Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Revise Critical Habitat for the Jaguar, 49985-49989 [2021-19062]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
49985
(ii) Map of Unit 16 follows:
Critical Habitat Unit for Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana)
Unit 16: Porter Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Porter Pineland
Preserve
•
,
•
-
-.
Critical Habitat Miami Tiger Beetle
Major Highways
Canals
.fl
□
0 0.07 0.15
I I! 1
Miami-Dade County, Florida
*
*
*
*
*
Martha Williams
Principal Deputy Director Exercising the
Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service,
[FR Doc. 2021–19088 Filed 9–3–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2021–0011;
FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To Revise Critical Habitat for
the Jaguar
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notification of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce our
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 03, 2021
Jkt 253001
0.07
Ir I
0.15
0.3 Kilometers
I
0,3 MIies
90-day finding in response to a petition
to revise critical habitat for the jaguar
(Panthera onca) pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The petition requests
the Service to revise the existing critical
habitat designation by removing
approximately 20,234 hectares (50,000
acres) of land in the northern Santa Rita
Mountains in Arizona and an adjoining
critical habitat subunit, including land
containing the proposed Rosemont
Mine. Our 90-day finding is that the
petition does not present substantial
scientific information indicating that the
requested revision to the critical habitat
designation may be warranted.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on September 7,
2021.
This finding is available on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2021–0011. Information
and supporting documentation that we
received and used in preparing this
finding is available for public inspection
pursuant to current COVID–19
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
restrictions. You may contact the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office
at 9828 North 31st Ave. C3, Phoenix, AZ
85051–2517 (telephone 602–242–0210)
for further information about these
restrictions. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding to the
above mailing address.
Jeff
Humphrey, Arizona Ecological Services
Field Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone
602–242–0210. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) defines critical habitat as
(i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed, on which
are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may
require special management
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
EP07SE21.020
..
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
49986
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
considerations or protections; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed, upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species.
Our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424.12 describe our criteria for
designating critical habitat. We are to
consider physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. Our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the
‘‘physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species’’ as
the features that occur in specific areas
and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including,
but not limited to, water characteristics,
soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other
features. A feature may be a single
habitat characteristic, or a more
complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include
habitat characteristics that support
ephemeral or dynamic habitat
conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles
of conservation biology, such as patch
size, distribution distances, and
connectivity. In addition, our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.02 define ‘‘special management
considerations or protection’’ as
methods or procedures useful in
protecting the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
listed species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us
to designate and make revisions to
critical habitat for listed species on the
basis of the best scientific data available
and after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on
national security, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area
as critical habitat. The Secretary may
exclude any particular area from critical
habitat if she determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless she
determines that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result
in the extinction of the species
concerned.
5 U.S.C. 553(e) gives interested
persons the right to petition for the
issuance, amendment, or repeal of a
Federal rule. Section 4(b)(3)(D) of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that
we make a finding on whether a petition
to revise critical habitat for a species
presents substantial scientific
information indicating that the revision
may be warranted. Our regulations at 50
CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i) state that
‘‘ ‘substantial scientific information’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 03, 2021
Jkt 253001
refers to credible scientific information
in support of the petition’s claims such
that a reasonable person conducting an
impartial scientific review would
conclude that the revision proposed in
the petition may be warranted.
Conclusions drawn in the petition
without the support of credible
scientific information will not be
considered ‘substantial information.’ ’’
In determining whether substantial
scientific information exists, we
consider several factors, including
information submitted with, and
referenced in, the petition and all other
information readily available in our
files. Our regulations at 50 CFR
424.14(e)(4) require that when the
petitioner requests removal of areas
from currently designated critical
habitat within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it
was listed, we consider whether the
petition contains information indicating
that areas petitioned to be removed from
currently designated critical habitat do
not contain the physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, or that these
features do not require special
management considerations or
protection. Our regulations at 50 CFR
424.14(e)(5) require that, for areas
petitioned to be added to or removed
from designated critical habitat that
were outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it
was listed, the petitioner must present
information indicating why the
petitioned areas are essential (if areas
are being added) or are not essential (if
areas are being removed) for the
conservation of the species.
To the maximum extent practicable,
we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and
publish our notification of the finding
promptly in the Federal Register. We
are to base this finding on information
provided in the petition, supporting
information submitted with the petition,
and information otherwise available in
our files. If we find that a petition
presents substantial scientific
information indicating that the revision
may be warranted, we are required to
determine how we intend to proceed
with the requested revision within 12
months after receiving the petition and
promptly publish notification of such
intention in the Federal Register.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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; March
30, 1972). In 1973, the Act superseded
the ESCA. The foreign and native lists
were replaced by a single ‘‘List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife’’
(List), which was first published in the
Federal Register on September 26, 1975
(40 FR 44412). In the 1975 List, the
jaguar’s range again was described as
including Central and South America
(40 FR 44412, September 26, 1975, p. 40
FR 44418), but not the United States. On
July 22, 1997, we published a final rule
clarifying that endangered status for the
jaguar extended into the United States
(62 FR 39147).
The 1997 clarifying rule included a
determination that designation of
critical habitat for the jaguar was not
prudent (62 FR 39147, July 22, 1997, p.
62 FR 39155). However, after several
petitions and legal actions, on August
20, 2012, we published in the Federal
Register (77 FR 50214) a proposed rule
to designate critical habitat for the
jaguar. In that proposed rule, we
proposed to designate approximately
339,220 hectares (838,232 acres) as
critical habitat in six units located in
Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties,
Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New
Mexico. The comment period opened
August 20, 2012, and closed October 19,
2012.
On March 12, 2013, we received a
report from the bi-national Jaguar
Recovery Team entitled Jaguar Habitat
Modeling and Database Update
(Sanderson and Fisher 2013, entire) that
included a revised habitat model for the
jaguar in the proposed Northwestern
Recovery Unit. This report
recommended defining habitat patches
of less than 100 square kilometers (km2)
(38.6 square miles (mi2)) in size as
unsuitable for jaguars, as well as slight
changes to some of the features
comprising jaguar habitat. Therefore, we
incorporated this information into the
physical and biological features for the
jaguar, resulting in changes to the
boundaries as described in our August
20, 2012, proposed critical habitat rule.
On July 1, 2013, we published in the
Federal Register (78 FR 39237) a revised
proposed rule that described the
revisions explained above to our
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the jaguar; with those revisions, the
proposed critical habitat for the jaguar
totaled approximately 347,277 hectares
(858,137 acres) in six units located in
Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties,
Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New
Mexico. We also announced the
availability of a draft economic analysis
and draft environmental assessment of
the revised proposed designation of
critical habitat for jaguar and an
amended required determinations
section of the proposal. Additionally,
we announced the reopening of the
comment period. The comment period
opened July 1, 2013, and closed August
9, 2013.
On August 15, 2013, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia
granted the Service’s motion to extend
the deadline for publishing a final
critical habitat designation for the jaguar
to December 16, 2013. This rescheduled
final rulemaking date allowed us to
reopen the public comment period
again, because we had received multiple
requests to do so. On August 29, 2013,
we announced the reopening of the
comment period for an additional 15
days (78 FR 53390). The comment
period opened August 29, 2013, and
closed September 13, 2013.
From October 1 to October 17, 2013,
the U.S. Federal Government entered a
shutdown and curtailed most routine
operations due to a lapse in
appropriations. Due to this delay, the
U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia granted the Service’s motion
to extend the deadline for submitting a
final critical habitat designation for the
jaguar to the Federal Register to no later
than February 14, 2014. On February 12,
2014, we submitted the final rule to the
Federal Register, and on March 5, 2014,
the final rule to designate critical habitat
for the jaguar published in the Federal
Register (79 FR 12572). In that final
rule, we designated approximately
309,263 hectares (764,207 acres) in
Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties,
Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New
Mexico. The rule went into effect on
April 4, 2014.
On February 10, 2020, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona
ruled on a crossclaim filed by Rosemont
Copper Company in a lawsuit
challenging the critical habitat
designation for the jaguar Ctr. for
Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Serv., 441 F. Supp. 3d 843 (D.
Ariz. 2020) (Ctr. for Biological
Diversity)). The court upheld the
Service’s critical habitat designation,
but found that critical habitat Unit 3
was unoccupied at the time of listing.
This decision was appealed to the 9th
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 03, 2021
Jkt 253001
Circuit Court of Appeals by Rosemont
Copper Company. The case is currently
stayed, and no final judgment on the
matter has been entered.
Petition History
On November 11, 2020, we received
a petition from the petitioner (Rosemont
Copper Company) requesting that
critical habitat for the jaguar be revised
under the Act, pursuant to section 4 of
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and 50 CFR
424.10 and 424.14. The petition
requested approximately 20,234
hectares (50,000 acres) of land in the
northern Santa Rita Mountains and an
adjoining critical habitat subunit,
including land containing the proposed
Rosemont Copper Mine, be removed
from the critical habitat designation for
the jaguar. In particular, the petition
seeks the removal of a portion of critical
habitat Unit 3 and Subunit 4b. The
Service found that Unit 3 was occupied
by the jaguar at the time of listing, but,
due to uncertainty regarding occupation
at the time of listing, we also
determined that Unit 3 was essential to
the conservation of the species. We also
found Subunit 4b was unoccupied at the
time of listing but essential to the
conservation of the species.
In the petition, the petitioner
provided the following assertions to
support its requested revisions:
1. ‘‘The Arizona District Court has
subsequently determined that the Santa Rita
Mountains were not occupied at the time of
listing, and in designating critical habitat, the
Service failed to evaluate areas that are
occupied by jaguars in accordance with its
own rules’’ (Rosemont 2020, p. 7).
2. ‘‘The northern Santa Rita Mountains
provide limited conservation benefits and are
not essential to the conservation of the
species’’ (Rosemont 2020, p. 8).
3. ‘‘The FWS erroneously relied on the
2013 BiOp [biological opinion for the
Rosemont Copper Mine] and did not consider
excluding the northern Santa Rita Mountains
from the critical habitat’’ (Rosemont 2020, p.
10).
4. ‘‘The critical habitat designation is no
longer ’prudent’ ’’ based on the August 27,
2019, final rule (84 FR 45020) that amended
the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 governing
the listing of species and designation of
critical habitat (Rosemont 2020, p. 12).
5. Subunit 4b (a subunit providing
connectivity from Unit 4 to Mexico through
Unit 3) is unoccupied; no evidence exists
that a jaguar has used the subunit or would
need to use it to travel to and from Mexico;
more direct routes from Unit 4 to Mexico are
available; and, if the northern Santa Rita
Mountains are removed from critical habitat,
there is no reason to designate Subunit 4b
(Rosemont 2020, pp. 12–13).
6. ‘‘The removal of the northern Santa Rita
Mountains and Subunit 4b will have little
impact on the remaining critical habitat’’
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49987
(about 6.5% of the total) (Rosemont 2020, p.
13).
The petition clearly identified itself as
such and included the requisite
identification information for the
petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c).
This finding addresses the petition.
Species Information
The jaguar is the largest species of cat
native to the Western Hemisphere.
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 forms
are also known, primarily from the
southern part of the range (Service 1997,
p. 39147). Jaguars historically ranged
from the southern United States to
central Argentina (Swank and Teer
1989, p. 14; Caso et al. 2008, p. 2).
Currently, they range from the
southwestern United States to northern
Argentina, are found in all countries
except for El Salvador and Uruguay
(Zeller 2007, all maps), and are
estimated to occupy 51 percent of their
historical range (Quigley et al. 2017, p.
3; Je˛drzejewski et al. 2018, p. 10).
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. The list of prey consumed
by jaguars rangewide includes more
than 85 species (Seymour 1989, p. 340),
such as peccaries (javelina), capybaras,
pacas, armadillos, caimans, turtles, and
various birds and fish. Javelina and deer
are presumably mainstays in the diet of
jaguars in the United States and Mexico
borderlands (Service 1997, p. 39147).
Jaguars are known from a variety of
habitats (for example, see Seymour
1989, p. 340). They show a high affinity
to lowland wet habitats, typically
swampy savannas or tropical rain
forests. However, they also occur, or
once did, in upland habitats in warmer
regions of North and South America.
Within the United States, jaguars have
been recorded most commonly from
Arizona, but there are also records from
California, New Mexico, and Texas, and
reports from Louisiana (Service 1997, p.
39147).
Evaluation of Information for the 90Day Finding
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us
to designate and revise critical habitat
for listed species on the basis of the best
scientific data available. Section
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
49988
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
4(b)(3)(D)(i) requires us to make a
finding as to whether the petition
presents substantial scientific
information indicating that the revision
may be warranted. For the purposes of
findings on petitions to revise critical
habitat, we apply the definition of
‘‘substantial scientific information’’ set
forth at 50 CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i).
90-Day Finding
As noted earlier, the court in Ctr. for
Biological Diversity upheld our critical
habitat determination for jaguar, but
found that critical habitat Unit 3 was
unoccupied at the time of listing. That
decision has been appealed by the
petitioner. The case is currently stayed.
In an abundance of caution, we
analyzed the petition under both 50 CFR
424.14(e)(4) and (e)(5). That is, we
considered the petition as if Unit 3 was
occupied at the time of listing and,
separately, consistent with the District
Court’s judgment, as if Unit 3 was
unoccupied at the time of listing. Under
either analysis, we do not find that the
petition meets the substantial scientific
information standard.
In the first analysis, we considered
whether the petition, pursuant to 50
CFR 424.14(e)(4), contains substantial
scientific information indicating that
areas to be removed from currently
designated critical habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it was listed (Unit 3)
do not contain the physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, or that these
features do not require special
management considerations or
protection. The petition did not provide
substantial scientific information that
Unit 3, including the northern Santa
Rita Mountains and the area around the
proposed mine, no longer contains the
physical or biological features of jaguar
critical habitat, nor did the petition
provide substantial scientific
information that these features no longer
require special management
considerations or protection.
In the second analysis, we applied the
standard set forth at 50 CFR 424.14(e)(5)
to both Unit 3 and Subunit 4b. We find
the petition does not contain substantial
scientific information indicating that
areas petitioned to be removed from
critical habitat (the northern portion of
Unit 3 and all of Subunit 4b) are not
essential for the conservation of the
species. Subunit 4b is essential to the
conservation of the jaguar because it
contributes to the species’ persistence
by providing connectivity from the
Whetstone Mountains (Unit 4) to
Mexico via Unit 3 (79 FR 12572, March
5, 2014, p. 79 FR 12589). The ability for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 03, 2021
Jkt 253001
jaguars in the Northwestern Recovery
Unit (one of two recovery units deemed
essential to the jaguar by the Jaguar
Recovery Team; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2018, p. 82) to use physical and
biological habitat features in the
borderlands region is ecologically
important to the recovery of the species;
therefore, maintaining connectivity to
Mexico is essential to the conservation
of the jaguar (79 FR 12572, March 5,
2014, p. 79 FR 12574). The petition
states that there is no evidence that a
jaguar has used Subunit 4b or would
need to use the subunit to travel to and
from Mexico because jaguars have more
direct geographic connections to Mexico
via the mountain ranges close to the
border (Rosemont 2020, p. 12).
However, because Subunit 4b is
considered unoccupied, evidence of
jaguar use is not a requirement to
consider the subunit essential.
Additionally, speculation about where a
jaguar may or may not travel is not
substantial scientific information
according to our regulations at 50 CFR
424.14(i)(1)(i). Therefore, the petition
does not provide substantial scientific
information as to why this subunit is
not essential or why it does not
contribute to connectivity to Mexico.
Unit 3 was found to be unoccupied by
the court, but the court determined that
Unit 3 is essential to the recovery of the
species (see Ctr. for Biological Diversity
at 873). When designating critical
habitat for the jaguar, we recognized
that an argument could be made that no
areas in the United States were
occupied by the species at the time it
was listed, or that only areas containing
undisputed Class I records from
between 1962 and 1982 were occupied
(79 FR 12572, March 5, 2014, p. 79 FR
12582). For this reason, in our final
critical habitat rule, we also analyzed
whether or not these areas are essential
to the conservation of the species. In the
final rule, we determined that areas we
considered occupied (such as Unit 3)
are also essential to the conservation of
the species because: (1) They have
demonstrated recent (since 1996)
occupancy by jaguars; (2) they contain
features that comprise jaguar habitat;
and (3) they contribute to the species’
persistence in the United States by
allowing the normal demographic
function and possible range expansion
of the Northwestern Recovery Unit,
which is essential to the conservation of
the species. The petition provides no
substantial scientific information
indicating why Unit 3 is not essential
for the conservation of the species based
on these three factors we identified in
the critical habitat rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
First, the petition does not provide
information challenging that Unit 3 has
demonstrated recent (since 1996)
occupancy by jaguars. The petition
acknowledges that a single male jaguar
was detected in the Santa Rita
Mountains from 2012–2015, one that
was also detected in the Whetstone
Mountains (Unit 4) in 2011. We have
information in our files corroborating
the presence of this jaguar in the Santa
Rita Mountains from 2012–2015.
Therefore, the petition does not provide
substantial scientific information
indicating Unit 3 does not demonstrate
recent (since 1996) occupancy by
jaguars.
Second, the petition does not provide
information that Unit 3 does not contain
features that comprise jaguar habitat.
Instead, the petition states the
International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources rates the type of habitat found
in the Santa Rita Mountains as
‘‘marginal’’ habitat for jaguars
(Rosemont 2020, pp. 9–10). This
information does not indicate that
jaguar habitat is no longer present or
essential in Unit 3. We acknowledge in
the final rule designating jaguar critical
habitat that 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’’ (79 FR 12572, March 5,
2014, p. 79 FR 12573). We also
acknowledge that ‘‘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’’ (79 FR 12572, March 5, 2014, p.
79 FR 12573). It is for these reasons that
we determined that all of the primary
constituent elements discussed in the
March 5, 2014, final rule must be
present in each specific area to
constitute critical jaguar habitat in the
United States (79 FR 12572, March 5,
2014, p. 79 FR 12587). The petition does
not provide evidence that all of the
primary constituent elements are no
longer present in Unit 3. Therefore, the
petition does not provide substantial
scientific information that Unit 3 does
not contain features that comprise
jaguar habitat.
Third, the petition does not provide
information challenging the
contribution of critical habitat to the
species’ persistence in the United States
by allowing the normal demographic
function and possible range expansion
of the Northwestern Recovery Unit,
which is essential to the conservation of
the species. The petition states that the
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
United States contains, at most, less
than 1 percent of the worldwide jaguar
habitat, and has no resident population
of jaguars (Rosemont 2020, p. 9). This
information relates to the status of the
species and does not address whether or
not Unit 3 allows for the normal
demographic function and possible
range expansion of the Northwestern
Recovery Unit. The petition also states
that removal of the northern Santa Rita
Mountains and Subunit 4b represents a
very small percentage of the total
critical habitat—about 6.5 percent—that
would be removed by the petitioned
action and will not prevent the
remaining critical habitat from
functioning as intended for the support
of the Northwest Recovery Unit
(Rosemont 2020, pp. 13–14). The
recovery function and value of critical
habitat for the jaguar within the United
States is to contribute to the species’
persistence and, therefore, overall
conservation by identifying areas that
support some individuals during
dispersal movements, that contain small
patches of habitat (perhaps in some
cases with a few resident jaguars), and
that allow for cyclic expansion and
contraction of the nearest core area and
breeding population in the
Northwestern Recovery Unit (79 FR
12572, March 5, 2014, p. 79 FR 12574).
Removal of the northern Santa Rita
Mountains would withdraw areas that
currently provide the physical and
biological features of jaguar critical
habitat and in which confirmed jaguar
detections occurred between 2012 and
2015 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2016, p. 295). In addition, removal of
Subunit 4b eliminates half of the
available connections to Mexico for Unit
4 (specifically to Subunit 4a), which is
a unit in which the same jaguar that
occupied the Santa Rita Mountains
(Unit 3) was detected in 2011. The
petition does not explain why these
areas are no longer essential other than
to assert that most critical habitat units
would be unaffected, and that impacts
to Unit 3 and Unit 4 would be minor
and would not prevent the units from
functioning as intended. This assertion
does not demonstrate that changes have
occurred to these areas such that the
function they provide to jaguars, and the
reason for which they were designated
as critical habitat, is compromised.
Therefore, the petition does not provide
substantial scientific information that
the northern Santa Rita Mountains in
Unit 3 and all of Subunit 4b no longer
function as critical habitat and are not
essential in allowing for the normal
demographic function and possible
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 03, 2021
Jkt 253001
range expansion of the Northwestern
Recovery Unit.
The petition discusses the 2013
biological opinion for the Rosemont
Copper Mine, which was overturned by
a court decision (Ctr. for Biological
Diversity at 873), and our 2019
amendments to the regulations at 50
CFR 424.12 in its request to revise
critical habitat for jaguars. We reviewed
the petition’s argument and find that
these documents are not relevant to the
question of whether the petition
contained substantial information to
support the removal of areas from
critical habitat. Neither line of
discussion speaks to whether the areas
petitioned for removal contain the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species or
provides information that these features
do not require special management
considerations or protection (50 CFR
424.14(e)(4).
Based on our review of the petition
and sources cited in the petition, we
find that the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating the petitioned
action may be warranted for the jaguar.
Because the petition does not present
substantial information indicating that
revision of critical habitat for jaguar may
be warranted, we do not intend to
proceed with any such revision.
However, we ask that the public submit
to us any new information that becomes
available concerning this species’
habitat at any time by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, above.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this document is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the
Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–19062 Filed 9–3–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49989
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2021–0092;
FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
RIN 1018–BF43
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Species Status
With Section 4(d) Rule for Pyramid
Pigtoe
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce our
12-month finding on a petition to list
the pyramid pigtoe (Pleurobema
rubrum), a freshwater mussel species
from Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia, as
an endangered or threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). After a review
of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that
listing the species is warranted.
Accordingly, we propose to list the
pyramid pigtoe as a threatened species
with a rule issued under section 4(d) of
the Act (‘‘4(d) rule’’). If we finalize this
rule as proposed, it would add this
species to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and extend the
Act’s protections to the species.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
November 8, 2021. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the closing date. We
must receive requests for a public
hearing, in writing, at the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by October 22, 2021.
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 box,
enter the docket number or RIN for this
rulemaking (presented above in the
document headings). For best results, do
not copy and paste either number;
instead, type the docket number or RIN
into the Search box using hyphens.
Then, click on the Search button. On the
resulting page, in the panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document
Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49985-49989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19062]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2021-0011; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To Revise Critical Habitat for the Jaguar
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our
90-day finding in response to a petition to revise critical habitat for
the jaguar (Panthera onca) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). The petition requests the Service to revise the
existing critical habitat designation by removing approximately 20,234
hectares (50,000 acres) of land in the northern Santa Rita Mountains in
Arizona and an adjoining critical habitat subunit, including land
containing the proposed Rosemont Mine. Our 90-day finding is that the
petition does not present substantial scientific information indicating
that the requested revision to the critical habitat designation may be
warranted.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 7,
2021.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2021-0011. Information and
supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this
finding is available for public inspection pursuant to current COVID-19
restrictions. You may contact the Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office at 9828 North 31st Ave. C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517 (telephone
602-242-0210) for further information about these restrictions. Please
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above mailing address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Humphrey, Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone 602-242-0210. Persons
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) defines
critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may require special management
[[Page 49986]]
considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for
the conservation of the species.
Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 describe our criteria
for designating critical habitat. We are to consider physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the ``physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species'' as
the features that occur in specific areas and that are essential to
support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not
limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features,
sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A
feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat
characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions.
Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of
conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and
connectivity. In addition, our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.02 define ``special management considerations or protection'' as
methods or procedures useful in protecting the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of listed species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate and make
revisions to critical habitat for listed species on the basis of the
best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude any particular area from critical habitat if
she determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat,
unless she determines that the failure to designate such area as
critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species
concerned.
5 U.S.C. 553(e) gives interested persons the right to petition for
the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a Federal rule. Section
4(b)(3)(D) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a
finding on whether a petition to revise critical habitat for a species
presents substantial scientific information indicating that the
revision may be warranted. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i)
state that `` `substantial scientific information' refers to credible
scientific information in support of the petition's claims such that a
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would
conclude that the revision proposed in the petition may be warranted.
Conclusions drawn in the petition without the support of credible
scientific information will not be considered `substantial
information.' ''
In determining whether substantial scientific information exists,
we consider several factors, including information submitted with, and
referenced in, the petition and all other information readily available
in our files. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(e)(4) require that when
the petitioner requests removal of areas from currently designated
critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time it was listed, we consider whether the petition contains
information indicating that areas petitioned to be removed from
currently designated critical habitat do not contain the physical or
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species, or that these features do not require special management
considerations or protection. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(e)(5)
require that, for areas petitioned to be added to or removed from
designated critical habitat that were outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it was listed, the petitioner must
present information indicating why the petitioned areas are essential
(if areas are being added) or are not essential (if areas are being
removed) for the conservation of the species.
To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding
within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our
notification of the finding promptly in the Federal Register. We are to
base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting
information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files. If we find that a petition presents substantial
scientific information indicating that the revision may be warranted,
we are required to determine how we intend to proceed with the
requested revision within 12 months after receiving the petition and
promptly publish notification of such intention in the Federal
Register.
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; March 30, 1972). In
1973, the Act superseded the ESCA. The foreign and native lists were
replaced by a single ``List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife''
(List), which was first published in the Federal Register on September
26, 1975 (40 FR 44412). In the 1975 List, the jaguar's range again was
described as including Central and South America (40 FR 44412,
September 26, 1975, p. 40 FR 44418), but not the United States. On July
22, 1997, we published a final rule clarifying that endangered status
for the jaguar extended into the United States (62 FR 39147).
The 1997 clarifying rule included a determination that designation
of critical habitat for the jaguar was not prudent (62 FR 39147, July
22, 1997, p. 62 FR 39155). However, after several petitions and legal
actions, on August 20, 2012, we published in the Federal Register (77
FR 50214) a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the jaguar.
In that proposed rule, we proposed to designate approximately 339,220
hectares (838,232 acres) as critical habitat in six units located in
Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County,
New Mexico. The comment period opened August 20, 2012, and closed
October 19, 2012.
On March 12, 2013, we received a report from the bi-national Jaguar
Recovery Team entitled Jaguar Habitat Modeling and Database Update
(Sanderson and Fisher 2013, entire) that included a revised habitat
model for the jaguar in the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit. This
report recommended defining habitat patches of less than 100 square
kilometers (km\2\) (38.6 square miles (mi\2\)) in size as unsuitable
for jaguars, as well as slight changes to some of the features
comprising jaguar habitat. Therefore, we incorporated this information
into the physical and biological features for the jaguar, resulting in
changes to the boundaries as described in our August 20, 2012, proposed
critical habitat rule.
On July 1, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 39237)
a revised proposed rule that described the revisions explained above to
our
[[Page 49987]]
proposed designation of critical habitat for the jaguar; with those
revisions, the proposed critical habitat for the jaguar totaled
approximately 347,277 hectares (858,137 acres) in six units located in
Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County,
New Mexico. We also announced the availability of a draft economic
analysis and draft environmental assessment of the revised proposed
designation of critical habitat for jaguar and an amended required
determinations section of the proposal. Additionally, we announced the
reopening of the comment period. The comment period opened July 1,
2013, and closed August 9, 2013.
On August 15, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia granted the Service's motion to extend the deadline for
publishing a final critical habitat designation for the jaguar to
December 16, 2013. This rescheduled final rulemaking date allowed us to
reopen the public comment period again, because we had received
multiple requests to do so. On August 29, 2013, we announced the
reopening of the comment period for an additional 15 days (78 FR
53390). The comment period opened August 29, 2013, and closed September
13, 2013.
From October 1 to October 17, 2013, the U.S. Federal Government
entered a shutdown and curtailed most routine operations due to a lapse
in appropriations. Due to this delay, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted the Service's motion to extend the
deadline for submitting a final critical habitat designation for the
jaguar to the Federal Register to no later than February 14, 2014. On
February 12, 2014, we submitted the final rule to the Federal Register,
and on March 5, 2014, the final rule to designate critical habitat for
the jaguar published in the Federal Register (79 FR 12572). In that
final rule, we designated approximately 309,263 hectares (764,207
acres) in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo
County, New Mexico. The rule went into effect on April 4, 2014.
On February 10, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona ruled on a crossclaim filed by Rosemont Copper Company in a
lawsuit challenging the critical habitat designation for the jaguar
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 441 F.
Supp. 3d 843 (D. Ariz. 2020) (Ctr. for Biological Diversity)). The
court upheld the Service's critical habitat designation, but found that
critical habitat Unit 3 was unoccupied at the time of listing. This
decision was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by Rosemont
Copper Company. The case is currently stayed, and no final judgment on
the matter has been entered.
Petition History
On November 11, 2020, we received a petition from the petitioner
(Rosemont Copper Company) requesting that critical habitat for the
jaguar be revised under the Act, pursuant to section 4 of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533) and 50 CFR 424.10 and 424.14. The petition requested
approximately 20,234 hectares (50,000 acres) of land in the northern
Santa Rita Mountains and an adjoining critical habitat subunit,
including land containing the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine, be removed
from the critical habitat designation for the jaguar. In particular,
the petition seeks the removal of a portion of critical habitat Unit 3
and Subunit 4b. The Service found that Unit 3 was occupied by the
jaguar at the time of listing, but, due to uncertainty regarding
occupation at the time of listing, we also determined that Unit 3 was
essential to the conservation of the species. We also found Subunit 4b
was unoccupied at the time of listing but essential to the conservation
of the species.
In the petition, the petitioner provided the following assertions
to support its requested revisions:
1. ``The Arizona District Court has subsequently determined that
the Santa Rita Mountains were not occupied at the time of listing,
and in designating critical habitat, the Service failed to evaluate
areas that are occupied by jaguars in accordance with its own
rules'' (Rosemont 2020, p. 7).
2. ``The northern Santa Rita Mountains provide limited
conservation benefits and are not essential to the conservation of
the species'' (Rosemont 2020, p. 8).
3. ``The FWS erroneously relied on the 2013 BiOp [biological
opinion for the Rosemont Copper Mine] and did not consider excluding
the northern Santa Rita Mountains from the critical habitat''
(Rosemont 2020, p. 10).
4. ``The critical habitat designation is no longer 'prudent' ''
based on the August 27, 2019, final rule (84 FR 45020) that amended
the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 governing the listing of species
and designation of critical habitat (Rosemont 2020, p. 12).
5. Subunit 4b (a subunit providing connectivity from Unit 4 to
Mexico through Unit 3) is unoccupied; no evidence exists that a
jaguar has used the subunit or would need to use it to travel to and
from Mexico; more direct routes from Unit 4 to Mexico are available;
and, if the northern Santa Rita Mountains are removed from critical
habitat, there is no reason to designate Subunit 4b (Rosemont 2020,
pp. 12-13).
6. ``The removal of the northern Santa Rita Mountains and
Subunit 4b will have little impact on the remaining critical
habitat'' (about 6.5% of the total) (Rosemont 2020, p. 13).
The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the
requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50
CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
Species Information
The jaguar is the largest species of cat native to the Western
Hemisphere. 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 forms are also known, primarily from the
southern part of the range (Service 1997, p. 39147). Jaguars
historically ranged from the southern United States to central
Argentina (Swank and Teer 1989, p. 14; Caso et al. 2008, p. 2).
Currently, they range from the southwestern United States to northern
Argentina, are found in all countries except for El Salvador and
Uruguay (Zeller 2007, all maps), and are estimated to occupy 51 percent
of their historical range (Quigley et al. 2017, p. 3;
J[eogon]drzejewski et al. 2018, p. 10).
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. The list of
prey consumed by jaguars rangewide includes more than 85 species
(Seymour 1989, p. 340), such as peccaries (javelina), capybaras, pacas,
armadillos, caimans, turtles, and various birds and fish. Javelina and
deer are presumably mainstays in the diet of jaguars in the United
States and Mexico borderlands (Service 1997, p. 39147).
Jaguars are known from a variety of habitats (for example, see
Seymour 1989, p. 340). They show a high affinity to lowland wet
habitats, typically swampy savannas or tropical rain forests. However,
they also occur, or once did, in upland habitats in warmer regions of
North and South America. Within the United States, jaguars have been
recorded most commonly from Arizona, but there are also records from
California, New Mexico, and Texas, and reports from Louisiana (Service
1997, p. 39147).
Evaluation of Information for the 90-Day Finding
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate and revise
critical habitat for listed species on the basis of the best scientific
data available. Section
[[Page 49988]]
4(b)(3)(D)(i) requires us to make a finding as to whether the petition
presents substantial scientific information indicating that the
revision may be warranted. For the purposes of findings on petitions to
revise critical habitat, we apply the definition of ``substantial
scientific information'' set forth at 50 CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i).
90-Day Finding
As noted earlier, the court in Ctr. for Biological Diversity upheld
our critical habitat determination for jaguar, but found that critical
habitat Unit 3 was unoccupied at the time of listing. That decision has
been appealed by the petitioner. The case is currently stayed. In an
abundance of caution, we analyzed the petition under both 50 CFR
424.14(e)(4) and (e)(5). That is, we considered the petition as if Unit
3 was occupied at the time of listing and, separately, consistent with
the District Court's judgment, as if Unit 3 was unoccupied at the time
of listing. Under either analysis, we do not find that the petition
meets the substantial scientific information standard.
In the first analysis, we considered whether the petition, pursuant
to 50 CFR 424.14(e)(4), contains substantial scientific information
indicating that areas to be removed from currently designated critical
habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the
time it was listed (Unit 3) do not contain the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species, or that
these features do not require special management considerations or
protection. The petition did not provide substantial scientific
information that Unit 3, including the northern Santa Rita Mountains
and the area around the proposed mine, no longer contains the physical
or biological features of jaguar critical habitat, nor did the petition
provide substantial scientific information that these features no
longer require special management considerations or protection.
In the second analysis, we applied the standard set forth at 50 CFR
424.14(e)(5) to both Unit 3 and Subunit 4b. We find the petition does
not contain substantial scientific information indicating that areas
petitioned to be removed from critical habitat (the northern portion of
Unit 3 and all of Subunit 4b) are not essential for the conservation of
the species. Subunit 4b is essential to the conservation of the jaguar
because it contributes to the species' persistence by providing
connectivity from the Whetstone Mountains (Unit 4) to Mexico via Unit 3
(79 FR 12572, March 5, 2014, p. 79 FR 12589). The ability for jaguars
in the Northwestern Recovery Unit (one of two recovery units deemed
essential to the jaguar by the Jaguar Recovery Team; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2018, p. 82) to use physical and biological habitat
features in the borderlands region is ecologically important to the
recovery of the species; therefore, maintaining connectivity to Mexico
is essential to the conservation of the jaguar (79 FR 12572, March 5,
2014, p. 79 FR 12574). The petition states that there is no evidence
that a jaguar has used Subunit 4b or would need to use the subunit to
travel to and from Mexico because jaguars have more direct geographic
connections to Mexico via the mountain ranges close to the border
(Rosemont 2020, p. 12). However, because Subunit 4b is considered
unoccupied, evidence of jaguar use is not a requirement to consider the
subunit essential. Additionally, speculation about where a jaguar may
or may not travel is not substantial scientific information according
to our regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i). Therefore, the petition
does not provide substantial scientific information as to why this
subunit is not essential or why it does not contribute to connectivity
to Mexico.
Unit 3 was found to be unoccupied by the court, but the court
determined that Unit 3 is essential to the recovery of the species (see
Ctr. for Biological Diversity at 873). When designating critical
habitat for the jaguar, we recognized that an argument could be made
that no areas in the United States were occupied by the species at the
time it was listed, or that only areas containing undisputed Class I
records from between 1962 and 1982 were occupied (79 FR 12572, March 5,
2014, p. 79 FR 12582). For this reason, in our final critical habitat
rule, we also analyzed whether or not these areas are essential to the
conservation of the species. In the final rule, we determined that
areas we considered occupied (such as Unit 3) are also essential to the
conservation of the species because: (1) They have demonstrated recent
(since 1996) occupancy by jaguars; (2) they contain features that
comprise jaguar habitat; and (3) they contribute to the species'
persistence in the United States by allowing the normal demographic
function and possible range expansion of the Northwestern Recovery
Unit, which is essential to the conservation of the species. The
petition provides no substantial scientific information indicating why
Unit 3 is not essential for the conservation of the species based on
these three factors we identified in the critical habitat rule.
First, the petition does not provide information challenging that
Unit 3 has demonstrated recent (since 1996) occupancy by jaguars. The
petition acknowledges that a single male jaguar was detected in the
Santa Rita Mountains from 2012-2015, one that was also detected in the
Whetstone Mountains (Unit 4) in 2011. We have information in our files
corroborating the presence of this jaguar in the Santa Rita Mountains
from 2012-2015. Therefore, the petition does not provide substantial
scientific information indicating Unit 3 does not demonstrate recent
(since 1996) occupancy by jaguars.
Second, the petition does not provide information that Unit 3 does
not contain features that comprise jaguar habitat. Instead, the
petition states the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources rates the type of habitat found in the Santa Rita
Mountains as ``marginal'' habitat for jaguars (Rosemont 2020, pp. 9-
10). This information does not indicate that jaguar habitat is no
longer present or essential in Unit 3. We acknowledge in the final rule
designating jaguar critical habitat that 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'' (79
FR 12572, March 5, 2014, p. 79 FR 12573). We also acknowledge that
``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'' (79 FR 12572, March
5, 2014, p. 79 FR 12573). It is for these reasons that we determined
that all of the primary constituent elements discussed in the March 5,
2014, final rule must be present in each specific area to constitute
critical jaguar habitat in the United States (79 FR 12572, March 5,
2014, p. 79 FR 12587). The petition does not provide evidence that all
of the primary constituent elements are no longer present in Unit 3.
Therefore, the petition does not provide substantial scientific
information that Unit 3 does not contain features that comprise jaguar
habitat.
Third, the petition does not provide information challenging the
contribution of critical habitat to the species' persistence in the
United States by allowing the normal demographic function and possible
range expansion of the Northwestern Recovery Unit, which is essential
to the conservation of the species. The petition states that the
[[Page 49989]]
United States contains, at most, less than 1 percent of the worldwide
jaguar habitat, and has no resident population of jaguars (Rosemont
2020, p. 9). This information relates to the status of the species and
does not address whether or not Unit 3 allows for the normal
demographic function and possible range expansion of the Northwestern
Recovery Unit. The petition also states that removal of the northern
Santa Rita Mountains and Subunit 4b represents a very small percentage
of the total critical habitat--about 6.5 percent--that would be removed
by the petitioned action and will not prevent the remaining critical
habitat from functioning as intended for the support of the Northwest
Recovery Unit (Rosemont 2020, pp. 13-14). The recovery function and
value of critical habitat for the jaguar within the United States is to
contribute to the species' persistence and, therefore, overall
conservation by identifying areas that support some individuals during
dispersal movements, that contain small patches of habitat (perhaps in
some cases with a few resident jaguars), and that allow for cyclic
expansion and contraction of the nearest core area and breeding
population in the Northwestern Recovery Unit (79 FR 12572, March 5,
2014, p. 79 FR 12574). Removal of the northern Santa Rita Mountains
would withdraw areas that currently provide the physical and biological
features of jaguar critical habitat and in which confirmed jaguar
detections occurred between 2012 and 2015 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2016, p. 295). In addition, removal of Subunit 4b eliminates
half of the available connections to Mexico for Unit 4 (specifically to
Subunit 4a), which is a unit in which the same jaguar that occupied the
Santa Rita Mountains (Unit 3) was detected in 2011. The petition does
not explain why these areas are no longer essential other than to
assert that most critical habitat units would be unaffected, and that
impacts to Unit 3 and Unit 4 would be minor and would not prevent the
units from functioning as intended. This assertion does not demonstrate
that changes have occurred to these areas such that the function they
provide to jaguars, and the reason for which they were designated as
critical habitat, is compromised. Therefore, the petition does not
provide substantial scientific information that the northern Santa Rita
Mountains in Unit 3 and all of Subunit 4b no longer function as
critical habitat and are not essential in allowing for the normal
demographic function and possible range expansion of the Northwestern
Recovery Unit.
The petition discusses the 2013 biological opinion for the Rosemont
Copper Mine, which was overturned by a court decision (Ctr. for
Biological Diversity at 873), and our 2019 amendments to the
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 in its request to revise critical habitat
for jaguars. We reviewed the petition's argument and find that these
documents are not relevant to the question of whether the petition
contained substantial information to support the removal of areas from
critical habitat. Neither line of discussion speaks to whether the
areas petitioned for removal contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species or provides
information that these features do not require special management
considerations or protection (50 CFR 424.14(e)(4).
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the
petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action
may be warranted for the jaguar. Because the petition does not present
substantial information indicating that revision of critical habitat
for jaguar may be warranted, we do not intend to proceed with any such
revision. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new
information that becomes available concerning this species' habitat at
any time by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this document is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-19062 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P