
specific to the habitat of the jaguar that would indicate what areas 
may become important to the species in the future. Therefore, we are 
unable to determine what additional areas, if any, may be appropriate 
to include in the final critical habitat designation for this species 
specifically to address the effects of climate change.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection. 
These include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential 
for jaguars from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life 
history as described below. Additional information can be found in the 
final clarifying rule published in the Federal Register on July 22, 
1997 (62 FR 39147), the Recovery Outline for the Jaguar (Jaguar 
Recovery Team 2012, entire), and the Digital Mapping in Support of 
Recovery Planning for the Northern Jaguar report (Sanderson and Fisher 
2011, pp. 1-11). We have determined that the following physical or 
biological feature is essential for the jaguar: Expansive open spaces 
in the southwestern United States with adequate connectivity to Mexico 
that contain a sufficient native prey base and available surface water, 
have suitable vegetative cover and rugged topography to provide sites 
for resting, and have minimal human impact, as further described below.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Expansive open spaces--Jaguars require a significant amount of 
space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior. 
Jaguars have relatively large home ranges and, according to Brown and 
L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez (2001, p. 60), their home ranges are 
highly variable and depend on topography, available prey, and 
population dynamics. Home ranges need to provide reliable surface 
water, available prey, and sites for resting that are removed from the 
impacts of human activity and influence (Jaguar Recovery

[[Page 50220]]

Team 2012, pp. 15-16). The availability of these habitat 
characteristics can fluctuate within a year (dry versus wet seasons) 
and between years (drought years versus wet years).
    Specific home ranges for jaguars depend on the sex, season, and 
vegetation type. The home ranges of borderland jaguars are presumably 
as large or larger than the home ranges of tropical jaguars (Brown and 
L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 60; McCain and Childs 2008, pp. 
6-7), as jaguars in this area are at the northern limit of their range 
and the arid environment contains resources and environmental 
conditions that are more variable than those in the tropics (Hass 2002, 
as cited in McCain and Childs 2008, p. 6). Therefore, jaguars require 
more space in arid areas to obtain essential resources such as food, 
water, and cover (discussed below).
    Only one limited home range study using standard radio-telemetry 
techniques and two home range studies using camera traps have been 
conducted for jaguars in northwestern Mexico. Telemetry data from one 
adult female tracked for 4 months during the dry season in Sonora 
indicated a home range size of 100 square km (37 square mi) 
(L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2011, pers. comm.). Additionally, using 
camera traps, a male in Sonora was documented using an average home 
range of 84 square km (32 square mi) (L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 
2011, pers. comm.). No home range studies using standard radio-
telemetry techniques have been conducted for jaguars in the 
southwestern United States, although McCain and Childs (2008, p. 5), 
using camera traps, reported one jaguar in southeastern Arizona as 
having a minimum observed ``range'' of 1,359 square km (525 square mi) 
encompassing two distinct mountain ranges. This study, however, was not 
designed to determine home range size; therefore, we are relying on 
minimum home-range estimates for male and female jaguars from Sonora, 
Mexico (L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2011, pers. comm.) for the minimum 
amount of adequate habitat required by jaguars in the United States.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify expansive 
open spaces in the United States of at least 84 to 100 square km (32 to 
37 square mi) in size with connectivity to Mexico, adequate native prey 
and available surface water, suitable vegetative cover and rugged 
topography to provide sites for resting, and minimal human impact as 
the essential components of the physical or biological feature 
essential for the conservation of the jaguar in the United States.
    Connectivity between expansive open spaces in the United States and 
Mexico--As discussed in the Jaguar Recovery Planning in Relation to 
Critical Habitat section, above, connectivity between the United States 
and Mexico is essential for the conservation of jaguars. Therefore, we 
identify connectivity between expansive open spaces in the United 
States and Mexico as an essential component of the physical or 
biological feature essential for the conservation of the jaguar in the 
United States.
    Connectivity between expansive open spaces within the United 
States--We know that connectivity between areas of habitat for the 
jaguar in the United States is necessary if viable habitat for the 
jaguar is to be maintained. This is particularly true in the 
mountainous areas of Arizona and New Mexico, where isolated mountain 
ranges providing the physical and biological features of jaguar habitat 
are separated by valley bottoms that may not possess the features 
described in this proposed rule. However, we also know that, based on 
home range sizes and research and monitoring, jaguars will use valley 
bottoms and other areas of habitat connectivity to move among areas of 
higher quality habitat found in isolated mountain ranges. We 
acknowledge that jaguars use connective areas to move between mountain 
ranges in the United States; however, as they are mainly using them for 
passage, jaguars do not linger in these areas. As a result, there is 
only one occurrence record of a jaguar in these areas. With only one 
record, we are unable to describe the features of these areas because 
of a lack of information. Therefore, while we acknowledge that habitat 
connectivity within the United States is important, the best available 
scientific and commercial information does not allow us to determine 
that any particular area within the valleys is essential, and all of 
the valley habitat is not essential to the conservation of the species. 
Therefore we are not designating any areas within the valleys between 
the montane habitat as critical habitat.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Food--Jaguar and large-cat experts believe that high-quality 
habitat for jaguars in the northwestern portion of their range should 
include a high abundance of native prey, particularly large prey like 
white-tailed deer and collared peccary (javelina), as well as an 
adequate number of medium-sized prey (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 
15-16). However, the Jaguar Recovery Team (2012, pp. 15-16) did not 
quantify ``high abundance'' or ``adequate number'' of each type of 
prey, making it difficult to state the density of prey required to 
sustain a resident jaguar in this portion of its range.
    Jaguars usually catch and kill their prey by stalking or ambush and 
biting through the nape as do most Felidae (members of the cat family) 
(Seymour 1989, p. 5). Like other large cats, jaguars rely on a 
combination of cover, surprise, acceleration, and body weight to 
capture their prey (Schaller 1972 and Hopcraft et al. 2005, as cited by 
Cavalcanti 2008, p. 47). Jaguars are considered opportunistic feeders, 
and their diet varies according to prey density and ease of prey 
capture (sources as cited in Seymour 1989, p. 4). Jaguars equally use 
medium- and large-size prey, with a trend toward use of larger prey as 
distance increases from the equator (L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez and 
Miller 2002, p. 218).
    In northeastern Sonora, where the northernmost breeding population 
of jaguars occurs, Rosas-Rosas (2006, pp. 24-25) found that large prey 
greater than 10 kilograms (kg) (22 pounds (lbs)) accounted for more 
than 80 percent of the total biomass consumed. Specifically, cattle 
accounted for more than half of the total biomass consumed (57 
percent), followed by white-tailed deer (23 percent), and collared 
peccary (5.12 percent). Medium-sized prey (1-10 kg; 2-22 lbs), 
including lagomorphs (rabbit family) and coatis (Nasua nasua), 
accounted for less than 20 percent of biomass. Small prey, less than 1 
kg (2 lbs), were not found in scats (Rosas-Rosas 2006, p. 24). At the 
Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve in Jalisco, Mexico (which is closed 
to livestock grazing), deer and javelina were the two most preferred 
prey species for jaguars, with jaguars consuming the equivalent of 85 
deer per individual per year (Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 
2001, p. 51). No estimates of the number of javelina consumed were 
provided, although in combination with deer, armadillo, and coati, 
these four prey items provided 98 percent of the biomass taken by 
jaguars (Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 50). Most 
jaguar experts believe that collared peccary and deer are mainstays in 
the diet of jaguars in the United States and Mexico borderlands (62 FR 
39147), although other available prey, including coatis, skunk 
(Mephitis spp., Spilogale gracilis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), 
jackrabbit (Lepus spp.), domestic livestock, and horses are taken as 
well (Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 51;

[[Page 50221]]

Hatten et al. 2005, p. 1024; Rosas-Rosas 2006, p. 24).
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify areas 
containing adequate numbers of native prey, including deer, javelina, 
and medium-sized prey items (such as coatis, skunks, raccoons, or 
jackrabbits) as an essential component of the physical and biological 
feature essential for the conservation of the jaguar in the United 
States.
    Water--Several studies have demonstrated that jaguars require 
surface water within a reasonable distance year-round. This requirement 
likely stems from increased prey abundance at or near water sources 
(Cavalcanti 2008, p. 68; Rosas-Rosas et al. 2010, pp. 107-108), 
particularly in arid environments, although it is conceivable that 
jaguars require a nearby water source for drinking, as well. Seymour 
(1989, p. 4) found that jaguars are most commonly found in areas with a 
water supply, although the distance to this water supply is not 
defined. In northeastern Sonora, Mexico, Rosas-Rosas et al. (2010, p. 
107) found that sites of jaguar cattle kills were positively associated 
with proximity to permanent water sources. They also found that these 
sites were positively associated with proximity to roads, but concluded 
that the effect of roads likely represented a response to major 
drainages, as roads generally followed major drainages within their 
study area.
    In the United States, only one modeling study analyzing distance to 
water as a feature of jaguar habitat has been conducted. Hatten et al. 
(2005, p. 1026) used jaguar records from Arizona dating from 1900 to 
2002, selecting the most reliable records (those with physical evidence 
or from a reliable witness) and most spatially accurate records (those 
with spatial errors of less than 8 km (5 mi)) to create a habitat 
suitability model. Of the 57 records they considered, 25 records were 
deemed reliable and accurate enough to include in the model. Using a 
digital Geographic Information System (GIS) layer that included 
perennial and intermittent water sources (streams, rivers, lakes, and 
springs), Hatten et al. (2005, p. 1029) found that when perennial and 
intermittent water sources were combined, 100 percent of the 25 jaguar 
records used for their model were within 10 km (6.2 mi) of a water 
source. This distance from water (10 km; 6.2 mi) was then incorporated 
into jaguar habitat modeling exercises in New Mexico (Menke and Hayes 
2003, pp. 15-16), and in northern Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico 
borderlands area (Sanderson and Fisher 2011, pp. 10-11), and was 
further acknowledged by jaguar and large cat researchers (primarily 
with expertise in the northwestern-most portion of the jaguar range) as 
the maximum distance an area could be from a year-round water source to 
constitute high-quality jaguar habitat (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 
15-16).
    Using data compiled by Sanderson and Fisher (2011, database) and 
McCain and Childs (2008, entire, and unpublished data), we collected 
undisputed Class I reports of jaguar locations in the United States 
since the time the species was listed (see Criteria Used To Identify 
Critical Habitat, below). Our compilation of data resulted in 130 
reports of jaguar locations to use in our analysis, of which we found 
that approximately 98 percent occurred within 10 km (6.2 mi) of a water 
source. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify sources 
of surface water within at least 20 km (12.4 mi) of each other such 
that a jaguar would be within 10 km (6.2 mi) of a water source at any 
given time (i.e., if it were halfway between these water sources) as an 
essential component of the physical or biological feature essential for 
the conservation of the jaguar in the United States.
Cover or Shelter
    Vegetative cover--Jaguars require vegetative cover allowing them to 
stalk and ambush prey, as well as providing areas in which to den and 
rest (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 15-16). Jaguars are known from a 
variety of vegetation communities (Seymour 1989, p. 2), sometimes 
called biotic communities or vegetation biomes (Brown 1994, p. 9). 
Jaguars have been documented in arid areas in northwestern Mexico and 
the southwestern United States, including thornscrub, desertscrub, 
lowland desert, mesquite grassland, Madrean oak woodland, and pine-oak 
woodland communities (Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, pp. 
43-50; Boydston and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2005, p. 54; McCain 
and Childs 2008, p. 7; Rosas-Rosas et al. 2010, p. 103). As most of the 
information pertaining to jaguar habitat in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands 
relies on descriptions of biotic communities from Brown and Lowe (1980, 
map) and Brown (1994, entire, including appendices), for purposes of 
this document we are using these same sources and descriptions, as 
well.
    According to Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez (2001, p. 46), 
the most important biotic community for jaguars in the southwestern 
borderlands (Arizona, New Mexico, Sonora, Chihuahua) is Sinaloan 
thornscrub (as described in Brown 1994, pp. 100-105), with 80 percent 
of the jaguars killed in the state of Sonora documented in this 
vegetation biome (Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 48). 
This biotic community, however, is absent in the United States (Brown 
and Lowe 1980, map; Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 
49). Madrean evergreen woodland is also important for borderlands 
jaguars; nearly 30 percent of jaguars killed in the borderlands region 
were documented in this biotic community (Brown and L[oacute]pez 
Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 45). Brown and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 
(2000, p. 538) indicate jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico predominantly 
use montane environments, probably because of more amiable temperatures 
and prey availability. A smaller, but still notable, number of jaguars 
were killed in chaparral and shrub-invaded semidesert grasslands (Brown 
and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 48). In Arizona, 
approximately 15 percent of the jaguars taken within the State between 
the years 1900 and 2000 were in semidesert grasslands (Brown and 
L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2001, p. 49).
    The more recent sightings (2001-2007), as described in McCain and 
Childs (2008, entire), document jaguars in these same biotic 
communities (note that the Madrean evergreen woodland and semidesert 
grassland biotic communities encompass the Sonoran lowland desert, 
Sonoran desert scrub, mesquite grassland, Madrean oak woodland, and 
pine-oak woodland habitats), and the most recent sighting of a jaguar 
in Arizona (2011) was in Madrean evergreen woodland, as well (Arizona 
Game and Fish Department, unpublished data).
    Several modeling studies incorporating vegetation characteristics 
have attempted to refine the general understanding of habitats that 
have been or might be used by jaguars in the United States. To 
characterize vegetation biomes, Hatten et al. (2005, entire) used a 
digital vegetation layer based on Brown and Lowe (1980, map) and Brown 
(1994, entire). They found that 100 percent of the 25 jaguar records 
used for their model were observed in four vegetation biomes, 
including: (1) Scrub grasslands of southeastern Arizona (56 percent); 
(2) Madrean evergreen forest (20 percent); (3) Rocky Mountain montane 
conifer forest (12 percent); and (4) Great Basin conifer woodland (12 
percent).
    In addition, two studies (Menke and Hayes 2003, entire; Robinson et 
al. 2006, entire) attempted to evaluate potential jaguar habitat in New 
Mexico

[[Page 50222]]

using methods similar to those described in Hatten et al. (2005, pp. 
1025-1028). However, due to the small number of reliable and spatially 
accurate records within New Mexico, neither model was able to determine 
patterns of habitat use (and associated vegetation communities) for 
jaguars in New Mexico, instead relying on literature and expert opinion 
for elements to include in the models. These vegetation communities 
included Madrean evergreen woodland, which Menke and Hayes (2003, p. 
13) considered the most similar to habitats used by the closest 
breeding populations of jaguars in Mexico, as well as grasslands 
(semidesert, Plains and Great Basin, and subalpine), interior 
chaparral, conifer forests and woodlands (Great Basin, Petran montane, 
and Petran subalpine), and desertscrub (Chihuahuan, Arizona upland 
Sonoran, and Great Basin).
    Finally, Sanderson and Fisher (2011, pp. 1-11) created a jaguar 
habitat model for northwestern Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico borderlands 
area using the methodology described in Hatten et al. (2005, pp. 1025-
1028), but with some modifications. From 54 references published 
between the years 1737 and 2010, they compiled 333 potential jaguar 
locations from across the United States and northern Mexico (Sanderson 
and Fisher 2011, p. 4). These records were not selected to include only 
those that were reliable and spatially accurate (as described above in 
Hatten et al. 2005, pp. 1025-1026). Instead, they included cultural 
evidence (such as a jaguar painting in a cave or a place name including 
the word jaguar), sightings of live animals or their sign, mortalities 
(such as hunting events or jaguars killed after a predation event), and 
observations of possible jaguars (such as a cat, spotted cat, or large 
quadruped (four-footed animal)) (details as described in the database 
associated with Sanderson and Fisher 2011). Another modification 
Sanderson and Fisher (2011, pp. 7-8) made was to substitute a digital 
layer describing tree cover for the digital vegetation layer based on 
Brown and Lowe (1980, map) and Brown (1994, entire). In doing so, 
Sanderson and Fisher (2011, p. 9) determined the percent tree cover at 
each of the 333 locations used in their model, reporting that 
approximately 70 percent of the locations were in areas with 3 to 60 
percent tree cover. They then used this range of tree cover as a 
variable delineating jaguar habitat (Sanderson and Fisher 2011, p. 11).
    Using the same digital vegetation layer as Hatten et al. (2005, p. 
1028) and the tree cover layer used by Sanderson and Fisher (2011, pp. 
7-8), we analyzed 130 jaguar locations in the United States and found 
that approximately 98 percent of them occurred in Madrean evergreen 
woodlands and semidesert grasslands, with 88 percent occurring in areas 
containing 3 to 40 percent tree cover. Therefore, based on the 
information above, we identify Madrean evergreen woodlands and 
semidesert grasslands containing 3 to 40 percent tree cover as an 
essential component of the physical or biological feature essential for 
the conservation of the jaguar in the United States.
    Rugged topography--Rugged topography (including canyons, ridges, 
and some rocky hills to provide sites for resting) is acknowledged as 
an important component of jaguar habitat in the northwestern-most 
portion of its range (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, pp. 15-16). The 
habitat model for the Northern Jaguar Recovery Unit created by 
Sanderson and Fisher (2011, p. 9) determined that jaguars in this area 
were most frequently found in intermediately, moderately, and highly 
rugged terrain. Additionally, one study in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands 
area (Boydston and L[oacute]pez Gonz[aacute]lez 2005, entire) and one 
in northeastern Mexico (Ortega-Huerta and Medley 1999, entire) 
incorporate slope as a factor in describing jaguar habitat. Although 
slope can provide some understanding of topography (steep slopes 
generally indicate a more rugged landscape), it is less descriptive in 
terms