Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49985 

(ii) Map of Unit 16 follows: 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams 

Principal Deputy Director Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 

[FR Doc. 2021–19088 Filed 9–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2021–0011; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To Revise Critical Habitat for 

the Jaguar 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 

90-day finding in response to a petition 

to revise critical habitat for the jaguar 

(Panthera onca) pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The petition requests 

the Service to revise the existing critical 

habitat designation by removing 

approximately 20,234 hectares (50,000 

acres) of land in the northern Santa Rita 

Mountains in Arizona and an adjoining 

critical habitat subunit, including land 

containing the proposed Rosemont 

Mine. Our 90-day finding is that the 

petition does not present substantial 

scientific information indicating that the 

requested revision to the critical habitat 

designation may be warranted. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on September 7, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2021–0011. Information 

and supporting documentation that we 

received and used in preparing this 

finding is available for public inspection 

pursuant to current COVID–19 

restrictions. You may contact the 

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 

at 9828 North 31st Ave. C3, Phoenix, AZ 

85051–2517 (telephone 602–242–0210) 

for further information about these 

restrictions. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this finding to the 

above mailing address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Humphrey, Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone 

602–242–0210. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 3(5)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) defines critical habitat as 

(i) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP07SE21.020</GPH>

Critical Habitat Unit for Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) 

Unit 16: Porter Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida 

, 

-. 

.fl 

.... □ 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Porter Pineland 

Preserve 

• 

• Critical Habitat Miami Tiger Beetle 

- Major Highways 

Canals 

0 0.07 0.15 0.3 Kilometers 

I I! 1 Ir I I 

0.07 0.15 0,3 MIies 
49986 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

considerations or protections; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Our implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424.12 describe our criteria for 

designating critical habitat. We are to 

consider physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. Our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, 

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic, or a more 

complex combination of habitat 

characteristics. Features may include 

habitat characteristics that support 

ephemeral or dynamic habitat 

conditions. Features may also be 

expressed in terms relating to principles 

of conservation biology, such as patch 

size, distribution distances, and 

connectivity. In addition, our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.02 define ‘‘special management 

considerations or protection’’ as 

methods or procedures useful in 

protecting the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

listed species. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us 

to designate and make revisions to 

critical habitat for listed species on the 

basis of the best scientific data available 

and after taking into consideration the 

economic impact, the impact on 

national security, and any other relevant 

impact of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. The Secretary may 

exclude any particular area from critical 

habitat if she determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless she 

determines that the failure to designate 

such area as critical habitat will result 

in the extinction of the species 

concerned. 

5 U.S.C. 553(e) gives interested 

persons the right to petition for the 

issuance, amendment, or repeal of a 

Federal rule. Section 4(b)(3)(D) of the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that 

we make a finding on whether a petition 

to revise critical habitat for a species 

presents substantial scientific 

information indicating that the revision 

may be warranted. Our regulations at 50 

CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i) state that 

‘‘ ‘substantial scientific information’ 

refers to credible scientific information 

in support of the petition’s claims such 

that a reasonable person conducting an 

impartial scientific review would 

conclude that the revision proposed in 

the petition may be warranted. 

Conclusions drawn in the petition 

without the support of credible 

scientific information will not be 

considered ‘substantial information.’ ’’ 

In determining whether substantial 

scientific information exists, we 

consider several factors, including 

information submitted with, and 

referenced in, the petition and all other 

information readily available in our 

files. Our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.14(e)(4) require that when the 

petitioner requests removal of areas 

from currently designated critical 

habitat within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time it 

was listed, we consider whether the 

petition contains information indicating 

that areas petitioned to be removed from 

currently designated critical habitat do 

not contain the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, or that these 

features do not require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.14(e)(5) require that, for areas 

petitioned to be added to or removed 

from designated critical habitat that 

were outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time it 

was listed, the petitioner must present 

information indicating why the 

petitioned areas are essential (if areas 

are being added) or are not essential (if 

areas are being removed) for the 

conservation of the species. 

To the maximum extent practicable, 

we are to make this finding within 90 

days of our receipt of the petition and 

publish our notification of the finding 

promptly in the Federal Register. We 

are to base this finding on information 

provided in the petition, supporting 

information submitted with the petition, 

and information otherwise available in 

our files. If we find that a petition 

presents substantial scientific 

information indicating that the revision 

may be warranted, we are required to 

determine how we intend to proceed 

with the requested revision within 12 

months after receiving the petition and 

promptly publish notification of such 

intention in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

In 1972, the jaguar was listed as 

endangered (37 FR 6476; March 30, 

1972) in accordance with the 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 

1969 (ESCA), a precursor to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Under the ESCA, the Service 

maintained separate listings for foreign 

species and species native to the United 

States. At that time, the jaguar was 

believed to be extinct in the United 

States; thus, the jaguar was included 

only on the foreign species list. The 

jaguar’s range was described as 

extending from the international 

boundary of the United States and 

Mexico southward to include Central 

and South America (37 FR 6476; March 

30, 1972). In 1973, the Act superseded 

the ESCA. The foreign and native lists 

were replaced by a single ‘‘List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife’’ 

(List), which was first published in the 

Federal Register on September 26, 1975 

(40 FR 44412). In the 1975 List, the 

jaguar’s range again was described as 

including Central and South America 

(40 FR 44412, September 26, 1975, p. 40 

FR 44418), but not the United States. On 

July 22, 1997, we published a final rule 

clarifying that endangered status for the 

jaguar extended into the United States 

(62 FR 39147). 

The 1997 clarifying rule included a 

determination that designation of 

critical habitat for the jaguar was not 

prudent (62 FR 39147, July 22, 1997, p. 

62 FR 39155). However, after several 

petitions and legal actions, on August 

20, 2012, we published in the Federal 

Register (77 FR 50214) a proposed rule 

to designate critical habitat for the 

jaguar. In that proposed rule, we 

proposed to designate approximately 

339,220 hectares (838,232 acres) as 

critical habitat in six units located in 

Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, 

Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New 

Mexico. The comment period opened 

August 20, 2012, and closed October 19, 

2012. 

On March 12, 2013, we received a 

report from the bi-national Jaguar 

Recovery Team entitled Jaguar Habitat 

Modeling and Database Update 

(Sanderson and Fisher 2013, entire) that 

included a revised habitat model for the 

jaguar in the proposed Northwestern 

Recovery Unit. This report 

recommended defining habitat patches 

of less than 100 square kilometers (km2) 

(38.6 square miles (mi2)) in size as 

unsuitable for jaguars, as well as slight 

changes to some of the features 

comprising jaguar habitat. Therefore, we 

incorporated this information into the 

physical and biological features for the 

jaguar, resulting in changes to the 

boundaries as described in our August 

20, 2012, proposed critical habitat rule. 

On July 1, 2013, we published in the 

Federal Register (78 FR 39237) a revised 

proposed rule that described the 

revisions explained above to our 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49987 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the jaguar; with those revisions, the 

proposed critical habitat for the jaguar 

totaled approximately 347,277 hectares 

(858,137 acres) in six units located in 

Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, 

Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New 

Mexico. We also announced the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

and draft environmental assessment of 

the revised proposed designation of 

critical habitat for jaguar and an 

amended required determinations 

section of the proposal. Additionally, 

we announced the reopening of the 

comment period. The comment period 

opened July 1, 2013, and closed August 

9, 2013. 

On August 15, 2013, the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia 

granted the Service’s motion to extend 

the deadline for publishing a final 

critical habitat designation for the jaguar 

to December 16, 2013. This rescheduled 

final rulemaking date allowed us to 

reopen the public comment period 

again, because we had received multiple 

requests to do so. On August 29, 2013, 

we announced the reopening of the 

comment period for an additional 15 

days (78 FR 53390). The comment 

period opened August 29, 2013, and 

closed September 13, 2013. 

From October 1 to October 17, 2013, 

the U.S. Federal Government entered a 

shutdown and curtailed most routine 

operations due to a lapse in 

appropriations. Due to this delay, the 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia granted the Service’s motion 

to extend the deadline for submitting a 

final critical habitat designation for the 

jaguar to the Federal Register to no later 

than February 14, 2014. On February 12, 

2014, we submitted the final rule to the 

Federal Register, and on March 5, 2014, 

the final rule to designate critical habitat 

for the jaguar published in the Federal 

Register (79 FR 12572). In that final 

rule, we designated approximately 

309,263 hectares (764,207 acres) in 

Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, 

Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New 

Mexico. The rule went into effect on 

April 4, 2014. 

On February 10, 2020, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Arizona 

ruled on a crossclaim filed by Rosemont 

Copper Company in a lawsuit 

challenging the critical habitat 

designation for the jaguar Ctr. for 

Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Serv., 441 F. Supp. 3d 843 (D. 

Ariz. 2020) (Ctr. for Biological 

Diversity)). The court upheld the 

Service’s critical habitat designation, 

but found that critical habitat Unit 3 

was unoccupied at the time of listing. 

This decision was appealed to the 9th 

Circuit Court of Appeals by Rosemont 

Copper Company. The case is currently 

stayed, and no final judgment on the 

matter has been entered. 

Petition History 

On November 11, 2020, we received 

a petition from the petitioner (Rosemont 

Copper Company) requesting that 

critical habitat for the jaguar be revised 

under the Act, pursuant to section 4 of 

the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and 50 CFR 

424.10 and 424.14. The petition 

requested approximately 20,234 

hectares (50,000 acres) of land in the 

northern Santa Rita Mountains and an 

adjoining critical habitat subunit, 

including land containing the proposed 

Rosemont Copper Mine, be removed 

from the critical habitat designation for 

the jaguar. In particular, the petition 

seeks the removal of a portion of critical 

habitat Unit 3 and Subunit 4b. The 

Service found that Unit 3 was occupied 

by the jaguar at the time of listing, but, 

due to uncertainty regarding occupation 

at the time of listing, we also 

determined that Unit 3 was essential to 

the conservation of the species. We also 

found Subunit 4b was unoccupied at the 

time of listing but essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

In the petition, the petitioner 

provided the following assertions to 

support its requested revisions: 

1. ‘‘The Arizona District Court has 

subsequently determined that the Santa Rita 

Mountains were not occupied at the time of 

listing, and in designating critical habitat, the 

Service failed to evaluate areas that are 

occupied by jaguars in accordance with its 

own rules’’ (Rosemont 2020, p. 7). 

2. ‘‘The northern Santa Rita Mountains 

provide limited conservation benefits and are 

not essential to the conservation of the 

species’’ (Rosemont 2020, p. 8). 

3. ‘‘The FWS erroneously relied on the 

2013 BiOp [biological opinion for the 

Rosemont Copper Mine] and did not consider 

excluding the northern Santa Rita Mountains 

from the critical habitat’’ (Rosemont 2020, p. 

10). 

4. ‘‘The critical habitat designation is no 

longer ’prudent’ ’’ based on the August 27, 

2019, final rule (84 FR 45020) that amended 

the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 governing 

the listing of species and designation of 

critical habitat (Rosemont 2020, p. 12). 

5. Subunit 4b (a subunit providing 

connectivity from Unit 4 to Mexico through 

Unit 3) is unoccupied; no evidence exists 

that a jaguar has used the subunit or would 

need to use it to travel to and from Mexico; 

more direct routes from Unit 4 to Mexico are 

available; and, if the northern Santa Rita 

Mountains are removed from critical habitat, 

there is no reason to designate Subunit 4b 

(Rosemont 2020, pp. 12–13). 

6. ‘‘The removal of the northern Santa Rita 

Mountains and Subunit 4b will have little 

impact on the remaining critical habitat’’ 

(about 6.5% of the total) (Rosemont 2020, p. 

13). 

The petition clearly identified itself as 

such and included the requisite 

identification information for the 

petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). 

This finding addresses the petition. 

Species Information 

The jaguar is the largest species of cat 

native to the Western Hemisphere. 

Jaguars are muscular cats with relatively 

short, massive limbs and a deep-chested 

body. They are cinnamon–buff in color 

with many black spots; melanistic forms 

are also known, primarily from the 

southern part of the range (Service 1997, 

p. 39147). Jaguars historically ranged 

from the southern United States to 

central Argentina (Swank and Teer 

1989, p. 14; Caso et al. 2008, p. 2). 

Currently, they range from the 

southwestern United States to northern 

Argentina, are found in all countries 

except for El Salvador and Uruguay 

(Zeller 2007, all maps), and are 

estimated to occupy 51 percent of their 

historical range (Quigley et al. 2017, p. 

3; Je ̨drzejewski et al. 2018, p. 10). 

Jaguars breed year-round rangewide, 

but at the southern and northern ends 

of their range there is evidence for a 

spring breeding season. Gestation is 

about 100 days; litters range from one to 

four cubs (usually two). Cubs remain 

with their mother for nearly 2 years. 

Females begin sexual activity at 3 years 

of age, males at 4. Studies have 

documented few wild jaguars more than 

11 years old. The list of prey consumed 

by jaguars rangewide includes more 

than 85 species (Seymour 1989, p. 340), 

such as peccaries (javelina), capybaras, 

pacas, armadillos, caimans, turtles, and 

various birds and fish. Javelina and deer 

are presumably mainstays in the diet of 

jaguars in the United States and Mexico 

borderlands (Service 1997, p. 39147). 

Jaguars are known from a variety of 

habitats (for example, see Seymour 

1989, p. 340). They show a high affinity 

to lowland wet habitats, typically 

swampy savannas or tropical rain 

forests. However, they also occur, or 

once did, in upland habitats in warmer 

regions of North and South America. 

Within the United States, jaguars have 

been recorded most commonly from 

Arizona, but there are also records from 

California, New Mexico, and Texas, and 

reports from Louisiana (Service 1997, p. 

39147). 

Evaluation of Information for the 90- 

Day Finding 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us 

to designate and revise critical habitat 

for listed species on the basis of the best 

scientific data available. Section 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
49988 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

4(b)(3)(D)(i) requires us to make a 

finding as to whether the petition 

presents substantial scientific 

information indicating that the revision 

may be warranted. For the purposes of 

findings on petitions to revise critical 

habitat, we apply the definition of 

‘‘substantial scientific information’’ set 

forth at 50 CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i). 

90-Day Finding 

As noted earlier, the court in Ctr. for 

Biological Diversity upheld our critical 

habitat determination for jaguar, but 

found that critical habitat Unit 3 was 

unoccupied at the time of listing. That 

decision has been appealed by the 

petitioner. The case is currently stayed. 

In an abundance of caution, we 

analyzed the petition under both 50 CFR 

424.14(e)(4) and (e)(5). That is, we 

considered the petition as if Unit 3 was 

occupied at the time of listing and, 

separately, consistent with the District 

Court’s judgment, as if Unit 3 was 

unoccupied at the time of listing. Under 

either analysis, we do not find that the 

petition meets the substantial scientific 

information standard. 

In the first analysis, we considered 

whether the petition, pursuant to 50 

CFR 424.14(e)(4), contains substantial 

scientific information indicating that 

areas to be removed from currently 

designated critical habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed (Unit 3) 

do not contain the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, or that these 

features do not require special 

management considerations or 

protection. The petition did not provide 

substantial scientific information that 

Unit 3, including the northern Santa 

Rita Mountains and the area around the 

proposed mine, no longer contains the 

physical or biological features of jaguar 

critical habitat, nor did the petition 

provide substantial scientific 

information that these features no longer 

require special management 

considerations or protection. 

In the second analysis, we applied the 

standard set forth at 50 CFR 424.14(e)(5) 

to both Unit 3 and Subunit 4b. We find 

the petition does not contain substantial 

scientific information indicating that 

areas petitioned to be removed from 

critical habitat (the northern portion of 

Unit 3 and all of Subunit 4b) are not 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Subunit 4b is essential to the 

conservation of the jaguar because it 

contributes to the species’ persistence 

by providing connectivity from the 

Whetstone Mountains (Unit 4) to 

Mexico via Unit 3 (79 FR 12572, March 

5, 2014, p. 79 FR 12589). The ability for 

jaguars in the Northwestern Recovery 

Unit (one of two recovery units deemed 

essential to the jaguar by the Jaguar 

Recovery Team; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2018, p. 82) to use physical and 

biological habitat features in the 

borderlands region is ecologically 

important to the recovery of the species; 

therefore, maintaining connectivity to 

Mexico is essential to the conservation 

of the jaguar (79 FR 12572, March 5, 

2014, p. 79 FR 12574). The petition 

states that there is no evidence that a 

jaguar has used Subunit 4b or would 

need to use the subunit to travel to and 

from Mexico because jaguars have more 

direct geographic connections to Mexico 

via the mountain ranges close to the 

border (Rosemont 2020, p. 12). 

However, because Subunit 4b is 

considered unoccupied, evidence of 

jaguar use is not a requirement to 

consider the subunit essential. 

Additionally, speculation about where a 

jaguar may or may not travel is not 

substantial scientific information 

according to our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.14(i)(1)(i). Therefore, the petition 

does not provide substantial scientific 

information as to why this subunit is 

not essential or why it does not 

contribute to connectivity to Mexico. 

Unit 3 was found to be unoccupied by 

the court, but the court determined that 

Unit 3 is essential to the recovery of the 

species (see Ctr. for Biological Diversity 

at 873). When designating critical 

habitat for the jaguar, we recognized 

that an argument could be made that no 

areas in the United States were 

occupied by the species at the time it 

was listed, or that only areas containing 

undisputed Class I records from 

between 1962 and 1982 were occupied 

(79 FR 12572, March 5, 2014, p. 79 FR 

12582). For this reason, in our final 

critical habitat rule, we also analyzed 

whether or not these areas are essential 

to the conservation of the species. In the 

final rule, we determined that areas we 

considered occupied (such as Unit 3) 

are also essential to the conservation of 

the species because: (1) They have 

demonstrated recent (since 1996) 

occupancy by jaguars; (2) they contain 

features that comprise jaguar habitat; 

and (3) they contribute to the species’ 

persistence in the United States by 

allowing the normal demographic 

function and possible range expansion 

of the Northwestern Recovery Unit, 

which is essential to the conservation of 

the species. The petition provides no 

substantial scientific information 

indicating why Unit 3 is not essential 

for the conservation of the species based 

on these three factors we identified in 

the critical habitat rule. 

First, the petition does not provide 

information challenging that Unit 3 has 

demonstrated recent (since 1996) 

occupancy by jaguars. The petition 

acknowledges that a single male jaguar 

was detected in the Santa Rita 

Mountains from 2012–2015, one that 

was also detected in the Whetstone 

Mountains (Unit 4) in 2011. We have 

information in our files corroborating 

the presence of this jaguar in the Santa 

Rita Mountains from 2012–2015. 

Therefore, the petition does not provide 

substantial scientific information 

indicating Unit 3 does not demonstrate 

recent (since 1996) occupancy by 

jaguars. 

Second, the petition does not provide 

information that Unit 3 does not contain 

features that comprise jaguar habitat. 

Instead, the petition states the 

International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources rates the type of habitat found 

in the Santa Rita Mountains as 

‘‘marginal’’ habitat for jaguars 

(Rosemont 2020, pp. 9–10). This 

information does not indicate that 

jaguar habitat is no longer present or 

essential in Unit 3. We acknowledge in 

the final rule designating jaguar critical 

habitat that the ‘‘more open, dry habitat 

of the southwestern United States has 

been characterized as marginal habitat 

for jaguars in terms of water, cover, and 

prey densities’’ (79 FR 12572, March 5, 

2014, p. 79 FR 12573). We also 

acknowledge that ‘‘while habitat in the 

United States can be considered 

marginal when compared to other areas 

throughout the species’ range, it appears 

that a few, possibly resident jaguars are 

able to use the more open, arid habitat 

found in the southwestern United 

States’’ (79 FR 12572, March 5, 2014, p. 

79 FR 12573). It is for these reasons that 

we determined that all of the primary 

constituent elements discussed in the 

March 5, 2014, final rule must be 

present in each specific area to 

constitute critical jaguar habitat in the 

United States (79 FR 12572, March 5, 

2014, p. 79 FR 12587). The petition does 

not provide evidence that all of the 

primary constituent elements are no 

longer present in Unit 3. Therefore, the 

petition does not provide substantial 

scientific information that Unit 3 does 

not contain features that comprise 

jaguar habitat. 

Third, the petition does not provide 

information challenging the 

contribution of critical habitat to the 

species’ persistence in the United States 

by allowing the normal demographic 

function and possible range expansion 

of the Northwestern Recovery Unit, 

which is essential to the conservation of 

the species. The petition states that the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49989 

United States contains, at most, less 

than 1 percent of the worldwide jaguar 

habitat, and has no resident population 

of jaguars (Rosemont 2020, p. 9). This 

information relates to the status of the 

species and does not address whether or 

not Unit 3 allows for the normal 

demographic function and possible 

range expansion of the Northwestern 

Recovery Unit. The petition also states 

that removal of the northern Santa Rita 

Mountains and Subunit 4b represents a 

very small percentage of the total 

critical habitat—about 6.5 percent—that 

would be removed by the petitioned 

action and will not prevent the 

remaining critical habitat from 

functioning as intended for the support 

of the Northwest Recovery Unit 

(Rosemont 2020, pp. 13–14). The 

recovery function and value of critical 

habitat for the jaguar within the United 

States is to contribute to the species’ 

persistence and, therefore, overall 

conservation by identifying areas that 

support some individuals during 

dispersal movements, that contain small 

patches of habitat (perhaps in some 

cases with a few resident jaguars), and 

that allow for cyclic expansion and 

contraction of the nearest core area and 

breeding population in the 

Northwestern Recovery Unit (79 FR 

12572, March 5, 2014, p. 79 FR 12574). 

Removal of the northern Santa Rita 

Mountains would withdraw areas that 

currently provide the physical and 

biological features of jaguar critical 

habitat and in which confirmed jaguar 

detections occurred between 2012 and 

2015 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2016, p. 295). In addition, removal of 

Subunit 4b eliminates half of the 

available connections to Mexico for Unit 

4 (specifically to Subunit 4a), which is 

a unit in which the same jaguar that 

occupied the Santa Rita Mountains 

(Unit 3) was detected in 2011. The 

petition does not explain why these 

areas are no longer essential other than 

to assert that most critical habitat units 

would be unaffected, and that impacts 

to Unit 3 and Unit 4 would be minor 

and would not prevent the units from 

functioning as intended. This assertion 

does not demonstrate that changes have 

occurred to these areas such that the 

function they provide to jaguars, and the 

reason for which they were designated 

as critical habitat, is compromised. 

Therefore, the petition does not provide 

substantial scientific information that 

the northern Santa Rita Mountains in 

Unit 3 and all of Subunit 4b no longer 

function as critical habitat and are not 

essential in allowing for the normal 

demographic function and possible 

range expansion of the Northwestern 

Recovery Unit. 

The petition discusses the 2013 

biological opinion for the Rosemont 

Copper Mine, which was overturned by 

a court decision (Ctr. for Biological 

Diversity at 873), and our 2019 

amendments to the regulations at 50 

CFR 424.12 in its request to revise 

critical habitat for jaguars. We reviewed 

the petition’s argument and find that 

these documents are not relevant to the 

question of whether the petition 

contained substantial information to 

support the removal of areas from 

critical habitat. Neither line of 

discussion speaks to whether the areas 

petitioned for removal contain the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species or 

provides information that these features 

do not require special management 

considerations or protection (50 CFR 

424.14(e)(4). 

Based on our review of the petition 

and sources cited in the petition, we 

find that the petition does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating the petitioned 

action may be warranted for the jaguar. 

Because the petition does not present 

substantial information indicating that 

revision of critical habitat for jaguar may 

be warranted, we do not intend to 

proceed with any such revision. 

However, we ask that the public submit 

to us any new information that becomes 

available concerning this species’ 

habitat at any time by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, above. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this document is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19062 Filed 9–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2021–0092; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BF43 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

With Section 4(d) Rule for Pyramid 

Pigtoe 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the pyramid pigtoe (Pleurobema 

rubrum), a freshwater mussel species 

from Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia, as 

an endangered or threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). After a review 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that 

listing the species is warranted. 

Accordingly, we propose to list the 

pyramid pigtoe as a threatened species 

with a rule issued under section 4(d) of 

the Act (‘‘4(d) rule’’). If we finalize this 

rule as proposed, it would add this 

species to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and extend the 

Act’s protections to the species. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

November 8, 2021. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by October 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking (presented above in the 

document headings). For best results, do 

not copy and paste either number; 

instead, type the docket number or RIN 

into the Search box using hyphens. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this document. You may 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1