`[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 99656-99687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28338]



[[Page 99655]]

Vol. 89

Tuesday,

No. 237

December 10, 2024

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for the Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk and Designation of 
Critical Habitat; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 99656]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0042; FXES1111090FEDR-245-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BD94


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for the Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk and Designation of 
Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus), a 
mammal from New Mexico, as an endangered species under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. We also designate critical 
habitat. In total, approximately 1,774 hectares (4,386 acres) in 
Lincoln County, New Mexico, fall within the boundaries of the critical 
habitat designation. This rule extends the protections of the Act to 
this species and its designated critical habitat.

DATES: This rule is effective January 9, 2025.

ADDRESSES: This final rule, the proposed rule, comments and materials 
we received on the proposed rule, and supporting materials we used in 
preparing this rule, such as the species status assessment report, are 
all available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0042.
    For the critical habitat designation, the coordinates or plot 
points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the 
decision file for this critical habitat designation and are also 
available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-
0042.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Sartorius, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field 
Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 505-346-
2525. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or 
a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list 
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk meets the definition of an endangered 
species; therefore, we are listing it as such and finalizing a 
designation of its critical habitat. Both listing a species as an 
endangered or threatened species and designating critical habitat can 
be completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative 
Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. This rule lists the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus) as an endangered species 
under the Endangered Species Act. We are also designating critical 
habitat for this species in three units, on public property totaling 
1,774 hectares (4,386 acres) in Lincoln County, New Mexico.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk is endangered due to the following threats: vegetation shifts, 
wildfire, forest encroachment, recreation, development, and land use 
(Factor A), disease (Factor C), nonnative species (Factors A and C), 
and small population size and lack of connectivity (Factor E).
    Although small population size is the primary stressor to the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, Risk Factors for Pe[ntilde]asco Least 
Chipmunk, below, presents a broader discussion of the threats. We have 
found that existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately reduce the 
threats acting on the species to eliminate the risk of extinction 
(Factor D).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the 
Interior (Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
concurrently with listing designate critical habitat for the species. 
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act 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 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. Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the designation 
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 impacts of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed listing and critical habitat rule (86 
FR 53583) for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk published on September 
28, 2021, for a detailed description of previous Federal actions 
concerning this species.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Service 2024, entire). The SSA team 
was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species 
experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific 
and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, 
including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both 
negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in 
listing and recovery actions under the Act, we solicited independent 
scientific review of the information contained in the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk SSA report. As discussed in the proposed rule, we sent 
the SSA report to five independent peer reviewers and received three 
responses. The peer reviews can be found at https://www.regulations.gov 
in Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0042.
    In preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated the results of 
these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which was the 
foundation for the

[[Page 99657]]

proposed rule and this final rule. A summary of the peer review 
comments and our responses can be found in the proposed rule (86 FR 
53583; September 28, 2021).

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    We reviewed the comments related to our proposed listing 
determination and critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk (see Summary of Comments and Recommendations, below), 
completed our analysis of areas considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and reviewed our analysis of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk. We incorporated new information provided during the 
comment period into the SSA report, which is available as version 1.1 
(Service 2024, entire). This final rule incorporates changes from our 
2021 proposed listing and critical habitat rule (86 FR 53583; September 
28, 2021) based on the comments that we received and have responded to 
in this document and considers efforts to conserve the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk. We make several minor revisions in this rule to clarify 
some information, and we update or add new references.
    Based on information we received in comments regarding the critical 
habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, we added details to the 
list of physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the species to more accurately reflect the chipmunk's need for 
habitat containing widely spaced large-diameter conifers, such as 
Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) or ponderosa pine (Pinus 
ponderosa), intermixed in low densities with the meadow/grassland 
vegetation. These habitat features provide shade that protects the 
understory habitat, provide chipmunks cover from aerial predators, and 
support the species' life history. Additionally, we added discussion 
regarding the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk's taxonomy, which has been 
the subject of several scientific articles released since publication 
of our proposed rule to list the species.
    In 2023, we received a request from the Mescalero Apache Tribe to 
exclude portions of the proposed critical habitat from Unit 3-Sierra 
Blanca in southern New Mexico. The area proposed for designation as 
critical habitat included subalpine habitat located within the Lincoln 
National Forest, the Lincoln National Forest Wilderness Area, and 
Mescalero Apache Tribal Reservation land. A portion of the Sierra 
Blanca Unit known as the Ski Apache Resort is managed by the U.S. 
Forest Service as part of the Lincoln National Forest and operated 
under a special use permit by the Mescalero Apache Tribe. The Tribe 
requested that the Reservation land and the Ski Apache Resort be 
excluded from the designation.
    We found that the benefits of including these two portions of the 
Sierra Blanca Unit are outweighed by the more substantial benefits of 
excluding them regarding (1) the advancement and support of our Federal 
Indian Trust obligations and the maintenance of effective collaboration 
and cooperation to promote the conservation of Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk; (2) the maintenance of effective working relationships and an 
existing partnership between the Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service to 
promote the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and its 
habitat; (3) allowance for continued meaningful collaboration and 
cooperation with the Tribe to implement natural resource conservation; 
and (4) provision of future conservation efforts that would benefit 
other listed species and their habitats. Based on our analysis, we are 
excluding the Reservation land and the Ski Apache Resort from Unit 3-
Sierra Blanca, a net decrease of 886 hectares (2,189 acres) from the 
proposed rule (see table 4, below). While the area proposed for 
critical habitat was in Lincoln and Otero Counties, the area in Otero 
County is now being excluded. The critical habitat in this final 
designation is entirely within Lincoln County. More information can be 
found below in Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on September 28, 2021, we requested 
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by 
November 29, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State 
agencies, Tribal entities, scientific experts and organizations, and 
other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. 
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the 
Albuquerque Journal. We did not receive any requests for a public 
hearing. All substantive information received during the comment period 
has either been incorporated directly into this final determination, 
has been used to clarify the information in the SSA report, or is 
addressed below.

Comments From States

    (1) Comment: Multiple commenters cited the recent challenge to the 
taxonomic certainty of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk in a peer-
reviewed scientific publication (Puckett et al. 2021). Several 
commenters, including the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 
challenged the results of the new publication and disagreed with the 
article's recommendation that the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk be 
regarded as part of a different subspecies.
    Our response: We considered the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk to evaluate its 
status under the Act. We evaluated the status of the species just prior 
to the publication of an article by Puckett et al. (2021) that 
challenged the taxonomic status of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. 
Based on an analysis of genomic data of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks 
within the White and Sacramento Mountains of southeastern New Mexico in 
comparison to other Neotamias minimus subspecies throughout the 
Southwest United States, the researchers suggested that the current 
taxonomic structure of Neotamias minimus subspecies should be revised. 
That taxonomic revision would result in the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk becoming part of N. m. operarius, a subspecies with a much 
larger range. We considered the information presented in Puckett et al. 
(2021) in our review of the best available science, and we considered 
that the interpretation of the genomic data in that article has been 
disputed by others in the scientific community (see Hope and Frey 
2021), and the discussion is ongoing with the weight of scientific 
research balancing in favor of retaining the current subspecies 
classification. The committee with primary responsibility for 
evaluating and accepting changes to the taxonomy of the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk is the American Society of Mammalogists, which has not 
changed the taxonomy of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, and the 
Service does not typically play a role in those decisions. At the time 
of publication of the proposed rule, the taxonomic status of the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk as N. m. atristriatus was supported as 
valid by the scientific community, and it continues to be regarded as 
N. m. atristriatus to this day.
    Science is a cumulative process, and the body of knowledge is ever-
growing. In light of this, the Service has taken and will always take 
new research into consideration. The Service will consider any new 
taxonomic research in the future and whether the new information may 
support a revision of entity.

[[Page 99658]]

Public Comments

    (2) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the listing 
of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk with critical habitat would result 
in restrictions to recreational use on public lands.
    Our response: The listing of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk with 
designation of critical habitat does not prevent access to any land, 
whether private, Tribal, State, or Federal. The species 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 jeopardize 
the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat. Critical habitat for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk occurs entirely on lands managed by the 
U.S. Forest Service. We have no information that would indicate that a 
possible outcome of a section 7 consultation in response to the listing 
and designation of critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk would be closures to public access or restrictions to 
currently permissible activities such as recreation on U.S. Forest 
Service lands or lands owned or managed by any other entity. This is 
because designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, 
establish any closures, or impose restrictions on use of or access to 
the designated areas. Critical habitat designation also does not 
establish specific land management standards or prescriptions.
    (3) Comment: One commenter stated that there was a lack of attempt 
to protect the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and its habitat through 
voluntary measures prior to proposing that the species be listed. The 
commenter also suggested that listing the species would impact private 
landowner rights by interfering with their ability to make best use of 
their land.
    Our response: We are required to make our determination based on 
the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of our 
rulemaking. The listing of a species does not obstruct the development 
of conservation agreements or partnerships to conserve the species. 
Once a species is listed as either an endangered or threatened species, 
it is subject to many tools the Act provides to advance the 
conservation of listed species. Conservation of listed species in many 
parts of the United States is dependent upon working partnerships with 
a wide variety of entities, including the voluntary cooperation of non-
Federal landowners. Building partnerships and promoting cooperation of 
landowners are essential to understanding the status of species on non-
Federal lands and may be necessary to implement recovery actions such 
as reintroducing listed species, habitat restoration, and habitat 
protection. Once a species is listed, private or other non-Federal 
property owners may enter into voluntary conservation benefit 
agreements that can contribute to the recovery of species, habitat 
conservation plans that allow activities (e.g., grazing) to proceed 
while minimizing effects to species, funding through the Partners for 
Fish and Wildlife Program to help promote conservation actions, and 
grants to the States under section 6 of the Act.
    These plans or agreements provide for the conservation of the 
listed species while providing the landowner with a permit for 
incidental take of the species during the course of otherwise lawful 
activities. These plans and agreements are voluntary and ensure respect 
for private property rights. We encourage any landowners with 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks or other listed species present on their 
property and who think they carry out activities that may negatively 
impact that listed species to work with the Service.
    The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions 
on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical 
habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership, establish any closures, or impose restrictions on use 
of or access to the designated areas. Critical habitat designation also 
does not establish specific land management standards or prescriptions. 
Federal agencies are required to consult with the Service on any action 
they authorize, fund, or carry out to ensure it does not result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, designation of critical 
habitat will not affect private landowners since there is no critical 
habitat designated on private land. All critical habitat is on U.S. 
Forest Service land on the Lincoln National Forest. The Federal land 
will be managed for species conservation and critical habitat 
protection as required under the Act.
    (4) Comment: One commenter requested that the effects of 
recreational activities, with a focus on mountain biking, be 
specifically studied prior to listing the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
with critical habitat. The commenter suggested that the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk is known to feed on sunflower seeds (Frey and Hays 2017, 
p. 34) and thus would benefit from human recreation due to a potential 
increase in annual sunflowers (Helianthus annuus), which proliferate 
along disturbed trails and roadways (USDA 2006, p. 3).
    Our response: We considered the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk to evaluate its 
status under the Act. We solicited peer review of our evaluation of the 
available data and scientific literature in making our determination, 
and our peer reviewers supported our analysis. At the time of 
publication of the proposed rule, we had not found any scientific or 
commercial data or other information pertaining to the benefits of 
recreational activities or development of recreational access to the 
habitat of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. Further, the rationale 
posed by this commenter is not supported by the current literature. 
Frey and Hays (2017) do not suggest that sunflowers along trails and 
roadways are a critical need for this species, but simply state that 
seeds and flowers of various forbs, including those from the Asteraceae 
family, which includes sunflowers, are an important food source for the 
chipmunks in their subalpine habitat. The Annual Sunflower Plant Guide 
developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA 2006, p. 
3) states only that the species is a ``common and widespread roadside 
weed,'' which is an indication that the species is often observed 
there. It does not suggest that trails or roadways cause an increase in 
annual sunflowers and instead states that the species is ``common in 
open sites in many different habitats'' (USDA 2006, p. 3). We do not 
consider the increase in any food source for the chipmunk along 
roadways to be beneficial to the conservation and recovery of the 
species, owing to a likely increase in mortalities from vehicles 
resulting from increased feeding activity along roadways.
    Science is a cumulative process, and the body of knowledge is ever-
growing. In light of this, the Service will always take new research 
into consideration and incorporate it into our recovery planning 
efforts for the species.
    (5) Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
critical habitat on the Mescalero Apache Tribal lands should not be 
excluded in the final rule because the species has historically 
occurred there.
    Our response: The Act specifically requires the Service to 
designate critical habitat for listed species to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable and does not restrict such designation to 
particular land ownership. Rather, areas that meet the

[[Page 99659]]

definition of critical habitat, as determined on the basis of the best 
scientific data available, are proposed for designation. However, 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act further provides that the Secretary, in 
designating critical habitat and making revisions, shall take 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 then choose to exercise her discretion to 
exclude any area from critical habitat if she determines that the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as 
part of the critical habitat unless that exclusion would result in the 
extinction of the species.
    In this final rule, the Secretary has exercised her discretion to 
exclude critical habitat on the Mescalero Apache Tribe's land and on an 
adjacent parcel of U.S. Forest Service land operated by the Tribe under 
a special use permit. This decision was based upon (1) the advancement 
and support of our Federal Indian Trust obligations and the maintenance 
of effective collaboration and cooperation to promote the conservation 
of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk; (2) the maintenance of effective 
working relationships and an existing partnership between the Tribe and 
U.S. Forest Service to promote the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk and its habitat; (3) allowance for continued meaningful 
collaboration and cooperation with the Tribe to implement natural 
resource conservation; and (4) provision of future conservation efforts 
that would benefit other listed species and their habitats. Exclusion 
should never be interpreted as meaning that such areas are unimportant 
to the conservation of the species. Exclusion is based upon a 
determination by the Secretary that the benefit of excluding these 
areas outweighs the benefit of including them in critical habitat. We 
readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes 
in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 
Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public 
lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information 
available to Tribes. We therefore have taken these directives into 
consideration in our determination.
    (6) Comment: A commenter stated that the critical habitat for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk should not be restricted to the current 
known occupied habitat in the White Mountains of New Mexico but should 
also include historically occupied habitat in the James Canyon and 
Sacramento Lookout areas of the South Sacramento Mountains.
    Our response: Areas proposed for Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
critical habitat were identified as such because they either currently 
provide the essential physical or biological features, if occupied, or 
were otherwise determined to be essential for the conservation of the 
species, if unoccupied. The James Canyon and Sacramento Lookout areas 
of the South Sacramento Mountains are outside the known current range 
of the species. These historically occupied areas have not had any 
detections of the species since 1966. The habitat in these locations 
has been significantly altered from historical natural conditions and 
is no longer suitable for the species. The commenter did not provide 
additional information or state how these areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species. Therefore, we concluded that these 
comments did not provide new or additional information to consider in 
this final listing rule of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk.
    (7) Comment: We received multiple comments regarding the need to 
incorporate the recently published research findings regarding 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk habitat use and population status as the 
basis for considering additional critical habitat areas in the South 
Sacramento Mountains region. The new research cited in these comments 
indicated that Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks were found in habitat 
conditions that differed to some degree from our descriptions in the 
proposed critical habitat. Individuals were found in intermingled 
meadows and sparse trees commonly found in forest openings and edges 
and generally characterized by robust understory of herbaceous plants 
and shrubs that provide visual obstruction for cover (McKibben and Frey 
2020, pp. 33-34; McKibben 2022, p. 129). Other research indicated that 
the loss of historical populations in the South Sacramento Mountains 
was due to the loss of suitable microhabitat conditions in that 
historically occupied habitat in recent decades (Jacobson et al. 2021, 
pp. 32-33).
    Our response: The Service will always take new research into 
consideration for listing and critical habitat determinations. The 
scientific information we received from these commenters provides new 
and useful information for the Service to consider incorporating into 
our recovery planning and development of a recovery implementation 
strategy for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and it has been 
incorporated into version 1.1 of the SSA report (Service 2024). 
However, this new information does not change our critical habitat 
designation. Surveys indicated that Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks do 
not occupy the South Sacramento Restoration Project area where the 
research was conducted, an area outside the known current range of the 
species, because the habitat is not suitable for the species (Jacobson 
et al. 2021, p. 2). High-elevation habitat in the South Sacramento 
Restoration Project area may contain many of the conditions supportive 
of the species (i.e., Engelmann spruce stands with deciduous shrubs), 
but the appropriate understory microhabitat conditions do not exist. 
Therefore, the area is not habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk, and we cannot designate it as critical habitat.
    (8) Comment: Several commenters requested that we consider new 
information from recent analyses of climate change effects to the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk in our proposed rule (see Service 2024 
and McKibben and Frey 2020).
    Our response: In our proposed rule, we cited our analysis of the 
effects of climate change on the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and its 
habitat that was included in our species status assessment (Service 
2024, entire). The information we used in our analysis was the best 
available at that time. We framed our climate change analysis to show 
how changes in precipitation or temperature would most likely affect 
the biological or natural history needs of the subspecies. We assessed 
changes in air temperature and snow pack in the winter that could 
impact the overwintering of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (less 
snow could impact temperature stability in underground burrows over 
winter), summer precipitation and temperature that could affect food 
resources for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, as well as how changes 
to summer precipitation and temperatures could potentially influence 
disease dynamics and outbreaks. The results of our model showed that 
for the time period of 2025 through 2049 in the Sacramento and White 
Mountains, we expect there to be less than one millimeter change in 
annual precipitation, less than 2 millimeters change in snow 
precipitation in winter months, and less than 1.5 [deg]C change in 
temperature minimums and maximums. The effect of these changes that 
could relate to Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk resources or stressors 
appears to be mild. Therefore, although the impacts of climate change 
on the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk are expected to be negative, our 
analysis did not find it to be one of the most

[[Page 99660]]

significant risk factors for the subspecies and its habitat over the 
next 30-year period.
    In our proposed rule to list the species, we determined that 
stressors affecting the viability of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
include vegetation shifts, wildfire, forest encroachment, recreation, 
development, and land use (Factor A), disease (Factor C), nonnative 
species (Factors A and C), and small population size and lack of 
connectivity (Factor E). The influence of climate change on these 
stressors is expected to be negative, though minor, compared to other 
influences. For example, the magnitude, frequency, and intensity of 
wildfire in the Sacramento and White Mountains is likely to be 
influenced by reduction of precipitation and warmer temperatures 
resulting from climate change, causing fires to be more severe than 
they were historically. Our analysis found the severity of wildfire is 
most highly influenced by the vegetation shifts that have occurred, and 
the reduction of precipitation and warmer temperatures may add to the 
level of severity.
    We are required under the Act to make our determination based on 
the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of our 
rulemaking to evaluate the status of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
under the Act. We reviewed the new climate change information provided, 
and it does not change our current finding that the species is 
endangered, nor does it change our critical habitat designations. We 
will consider incorporating the new information into our recovery 
planning and the development of a recovery implementation strategy for 
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk.

I. Final Listing Determination Background

    The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus) 
is currently recognized as one of 17 subspecies of least chipmunk 
(Neotamias [=Tamias] minimus) (Wilson and Reeder 2005, p. 815). Least 
chipmunks are smaller than most other chipmunk species and belong to 
the family Sciuridae. The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is known from 
the Sacramento Mountains and White Mountains in Lincoln and Otero 
Counties in southern New Mexico.
    Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks are grayish-brown mixed with 
cinnamon-buff on the rump and thighs (Sullivan 1993, p. 1), with a 
blackish head with white and cinnamon, and a whitish patch behind each 
ear. The sides of their bodies are light brown, and underparts are 
whitish with buff; their feet are light pink-cinnamon; the tail is 
blackish or brown with pinkish-cinnamon; and dark stripes on the back 
and head are blackish to blackish-brown, edged with tawny along the 
spine, and bordered with white on the face and sides (Sullivan 1993, 
pp. 1-2). The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk has pale yellowish-orange 
hindfeet, a light beige, yellowish, or orange belly, and dark underfur 
(Frey 2010, p. 11). A full species description and description of its 
habitat can be found in chapter 2 of the SSA report (version 1.1; 
Service 2024, pp. 13-21).
    The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk was first described as a new 
species, Eutamias atristriatus, in 1913 based on 10 specimens collected 
from ponderosa pine forest in the Sacramento Mountains in 1902 (Bailey 
1913, entire). This taxonomy has been revised multiple times as the 
taxonomy of chipmunks and least chipmunks changed, including use of the 
synonyms Eutamias and Tamias for Neotamias. Howell (1929, entire) 
designated the taxon a subspecies of least chipmunk, Tamias minimus 
atristriatus.
    Conley (1970, entire) purported that the Sacramento Mountains 
population was the only population of least chipmunks in New Mexico 
worthy of nomenclatural distinction based on morphological 
distinctiveness. However, Sullivan and Peterson (1988, p. 21) 
recommended the retention of N. m. atristriatus as a subspecies that 
included both the New Mexico White Mountains and Sacramento Mountains, 
based on more in-depth morphological and genetic analyses. Despite 
recent discussions about the species' taxonomy (Puckett et al. 2021, 
entire; Hope and Frey 2021, entire), as described in the comments 
section above, N. m. atristriatus is currently recognized as a valid 
subspecies of N. minimus.
    Habitat occupied by Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk varies by 
population between the Sacramento and White Mountains. In the 
Sacramento Mountains, Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk habitat use was 
generally in mature, open ponderosa pine forest savanna and adjacent 
valley meadows (Frey and Hays 2017, p. 1). Specimens of the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk from the Sacramento Mountains were 
originally described from the yellow pine zone (= ponderosa pine) 
(Bailey 1913, p. 130) and within the transition zone from the juncture 
of yellow pines and junipers up to the edge of spruce-fir forest 
(Bailey 1931, p. 91). However, the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk has 
not been detected in the Sacramento Mountains since 1966, so our 
understanding of habitat use and distribution in that area is limited 
to historical records and reports.
    In the White Mountains, the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is 
associated with the high-elevation subalpine Thurber's fescue meadow 
biotic community (Frey and Hays 2017, p. 34). This habitat is 
distinctly different from the lower elevation, montane meadow grassland 
communities within mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forest zones (Dyer 
and Moffett 1999, entire; Dick-Peddie 1993, pp. 101, 104), as would be 
found in the Sacramento Mountains. In the White Mountains, its habitat 
contains widely spaced large-diameter conifers, such as Engelmann 
spruce or ponderosa pine, intermixed in low densities with the meadow/
grassland vegetation (McKibben and Frey 2020, p. 33). These features 
provide shade that protects the understory habitat, provide chipmunks 
cover from aerial predators, and support the species' life history.
    Least chipmunks forage mainly on the ground or in shrubs 
(Hoffmeister 1986, p. 15). They eat a variety of seeds of shrubs, 
forbs, and some conifers, and other plant parts and fungi as their main 
food sources; they also feed on animal foods such as arthropods, 
carrion, and bird eggs (Bailey 1931, p. 91; Vaughn 1974, pp. 770-772; 
Reid 2006, p. 212). The least chipmunk does not develop additional fat 
deposits in the fall but relies primarily on brief periods of activity 
to consume cached food for survival over the winter (Verts and Carraway 
2001, p. 7), hibernating (in this case, overwintering with periods of 
both torpor and activity) in special underground chambers (Reid 2006, 
p. 212). Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks in the White Mountains likely 
forage primarily on the seeds and flowers of forbs, particularly 
species of Asteraceae (Frey and Hays 2017, p. 34). Bailey (1931, p. 91) 
observed the subspecies foraging on sunflower (Helianthus spp.) seeds 
along fencelines and on wheat (Triticum spp.) and oats (Avena sativa) 
at the edges of agricultural fields in the Sacramento Mountains. The 
diet also includes flowers and fruits of gooseberry (Ribes spp.) and 
wild strawberry (Fragaria spp.), pinyon (Pinus edulis) nuts, Gambel oak 
(Quercus gambelii) acorns, insects, and other items (Sullivan 1993, p. 
3). Like other least chipmunks, the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
likely has relatively low water requirements, which may allow it to 
exploit the drier conditions of open subalpine meadows (Frey and Hays 
2017, p. 34).
    Least chipmunk breeding takes place soon after emergence from the 
hibernation chambers (Reid 2006, p. 212). In spring, females typically 
produce one litter of four to five pups (Skryja 1974, p. 223), but the 
size of the litter can range from three to eight, with

[[Page 99661]]

young being born in May or June (Reid 2006, p. 212). For Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunks, young are thought to be born in mid- to late-summer, 
as half-grown juveniles were observed historically in early September 
in the Sacramento Mountains (Bailey 1931, p. 91). The average lifespan 
of least chipmunks overall is 0.7 years (Erlien and Tester 1984, p. 2), 
but individuals have been known to live up to 6 years (Reid 2006, p. 
212).

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the 
regulations in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and 
reclassify endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply 
when designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the 
same day, the Service published a final rule revising our protections 
for endangered species and threatened species at 50 CFR part 17 (89 FR 
23919). These final rules are now in effect and are incorporated into 
current regulations. Our analysis for this final decision applied our 
current regulations. Given that we proposed listing and designating 
critical habitat for this species under our prior regulations (revised 
in 2019), we have also undertaken an analysis of whether our decision 
would be different if we had continued to apply the 2019 regulations; 
we concluded that the decision would have been the same. The analyses 
under both the regulations currently in effect and the 2019 regulations 
are available on https://www.regulations.gov.
    The Act defines a ``species'' as including any subspecies of fish 
or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any 
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. 
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:

    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.

    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is 
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable 
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov. O=xlibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). The foreseeable future extends as far into 
the future as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 
Fisheries Service (hereafter, the Services) can make reasonably 
reliable predictions about the threats to the species and the species' 
responses to those threats. We need not identify the foreseeable future 
in terms of a specific period of time. We will describe the foreseeable 
future on a case-by-case basis, using the best available data and 
taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history 
characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental 
variability. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of 
time over which we can make reasonably reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light of the 
conservation purposes of the Act.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be listed as an endangered or threatened 
species under the Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis 
that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further 
application of standards within the Act and its implementing 
regulations and policies.
    To assess Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk viability, we used the 
three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), 
and representation is the ability

[[Page 99662]]

of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its 
physical and biological environment (for example, climate conditions, 
pathogens). In general, species viability will increase with increases 
in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 
306). Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological 
requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, 
population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk 
factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket FWS-R2-ES-
2020-0042 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability.

Summary of Analysis

    To evaluate the current and future viability of the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to 
consider the species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy. To 
maintain long-term viability, the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
requires multiple (redundancy) self-sustaining populations (resiliency) 
distributed across the landscape (representation). Maintaining 
representation in the form of genetic or ecological diversity is 
important to maintain the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk's capacity to 
adapt to future environmental changes.
    To have healthy demography, Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
populations should have high abundance, multiple subpopulations within 
each population, low rates of predation, low incidence of disease, and 
connectivity between habitats for genetic exchange. Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk needs healthy populations that have all of these factors 
in order to have high resiliency and be able to withstand environmental 
stochasticity.
    Suitable Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk habitat in the White 
Mountains includes widely spaced large-diameter conifers, such as 
Engelmann spruce or ponderosa pine, intermixed in low densities with 
the meadow/grassland vegetation. Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
populations need abundant food sources (e.g., sunflower, gooseberry, 
wild strawberry, pinyon nuts, acorns, and insects) occurring in open 
areas, vegetation that allows for cover in open areas (i.e., meadow/
grassland plant communities), and substrate that allows for sentinel 
perching, nesting, and overwintering (i.e., rock outcrops or talus).
    Redundancy is a species' ability to withstand catastrophic events 
based on the number and distribution of its populations. Redundancy 
reduces the risk that a species as a whole will be negatively impacted 
if an area of the species' range is negatively affected by a 
catastrophic natural or anthropogenic event at a given point in time 
and increases the probability of maintaining natural gene flow and 
ecological processes (Wolf et al. 2015, pp. 205-206). Species that are 
well-distributed across their historical range are less susceptible to 
the risk of extinction as a result of a local catastrophic event than 
species confined to smaller areas of their range. To have sufficient 
redundancy, Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk needs a sufficient number and 
distribution of healthy populations to withstand catastrophic events.
    Representation is the ability of the species to adapt to physical 
(e.g., climate conditions, habitat conditions or structure across large 
areas) and biological changes (e.g., novel diseases, pathogens, 
predators) in its environment presently and into the future. To have 
sufficient representation, Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk needs healthy 
populations distributed across the range to capture the breadth of 
genetic, climate, elevation, and habitat diversity, and sufficient 
connectivity for periodic genetic exchange across the range of the 
species.
    In summary, viability is the ability of the species to sustain 
populations in the wild over time. The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
needs a sufficient number and distribution of healthy populations to 
withstand environmental stochasticity (resiliency), catastrophes 
(redundancy), and changes in its environment (representation).

Factors Influencing Species Viability

    We evaluated the past, current, and future stressors that affect 
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk's needs for long-term viability. 
Additionally, we evaluated several potential stressor sources that are 
not described here because the stressor source is predicted to have low 
impact on Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk viability. More information on 
these stressors, including interspecific competition, scientific 
collection, and climate change can be found in the SSA (Service 2024, 
pp. 52-55).
    Stressors affecting the viability of the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk include vegetation shifts, wildfire, forest encroachment, 
recreation, development, and land use (Factor A), disease (Factor C), 
nonnative species (Factors A and C), and small population size and lack 
of connectivity (Factor E). Considerations regarding the existing 
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are described below.
    Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk habitat is afforded some protection 
under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). Within the 
White Mountains, approximately 54 percent of the current range of the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is within the Lincoln National Forest 
White Mountain Wilderness Area. This designation limits management 
options and conservation efforts in designated wilderness areas to some 
degree. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness should be managed to 
preserve its natural conditions and yet remain untrammeled by man and 
defines wilderness ``as an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining 
its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or 
human habituation'' (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). Within designated wilderness 
areas, no commercial activities are permitted, no permanent or 
temporary roads, no motorized equipment or any form of mechanical 
transport, and no structures (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). Habitat for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk appears to be relatively unaltered in the 
White Mountains Wilderness Area, except for the encroachment of trees 
into meadows (Service 2024, p. 35).
    Additionally, the range of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
overlaps with designated Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 
lucida) critical habitat; the management of that habitat for the 
Mexican spotted owl does allow for some level of grazing. This activity 
may

[[Page 99663]]

result in changes to the plant community that do not adversely affect 
the prey base of the Mexican spotted owl but is detrimental to the 
specific plant community needs of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
(Service 2024, pp. 41-43).
Vegetation Shifts, Wildfire, and Forest Encroachment
    Over the last ~150 years, land management practices have shifted 
the vegetative components of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk habitat in 
the Sacramento Mountains, resulting in an overall lack of suitable 
habitat for the subspecies. The historically open, park-like stands of 
ponderosa pine forest that comprised Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
habitat have been replaced with high-density, small-diameter ponderosa 
pine, with encroaching Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and white 
fir (Abies concolor), and a lack of native grass meadow habitat 
(Service 2024, pp. 41-43).
    These changes in vegetation composition (inclusion of less fire-
tolerant species of trees such as Douglas fir and white fir) and 
structure (from low-density, large-diameter trees with few low branches 
to high-density, small-diameter trees with many low branches), coupled 
with the loss and conversion of native to nonnative grass meadows, 
alter the suitability of the habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk in the Sacramento Mountains. Effective fire exclusion and 
suppression actions in the Sacramento Mountains have also contributed 
to the changes in forest composition and structure and have resulted in 
the additional stressor source of altered fire regimes. The South Fork 
Fire burned approximately 2 hectares (6 acres) of the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk's habitat in the Sacramento Mountains before containment 
in July of 2024. In the White Mountains, periodic wildfire (e.g., 
Little Bear Fire in 2012 and Three Rivers Fire in 2021) has occurred; 
despite this occurrence, high-density, small-diameter trees have 
encroached into Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk habitat there as well.
    Forest encroachment into grasslands is occurring in both the 
Sacramento Mountains and in the White Mountains, although the causes 
for each are likely different. The causes for tree encroachment into 
meadows in the Sacramento Mountains is likely related to land use and 
land management practices, while the White Mountains are influenced by 
climatic events and successional encroachment processes. While some 
landscape restoration projects are planned (i.e., the South Sacramento 
Forest Restoration Project) that may address some areas of meadow 
encroachment, no additional projects are planned within the historical 
range of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk either in the Sacramento 
Mountains or the White Mountains to control or limit tree encroachment 
into meadow habitat.
Recreation, Development, Land Use, and Land Management
    Agricultural land use in the Sacramento Mountains appears to have 
shifted from cultivation in the early part of the 20th century to 
pasture use. This conversion likely affected a potentially significant 
food resource (i.e., wheat and oat crops) for Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunks in the Sacramento Mountains, specifically James Canyon 
(Service 2024, p. 44). It is likely that the high-quality, abundant 
food resource of wheat and oat fields drew Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunks to the fields and roads where the animals were easily 
observable, as early records noted that Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks 
were especially abundant along rail fences, eating oats and wheat at 
field edges (Bailey 1931, p. 91). However, Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunks were also abundant in the open, mature ponderosa pine forests 
(Bailey 1931, p. 91). Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks were noted as 
abundant throughout the Sacramento Mountains during the early 1900s, in 
both natural open habitat and near agricultural fields (Service 2024, 
p. 45). The change in land use from crop fields to pasture for 
livestock likely impacted Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks by decreasing 
the availability of an abundant, high-quality food source. Grasslands 
in the bottom of canyons that are currently used for pasture or 
livestock are likely not usable by the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
because the grasses are likely not tall enough to provide shelter and 
cover (Service 2024, p. 45).
    U.S. Forest Service lands are managed for multiple uses. In the 
Sacramento Mountains, these uses currently include recreation, 
livestock grazing, and special use permits for a variety of actions. 
Recreational use includes camping, hiking, biking, and motorized 
vehicle use, among other activities. The historical role of livestock 
grazing and timber harvest is described in the SSA report (Service 
2024, pp. 30-38) in terms of altering forest composition, structure, 
and fire regimes. However, grazing within the White Mountains 
Wilderness Allotment has been closed for 20 years and will remain 
closed (Williams, 2020 pers. comm.).
    The most significant recreational, development, and land use 
activities likely to affect the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk in the 
White Mountains are related to the opening, operation, and maintenance 
of the Ski Apache Resort on Lookout Mountain (Service 2024, p. 46). 
Access roads to Ski Apache and the adjacent Buck Mountain were 
constructed in 1960 (Dyer and Moffett 1999, p. 451). The Resort opened 
in 1961 and has since been owned and operated by the Mescalero Apache 
Tribe (Ski Apache Resort 2018, entire) on U.S. Forest Service land. Ski 
Apache hosts both winter and summer recreation, operating under a 
special use permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service. Some of the 
activities also occur on the Mescalero Apache Tribe Reservation 
immediately adjacent to the U.S. Forest Service land. Summer use of Ski 
Apache Resort includes gondola rides, mountain biking, hiking, and zip-
lining (Service 2024, p. 46).
    In 2016, three Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks were observed on two 
survey trap lines on Lookout Mountain within Ski Apache Resort (Service 
2024, p. 47). Lookout Mountain was selected to survey for several 
reasons, the main one being that it is located in the same large patch 
of subalpine meadow/tundra as that of Sierra Blanca Peak (Frey and Hays 
2017, p. 9), where many historical records show that Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk were located. Two of the three Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk observations in 2016 were located just off the access road 
that leads to, and is in close proximity to, the Ski Apache zip line 
infrastructure. Vehicle use on the access road and human use for the 
zip line have the potential to be a stressor to the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk due to vehicle strikes and disturbance from human 
presence.
Disease
    A variety of pathogens and diseases have the potential to affect or 
have affected the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. Of these, sylvatic 
plague has the greatest likelihood of being a stressor to the 
subspecies (Service 2024, p. 48). The plague is caused by the bacteria 
Yersinia pestis, a highly virulent organism that can quickly cause 
lethal disease in susceptible mammals (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 7). 
Transmission of Y. pestis typically occurs through fleas, whereby fleas 
feed on infected hosts and move to new hosts. The plague is most 
commonly transmitted through fleas, but can also be transferred through 
inhalation, eating of infected animals, or through bites, scratches, or 
direct contact with infected animals, tissues, or fluids (Abbott and 
Rocke 2012, p. 18). Modes of transmission of Y. pestis in wildlife are 
likely similar, whereby flea transmission is most common, but other 
avenues may also occur.

[[Page 99664]]

    The Y. pestis organism likely arrived in New Mexico at a time that 
is approximately coincident with observed declines of Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk populations (that is, beginning in the early 1950s 
through the 1960s). Chipmunks, in general, and least chipmunks more 
specifically, have been tested in the laboratory and are susceptible to 
plague (Quan and Kartman 1962, p. 128). Some epizootics caused by 
plague have been observed in chipmunks and other ground squirrels 
(Smith et al. 2010, entire).
    Rodents are the major group of animals infected by Y. pestis, and 
some species may act as a reservoir or as an ``amplifying host'' for 
the organism (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 18). Generally, an amplifying 
host is a host in which disease agents, such as viruses or bacteria, 
increase in number (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 71); in this case, 
``amplifying hosts'' also applies to hosts that are more uniformly 
susceptible to plague and undergo dramatic die-offs during outbreaks of 
plague (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 17). It is unknown if plague has 
affected the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk in the past, is currently 
affecting the subspecies now, or will in the future. However, there is 
supporting evidence that suggests that plague is a potential stressor 
to the viability of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Service 2024, p. 
47).
Nonnative Species
    Feral hogs have become established as a nuisance species in New 
Mexico and elsewhere in the United States (USDA Wildlife Services 2010, 
entire). In New Mexico, feral hogs occur within Lincoln and Otero 
Counties. One of the last remaining locations in New Mexico with 
significant feral hog numbers is the Lincoln National Forest, including 
the 47,000-acre USFS White Mountain Wilderness Area (USDA 2019, pp. 
112-114). This area includes the majority of the known locations of 
recent Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk occurrences (Service 2024, pp. 49-
50). Feral hogs are voracious, flexible, and opportunistic omnivores 
(USDA Wildlife Services 2010, p. 6) and will persistently root in an 
area until the resources are depleted (USDA Wildlife Services 2010, p. 
7).
    Rooting can be extremely destructive to habitat. Feral hogs cause 
long-term degradation of native ecosystems and plant communities and 
spread of invasive weeds through their rooting behavior (USDA Wildlife 
Services 2010, pp. 10-12, 19-20). In addition to influencing habitat, 
feral hogs consume a multitude of vertebrate and invertebrate species 
(USDA Wildlife Services 2010, p. 13). In 2010, USDA Wildlife Services 
(2010, p. 14) reported that 90 percent of the small mammal species 
listed under the Act were in areas of expanding feral hog populations 
and documented how feral hogs could influence small mammal populations 
through heavy and persistent predatory activities. In addition to 
direct predation, feral hogs can strip an area of food resources and 
are competitors with native species for food and water resources (USDA 
Wildlife Services 2010, pp. 12-13). An active feral hog population 
control program in the White and Sacramento Mountains of New Mexico by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture ended in 2018. It is anticipated 
that the feral hog population in the White Mountains, including within 
the range of the chipmunk, will exponentially increase as a result.
    Additionally, feral hogs are susceptible to at least 30 viral and 
bacteriological diseases, 20 of which can be transmitted from non-human 
animals to humans, and at least 37 parasites have been identified (USDA 
Wildlife Services 2010, p. 15). Among the many diseases, pathogens, and 
parasites that feral hogs carry, in New Mexico feral hogs have tested 
positive for swine brucellosis and pseudorabies. While the ability of 
feral hogs to transfer disease to wildlife is not well-studied, 
pseudorabies virus is highly contagious, and rodents are reported as 
being susceptible (USDA Wildlife Services 2010, p. 15). The prevalence 
of antibodies of Y. pestis was reported for 17 species of mammals from 
the western United States (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 26); of those, 
feral hogs had the highest prevalence rate at 74 percent. Although the 
sample size for this assessment was relatively low (18 out of 23 were 
positive), these data demonstrate that feral hogs in both the 
Sacramento Mountains and White Mountains could contribute to disease 
dynamics in the small mammal communities in these mountain ranges 
(Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 26).
    Impacts from feral hogs may include rooting, predation, spreading 
diseases and parasites, spreading invasive weed species, and 
competition with native species for water and food resources (Service 
2024, p. 50). We lack specific data demonstrating overlap of feral hog 
occurrence with Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk occurrence; however, 
feral hogs are known to occur in the vicinity of Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk habitat or areas formerly known to be occupied by the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Service 2024, p. 50).
Small Population Size and Lack of Connectivity
    Compared to large populations, small populations are more 
vulnerable to extirpation from environmental, demographic, and genetic 
stochasticity (random natural occurrences), and unforeseen natural or 
unnatural catastrophes (Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Small populations are 
less able to recover from losses caused by random environmental changes 
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 308-310), such as fluctuations in 
reproduction (demographic stochasticity), sweeping losses from disease 
events, or changes in the frequency or severity of wildfires 
(environmental stochasticity).
    Another type of random fluctuation, genetic stochasticity, results 
from: (1) changes in gene frequencies due to the founder effect, which 
is the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is 
established by a small number of individuals (Hedrick 2000, p. 226); 
(2) random fixation, or the complete loss of all but one allele at a 
locus (Hedrick 2000, p. 258); or (3) inbreeding depression, which is 
the loss of fitness or vigor due to mating among relatives (Hedrick 
2000, p. 208). Additionally, small populations generally have an 
increased chance of genetic drift, or random changes in gene 
frequencies from generation to generation that can lead to a loss of 
variation, and inbreeding (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, p. 225). Allee 
effects, when there is a positive relationship between any component of 
individual fitness and either numbers or density of conspecifics 
(Stephens et al. 1999, p. 186), may also occur when a population is in 
decline (Dennis 1989, pp. 481-538). In a declining population, an 
extinction threshold or ``Allee threshold'' (Berec et al. 2007, pp. 
185-191) may be crossed, in which adults in the population either cease 
to breed or the population becomes so compromised that breeding does 
not contribute to population growth. Allee effects typically fall into 
three broad categories (Courchamp et al. 1999, pp. 405-410): lack of 
facilitation (including low mate detection and loss of breeding cues), 
demographic stochasticity, and loss of heterozygosity. Environmental 
stochasticity amplifies Allee effects (Dennis 1989, pp. 481-538; Dennis 
2002, pp. 389-401). In Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks, random fixation 
and loss of heterozygosity have been observed (Sullivan 1985, pp. 431-
433). The extinction risk for a subspecies represented by few small 
populations is magnified when those populations are isolated from one 
another, as is the case

[[Page 99665]]

for the White Mountains and the Sacramento Mountains (Service 2024, p. 
52).
    It is suspected that the White Mountains and Sacramento Mountains 
populations may have been physically separated over a long time period 
with little to no genetic interchange, based on morphometric 
differences in collected specimens (Sullivan 1985, pp. 424-425). 
However, connectivity could play an important role as it relates to the 
overall viability to the subspecies if it is found to be present in the 
Sacramento Mountains in the future. Connectivity between White 
Mountains and Sacramento Mountains populations would contribute to the 
number of reproductively active individuals in a population; mitigate 
the genetic, demographic, and environmental effects of small population 
size; and recolonize extirpated areas (Service 2024, pp. 50-51). 
Additionally, the fewer the populations a species or subspecies has, 
the greater the risk of extinction. The combination of a very small 
population in the White Mountains, a likely extirpated population in 
the Sacramento Mountains, and no population connectivity between the 
mountain ranges, synergistically interacting with the other stressors 
and potential stressors described above, greatly increases extinction 
risk for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Service 2024, p. 52).
Synergistic Effects
    Many of the above-summarized risk factors may act synergistically 
or additively on the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. The combined impact 
of multiple stressors is likely more harmful than a single stressor 
acting alone. For the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, the compounding 
factor of having a small population size currently is likely to work in 
conjunction with each of the other stressors to limit the species' 
ability to recover from catastrophes (e.g., disease outbreaks, 
wildfires, drought) or to expand the population when conditions are 
good (e.g., by capitalizing on new habitat patches or food resources). 
For a full explanation of the impact of stressors on the viability of 
the species, see chapter 4 of the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 41-55).
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation 
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of 
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that 
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation 
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of 
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
    The White Mountains Wilderness Area within the Lincoln National 
Forest is currently closed to grazing and will remain closed for the 
recovery and protection of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Williams, 
2020 pers. comm.). In 2018, the U.S. Forest Service announced a plan 
called the Ski Apache Vegetation Restoration Project which will restore 
habitat features that favor the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk on the 
Ski Apache Resort (USDA 2018, entire). Work on the project began in 
2019 and will continue in fiscal year 2024 (Brennan, 2024 pers. comm.) 
(see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts, below). Additionally, 
we have begun collaborating with the Mescalero Apache Tribe to offer 
technical assistance by training their resource management staff on how 
to survey for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and enhance habitat for 
the species on the Reservation.
    As part of the SSA, we also developed multiple future scenarios to 
capture the range of uncertainties regarding future threats and the 
projected responses by the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. Our scenarios 
included a continuing conditions scenario, which incorporated the 
current risk factors continuing on the same trajectory that they are on 
now. We also evaluated an optimistic scenario and a scenario with 
increased stressors. Because we determined that the current condition 
of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is consistent with an endangered 
species (see Determination of Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk Status, 
below), we are not presenting the results of the future scenarios in 
this final rule. Please refer to the SSA report (version 1.1; Service 
2024, entire) for the full analysis of future scenarios.

Subspecies Condition

    To analyze population-level resiliency, we identified and described 
the demographic and habitat conditions needed for sufficiently 
resilient populations of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (table 1). The 
demographic factors we analyzed include trap rate (surrogate for 
density), population trends, connectivity between populations, and 
number of subpopulations within populations. The habitat factors we 
analyzed include suitable habitat size to support population viability, 
habitat availability trends, and habitat condition. For each of these 
demographic and habitat factors, we characterized the condition (High, 
Moderate, Low, and Very Low/Extirpated) of each factor for each 
population (table 1) to assess overall population resiliency. Where 
more data were available, we assigned scores (High = 1, Moderate = 0, 
Low = -1, and Very Low/Extirpated = -2) to each demographic and habitat 
factor and calculated an overall score for each population. We averaged 
all of the demographic and habitat condition category scores for each 
population to determine the overall resiliency score for that 
population (Service 2024, p. 65).

[[Page 99666]]



  Table 1--Population Resiliency Category Definitions for Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk (With Assigned Scores)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Very low/extirpated (-
               High (1)                      Moderate (0)               Low (-1)                    2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 density or relative            density or       density or       abundance
 abundance is high.                     relative abundance is    relative abundance is    decreases over time,
 population is increasing       moderate.                low.                     such that population
 over time.                             population is    population is    may be extirpated
 there is connectivity          stable over time.        decreasing over time     completely.
 between the populations.               populations      but still extant.        no
 the number of subpopulations   are adjacent to each     populations      connectivity with
 is high, spatially dispersed, and      other, but unsuitable    are extremely isolated   other populations
 able to withstand or recover from      habitat precludes        from one another.        exists.
 stochastic events.                     dispersal.               two              if extant, no
 large, contiguous areas of     multiple         subpopulations allow     subpopulation
 increasing availability of suitable    subpopulations,          for some, but limited,   structure occurs.
 habitat with no detectable impacts     allowing for some        ability to withstand     little to no
 from land use or management.           ability to withstand     or recover from          suitable habitat is
                                        or recover from          stochastic events.       available.
                                        stochastic events.       habitat occurs   if patches
                                        areas of         as small isolated        exist, they are small
                                        moderately sized         patches.                 and isolated and will
                                        habitat with some        land use or      lead or have led to
                                        isolated habitat         management reduces       high probability of
                                        patches.                 chipmunk resources.      extirpation.
                                        land use or                               land use or
                                        management occurs but                             management removes
                                        does not significantly                            chipmunk resources.
                                        limit chipmunk
                                        resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current condition of each demographic and habitat factor and 
the overall condition of each population of the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk is displayed in table 2. Historically, there were two known 
populations of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, the Sacramento Mountains 
population and the White Mountains population. Based on the demographic 
and habitat factors discussed in detail in the SSA (Service 2024, pp. 
61-64), the Sacramento Mountains population is considered to be in Very 
Low/Extirpated overall condition. There have been no detections of 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk in the Sacramento Mountains since 1966, 
despite extensive survey effort, indicating that this population is 
likely extirpated. Even if it is still extant, it has no known 
connectivity with other populations and likely no subpopulation 
structure (Service 2024, p. 11). The Sacramento Mountains have little 
to no remaining suitable habitat, and land use and management have 
severely decreased the condition of the resources upon which 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks depend.
    For the White Mountains population, current habitat availability is 
moderate. Habitat has experienced a moderate change from historical 
conditions, and land use or management is not known to significantly 
reduce Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk resources. However, in terms of 
demographic factors, the White Mountains population has a low density 
and decreasing population trend. This population is the only remaining 
known population of the subspecies and has no known subpopulation 
structure. Given these Low and Very Low condition demographic factors, 
the White Mountains population is in Low overall condition. The current 
resiliency of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is Low to Very Low, with 
one population likely extirpated and the remaining population isolated 
with no subpopulation structure.
    Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or ecological 
diversity is important to preserve the capacity of the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk to adapt to future environmental changes. Because one of 
the two populations of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is likely 
extirpated, and the extant population persists in extremely low 
numbers, genetic diversity is likely extremely low. Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunks in the White Mountains showed the lowest levels of 
within-population genetic variation out of nine least chipmunk 
populations in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado (Sullivan 1985, pp. 
431-433). In addition, the subspecies has a historical distribution in 
two very different ecological settings: one in a high-elevation 
subalpine meadow zone in the White Mountains and one in a lower 
elevation ponderosa pine zone in the Sacramento Mountains. Because the 
Sacramento Mountains may no longer support the subspecies, the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk has already lost ecological 
representation across its range. Low genetic variation and the loss of 
one ecological setting results in low representation for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Service 2024, p. 66).
    To be robust in the face of stochastic events, the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk needs to have at least two sufficiently resilient 
populations (Service 2024, p. 66). Historically, there were only two 
known populations, one each in the White and Sacramento Mountains. 
Generally, the more populations a species has, and the wider the 
distribution of those populations, the more redundancy the species will 
exhibit. Redundancy reduces the risk that a large portion of the 
species' range will be negatively affected by a catastrophic natural or 
anthropogenic event (e.g., wildfire) at a given point in time. Species 
(or subspecies) that are well-distributed across a wide geographic 
range are less susceptible to extinction and more likely to be viable 
than taxa that are confined to small areas where stochastic events are 
likely to affect all of the individuals simultaneously (Carroll et al. 
2010, entire). Since one of the two populations of Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk is likely extirpated, the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
currently lacks any redundancy (Service 2024, p. 66).

[[Page 99667]]



                                                          Table 2--Current Resiliency of the Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk Populations
                                                             [With numeric scores for demographic and habitat factors and condition]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Demographic factors                                                     Habitat factors
                                 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                       Available
           Population              Trap rate (number                                                               suitable habitat         Habitat       Habitat  condition       Condition
                                   individuals/ trap   Population trends      Population        Subpopulations        to  support        availability      with land use or        category
                                    hour) surrogate                          connectivity     within populations      population            trends            management
                                      for density                                                                     persistence
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White Mountains.................  Low...............  Low...............  Very Low..........  Very Low..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Low
                                  -1.5..............  -1................  -2................  -2................  0.................  0.................  0.................  -1
Sacramento Mountains............  Very Low..........  Very Low..........  Very Low..........  Very Low..........  Very Low..........  Very Low..........  Very Low..........  Very Low
                                  -2................  -2................  -2................  -2................  -2................  -2................  -2................  -2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See the SSA report for the complete current condition analysis for 
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Service 2024, pp. 56-66).

Determination of Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become 
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine 
whether a species meets the definition of endangered species or 
threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    The range of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk once included the 
Sacramento and White Mountains in Lincoln and Otero Counties in New 
Mexico. The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is now found in only one 
isolated population within the White Mountains. The one remaining 
population has low resiliency, meaning that the population has a low 
probability of remaining extant and withstanding periodic or stochastic 
disturbances under its current condition. Representation is low, with 
the loss of one of two populations within its historical range. 
Species-level genetic and ecological diversity is likely extremely low, 
as one population (Sacramento Mountains) is likely extirpated and the 
remaining population (White Mountains) is small. Redundancy has 
declined dramatically because the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk remains 
on the landscape in only one population. As such, the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk is at greater risk of extinction due to a catastrophic 
event when compared to historical conditions.
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we 
determined that the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk faces threats that 
put it at risk of extinction, including vegetation shifts, wildfire, 
forest encroachment, recreation, development, land use, and land 
management (Factor A), nonnative species (Factors A and C), disease 
(Factor C), and small population size and lack of connectivity (Factor 
E). We found small population size to be the main threat to the species 
currently. The current population is small and isolated, making it 
vulnerable to catastrophic or stochastic events. The risk of species 
extinction from a disease outbreak, large wildfire, or extreme drought 
is high. The one remaining population is currently small and isolated, 
and we expect it to remain so in the future. Thus, after assessing the 
best available information, we determine that Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. We do 
not find that the species meets the Act's definition of a threatened 
species because the species has already shown low levels in current 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation due to the threats discussed 
above resulting in the species being in danger of extinction throughout 
its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. We have determined that the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is 
in danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did 
not undertake an analysis of any significant portions of its range. 
Because the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk warrants listing as 
endangered throughout all of its range, our determination does not 
conflict with the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision 
related to significant portion of the range analyses for species that 
warrant listing as threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their 
range.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk meets the 
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we are listing the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk as an endangered species in accordance 
with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements 
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. 
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign 
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages 
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery 
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required 
by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions 
against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective

[[Page 99668]]

measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to 
develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed 
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and 
functioning components of their ecosystems.
    The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery 
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. 
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be 
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery 
planning process involves the identification of actions that are 
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the 
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may 
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new 
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft 
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available 
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our New Mexico Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    Once this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of New Mexico will be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. 
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species 
recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. Additionally, 
we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it 
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery 
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7 of the Act is titled Interagency Cooperation and mandates 
all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities to 
further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their 
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed 
species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing 
section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in 
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall 
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it 
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is 
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, 
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service 
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect 
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal 
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its 
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in 
jeopardy or adverse modification.
    Examples of discretionary actions for the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk that may be subject to consultation procedures under section 7 
are land management or other landscape-altering activities on Federal 
lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service as well as actions on 
State, Tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit 
(such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from 
the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other 
Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed 
species or critical habitat--and actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out 
by a Federal agency--do not require section 7 consultation. Federal 
agencies should coordinate with the local Service Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with any specific questions on section 7 
consultation and conference requirements.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the Service's 
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, 
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be 
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered 
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take 
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect) within the United States, within the territorial 
sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, 
deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such 
wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, 
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means 
whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to 
these prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the Service, the 
National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management 
agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 
13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for 
scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the 
species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The 
statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions,

[[Page 99669]]

which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is the policy of the Services, as published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the extent 
known at the time a species is listed, specific activities that will 
not be considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the 
Act. To the extent possible, activities that will be considered likely 
to result in violation will also be identified in as specific a manner 
as possible. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness 
of the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within 
the range of the species.
    As discussed above, certain activities that are prohibited under 
section 9 may be permitted under section 10 of the Act. In addition, to 
the extent currently known, the following activities will not be 
considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act:

    (1) Winter activities at the ski resort;
    (2) Hiking on established trails; and
    (3) Routine road maintenance.

    This list is intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive; 
additional activities that will not be considered likely to result in 
violation of section 9 of the Act may be identified during coordination 
with the local field office, and in some instances (e.g., with new 
information), the Service may conclude that one or more activities 
identified here will be considered likely to result in violation of 
section 9.
    To the extent currently known, the following is a list of examples 
of activities that will be considered likely to result in violation of 
section 9 of the Act in addition to what is already clear from the 
descriptions of the prohibitions found at 50 CFR 17.21:

    (1) Unauthorized handling or collection of the species;
    (2) Creation and modification of trails;
    (3) Ski resort maintenance during summer months; and
    (4) Organized mountain bike races.

    This list is intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive; 
additional activities that will be considered likely to result in 
violation of section 9 of the Act may be identified during coordination 
with the local field office, and in some instances (e.g., with new or 
site-specific information), the Service may conclude that one or more 
activities identified here will not be considered likely to result in 
violation of section 9. Questions regarding whether specific activities 
would constitute violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed 
to the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Critical Habitat

Background

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat 
concurrently with listing the species. 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.

    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    This critical habitat designation was proposed when the regulations 
defining ``habitat'' (85 FR 81411; December 16, 2020) and governing the 
section 4(b)(2) exclusion process for the Service (85 FR 82376; 
December 18, 2020) were in place and in effect. However, those two 
regulations have been rescinded (87 FR 37757, June 24, 2022; and 87 FR 
43433, July 21, 2022) and no longer apply to any designations of 
critical habitat. Therefore, for this final rule designating critical 
habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, we apply the regulations 
at 50 CFR 424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 
4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 
81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that each Federal action agency 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 designated 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 also 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. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner 
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may 
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency 
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the 
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied 
critical habitat), the Federal action agency would have already been 
required to consult with the Service even absent the critical habitat 
designation because of the requirement to ensure that the action is not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Even if 
the Service were to conclude after consultation that the proposed 
activity is likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of 
the critical habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are 
not required to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover 
the species; instead, they must 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 geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat).

[[Page 99670]]

    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    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 compiled in the SSA report and information developed during 
the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may 
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 
that may have been developed for the species; 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 found in section 9 of the Act. 
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 scientific data 
available 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.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, 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. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``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.
    For example, physical features essential to the conservation of the 
species might include gravel of a particular size required for 
spawning, alkaline soil for seed germination, protective cover for 
migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains 
necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. Biological 
features might include prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 
ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of a 
particular level of nonnative species consistent with conservation 
needs of the listed species. The features may also be combinations of 
habitat characteristics and may encompass the relationship between 
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential 
to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and 
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the 
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the 
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, 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, or 
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected 
from disturbance.
    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk from studies of 
the species' habitat, ecology, and life history. Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk habitat is characterized as high-elevation subalpine habitat 
in the White Mountains, composed of Thurber's fescue (Festuca thurberi) 
meadows, where rock outcrops or talus are present (Frey and Hays 2017, 
p. 34). Subalpine Thurber's fescue meadow/grassland community occurs 
within openings in high-elevation spruce-fir forest and above tree line 
in the glacial cirque. These Thurber's fescue grasslands contain tall 
bunchgrasses, including Thurber's fescue, sedges, flowering forbs, and 
shrubs (Frey and Hays 2017, pp. 2-3). Widely spaced conifers, such as 
Engelmann spruce or ponderosa pine, intermixed with bunchgrasses and 
forbs, and some rock outcrops and talus, provide cover from predators. 
The trees also provide shade that contributes to moisture levels in the 
understory habitat. Rock outcrops provide observation points for 
predator vigilance and are often associated with burrows for nesting or 
hibernation (Bihr and Smith 1998, p. 359). The elevation of subalpine 
habitat in the White Mountains ranges from 2,500 to 3,597 meters (8,200 
to 11,800 feet). Forage for Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks consists of 
the seeds and flowers of forbs, particularly species of Asteraceae 
(Frey and Hays 2017, p. 34). The diet also includes flowers and fruits 
of gooseberry (Ribes spp.) and wild strawberry (Fragaria spp.), pinyon 
(Pinus edulis) nuts, Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) acorns,

[[Page 99671]]

insects, and other items (Sullivan 1993, p. 3).
    The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is likely extirpated from the 
Sacramento Mountains, and the habitat no longer supports the species; 
therefore, we did not include the Sacramento Mountains in our critical 
habitat designation or analysis of physical or biological features.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk from studies of the 
species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. 
Additional information can be found in the SSA report (version 1.1; 
Service 2024, entire) available at http://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0042. We have determined that the following 
physical or biological features are essential to the conservation of 
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk:

    (1) Areas within the White Mountains that:
    (a) Are between elevations of 2,500-3,597 meters (m) (8,200-
11,800 feet (ft));
    (b) Contain rock outcrops or talus;
    (c) Are subalpine Thurber's fescue meadow/grassland communities 
found within openings of spruce-fir forest, above treeline in the 
glacial cirque, containing tall bunchgrasses, including Thurber's 
fescue, sedges, flowering forbs, and shrubs; and
    (d) Contain widely spaced large-diameter conifers, such as 
Engelmann spruce or ponderosa pine, intermixed in low densities with 
the meadow/grassland vegetation.
    (2) Forage, including species of Asteraceae, flowers and fruits 
of gooseberry (Ribes spp.), wild strawberry (Fragaria spp.), pinyon 
(Pinus edulis) nuts, Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) acorns, and 
insects.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk may require special management 
considerations or protections to reduce the following threats: (1) 
forest encroachment due to altered fire regime; (2) recreation, 
development, land use, and land management; and (3) destruction of 
habitat by nonnative species (feral hogs).
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, 
but are not limited to, prescribed fire and forest management to 
maintain the open subalpine meadows with native vegetation; continued 
closure of the encompassing U.S. Forest Service allotment to grazing; 
and feral hog management.
    In summary, we find that the occupied areas we are proposing to 
designate as critical habitat contain the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
may require special management considerations or protection. Special 
management considerations or protection may be required in designated 
critical habitat in order to eliminate, or to reduce to negligible 
levels, the threats affecting the physical and biological features of 
the unit.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat.
    We are designating critical habitat in areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. We 
also are designating specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species because we have determined those areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. We conclude that the 
unoccupied area is essential for the conservation of the species and 
that it constitutes habitat for the species because it contains one or 
more of the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species (see Areas Outside the Geographic Area 
Occupied at the Time of Listing, below).
    The current distribution of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is 
much reduced from its historical range. We anticipate that recovery 
will require continued protection of the existing population and its 
habitat, and potentially reintroduction of Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk into other areas, ensuring there are adequate numbers multiple 
locations. This strategy will help to ensure that catastrophic events, 
such as the effects of fire, cannot simultaneously affect all known 
populations. Rangewide recovery considerations, such as maintaining 
existing genetic diversity and striving for connectivity within 
portions of the species' current range to allow adequate movement to 
ensure genetic diversity, were considered in formulating this critical 
habitat.
    Sources of data for this critical habitat designation include 
multiple reports and discussions with species experts, including the 
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (see SSA report). We have also 
reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat 
requirements of this species. Sources of information on habitat 
requirements include studies conducted at occupied sites and published 
in peer-reviewed articles and agency reports, and data collected during 
monitoring efforts.

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

    The critical habitat designation does not include all areas known 
to have been occupied by the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
historically; instead, it focuses on the currently occupied area within 
the historical range that retains the necessary physical or biological 
features that will allow for the maintenance and expansion of the 
existing population. We are not designating any critical habitat in the 
Sacramento Mountains because we conclude that the area no longer has 
the appropriate habitat to support the species.
    In summary, for areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit 
boundaries using the following criteria:
    First, we compiled all known Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
observations (i.e., captures) in the White Mountains from 1931 through 
2018, mapped their locations, and eliminated duplicate records. This 
process provided a bounded estimate of the subspecies' known range.
    Using existing U.S. Forest Service vegetation mapping for the 
Lincoln National Forest, we identified and exported all vegetation 
classes that coincided with the known observations. The vegetation 
classes included (1) mixed grass-forb and (2) Gambel oak, which are 
consistent with physical habitat descriptions for the subspecies in the 
White Mountains. Vegetation characterized by meadow/grassland community 
within openings of spruce-fir forest are one of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk.
    Next, we determined the elevation interval in which the White 
Mountains population has been observed. We used that interval to 
further define the extent

[[Page 99672]]

of the grass-forb and Gambel oak vegetation classes. Although the upper 
limit of the occupied interval did not extend to the highest points 
within the critical habitat units, we assumed that the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk is capable of occupying these higher elevations as the 
difference (roughly 100 meters or 330 feet) is not substantial. 
Therefore, we extended the interval to include the highest peaks within 
each unit. This process resulted in a basic model of potential habitat.
    Finally, we refined the output of step 3 (above) through aerial 
photo interpretation in order to correct for the coarse resolution 
imparted by the vegetation mapping. Essentially, this process allows 
the model to be more accurate and applicable at a finer scale.
    The critical habitat area was mapped using ArcMap version 10.6.1 
(Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 2018), a Geographic 
Information Systems (GIS) computer application. We identified two 
critical habitat units in the White Mountains known to be occupied by 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks as of 2019. For one of these units, we 
are finalizing a designation that is roughly half the size of the unit 
that was described in the proposed rule because the other half is being 
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Consideration of Impacts 
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below). We identified a third 
critical habitat unit between these two occupied units that has the 
physical and biological features essential for the conservation of the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk but has not yet been surveyed for 
occupancy.

Areas Outside the Geographic Area Occupied at the Time of Listing

    We evaluated whether any unoccupied areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species. Because there is only one remaining 
population, which has low resiliency and no redundancy, making it 
vulnerable to catastrophic or stochastic events and further compounding 
the risks of small population sizes, we are designating unoccupied 
areas that are essential for the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk. The risk of subspecies extinction from a disease 
outbreak, large wildfire, or extreme drought is high. A low-resiliency 
single population provides no redundancy for the species, and a single 
catastrophic event could cause species extinction.
    Based on our evaluation, we are designating as critical habitat one 
unit situated between the two known occupied units that is currently 
considered unoccupied because of a lack of survey data. A small portion 
of this area was surveyed in 2018 and no Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks 
were detected, but a more thorough survey effort would be needed to 
determine if the area is truly unoccupied. We have determined that it 
is essential for the conservation of the species as it provides 
important connectivity between the two occupied units and could support 
population expansion into this area, if not populated already. Limited 
functional habitat exists within the White Mountains, and connectivity 
between known locations of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is essential 
for the conservation of the subspecies because it provides more of the 
habitat upon which the subspecies depends for feeding, sheltering and 
reproducing. This unit provides a link between the two known occupied 
units. The unit has all of the physical or biological features 
essential for the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk: It 
is in the White Mountains, at elevations of 2,500-3,597 meters (8,200-
11,800 feet), with rock outcrop, and appropriate vegetation 
characteristics. Therefore, we conclude that this area is habitat for 
the subspecies.
    Small, isolated populations of animals with restricted movement and 
low genetic diversity are more likely to become extirpated than larger 
populations with greater movement between subpopulations within them 
and greater genetic diversity. Due to the small population sizes found 
within the two occupied units, either or both could become extirpated 
from local catastrophic events or the deleterious effects of genetic 
bottlenecking resulting from inbreeding that reduces the viability of a 
population, if they had no connectivity. The unoccupied unit in between 
these two known occupied units has never been surveyed for 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, due to its remoteness and difficulty to 
access. It does, however, maintain all the physical or biological 
features of the occupied areas. We analyzed this area using remote GIS 
vegetation and landscape feature data from the U.S. Forest Service and 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Imagery 
Program.
    It is possible the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is present in the 
unoccupied unit; however, with no confirmed records, the unit is being 
treated as unoccupied for purposes of this designation.

General Information on the Maps of the Critical Habitat Designation

    When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort 
to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, 
pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or 
biological features necessary for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. 
The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication 
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of 
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical 
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this rule have been excluded by 
text in the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 
a Federal action involving these lands will not trigger section 7 
consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no 
adverse modification unless the specific action will affect the 
physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document under Regulation Promulgation. We include more-detailed 
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in 
the preamble of this document. The coordinates or plot points or both 
on which each map is based are available to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0042.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating three units as critical habitat for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. The critical habitat areas we describe 
below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. 
The three areas we designate as critical habitat are: (1) Nogal Peak, 
(2) Crest Trail, and (3) Sierra Blanca. Table 3 shows the critical 
habitat units and the approximate area of each unit.

[[Page 99673]]



                                          Table 3--Critical Habitat Units for the Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Area of overlap with
                                      Occupied at the time                              Area of unit in      Mexican spotted owl    Overlap with Lincoln
       Critical habitat unit               of listing            Land ownership         hectares (acres)     designated critical      National Forest
                                                                                                                   habitat            Wilderness area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. Nogal Peak                   Yes...................  Federal...............  393 (972)............  100%.................  100%
                                                                                                            393 hectares.........  393 hectares
                                                                                                            (972 acres)..........  (972 acres)
Unit 2. Crest Trail                  No....................  Federal...............  910 (2,249)..........  89.5%................  100%
                                                                                                            814 hectares.........  910 hectares
                                                                                                            (2,012 acres)........  (2,249 acres)
Unit 3. Sierra Blanca                Yes...................  Federal...............  471 (1,165)..........  100%.................  49.3%
                                                                                                            471 hectares.........  232 hectares
                                                                                                            (1,165 acres)........  (574 acres)
    Total..........................  ......................  ......................  1,774 (4,386)........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk, below.

Unit 1: Nogal Peak, New Mexico

    Unit 1 consists of approximately 393 hectares (972 acres) of 
subalpine habitat within the Lincoln National Forest Wilderness Area 
and is occupied. This unit is within the critical habitat designation 
in Lincoln County, New Mexico, for the Mexican spotted owl, which is 
listed as a threatened species under the Act. Elevation ranges 
approximately 2,570-3,031 meters (8,432-9,944 feet) above mean sea 
level. Mean elevation in Unit 1 is 2,772 meters (9,094 feet) with a 
standard deviation of 70 meters (230 feet). Approximately 79 percent of 
Unit 1 is classified as grass-forb mix or Gambel oak. Unit 1 contains 
all the physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. This unit is 
federally owned by the U.S. Forest Service; it is 100 percent within 
the Lincoln National Forest Wilderness Area. Threats to the physical or 
biological features within the unit include forest encroachment into 
the open meadows, grazing, and destruction of habitat by nonnative 
species (feral hogs). Special management considerations that may reduce 
these threats include prescribed fire and forest management to maintain 
the open subalpine meadows with native vegetation, continued closure of 
the encompassing U.S. Forest Service allotment to grazing, and feral 
hog management.

Unit 2: Crest Trail, New Mexico

    Unit 2 consists of approximately 910 hectares (2,249 acres) of 
subalpine habitat. Although it is considered unoccupied, we have 
determined that it is essential for the conservation of the species 
because it provides important connectivity between Unit 1 and Unit 3, 
both of which are known to be occupied by the species. The unit has all 
of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation 
of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk: It is in the White Mountains, at 
elevations of 2,500-3,597 meters (8,200-11,800 feet), with rock 
outcrop, and appropriate vegetation characteristics. Therefore, we 
conclude that this area is habitat for the subspecies.
    Due to the location between Units 1 and 3 and the overall 
suitability of the habitat, it is possible the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk is present in the unoccupied unit; however, with no confirmed 
records, the unit is being treated as unoccupied for purposes of this 
designation. Surveys of the southern portion of this unit in 2018 did 
not detect Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks, but an additional 8 
kilometers (5 miles) of habitat remain unsurveyed. Approximately 90 
percent of this unit is within the critical habitat designation for the 
Mexican spotted owl in Lincoln County, New Mexico. This unit is 
federally owned by the U.S. Forest Service and is 100 percent within 
the Lincoln National Forest Wilderness Area. Elevation ranges 
approximately 2,621-3,292 meters (8,599-10,800 feet) above mean sea 
level. Mean elevation in Unit 2 is 2,876 meters (9,436 feet) with a 
standard deviation of 139 meters (456 feet). Approximately 44 percent 
of Unit 2 is classified as grass-forb mix or Gambel oak.

Unit 3: Sierra Blanca, New Mexico

    Unit 3 includes approximately 471 hectares (1,165 acres) of 
subalpine habitat, contains the physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species, and is known to be 
occupied. This unit is federally owned by the U.S. Forest Service; 
approximately 30 percent overlaps with the Lincoln National Forest 
Wilderness Area. One hundred percent of the unit is also Mexican 
spotted owl critical habitat in Lincoln County, New Mexico. Elevation 
ranges approximately 2,763-3,518 meters (9,065-11,542 feet) above mean 
sea level. Mean elevation in Unit 3 is 3,167 meters (10,390 feet) with 
a standard deviation of 131 meters (428 feet). Approximately 34 percent 
of Unit 3 is classified as grass-forb mix or Gambel oak. Unit 3 
contains all the physical or biological features that are essential to 
the conservation of the species. Threats to the unit include forest 
encroachment into the open meadows, recreation, development, land use, 
and land management, grazing, and destruction of habitat by nonnative 
species (feral hogs). Special management considerations that may 
address these threats include prescribed fire and forest management to 
maintain the open subalpine meadows with native vegetation, continued 
closure of the encompassing U.S. Forest Service allotment to grazing, 
and feral hog management.
    In the proposed rule, Unit 3 comprised 1,357 hectares (3,353 
acres), an area which included land owned by the U.S. Forest Service 
and the Mescalero Apache Tribe. We have excluded from the final 
designation the portion owned by the Mescalero Apache Tribe and an 
adjacent parcel of U.S. Forest Service land operated by the Tribe, 
approximately 886 hectares (2,189 acres) (see Consideration of Impacts 
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species.
    Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as 
a whole for the conservation of a listed species (50 CFR 402.02).

[[Page 99674]]

    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act is 
documented through our issuance of the following:

    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, 
but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical 
habitat; or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, 
and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical 
habitat.

    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during formal consultation that:

    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the 
likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed 
species or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying 
critical habitat.

    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal 
agencies to reinitiate consultation. Reinitiation of consultation is 
required and shall be requested by the Federal agency, where 
discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been 
retained or is authorized by law and: (1) If the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if 
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously 
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a 
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat 
that was not considered in the biological opinion or written 
concurrence; or (4) if a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated that may be affected by the identified action. As provided 
in 50 CFR 402.16, the requirement to reinitiate consultations for new 
species listings or critical habitat designation does not apply to 
certain agency actions (e.g., land management plans issued by the 
Bureau of Land Management in certain circumstances).

Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat

    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a 
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, 
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide 
for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires that our Federal Register 
documents ``shall, to the maximum extent practicable, also include a 
brief description and evaluation of those activities (whether public or 
private) which, in the opinion of the Secretary, if undertaken may 
adversely modify [critical] habitat, or may be affected by such 
designation.'' Activities that may be affected by designation of 
critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk include those 
that may affect the physical or biological features of the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk's critical habitat (see Physical or 
Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the Species).

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any 
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department 
of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are subject to an 
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under 
section 101 of the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a), 
if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a 
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation. There are no DoD lands with a completed INRMP within the 
final critical habitat designation.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat based on economic 
impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts. 
Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 
and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226, 
February 11, 2016)--both of which were developed jointly with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled ``The 
Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat 
Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-
37016). We explain each decision to exclude areas, as well as decisions 
not to exclude, to demonstrate that the decision is reasonable.
    The Secretary may exclude any particular area if she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the 
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that 
the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and 
how much weight to give to any factor.
    We describe below the process that we undertook for deciding 
whether to exclude any areas--taking into consideration each category 
of impacts and our analysis of the relevant impacts.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared 
an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which, 
together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, we consider 
our economic analysis of the critical habitat designation and related 
factors (Service 2019, entire). The analysis, dated May 5, 2019, was 
made available for public review from September 28, 2021, through 
November 29, 2021 (86 FR 53583). The economic analysis addressed 
probable economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the

[[Page 99675]]

Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. Following the close of the comment 
period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the 
comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable 
incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. 
Additional information relevant to the probable incremental economic 
impacts of critical habitat designation for the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk is summarized below and available in the screening analysis 
for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (IEc 2019, entire), available at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
    The full description of the findings from the economic analysis is 
outlined in the proposed rule (86 FR 53583; September 28, 2021). The 
estimated incremental costs of the total proposed critical habitat 
designation for Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk was found to be less than 
$5,000 per year. Therefore, the annual administrative burden is very 
unlikely to reach $200 million, which is the threshold for a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 14094. As 
discussed above, we considered the economic impacts of the critical 
habitat designation, and the Secretary is not exercising her discretion 
to exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk based on economic impacts.

Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security

    In preparing this rule, we determined that there are no lands 
within the designated critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk that are owned or managed by the DoD or Department of Homeland 
Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security 
or homeland security. We did not receive any additional information 
during the public comment period for the proposed designation regarding 
impacts of the designation on national security or homeland security 
that would support excluding any specific areas from the final critical 
habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, as well as the 2016 Policy.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security as discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that 
may affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors, 
including whether there are approved and permitted conservation plans 
covering the species in the area such as safe harbor agreements (SHAs), 
candidate conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs), 
``conservation benefit agreements'' or ``conservation agreements'' 
(CBAs) (CBAs are a new type of agreement replacing SHAs and CCAAs in 
use after April 2024 (89 FR 26070; April 12, 2024)) or HCPs, or whether 
there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that 
would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical 
habitat. In addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or 
partnerships, Tribal resources, or government-to-government 
relationships of the United States with Tribal entities may be affected 
by the designation. We also consider any State, local, social, or other 
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive due to the 
protection from destruction or adverse modification as a result of 
actions with a Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping 
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits 
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that 
may apply to critical habitat. In the case of Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of 
the presence of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and the importance of 
habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased 
habitat protection for Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk due to protection 
from destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation, or in the continuation, strengthening, or 
encouragement of partnerships. Additionally, continued implementation 
of an ongoing management plan that provides equal to or more 
conservation than a critical habitat designation would reduce the 
benefits of including that specific area in the critical habitat 
designation.
    We evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when considering 
the benefits of inclusion. We consider a variety of factors, including, 
but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it provides for 
the conservation of the essential physical or biological features; 
whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will 
be implemented into the future; whether the conservation strategies in 
the plan are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a 
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the 
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in 
response to new information.
    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis 
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in 
extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical 
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the 
designation.
    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as additional public comments we received, and the best scientific 
data available, we evaluated whether certain lands in the critical 
habitat (Unit 1-Nogal Peak, Unit 2-Crest Trail, and Unit 3-Sierra 
Blanca) are appropriate for exclusion from the final designation under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If our analysis indicates that the benefits 
of excluding lands from the final designation outweigh the benefits of 
designating those lands as critical habitat, then the Secretary may 
exercise her discretion to exclude the lands from the final 
designation. In the paragraphs below, we provide our analysis of the 
areas being excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

Federal Lands

    Federal land managers have unique obligations under the Act. First, 
Congress declared its policy that all Federal departments and agencies 
shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and 
shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this 
Act (section 2(c)(1)). Second, all Federal agencies have 
responsibilities under section 7 of the Act to carry out programs for 
the conservation of listed species and to ensure their actions are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 
Therefore, in general we will focus our exclusions on non-Federal 
lands. However, our regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 2016 Policy 
provide for the consideration of the exclusion of Federal lands in 
particular instances.

[[Page 99676]]

    In this particular situation, we have determined that the benefits 
of exclusion for portions of the Sierra Blanca Unit outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion. In our proposed rule (86 FR 53583), the Sierra 
Blanca Unit is described as being located in Lincoln and Otero Counties 
in the White Mountains of southern New Mexico. The area proposed for 
designation as critical habitat includes subalpine habitat located 
within the Lincoln National Forest, the Lincoln National Forest 
Wilderness Area, and Mescalero Apache Tribal Reservation land. A 
portion of the Sierra Blanca Unit known as the Ski Apache Resort is 
managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Lincoln National 
Forest and operated under a special use permit by the Mescalero Apache 
Tribe. The Tribe manages the Ski Apache Resort and ski lifts, and the 
U.S. Forest Service maintains ownership and is responsible for managing 
the land for forest health, in collaboration with the Mescalero Apache 
Tribe. The Mescalero Apache Tribe has agreed to protect the habitat of 
any federally listed species and call for the immediate abatement of 
any otherwise authorized activity on, or use of, the land operated 
under a special use permit that causes or threatens to cause harm to 
any natural resource, including species and their habitat (U.S. Forest 
Service 2014, pp. 10-13).

Proposed Unit 3 (Sierra Blanca)--Ski Apache Resort

Benefits of Inclusion
    The benefits of including lands in critical habitat can be 
regulatory, educational, or to aid in recovery of species as generally 
discussed in Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
above. The following is our assessment of the benefits for inclusion of 
the portion of the Sierra Blanca Unit in Lincoln County known as the 
Ski Apache Resort, which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part 
of the Lincoln National Forest and operated under a special use permit 
by the Mescalero Apache Tribe. This permit has contributed to 
development of an informal partnership between the Tribe and the U.S. 
Forest Service to conserve and manage habitat on the Ski Apache Resort 
(Williams, 2024 pers. comm.).
    The designation of critical habitat can help to educate the public 
regarding the potential conservation value of an area and can focus 
efforts by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. Specifically, designation of critical 
habitat on the Ski Apache Resort could serve to further educate the 
public regarding the specific needs that the chipmunk requires on the 
same lands that the public enjoys and uses. However, the chipmunk 
habitat in the White Mountains exists entirely on U.S. Forest Service 
and Tribal land, and both entities are aware of the high conservation 
value of the habitat to the species. The U.S. Forest Service has 
included the chipmunk on their list of sensitive species for more than 
a decade and incorporates management of their lands in consideration of 
this and other sensitive species. Little additional educational benefit 
would be gained from designation of critical habitat on the Ski Apache 
Resort as a result of informing the public of the presence of the 
chipmunk and the high conservation value of this area. Therefore, we 
find that the benefits of inclusion of the Ski Apache Resort as part of 
the Sierra Blanca Unit are reduced as a result of these past and 
ongoing actions.
    The designation of critical habitat can aid in recovery of the 
species by raising awareness to landowners and managers by calling 
attention to recovery actions that could be implemented. In the case of 
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, catastrophic wildfire is one of the 
biggest threats to the subspecies because the chipmunk's range has been 
reduced to a single population and wildfire has the potential to cause 
extinction of the subspecies. This threat was demonstrated in the 
recent South Fork Fire, which burned 2.3 hectares (5.7 acres) of the 
Sierra Blanca Unit managed by the U.S. Forest Service before it was 
contained. The U.S. Forest Service has an agreement with the Mescalero 
Apache Tribe to address habitat and conservation needs for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, with particular emphasis on reducing the 
threat of wildfire.
    In 2018, the U.S. Forest Service published a decision to reduce 
wildland fuels and promote forest health on the Ski Apache Resort and a 
portion of the Mescalero Apache Reservation by removing, piling, and 
burning hazard trees; restoring and protecting new trees; and reseeding 
disturbed areas with beneficial plants (USDA 2018, entire). The plan is 
formally named the Ski Apache Vegetation Restoration Project. In 
addition to reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfire, the plan 
calls for surveys to be conducted to locate Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunks and to identify and retain habitat characteristics that favor 
them (e.g., large logs for cover) in the project area. The plan also 
calls for restoration of habitat features that match the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, 
including reseeding of open slopes with subalpine meadow/grassland 
species such as Thurber's fescue, sedges, and flowering forbs. Work on 
the restoration project began in 2019 but was then delayed by COVID-19 
impacts to agency operations, staff turnover, and lack of funding. It 
will be reinitiated in fiscal year 2024 using funds from the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (also known as the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, Pub. L. 117-58; November 15, 2021) (Brennan, 2024 
pers. comm.). The decision demonstrates the commitment of the U.S. 
Forest Service and Mescalero Apache Tribe to decreasing the threat of 
wildfire potential on the Ski Apache Resort for the benefit of the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. The partnership between the Tribe and 
the U.S. Forest Service and their commitment to this plan and the 
provisions thereof reduces the benefits of inclusion of the Ski Apache 
Resort as part of the Sierra Blanca Unit in a designation of critical 
habitat.
    The principal benefit of any designated critical habitat is that 
activities in and affecting such habitat require consultation under 
section 7 of the Act. Such consultation would ensure that protection is 
provided to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. However, we conclude that few regulatory benefits to the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk would be gained from a designation of 
critical habitat on the Ski Apache Resort. Through the consultation 
process for specific projects, we would determine if there are any 
anticipated effects to listed species or potential destruction or 
adverse modification to critical habitat.
    We find it is unlikely that many, if any, consultations would occur 
to assess the potential for projects to destroy or adversely modify 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk critical habitat on the Ski Apache Resort 
because, despite listed species occurring there (e.g., Mexican spotted 
owl), the U.S. Forest Service has yet to have cause to consult with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on any project in the area for the past 
30 years. Because the Sierra Blanca Unit is occupied by the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, should a project arise requiring 
consultation in the future (such as wildfire reduction as part of the 
Ski Apache Vegetation Restoration Project discussed above), absent 
critical habitat, an assessment of the anticipated affects to the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk would still be conducted under the 
jeopardy standard.
    In our evaluation of the probable economic impact of a critical 
habitat designation, we identified the effects

[[Page 99677]]

expected to occur solely due to the designation of critical habitat and 
not from the protections that are in place due to the species being 
listed under the Act. Our assessment concluded that there are no 
project modifications that would be recommended to avoid adverse 
alteration of the physical and biological features of the critical 
habitat that would not also be recommended to avoid adverse effects to 
the subspecies. In the event of an adverse modification determination, 
we expect that reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy to 
the subspecies would also avoid adverse modification of the critical 
habitat. Therefore, the only substantive difference between an analysis 
of jeopardy and destruction or adverse modification is the minor 
additional cost of the consultation for destruction or adverse 
modification. Accordingly, we find the benefits of inclusion for this 
unit based on the consultation requirement for a designation of 
critical habitat are minimal for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk on 
the Ski Apache Resort.
    We expect few to no additional benefits to the recovery of the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk as a result of the designation of this 
portion of the Sierra Blanca Unit. The habitat areas are outlined and 
the biological features are readily defined in the species' recovery 
plan. Overall, with minimal regulatory, educational, and recovery 
benefits likely, we foresee limited benefits to further recovery of the 
species as a result of the designation of critical habitat on the Ski 
Apache Resort.
Benefits of Exclusion
    The benefits of excluding the Ski Apache Resort from designated 
critical habitat are more significant. They include the following: (1) 
the maintenance of effective working relationships to promote the 
conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and its habitat; (2) 
the allowance for continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in 
working groups; and (3) the provision of conservation benefits to 
listed species and their habitats that might not occur if the Ski 
Apache Resort were designated as critical habitat.
    The Mescalero Apache Tribe, as special use permit holder of the 
land, has requested that we exclude the Ski Apache Resort from the 
critical habitat designation and allow them to manage and protect the 
natural resources in the area without requiring additional permits or 
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Mescalero Apache 
Tribe 2023, entire). As discussed above, the partnership between the 
Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service to conserve and manage habitat on the 
Ski Apache Resort has led to the development of a plan that considers 
the impact of actions on the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and reduces 
the threat of wildfire on the landscape (USDA 2018, p. 15). This 
agreement demonstrates an effective partnership to promote the 
conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and its habitat.
    The designation of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk critical habitat 
on the Ski Apache Resort would be expected to adversely impact the 
Service's working relationship with the Mescalero Apache Tribe. The 
Tribe has indicated that the designation of critical habitat for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk on the Ski Apache Resort, an area over 
which the Tribe has requested ownership (Maue 2017, entire), would be 
viewed as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into Tribal natural 
resource programs. In discussions regarding other listed species, we 
were informed that critical habitat would be viewed as an infringement 
on the Tribe's sovereign abilities to manage natural resources in 
accordance with their own policies, customs, and laws. We have found 
that the Tribe would prefer to work with us on a government-to-
government basis. The perceived future restrictions (whether realized 
or not) of a critical habitat designation could have a damaging effect 
to coordination efforts, possibly preventing actions that might 
maintain, improve, or restore habitat for the chipmunk and other 
species. For these reasons, we believe that our working relationship 
with the Mescalero Apache Tribe would be better maintained if the Ski 
Apache Resort is excluded from the designation of critical habitat for 
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. We view this as a substantial 
benefit of exclusion.
    A cooperative working relationship between the Service and 
Mescalero Apache Tribe has benefited the conservation and recovery of 
other listed species and other natural resources. For example, the 
Service's relationship with Mescalero Apache resulted in the successful 
prosecution of a Mexican spotted owl take case under section 9 of the 
Act, related to an arsonist in 2002 (Service 2002). Additionally, the 
development of the Mexican Spotted Owl Management Plan for the 
Mescalero Apache Reservation was a noteworthy accomplishment that has 
benefited the conservation of the owl. Recovery of the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk will be greatly enhanced by a mutually respectful 
partnership. We have plans with the U.S. Forest Service and Mescalero 
Apache Tribe members to research use of the Ski Apache Resort by 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks. In the future, we plan to continue to 
provide training or guidance as needed to support recovery of the 
subspecies in this area. We conclude that our working relationship with 
the Tribe on a government-to-government basis has been extremely 
beneficial in implementing natural resource conservation for other 
species, and that maintaining a productive relationship would be best 
fostered by exclusion of critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk on the Ski Apache Resort.
    Lastly, we anticipate future management/conservation plans to 
include conservation efforts for other listed species and their 
habitat. We believe that other Tribes would be willing to work 
cooperatively with us to benefit other listed species, but only if they 
view the relationship as mutually beneficial. Consequently, the 
development of future voluntary management actions for other listed 
species will likely be premised upon whether the U.S. Forest Service 
land, on which the Mescalero Apache Tribe operates the Ski Apache 
Resort under a special use permit, is excluded from critical habitat 
for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. Thus, a benefit of excluding the 
Ski Apache Resort would be the encouragement of future conservation 
efforts that would benefit other listed species.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
    We found there to be few benefits of including the Ski Apache 
Resort (the portion of the proposed Sierra Blanca Unit managed by the 
U.S. Forest Service and operated by the Mescalero Apache Tribe under a 
special use permit) as part of the critical habitat designation for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, including the incremental benefits 
gained through the regulatory requirement to consult under section 7 
and consideration of the need to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat, minimal additional educational 
opportunities, and minimal gains for species recovery through the 
reduction of the wildfire threat. The benefits of inclusion are 
outweighed by the more substantial benefits of excluding the portion of 
the Sierra Blanca Unit regarding (1) the advancement and support of our 
Federal Indian Trust obligations and the maintenance of effective 
collaboration and cooperation to promote the conservation of 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk; (2) the maintenance of effective working 
relationships and an existing partnership between the Tribe and U.S. 
Forest Service to promote the

[[Page 99678]]

conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and its habitat; (3) 
allowance for continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation with 
the Tribe to implement natural resource conservation; and (4) provision 
of future conservation efforts that would benefit other listed species 
and their habitats. In conclusion, we have found the benefits of 
including the Ski Apache Resort as part of the critical habitat 
designation of the Sierra Blanca Unit are outweighed by the benefits of 
excluding this particular area.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
    We have determined that the exclusion of the Ski Apache Resort 
portion of the Sierra Blanca Unit that includes 305 hectares (754 
acres) from the final designation of critical habitat will not result 
in the extinction of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. The species 
occupies two other areas, Nogal Peak Unit and the northern portion of 
the Sierra Blanca Unit, both of which are managed by the U.S. Forest 
Service. The Crest Trail Unit connects the northern portion of the 
Sierra Blanca Unit and the Nogal Peak Unit. Occupancy of the Crest 
Trail Unit is not known but the area is considered essential to allow 
movement between the Nogal Peak and Sierra Blanca Units. As described 
above, all of the area we are excluding from critical habitat is 
considered to be occupied by the species, and consultations will still 
occur under section 7 of the Act if there is a Federal nexus, even in 
the absence of the area's designation as critical habitat. Application 
of the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act also provides 
assurances that the species will not go extinct in the absence of the 
designation of this particular area.
    In summary, the benefits of including the Ski Apache Resort portion 
of the Sierra Blanca Unit in the critical habitat designation for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk are few. The benefits of excluding this 
area from designated critical habitat are greater and include 
maintaining an important partnership. We find that the benefits of 
excluding this area from critical habitat designation outweigh the 
benefits of including this area and that exclusion will not result in 
the extinction of the species.

Tribal Lands

    Several Executive Orders, Secretary's Orders, and policies concern 
working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our 
trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that Tribes have sovereign 
authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the importance of 
developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and direct the Service 
to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
    A joint Secretary's Order that applies to both the Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)--Secretary's Order 3206, 
American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 
and the Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997) (S.O. 3206)--is the most 
comprehensive of the various guidance documents related to Tribal 
relationships and Act implementation, and it provides the most detail 
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat. In addition 
to the general direction discussed above, the appendix to S.O. 3206 
explicitly recognizes the right of Tribes to participate fully in any 
listing process that may affect Tribal rights or Tribal trust 
resources; this includes the designation of critical habitat. Section 
3(B)(4) of the appendix requires us to consult with affected Tribes 
``when considering the designation of critical habitat in an area that 
may impact Tribal trust resources, Tribally-owned fee lands, or the 
exercise of Tribal rights.'' That provision also instructs the Services 
to avoid including Tribal lands within a critical habitat designation 
unless the area is essential to conserve a listed species, and it 
requires the Services to ``evaluate and document the extent to which 
the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved by 
limiting the designation to other lands.''
    Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 2016 Policy 
are consistent with S.O. 3206. When we undertake a discretionary 
exclusion analysis, in accordance with S.O. 3206, we consult with any 
Tribe whose Tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee lands, or Tribal 
rights may be affected by including any particular areas in the 
designation, and we evaluate the extent to which the conservation needs 
of the species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other 
areas. When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 
analysis, we always consider exclusion of Tribal lands, and give great 
weight to Tribal concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
    However, S.O. 3206 does not override the Act's statutory 
requirement of designation of critical habitat. As stated above, we 
must consult with any Tribe when a designation of critical habitat may 
affect Tribal lands or resources. The Act requires us to identify areas 
that meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' (i.e., areas occupied 
at the time of listing that contain the essential physical or 
biological features that may require special management or protection 
and unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of a 
species), without regard to land ownership. While S.O. 3206 provides 
important direction, it expressly states that it does not modify the 
Secretaries' statutory authority under the Act or other statutes.

Proposed Unit 3 (Sierra Blanca)--Mescalero Apache Reservation

Benefits of Inclusion
    The benefits of including lands in critical habitat can be 
regulatory, educational, or to aid in recovery of species as generally 
discussed in Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
above. The following is our assessment of the benefits for inclusion of 
the portion of the Sierra Blanca Unit in Otero County owned by the 
Mescalero Apache Tribe.
    The principal benefit of any designated critical habitat is that 
activities in and affecting such habitat require consultation under 
section 7 of the Act. Such consultation would ensure that protection is 
provided to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. However, we conclude that few regulatory benefits to the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk would be gained from a designation of 
critical habitat on the Mescalero Apache Reservation. The Tribe is not 
required to consult with the Service except in cases where there is a 
Federal nexus due to involvement of a Federal agency (e.g., Bureau of 
Indian Affairs funding a project on Mescalero Apache land). Through the 
consultation process, we would determine if there are any anticipated 
effects to listed species or potential destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat.
    We find it is unlikely that many, if any, consultations would occur 
to assess the potential for adverse modification to the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk critical habitat on the Mescalero Apache Reservation 
because, despite several listed species historically occurring there 
(e.g., Mexican spotted owl, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse), the Tribe 
has yet to have cause to consult with the Service on any project in the 
area for the past 30 years. Because this area is occupied by the 
species, should a project arise requiring consultation in the future, 
an assessment of the anticipated effects to the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk would still be conducted under the jeopardy standard.
    In our evaluation of the probable economic impact of a critical 
habitat designation, we identified the effects

[[Page 99679]]

expected to occur solely due to the designation of critical habitat and 
not from the protections that are in place due to the species being 
listed under the Act. Our assessment concluded that there are no 
project modifications that would be recommended to avoid adverse 
alteration of the physical and biological features of the critical 
habitat that would not also be recommended to avoid adverse effects to 
the subspecies. In the event of an adverse modification determination, 
we expect that reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy to 
the subspecies would also avoid adverse modification of the critical 
habitat. Therefore, the only substantive difference between an analysis 
of jeopardy and destruction or adverse modification is the minor 
additional cost of the consultation for destruction or adverse 
modification. Accordingly, we find the benefits of inclusion for this 
unit based on the consultation requirement for a designation of 
critical habitat are minimal for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk on 
the Mescalero Apache Reservation.
    The designation of critical habitat can help to educate the public 
regarding potential conservation value of an area and can focus efforts 
by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. However, the chipmunk habitat in the 
White Mountains exists entirely on U.S. Forest Service and Tribal land. 
There is little additional educational benefit to be gained from 
designation of critical habitat on the Mescalero Apache Reservation as 
a result of informing the public of the high conservation value of this 
area. The Mescalero Apache Tribe is currently working with the Service 
to address habitat and conservation needs for listed species. We 
anticipate that the Tribe will continue to actively participate in 
working groups, providing for the timely exchange of management 
information. The educational benefits important for the long-term 
survival and conservation for the other listed species (i.e., Mexican 
spotted owl) are being realized. Therefore, the educational benefits of 
including the Mescalero Apache Reservation in critical habitat are 
minimal.
    We expect few to no additional benefits to the recovery of the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk as a result of the designation of this 
portion of the Sierra Blanca Unit. The habitat areas are outlined, and 
the biological features are readily defined in the species' recovery 
plan. With limited regulatory and educational benefits likely, we 
foresee limited benefit to further recovery of the species as a result 
of a designation of critical habitat on the Mescalero Apache Tribe 
Reservation.
Benefits of Exclusion
    The benefits of excluding Mescalero Apache Tribe land from 
designated critical habitat are more significant. They include the 
following: (1) the advancement and support of our Federal Indian Trust 
obligations and the maintenance of effective collaboration and 
cooperation to promote the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk; (2) the maintenance of effective working relationships and an 
existing partnership between the Tribe and U.S. Forest Service to 
promote the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and its 
habitat; (3) allowance for continued meaningful collaboration and 
cooperation with the Tribe to implement natural resource conservation; 
and (4) provision of future conservation efforts that would benefit 
other listed species and their habitats.
    Through the years, we have met with the Mescalero Apache Tribe to 
discuss management and conservation of federally listed species. Our 
goal has been to establish an effective working relationship. As part 
of our relationship, we have provided assistance to develop measures to 
conserve listed species and their habitats on Mescalero Apache lands. 
These measures are contained within the Tribal management/conservation 
plans we have developed together, such as the Mexican Spotted Owl 
Management Plan for the Mescalero Apache Reservation (Mescalero Apache 
2000). These proactive actions were conducted in accordance with 
Secretary's Order 3206 (described above). We believe that the Mescalero 
Apache Tribe should be the governmental entity to manage and promote 
the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk on their lands, 
and they have taken the initial steps to do so, requesting our 
assistance to conduct trainings on how to survey for the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk and discuss habitat enhancements needed on the 
Reservation. We recognize and endorse their fundamental right to 
provide for Tribal resource management activities, including those 
relating to the species' habitat.
    The designation of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk critical habitat 
on the Reservation would adversely impact our working relationship with 
the Mescalero Apache Tribe. In discussions regarding other listed 
species, we were informed that critical habitat would be viewed as an 
infringement on the Tribe's sovereign abilities to manage natural 
resources in accordance with their own policies, customs, and laws. The 
Tribe has indicated that the designation of critical habitat for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk on the Mescalero Apache Reservation would 
amount to additional Federal regulation of a sovereign Nation's land 
and would be viewed as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into 
Tribal natural resource programs. We have found that the Tribe would 
prefer to work with us on a government-to-government basis. For these 
reasons, we find that our working relationship with the Mescalero 
Apache Tribe would be better maintained if the Reservation is excluded 
from the designation of critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk. We view this as a substantial benefit of exclusion.
    A cooperative working relationship between the Service and 
Mescalero Apache Tribe has benefited in the conservation and recovery 
of listed species and other natural resources. For example, the 
Service's relationship with Mescalero Apache resulted in the successful 
prosecution of a Mexican spotted owl take case under section 9 of the 
Act, related to an arsonist in 2002 (Service 2002). Additionally, the 
development of the Mexican Spotted Owl Management Plan for the 
Mescalero Apache Reservation was a noteworthy accomplishment that has 
benefited the conservation of the owl. Recovery of the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk will be greatly enhanced with a mutually respectful 
partnership. As mentioned above, the Mescalero Apache have requested 
our assistance to conduct trainings on how to survey for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and discuss habitat enhancements needed 
on the Reservation. In the future, we plan to continue to provide 
training or guidance as needed to support recovery of the subspecies in 
this area. We conclude that our working relationships with the Tribe on 
a government-to-government basis has been beneficial in implementing 
natural resource conservation for other species, and that maintaining a 
productive relationship would be best fostered by exclusion of critical 
habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk on the Mescalero Apache 
Reservation.
    Lastly, we anticipate future management/conservation plans to 
include conservation efforts for other listed species and their 
habitat. We believe that many Tribes would be willing to work 
cooperatively with us to benefit other listed species, but only if they 
view the relationship as mutually beneficial. Consequently, the 
development of future voluntary management actions for other listed 
species will likely be premised upon whether these Tribal lands are 
excluded

[[Page 99680]]

from critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. Thus, a 
benefit of excluding these lands would be encouraging future 
conservation efforts that would benefit other listed species.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
    In weighing the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of exclusion 
of the portion of the Sierra Blanca Unit owned and managed by the 
Mescalero Apache Tribe, we find that the benefits of exclusion of this 
land outweigh the benefits of inclusion of this land in the critical 
habitat designation. This is based on the fact that there are very 
limited benefits to inclusion and substantial benefits from supporting 
our partnerships by excluding this portion of the unit. We found there 
to be few benefits of including the area owned by the Mescalero Apache 
Tribe as part of the critical habitat designation for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, including the incremental benefits 
gained through the regulatory requirement to consult under section 7 
and consideration of the need to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat, minimal additional educational 
opportunities, and minimal gains for species recovery through the 
reduction of the wildfire threat. In addition to supporting Secretary's 
Order 3206 and Mescalero Apache Tribe sovereignty, we have determined 
that excluding a portion of the Sierra Blanca Unit that overlaps with 
Reservation land will provide for maintenance of a positive 
relationship with the Tribe in Otero County. This relationship is 
fundamental for implementing recovery actions for the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk and outweighs the limited benefits that may occur from 
the designation of critical habitat there. Recovery of the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is best served by the exclusion of the 
portion of the Sierra Blanca Unit owned by the Mescalero Apache Tribe. 
In conclusion, we have found the benefits of including the portion of 
the Sierra Blanca Unit owned and managed by the Mescalero Apache Tribe 
are outweighed by the benefits of exclusion of this particular area.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
    We have determined that the exclusion of the portion of the Sierra 
Blanca Unit that includes 581 hectares (1,435 acres) from the final 
designation of critical habitat will not result in the extinction of 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. The species occupies two other areas, 
Nogal Peak Unit and the northern portion of the Sierra Blanca Unit, 
both of which are managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The Crest Trail 
Unit connects the northern portion of the Sierra Blanca Unit and the 
Nogal Peak Unit. Occupancy of the Crest Trail Unit is not known but the 
area is considered essential to allow movement between the known 
populations in the Nogal Peak and Sierra Blanca units. As described 
above, all of the area we are excluding from critical habitat is 
considered to be occupied by the species, and consultations will still 
occur under section 7 of the Act if there is a Federal nexus, even in 
the absence of the designation of this area as critical habitat. 
Application of the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act also 
provides assurances that the species will not go extinct in the absence 
of this designation.
    In summary, the benefits of including the portion of the Sierra 
Blanca Unit in the critical habitat designation for the Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk are few. The benefits of excluding this area from 
designated critical habitat are greater and include maintaining an 
important partnership. We find that the benefits of excluding this area 
from critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including 
this area and that exclusion will not result in the extinction of the 
species.

Summary of Exclusions

    As discussed above, based on the information provided by entities 
seeking exclusion, as well as any additional public comments received, 
we evaluated whether certain lands in the proposed critical habitat 
were appropriate for exclusion from this final designation pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are excluding the following areas from 
the critical habitat designation for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk: 
Proposed Unit 3-Sierra Blanca, Mescalero Apache Tribe Reservation and 
Ski Apache Resort. Table 4 shows the sizes of the areas excluded from 
the critical habitat designation. While the area proposed for critical 
habitat was in Lincoln and Otero Counties, the area in Otero County is 
now being excluded. The critical habitat in this final designation is 
entirely within Lincoln County.

               Table 4--Areas Excluded From Critical Habitat Designation by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Areas meeting the
                                                                              definition of      Areas excluded
                    Unit                             Specific area          critical habitat,    from critical
                                                                               in hectares        habitat, in
                                                                                 (acres)        hectares (acres)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sierra Blanca...........................  Mescalero Apache Reservation.        581 (1,435)        581 (1,435)
                                             Ski Apache Resort............          305 (754)          305 (754)
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total area excluded....................  .............................  .................        886 (2,189)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 
14094)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 amends and reaffirms the principles of 
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should 
facilitate agency efforts to develop regulations that serve the public 
interest, advance statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 
12866 and E.O. 13563, and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 
2021 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as 
practicable and appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and 
equity, to the extent permitted by law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this final rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.
    Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and amended by 
E.O. 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all 
significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not 
significant.

[[Page 99681]]

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply 
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Under the RFA, as amended, as understood in light of recent court 
decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential 
incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated 
by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not require 
agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated 
entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat 
protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires 
Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any 
action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely 
to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under 
section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the 
specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse 
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it 
is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly 
regulated by this designation. The RFA does not require evaluations of 
the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, 
Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small 
entities will be directly regulated by this rulemaking, we certify that 
this critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period on the 
September 28, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 53583) that may pertain to our 
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our 
certification that this critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare statements of energy effects ``to the extent 
permitted by law'' when undertaking actions identified as significant 
energy actions (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a 
``significant energy action'' as an action that (i) is a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order; and (ii) is 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. This rule is not a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879; April 
11, 2023). Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, 
and there is no requirement to prepare a statement of energy effects 
for this action.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following finding:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that 
receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise 
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, 
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the 
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of

[[Page 99682]]

critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to 
the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because 
they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal 
aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor 
would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement 
programs listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate 
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on 
State or local governments. By definition, Federal agencies are not 
considered small entities, although the activities they fund or permit 
may be proposed or carried out by small entities. Consequently, we do 
not believe that the proposed critical habitat designation would 
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Therefore, 
a small government agency plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk in a takings implications 
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Services to regulate private 
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of 
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not 
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on 
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation 
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not 
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of 
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to 
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go 
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, 
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed 
and concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk does not pose significant takings 
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have 
significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with, 
appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism perspective, the 
designation of critical habitat directly affects only the 
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties 
with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, this final rule does not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the 
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the 
species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological 
features of the habitat necessary for the conservation of the species 
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and 
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist 
State and local governments in long-range planning because they no 
longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act will be required. While 
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a 
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule will not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this final 
rule identifies the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species. The areas of designated critical habitat 
are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options for the 
interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if 
desired.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not 
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

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

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat designations. In a line of cases starting with Douglas County 
v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts have upheld this 
position.
    However, when we designate as ``critical habitat'' any areas that 
fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 
Circuit, including this designation for the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk, we undertake a NEPA analysis for that critical habitat 
designation consistent with the Tenth Circuit's ruling in Catron County 
Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 
(10th Cir. 1996).
    We performed the NEPA analysis, and the draft environmental 
assessment was made available for public comment on June 13, 2022, on 
the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office website (below). We 
emailed notices to 64 individuals, agencies, organizations, and Tribes 
that were likely to be interested in and/or potentially affected by the 
proposed action. We accepted public comments through September 9, 2022, 
and received comments from Holloman Air Force Base and the Lincoln 
County Government and Board of Commissioners. The final environmental 
assessment and finding of no significant impact have been

[[Page 99683]]

completed and are available for review with the publication of this 
final rule. You may obtain a copy of the documents online at https://www.regulations.gov, by mail from the New Mexico Ecological Services 
Field Office (see ADDRESSES), or by visiting our website at https://www.fws.gov/office/new-mexico-ecological-services/.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), Executive Order 13175 
(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the 
President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for 
Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) on a government-to-
government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 
1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily 
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in 
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal 
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to 
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available 
to Tribes.
    In a letter dated November 27, 2017, we informed the Mescalero 
Apache Tribe of our intent to conduct a status assessment for the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. On July 5, 2018, we shared the draft of 
the SSA report (Service 2018) with the Mescalero Apache Tribe for their 
partner review. We sent a notification letter to the President of the 
Mescalero Apache Tribe, on September 24, 2021, notifying the Tribe that 
the proposed rule had published in the Federal Register to allow for 
the maximum time to submit comments. We received a letter from the 
Tribe March 8, 2023, which explained their opposition to designation of 
critical habitat on Tribal land and the Ski Apache Resort (Mescalero 
Apache Tribe 2023, entire). We plan to continue working with the Tribe 
for conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and other species 
of concern.
    We considered Tribal areas for exclusion from final critical 
habitat designation to the extent consistent with the requirements of 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and subsequently excluded two portions of 
the Sierra Blanca Unit (Unit 3) from this final designation.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the New Mexico 
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.11, amend paragraph (h) in the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for ``Chipmunk, Pe[ntilde]asco 
least'' in alphabetical order under MAMMALS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Mammals
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Chipmunk, Pe[ntilde]asco least..  Neotamias minimus   Wherever found....  E              89 FR [INSERT FEDERAL
                                   atristriatus.                                          REGISTER PAGE WHERE
                                                                                          THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
                                                                                          12/10/2024; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.95(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for 
``Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus)'' 
after the entry for ``Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), 
Southern Mountain Distinct Population Segment (DPS)'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

    (a) Mammals.
* * * * *
    Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Lincoln County, New 
Mexico, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 
consist of the following components:
    (i) Areas within the White Mountains that:
    (A) Are between elevations of 2,500-3,597 meters (8,200-11,800 
feet);
    (B) Contain rock outcrops or talus;
    (C) Are subalpine Thurber's fescue meadow/grassland communities 
found within openings of spruce-fir forest, above tree line in the 
glacial cirque, containing tall bunchgrasses, including Thurber's 
fescue, sedges, flowering forbs, and shrubs; and
    (D) Contain widely spaced large-diameter conifers, such as 
Engelmann spruce or ponderosa pine, intermixed in low densities with 
the meadow/grassland vegetation.
    (ii) Forage, including species of Asteraceae, flowers and fruits of 
gooseberry (Ribes spp.), wild strawberry (Fragaria spp.), pinyon (Pinus 
edulis) nuts, Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) acorns, and insects.

[[Page 99684]]

    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
January 9, 2025.
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using publicly 
available geospatial vegetation data for the Lincoln National Forest, 
30-meter digital elevation models from the National Elevation Dataset, 
and 3-band county mosaics obtained from the National Agricultural 
Imagery Program. The maps in this entry, as modified by any 
accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical 
habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which 
each map is based are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0042 and at the field 
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office 
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices, 
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map follows:

Figure 1 to Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus 
atristriatus) paragraph (5)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10DE24.067


[[Page 99685]]


    (6) Unit 1: Nogal Peak, Lincoln County, New Mexico.
    (i) Unit 1 consists of approximately 393 hectares (972 acres) of 
subalpine habitat within the Lincoln National Forest Wilderness Area. 
Elevation ranges approximately 2,570-3,031 meters (8,432-9,944 feet) 
above mean sea level.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 2 to Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus 
atristriatus) paragraph (6)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10DE24.068

    (7) Unit 2: Crest Trail, Lincoln County, New Mexico.
    (i) Unit 2 consists of approximately 910 hectares (2,249 acres) of 
subalpine habitat located within the Lincoln National Forest Wilderness 
Area. Elevation ranges approximately 2,621-3,292 meters (8,599-10,800 
feet) above mean sea level.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

Figure 3 to Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus 
atristriatus) paragraph (7)(ii)

[[Page 99686]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10DE24.069

    (8) Unit 3: Sierra Blanca, Lincoln County, New Mexico.
    (i) Unit 3 includes approximately 471 hectares (1,165 acres) of 
subalpine habitat located within the Lincoln National Forest and 
Lincoln National Forest Wilderness Area. Elevation ranges approximately 
2,763-3,518 meters (9,065-11,542 feet) above mean sea level.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

Figure 4 to Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus 
atristriatus) paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 99687]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10DE24.070

* * * * *

Gary Frazer,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-28338 Filed 12-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P`